presented a petition from A. M. Meyer and others, inhabitants of the field-cornetcy of Outeniqualand, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

laid upon the table: Regulations framed under the Medical and Pharmacy Ordinance No. 1 of 1904 (Orange Free State).— [Government Notice No. 746 of 1913].

with leave, asked the Minister of Justice whether his attention had been drawn to the case of the death of a convict in the Pretoria Gaol named Jessop and the reported inquiry thereon in camera, and whether he will introduce legislation providing for inquests to be conducted in the Northern Provinces on lines similar to those of the Inquest Law in force in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope?

said he had seen the report and had made inquiries immediately afterwards. The position was this. Jessop died from apoplexy. There was a great deal of feeling in the prison on the subject, and he believed that something like 300 of the prisoners had made representations that they did not believe that Jessop had been treated Well. But they did not, as the paper said, complain of ill-treatment—they thought that he had not been medically well treated. The officer in charge saw the men and endeavoured to pacify them he explained the position to them and told them that an inquiry would be held. Under the Prisons Act passed by this House provision had been made for the holding of inquests, and in this particular case the Magistrate of Pretoria, Mr. Rose Innes, a most competent official, held an inquiry. He was not quite sure whether it was held at the gaol or at the Court House. He thought, however, Mr. Rose Innes had held it at the gaol.

As far as he (the Minister) had been able to ascertain during the short time he had had to look into the matter, he believed it was not usual to hold inquiries in the gaol except in camera. Anyhow, the Magistrate held the inquiry that was required by the law. Then, in addition to that, the law also provided that the Director of Prisons could cause an inquiry to be held, and he (Mr. Sauer) had been told that that had been done in many cases. On the previous day he had sent a telegram in reply to one received from the official in Pretoria, informing the Secretary of Justice of the position authorising a departmental inquiry to be held at once. Mr. Rose Innes was a most excellent official, and he visited the prison from time to time, and it was thought that in addition to him some one totally unconnected with the prison should hold an inquiry and it was suggested that this should be done by Mr. Graham Cross, of Johannesburg, with the Medical Officer of Health to act as medical assessor. The inquiry was now being held by Mr. Cross. Therefore, two inquiries would be held, one by the Magistrate of Pretoria and the other by a Magistrate from Johannesburg. As to the complaint against the medical officer in charge, this matter was also being investigated, and every possible means had been taken to arrive at the truth. In this particular case there appeared to be not the slightest doubt that the prisoner had died from apoplexy. The complaint that prisoners received ill-treatment would receive very careful and full consideration. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the holding of inquests in the Transvaal, he had made inquiries from officials in the Transvaal, including Mr. Buckle, the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg, who was a very competent official, who saw no particular evil in the present system. He (the Minister), however, was a little old-fashioned in his desire for these inquests to be held in public. (Hear, hear.) He did not think the inquests on the Witwatersrand could be held to be quite satisfactory in one particular, that was inspectors who might have been negligent often were present and on many occasions held them. He did not think this was desirable. (Cheers.) If a good or evil fate permitted him to remain there much longer it was his intention to introduce a Bill for the holding of inquests all over the Union. (Cheers.)

asked would the Minister lay the papers in connection with this case on the Table.

Yes, with pleasure, as soon as I have them.

in moving the second reading of the Children’s Protection Bill, pointed out that the Bill was introduced in another place by a private member. He had suggested several amendments in order to make it more complete, and then undertook to make it a Government Bill. In consequence of that, the Bill was more full. Chapters 4 and 5 did not appear in the old Bill, and certain sections had been added. The Bill now before the House was a Bill for consolidating the laws already in existence, and in addition, introducing some further matters that would be dealt with in committee. Broadly speaking, the Bill would follow the lines of the English measure known as the “children’s charter.” It would safeguard the interests of children, and prevent cruelty and neglect and prevent children being engaged in certain occupations under a certain age. He had very much pleasure in moving the second reading, which he thought would do a great deal of good.

said that, although the Bill was to be amended in committee, one had to be very careful in legislation of this kind not to be influenced by too much sentiment. One had to be careful in matters of this kind to guard against any interference between parents or guardians and the children. There was nothing so difficult as to prove a cash of ill-usage of a child. As a medical man, he had often found that complaints laid by people were unfounded.

said that everybody would recognise that the Minister was putting himself out of his way to bring in this Bill, especially when they considered the lateness of the session and that the paper was very full of business. Those who had the interests of the children at heart should see to it that no more time than was absolutely necessary should be taken up. The hon. member who had last spoken had asked the House to be careful in passing legislation of this sort to see that there was no interference with the rights of the parents. The Bill, it would be found, did not interfere with the rights of parents in any way, but only proposed to give the children a better chance in life. The hon. member proceeded to explain certain points in the Bill, which he said dealt with industrial schools, deaf and dumb institutions, and so on. He believed that the House would support the principle of the Bill, and he hoped hon. members would assist in giving it a quick passage through the House, leaving any amendments for the committee stage.

pointed out that there was an extraordinary position involved, which he thought could not possibly come into any Bill. He drew the Minister’s attention to Cap. 1, section 3, sub-section (4), where it states that upon a trial of any person over the age of 16 charged with the culpable homicide of a child of whom he had the custody, it shall be lawful for the jury or Magistrate’s Court, as the case may be, if satisfied that the accused is guilty of an offence under this section in respect of such child, to find the accused guilty of’ such offence.

informed the hon. member that this should be rectified in committee.

put the question that the motion for the second reading be agreed to, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker—

The hon. member must not interrupt.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

The committee stage was set down for Wednesday, June 11.

Mr. Speaker. I am endeavouring to address you. I wish to say that when you put the question that the Bill be now read a second time two of my hon. friends were already on their feet. If we cannot express our views it is impossible to do our duty to our constituents.

What is the point that the hon. member wishes to make?

The right of members of this House to address—

Every hon. member has the right.

On this occasion an hon. member was not in a position to exercise that right owing to you, sir, putting the question regardless of the fact that—

I was not aware that any member of the House wished to address—

Well, I can only call your attention to it, sir.

The Clerk will read the Second order.

asked whether the Minister would not report progress and resume at a later period of the day, owing to the unavoidable absence of an hon. member who was taking a great interest in the measure, and who had tabled a number of amendments. Could they not report progress, go on with other orders for the time being, and resume at a later stage?

said that he would like to meet his hon. friend, but he understood that: if progress was reported the House could not resume in committee on the same day.

On clause 19,

It was agreed that the sub-sections and paragraphs be taken seriatim.

On sub-section (1),

moved, on behalf of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, that the words “if he arrived after the commencement of this Act” be inserted after the word “required.” The hon. member desired that this clause should not be retrospective.

The amendment was negatived.

then moved that after the word “Province” the words “unless such person fall under the persons or classes of persons enumerated under section 5 hereof.”

said he did not think that these amendments were necessary.

The amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis was negatived.

On paragraph (a),

moved that the words in line 10be deleted from “or” to “necessary.”

said that he would accept the amendment.

Agreed to.

The paragraph as amended was agreed to.

On paragraph (d),

moved that the words “appears to be” should be inserted in place of the words “suspected of being.”

moved the following proviso: “Provided that such person shall have the right to have his own medical adviser present at such examination, if he so desires.” He thought that it was a very reasonable request to make, and would save a great deal of trouble.

Mr. Meyler’s amendment was negatived,

Is it proposed to examine everybody ?

replied in the negative.

The proviso was negatived, and the paragraph agreed to.

On sub-section (2),

moved in sub-section (2) to omit the words “he is satisfied who is not or who obviously.”

moved in the passage “The immigration officer shall thereupon inform the said person that he may appeal to an immigration board,” to insert “in writing” after “person.” He also moved to add at the end of the sub-section: “A sufficient and reasonable time shall at all times be allowed to an immigrant to enable him to prosecute his appeal.”

said that he had another amendment to substitute “three days” for “seventy-two hours” as the period allowed for noting an appeal, after “the said person has been declared a prohibited immigrant.” He did not, however, propose to move the amendment at this stage.

said he thought that seventy-two hours was a very reasonable time to allow.

said he had not moved his amendment.

said he was now referring to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis. He hoped the hon. member would not press his amendment.

withdrew his amendment to omit the words “he is satisfied,” etc.

supported the amendments.

said that the notice here did not refer to the formal intimation that the immigrant was prohibited, but to the fact that he had a right to appeal.

said he thought it was important that an immigrant should be given notice in writing that he had a right of appeal, just as he was given notice in writing that he had been prohibited from entering.

The amendment to insert the words “in writing” was agreed to.

The amendment to insert the words “a sufficient and reasonable time,” etc., was negatived.

The sub-section and the clause as amended were agreed to.

On clause 21, removal from Union or any Province of certain classes of persons,

moved to insert “or naturalised” after “born” in the passage “not being a person born in any part of South Africa which has been included within the Union.” He said he thought the same rights should be given to people who were naturalised as to people who were born in the country. He also moved to omit “any” and insert “the” before “Government.” Surely there was only one Government in this country—the Union Government. He further moved to omit “without” and “substitute “under,” so that the clause should read that a person should be arrested “under warrant” and not “without warrant.” He further moved to omit “such” and “as may be prescribed by regulation.”

said that he could not accept the amendment.

The amendments were withdrawn.

The clause was agreed to.

Clause 22 was verbally amended.

On clause 23, Evidence,

It was agreed that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

On sub-section (1),

moved to delete sub-section (1). He said he did not see why a prohibited immigrant or any other person should have the burden of proof put upon him. The party who alleged should discharge the onus of proof, in accordance with common law.

said that they were not now dealing with the common law.

said the common law was that he who alleged should prove. But in this case the Government proposed to arrest people and say to them, “prove you are not guilty.”

said it was an elementary principle of law that a man should be considered not guilty until he was proved guilty. We did not want to introduce French methods into our legal procedure.

said that while quite agreeing with the mover of the amendment that the burden of proof of guilt should lie on the Crown, yet there were certain cases where that principle had not been adhered to—so far as liquor, precious stones, and other matters were concerned. Speaking from experience gained from the administration of Immigration Regulations in the Transvaal, he was of opinion that without some provision of this kind it would be very difficult to enforce the law.

Hear, hear.

said a person might very reasonably be asked to prove that he was entitled to enter the country.

said although he quite agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg as to the exception made in certain cases, he did not agree that an exception should be made in this Bill. Insidious attempts were being made in Bills to push the onus of proof on to the accused. He failed to see why the Minister, with his inquiry department and immigration officials, could not prove his case against an immigrant. For a person to prove a negative was a very difficult matter.

said he was very glad to see the young members strong on principles, but it was only when one had ripe experience that one found there were exceptions. (Laughter.) The exception in this case was a very sound one. Do not let them frustrate the whole object of the Bill by being afraid to face a practical issue through fear of some copybook headlines.

said they were dealing with human beings, and not wild beasts or venomous serpents. He was looking to the innocent, and not to the few who were guilty, who might escape the eagle eye of the immigration officials.

The amendment was negatived.

The sub-section and the clause were agreed to.

On clause 25, (1) Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in this Act contained, the Minister may, in his discretion, exempt any person from the provisions of section 4, or, subject to the provisions of section 7, may authorise the issue of a temporary permit to any prohibited immigrant to enter and reside in the Union or any particular Province, upon such conditions as to the period of residence or the calling or occupation which he may follow therein or otherwise, as may in the permit be specified; (2) the Minister may also, in his discretion, authorise the issue of a certificate of identity to any person who is lawfully resident in the Union, or in any Province, and who, desiring to proceed thereout, with the intention of returning thereto, is for any reason apprehensive that he will be unable to prove on his return that he is not a prohibited immigrant,

moved, in line 61, after “of,” to insert, “paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) of sub-section (1) of,” and in line 70, to omit, “or in any Province.”

moved: To omit all the words after “as,” in line 65, to the end of the sub-section, and to substitute, “may be lawfully imposed by regulation”; to add the following new sub-clause (3): “(3) The Minister may authorise persons outside the Union to issue to any intending immigrant a certificate that he is exempt from the provisions of sub-section (1) (a) of section 4, but no such certificate shall be recognised in the Union unless the holder thereof furnish to the Immigration Officer such proof as is pre scribed by regulation of his identity with the immigrant to whom the certificate was originally issued.”

moved the deletion of the words, “or subject to the provisions of section 7.”

on behalf of Mr. Alexander (Cape Town, Castle), suggested that the Minister should upon application, issue a certificate of domicile to any person who was proved not to be a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of section 5. Before issuing the certificate, the Minister may require such proof of the applicant’s identity and such means of identification as may he prescribed by regulations. Or, as an alternative, to add at the end of sub-section (2), the following proviso: “Provided that, if a person is prevented from returning within the said period by ill-health, or other reasonable cause, he shall not forfeit his right to land within the Union.”

said he was sorry he could not accept it.

moved in sub-section (2), line 68, to omit “may also in his discretion” and to substitute “shall.” The idea was that anybody living in this country knowing what a drastic Act was going to be put on the Statute-book should have the right to obtain a certificate proving that he was not a prohibited immigrant. The Minister stated that these certificates were left to his discretion, and that he wanted to make them obligatory. All he would have to do would be to get a few of these forms printed.

pointed out that in 999 cases out of 1,000 people would get these as a matter of course.

desired to know whether the committee appreciated the fact that they were giving the Minister power to admit any murderer, cut-throat, or criminal, or anyone afflicted with leprosy, or anyone who was mentally deficient. Were they going to leave this to one man to decide whether a criminal or an insane person should be allowed to come in?

: This was partly a settlement of the Indian question. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his amendment.

said his objections were limited to paragraphs a, b, c, d.

thought that the amendment was unnecessary, as he believed that a certain amount of discretion was necessary.

said he could not understand why any reasonable Minister should ask for these powers.

stated that his amendment gave the Minister more power, and he hoped the Minister would accept it.

stated that one had to remember the reason of the extensive powers being asked for was that certain clauses of section 4 were so wide that they were capable of arbitrary interpretation. He hoped the Minister would accept the amendment.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen.

agreed with the last speaker.

said the amendment was unnecessary, but he would accept it.

in regard to his further amendment, said that he did not follow the argument of the Minister. He wanted to see people protected. What did they pay the Minister for? (Laughter.)

The amendments proposed by Mr. Meyler and the Minister of the Interior were agreed to.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Henderson and by Mr. Nathan were negatived.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 26, Regulations.

It was agreed to take the sub-sections seriatim.

On sub-section (1),

It was agreed to take the paragraphs seriatim.

moved a new sub-section to follow (d), but the effect of the amendment, which was negatived, could not be heard.

Mr. Nathan also moved the deletion of the general clause, and said that the country seemed to object to so much power being given.

suggested that there should be no payment required for certificates.

hoped that the hon. member would withdraw.

moved the following new sub-section: “Such regulations shall not come into force until approved by both Houses of Parliament.”

said that this was provided for in the Interpretation Act.

The amendments lapsed.

moved in line 37 to omit the words from “and the” to “certificate” in line 38.

This was withdrawn.

Sub-section 1 was agreed to.

New sub-section (3),

moved to insert the following new sub-section, to follow sub-section (2): (3) Such regulations shall not come into force until approved by both Houses of Parliament.

This was negatived.

On clause 27, General offences and penalties,

moved the deletion in line 16, “and in the case of contraventions of paragraphs (a) and (b) such imprisonment without the option of a fine,” and to omit “50” and substitute “25.”

: Knock out (b) and accept (a).

said he thought it was the best thing to leave the sentence to the discretion of the Court.

moved to omit “or (b).”

said he would withdraw his amendment.

said he would accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

moved, in sub-section (b), line 4, to insert, after “fails,” “without reasonable cause or excuse”; in sub-section (c), line 7, before “obstructs,” to insert “wilfully,” and to omit “hinders or opposes,” and in line 10, after “fails,” to insert “without reasonable cause or excuse.” He said he thought that this was a fair and reasonable amendment, and that there should be no difficulty in the Minister accepting it.

said he could not accept the amendment.

The amendment moved by Mr. Jagger was agreed to.

The amendments moved by Mr. Nathan were negatived.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 28, Savings,

moved, after “provisions,” to insert “paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1).”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 30, Interpretation of terms,

moved, in line 39, after the definition “department,” to insert the following new definition: “domicile” shall mean the place in which a person has his present home; or in which he resides, or to which he returns as his place of present permanent abode, and not for a mere special or temporary purpose; and a person shall not be deemed to have a domicile within the Union or any Province (as the case may be) for the purposes of this Act unless he has resided therein for at least three years, otherwise than as a person under detention in a prison, gaol, reformatory, or lunatic asylum; and a person shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have lost his domicile within the Union or any Province (as the case may be) if he voluntarily go and reside outside the Union or that Province (except for a special or temporary purpose) with the intention of making his home outside the Union or that Province (as the case may be).

moved to add to the definitions: “Adequate wages” shall mean the current wage fixed by any person or body of persons authorised to do so under any law or regulation, or agreed upon either verbally or in writing between employers or associations of employers and workmen or associations of workmen performing the same work in the district of the Union where it is proposed the immigrant shall be allowed to proceed.

He said that they had the words “adequate wages” in sub-section (h) of clause 5. Without some definition of what adequate wages meant, that was a very wide term to use, and a very vague term, and one that might be construed into meaning any wage whatever, and in fact without some definition of those words the clause as it appeared was practically useless.

asked whether the hon. member’s amendment was in order.

ruled that it was in order.

said that these words were generally used by the Government in their contracts to define what standard wages were in connection with work done for them. The words were often used by Municipalities in their fair wages clause. It seemed to him that words of this kind were necessary if the clause were inserted, which they were not over-eager to see. They were hoping that at some future time they might have such institutions as Wages Boards in South Africa, or bodies empowered to define wages, but until those Boards were appointed there was no way of ascertaining what adequate wages were.

said that he was unable to see his way to accept the amendment.

said he thought that this was a very reasonable way of fixing the definition of an adequate wage. The only point that occurred to him was that, as the hon. member no doubt knew, there was in the first place no authority at present in the country for fixing wages, and in the second place it was only in comparatively few places in the country where agreements existed between masters and men, and, therefore, they would have a good many parts of the country where this would not apply at all. He would suggest to the hon. member that he should add at the end of his amendment “where such wage has been fixed or agreed upon.” He moved to amend the amendment accordingly.

said he thought the suggestion was a very good one, and he would be prepared to accept it. They were not only trying to make provision for places where there were bodies of organised workmen or employers, but they used the word “ person” or “ persons” with a view of covering the smaller places, if possible, where there was no agreement between employer and employee, but where there was some kind of a standard wage. Through the Labour Exchanges the Minister could ascertain what was the rate of wages ruling in various districts.

said he quite agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg. If the hon. member (Mr. Sampson) would look at the clause in which the words “adequate wages” were used, he would see that it also applied to domestic and agricultural servants. How were they going to apply this amendment to domestic and agricultural servants?

The amendment to Mr. Sampson’s proposed definition was agreed to.

The definition as amended was then put and declared to be negatived.

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

Ayes—18.

Andrews, William Henry

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Haggar, Charles Henry

Harris, David

Long, Basil Kellett

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Searle, James

Walton, Edgar Harris

H. A. Wyndham and C. L, Botha, tellers.

Noes—67.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt.

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry.

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert,

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick 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

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

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

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

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

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 31, Short title and date of commencement of Act,

moved the omission of the word “restriction” from the title, thus making the title “Immigrants’ Act.”

said that would make the title an entire misnomer, for the Act was one to keep out people.

proposed that “regulation” be substituted for “restriction.”

withdrew his amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

said the Bill was absolutely a restrictive one, and nothing else. The title, “Immigrants Restriction Bill,” was a good, old, honest one.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to. The schedules having been agreed to,

The Committee then reverted to subsections (1) and (6) of clause 2, Immigration Boards, their jurisdiction and functions.

On this clause, Mr. M. Alexander (Cape Town, Castle) had moved to omit “person,” and to insert, “aliens or British subjects,” and some further amendments.

said the Minister ought to accept the amendments.

said he had seriously considered the matter, and had taken advice on it. The right asked for could not be conceded without creating a danger. The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had overlooked very important points in the judgment from which he had quoted when the matter was last before the House. The Chief Justice said that he had considered the question quite independent of the Immigration Act, and he quoted from a judgment of the Privy Council. Proceeding, the hon. Minister said that they should be very careful not to give away the prerogative of the Crown, which was exercised by the Minister for the time being. The point was, that by doing what the hon. member suggested, inferentially they might be giving away this prerogative.

said all they wanted was that aliens should have the right of going before the Immigration Board. They did not want aliens to have recourse to the courts of law. What they wanted was that the word “person should include “alien” as well as British subject. The Immigration Board might say that the word “person” did not include aliens, therefore he thought they ought to make it quite clear that an alien should not be excluded from appealing to the Immigration Board.

said this was a very important point before the committee now, and he thought it was better to get it quite clear. As he understood it, it laid down certain conditions as to who were prohibited immigrants. If a man did not come within that description, then he was not a privileged alien. Unless they stated that they would not allow the alien the privilege of exercising the right of recourse to a court of law. He thought it better for the Minister in that case to tell an alien that they simply refused to allow him to come in. It did seem to him a little hard that if an alien was stopped by the immigration officer and he disputed the prohibition, that he should not have some right of appeal. If this prerogative existed, as the Minister said it did, then it should be exercised carefully. If he wanted to exclude an alien let him say so.

said if the hon. member would show him some amendment he would judge it upon its merits. He had no wish to keep out any immigrant except under the terms of the Bill, and a certain class that they were all desirous of keeping out. He would honestly consider any proposal made that would not endanger the principle that he had laid down.

said that as he understood his hon. friend, he only wanted an alien to have the right of appeal to an Immigration Board, he did not want that an alien should have the right of appeal to a court of law. Why did his hon. friend put the Immigration Board into the Bill? It was because there was a generally expressed feeling on both sides of the House that however admirable an immigration officer might be he was liable to err, and it was to prevent injustices that the immigrant was to have the right to appeal. Under those circumstances there should be no objection to allowing aliens to appeal to the Immigration Board, they would be prevented from appealing to the court. It would certainly be very difficult to discuss the question when the Bill came to another stage. It was easy for the committee to draft a suitable amendment, and he would move: “That an alien shall have the right to appeal to the Immigration Board, but no right to appeal to the court.” That, he contended, would prove satisfactory.

said that if they gave an alien that right they would be giving him something which under common law he had not got. He could then go to the court to have his rights interpreted; not to upset the judgment or finding of the court, but because he contended that there was interference with his right under the Act. It was that interference with the prerogative of the Crown which they could not allow. An amendment should be drafted at a later stage when the amendments were being considered.

said that the hon. Minister had said previously that the word “person” included an alien, and now he came down to the House and said they could not allow the word “person” to include an alien, because that would be infringing the prerogative of the Crown. How could he expect them to agree to the matter standing over after making such inconsistent statements? He (Mr. Long) could not see that the amendment could infringe in any way the prerogative of the Crown, for whatever they laid down, the prerogative of the Crown remained to restrict people, whether prohibited immigrants or not.

said if it were not such a serious matter, the arguments of the Minister of Mines would be amusing. British subjects always had the right to go to the Appeal Court but the alien had no rights whatever. They had been fighting for two years to give aliens the right to appeal to the Boards which had been set up. They desired to follow the example set by England, and they understood that the hon. Minister was going to adopt that course, but, according to his speech made to-day, these Appeal Boards would not help the alien in the least. The power was with the Immigration Office). He urged that the clause must include “alien” as well as “British subject.”

said that when he left the House the other day he understood that the word “person” included alien. To-day he had formed the opinion that the right hon. gentleman wished to evade the question altogether. No doubt if he insisted upon the clause being passed as it was it would be passed, for he had a majority who would do it. There were many hon. members who had not the slightest idea of what was going on who would follow him like so many sheep, and a great principle might be set aside by hon. members simply following their leader. He was firmly convinced if that clause was passed as it stood, that the present Immigration Officer of Cape Town would, as he had always done, interpret the law strictly against the immigrant, and no alien would be allowed to appeal, simply because he was an alien. In the event of that Bill passing and any Immigration Officer taking upon himself the responsibility of refusing appeals to an Immigration Board because the appellants were aliens, would the Minister of the Interior come down to the House and amend the Act during the next session of Parliament ?

said that the Immigration Officer was practically their Government, because he must carry out the wishes of the Minister who was at the head of his department, and supposing another Minister, other than his hon. friend, decided not to allow aliens to come into the country, all that he had to do was to tell the Immigration Officer and they would be prohibited without more ado and would have no redress. But if aliens had the power to appeal, and the Immigration Board disagreed with the hon. Minister, the matter would have to come before the notice of Parliament. That would preserve in every possible manner the prerogative of the Crown, and the Immigration Officer would not, under his Minister, have supreme authority. The Immigration Boards which the hon. Minister himself set up should have an opportunity of considering whether an alien was not being treated unjustly and whether it was desired to exclude him simply because he was an alien. If the matter came before Parliament, then the Minister would be responsible.

said he thought that, seeing, there was so much difficulty about being able to express what they wished to express, and seeing that there might be hardship if the clause were strictly interpreted, the Minister might allow it to stand over.

pointed out that an alien might be excluded by the arbitrary decision of the Immigration Officer; giving the alien a right to go to the Board did not take away the prerogative of the Crown.

then suggested the following amendment: “For the purposes of this sub-section, persons shall include an alien, saving the prerogative of the Crown.”

said he was glad the Minister had seen his way to meet the views expressed. A lot of discussion might have been saved if he had seen the point and come to such a decision earlier.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle—the substitution of the words “Aliens or British subjects”—was negatived, and his remaining amendments agreed to.

pointed out that the Minister would have to make an alteration in clause 3, else an alien might take it that he had an absolute right to go to the Court.

The addition to sub-section (6) proposed by the Minister of the Interior was agreed to, and the sub-section, as amended, was agreed to.

said he hoped it would be understood that a consequential amendment would have to be made in clause 3.

Oh, yes.

On clause 5, paragraph (f),

The committee proceeded to consider the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, to insert the words, “who does not come under sub-section (e) and (f) of the preceding section”; also the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, that the words, “whether an alien or a British subject” should be inserted after the word “person.”

said that, with regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, he wished he could accept it.

pointed out that this provision was in the 1906 Cape Act, and had been put into operation on many occasions.

pointed out that under section 22, persons guilty of certain crimes could be put outside the borders of the Union. Under paragraph (f) they could simply walk back again.

asked whether domicile covered the case of Indians in Natal, who might not have domicile, but residential, rights. The Minister promised to bring in an amendment.

I have done so.

agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Albany. He had taken section 22, “power to send people away,” and unless they were specially excluded they could simply walk back again.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, was negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, was carried.

said that he thought a further amendment was now necessary to provide for the exclusion of persons under section 22. He would move, as a further addition to the amendment just agreed to, to insert “or under section 22 of this Act.”

said he would ask the hon. member to leave that over until the report stage.

said that he would withdraw his amendment for the present.

Clause 5, as amended, was agreed to.

The Bill was reported, with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Monday next.

said that before going to the next Order of the Day, he desired to move that the House do now adjourn, and in moving this he would ask for the support of hon. members on both sides of the House. The reason he was moving it was that his hon. friends and himself desired to have some time to consider what steps they could take in order to secure the rights of those who had sent them there. (Hear, hear.) It would be within Mr. Speaker’s recollection that a painful incident occurred early that afternoon, when for the third time his hon. friend who sat behind him was debarred from expressing his views on the subject under debate owing to Mr. Speaker’s inability to see him—(hear, hear)—and the continuance—

What is the point?

I am moving, Sir, that the House do now adjourn, and I am addressing you in order to make hon. members acquainted with the reasons why I am asking for their support to this motion. (Hear, hear.) The incident this afternoon was a repetition for the third time of members being deprived of the undoubted right which every member has to address this House upon any motion which is under consideration. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, hon. members on that side of the House and hon. members on this side of the House know perfectly well that in the course of indicating their opinions we give no quarter and we expect none. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, I am perfectly convinced that no feeling of political animosity towards ourselves—I believe I know the feelings of the House and my brother members—will make them one jot or tittle desirous of withholding support from this motion, because I believe that every member of this House prizes as one of the highest privileges the freedom and liberty and right to address this House. The high office which you hold, sir, is one that has played a great part in the history of Parliaments. There are days long gone by when the influence of the Crown had to be counterbalanced—

The hon. member must keep to the question of the adjournment of the House—(hear, hear)— “that the House do now adjourn.”

Am I not in order?

No; the hon. member is out of order.

said that he thought he had sufficiently explained to hon. members why the House should now adjourn. So long as this state of things continued it was impossible for them to do their duty to their constituents, and their presence in that House was merely defrauding their constituents of the rights which they possessed. He asked hon. members on all sides to support this motion, so that they might have at the right time some proper opportunity in which to defend, not their personal rights, which were immaterial, but the rights of those large numbers of voters who had placed them as their representatives in that House. (Labour cheers.)

seconded the motion.

at once put the motion, which he declared to be negatived.

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

Ayes—39.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan.

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Botha, Christian Lourens

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hewat, John

Hunter, David Jagger, John William

Long, Basil Kellett

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh

Mowbray Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wiltshire, Henry

F. H. P. Creswell and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

Noes—60.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Henrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

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

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick 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

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

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

The motion was, therefore, negatived,

moved the following consequential amendment: In line 62, to omit “any description of,” and in the same line, after “brandy,” to insert, “of any description.”

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended was adopted.

On chapter 3, Beer,

asked whether it would be competent that the clauses in this chapter be taken seriatim?

replied in the affirmative.

said he objected, to the Senate’s suggestion that the whole of chapter 3 be deleted from the Bill. When the Minister introduced the Bill, he told the House that wine and beer were bound up together, and that he had to deal with them together. The Minister forced his views on the House, and the Bill was adopted practically in the form proposed by the Minister. Hon. members who took up an attitude against the Minister attempted to get the use of sugar allowed in the manufacture of beer, on the ground that this was not injurious to health, and that the prohibition was an interference with trade and with the operations of brewers in three out of the four Provinces of the Union; and, further, that the prohibition of the use of sugar was an attempt on behalf of a certain section of the farmers to further their own interests, to the detriment of another section of the farmers. (Hear, hear.) He wished the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) would either go out of the House or give him a chance—(laughter)—for he did not think it was fair that a young and diffident member should have to run the gauntlet of a running fire of comments the whole time he was speaking. Without referring in any disrespectful terms to what had happened in another place, he understood that the other place—which was the deliberative Revising Chamber—decided to allow the use of sugar. One thought that the Senate arrived at this conclusion after mature consideration, but what was the astonishment—not only of members of the House of Assembly but of the whole country—when a few days after they found the same august Chamber—he would not inquire with what motives—reversing that decision entirely, and coming to the conclusion that beer should be excluded from the operations of the Bill, and leaving the law in regard to beer in the four Provinces as it stood to-day.

The hon. member has overlooked Rule 69. which says that no member shall allude to any debate during the current session in the Senate. There must be courtesies between the two Houses. No reference to what took place in the Senate is permissible.

I am very anxious to say nothing which is out of order. Continuing, Mr. Struben said that the House would be false to its trusts if it did not make a uniform law for the whole Union with regard to beer. He moved that the Senate’s suggestion be not adopted, but in place thereof clauses 16 and 17 be amended in the following respects—

Deal with one amendment at a time.

In that case it would be better to take clause 17 first—(Ministerial laughter)—for it puts the thing plainly.

Subsequent clauses cannot be taken first.

I move that clause 17 be taken before the other two clauses.

The hon. member should have done that before I put the clauses.

said that some hon. members were experiencing a little difficulty with regard to this. He had a copy of the Bill in his hands where clause 15 was standing part of the Bill.

The hon. member has got hold of the wrong copy. (Laughter.)

asked if Mr. Speaker would allow the matter to stand over until members knew actually where they were. He moved that the debate be adjourned.

put the question that the debate be adjourned, and declared the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, but afterwards withdrew.

Do I understand that the division is withdrawn ?

Yes.

said that he wanted to support the hon. member’s statement that they should support the Bill as it left the House. He pointed out that this Bill allowed for 25 per cent. added solution of sugar. Strange to relate, what was their astonishment to find that the whole of the proceedings were upset, under whose instance they could only guess, because they found the whole of the chapter had been knocked out.

I must point out to the hon. member what I mentioned to the hon. member for Newlands, that he has no right to make a comparison of what took place in the Senate, as between one House and the other.

stated that they sent this Bill away from the House in a certain form, in which they expressed their intention of dealing with the subject of beer, how it was to be sold under certain restrictions, and that it should be composed of certain ingredients. They found, however, that the Bill had come back from the other place materially altered, and they had a shrewd suspicion of the reason for this. They could not tolerate this, because although they realised that they were defeated on a certain point it was a consolidating Bill. Now, instead of being a consolidating Bill, it had left the Provinces just as they were before. It was unfair to those brewers in the Cape Colony who were not allowed to use sugar. Everyone who was not a wine farmer would agree with him that this chapter should be reinserted.

said he desired Mr. Speaker’s ruling. Parliament had proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with the adulteration of wine, spirits and beer. Now the result was that they had a Consolidating Bill dealing with wine and spirits, but with regard to beer they had not a consolidating Bill. The only way he thought they could deal with the matter was to refuse the amendment, allowing the chanter to be re-inserted so as to give the other House time to re-consider the matter. He believed that it was competent under the rules for this to be done. The position was that they had a uniform Bill throughout the Provinces dealing with wine and spirits, but not with the manufacture of beer. This was not a desirable position, especially as they were advocating the advisability of having uniform laws throughout the Union. What he wanted to know was the position if the House refused the amendment, whether it would be competent for the other House to put in an amendment in the chapter, stating that they desired to allow sugar in beer, then the Bill could be returned to the Assembly for its concurrence.

pointed out that he could only say what that House could do; he could not say what the Senate would do. It was quite competent for them to send the Bill back and to state their reasons for so doing. He directed the hon. member’s attention to rule 184, which explained the position.

said the proper course to adopt was to send the Bill back to the other place, stating their reasons why they would like to have the Bill as originally introduced.

referred to the general question, and said that the only thing that had reconciled the Cape brewer, on account of being excluded from using sugar in the manufacture of beer, was the fact that he was not called upon to pay a lower excise duty than that paid in other Provinces, where the use of sugar was allowed, but now he was to be barred on all sides, for he would neither be able to claim that advantage nor would be able to use sugar in the manufacture of beer.

expressed himself as being in agreement with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. It was undesirable not to have uniformity in the making of beer as they had in the making of wine vinegar and spirits, and he resisted that as far as he could, but some hon. members had been very much alarmed, and had been very busy trying to destroy what: had been done in that House. He was very anxious in the public interest that the Bill should become law, but he did not want to jeopardise the prospect of getting uniformity in the making of wine, spirits and vinegar, therefore although he agreed with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, he felt that if the course suggested by him were adopted, taking into consideration the lateness of the session, and the fact that the lobbies were filled with people representing the beer interest, he was afraid they would not get uniformity with regard to beer, but would fail in that object with regard to wine, spirits and vinegar also, and that would be very unfortunate. He hoped the hon. member would not press his point, and if he did he could not promise to give any support. On a future occasion he hoped a Bill would be introduced dealing with uniformity as regarded beer.

said it was quite possible that the Senate might change its mind on the matter. He did not think his hon. friend had any cause for anxiety as to the fate of his Bill.

said that during the discussion on the Bill the hon. Minister had threatened to drop the whole chapter, but he appeared to have got his way. The position they were in was entirely due to what the Minister himself had done.

took exception to the plea of the hon. Minister that he wanted uniformity. He (the speaker) did not know whether the lobbies had been filled with the beer people or not, for he did not know them, but he did know they had been thronged with people representing the wine industry, who were nearer the seat and much more influential. In the Act of Union there was a clause put in by Natal which many looked upon as quite unnecessary that there should be free trade throughout South Africa. Was that free trade? The whole objection had been that it would enable the brewers to make their beers more cheaply if they were allowed to use sugar, and in that way they would be more formidable competitors of the wine farmers. That was the whole point. They were absolutely reversing one of the steps they took to secure uniformity. They were penalising a certain section of the community in the Cape Province by placing them at disadvantage, and speaking for another Province, he could say that they did not want that advantage. The Cape was to be placed at a disadvantage compared with the other Provinces, owing to the plea of the wine farmers that if they could not have the advantage over the whole of the Provinces they must get the advantage over one.

put the omission of clause 15, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—57.

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

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

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niewerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

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

Noes—30

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Boydell, Thomas

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Harris, David

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

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

The amendment of the Senate was agreed to, and clause 15 was therefore omitted.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

put the amendment in clause 42.

moved as a new amendment, upon the amendment of the Senate, to omit the words “and so much of the remainder as relates to beer” for the purpose of substituting “and so much of both Acts as is necessary to give effect to those provisions of Act No. 19 of 1908 which relates to beer.”

said he objected to the amendment on the ground that it perpetuated the handicap upon the Cape, which did not exist in the other Provinces. If the Minister proposed to exclude beer, the least he could have done was to have made all the Provinces uniform. He did not see how the Minister could come forward with a proposition of this sort.

said he was one of those who was in favour of all their products being as pure as possible. In 1908 he held strong views on the subject of beer. His idea was that they should move in the direction of the purest beer they could get. By taking out the beer chapter they had done away with the legislation authorised by that House in connection with beer, and in these circumstances he thought that both the Acts should be repealed. They had brought that measure forward with the idea of having uniform legislation, but as things stood at present three Provinces could manufacture beer with the addition of sugar, while the other one could not. In these circumstances he did hope that the Minister would not carry out his intention. The brewer in the Cape could not add sugar the same as the brewer in other Provinces could, and it was not in the interests of the Union that the brewer in this Province should manufacture beer under one set of conditions while brewers in other Provinces manufactured under other conditions. He would like to see beer manufactured without sugar, but he would be willing to sacrifice his views if uniformity would be attained.

said that another reason was that this would alter to a considerable extent the trade of the Cape in regard to the northern part of the Province. The people in the northern part of the Cape had been drawing their supplies from the Cape, but if beer—

It only puts the law where it is to-day.

said he believed that a large portion of the trade that now came to the Cape was going to the Free State.

said they could not justify different rules for the manufacture of the same article in various parts of the Union (Opposition cheers.) The principle was not reasonable. It was not defensible for the House to say that it would tax the manufacturers in the same way, yet in one place there was one set of regulations and in another a different set of regulations. Do let us have uniformity.

said he did not want to be rude, but he was surprised at his hon. friend, seeing that they had discussed the point for 14 days off and on. He had tried very hard to effect uniformity, and he did not destroy it in another place. He believed that the right thing was to make beer without sugar. As to the inconvenience of which the hon. member spoke that had existed ever since Union, but he hoped next session to bring in a Bill which would put beer on a uniform basis all over the Union (Hear, hear.)

said it was not right that the charge should be laid against the Opposition that it was opposed to uniformity. The Opposition advocated uniformity. It was in the hands of the Minister, and he destroyed it, as he would not have it unless it was the sort he wished to have.

I believe the one I want is right.

That is exactly what the anti-scab people said. Proceeding, Sir Percy said the Bill was really setting a very bad example, and gave a poor exhibition to South Africa when the House had an opportunity of bringing the laws into uniformity, and when a Minister, by reason of that power of his majority, said: “I shall not go on with the principle of uniformity.”

put the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the amendment, which was negatived, and the words were accordingly omitted.

then put the words proposed to be substituted in lieu of the words omitted, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—52.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Cronje, Frederik 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 Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick 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

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wiltshire, Henry

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

Noes—28.

Andrews, William Henry

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Orr, Thomas

Phillips, Lionel

Sampson, Henry William

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

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

The amendment was accordingly agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was also agreed to.

On new clause 39,

Objected to the exclusion of the word “beer” from the clause. The Minister, he said, had retained words which meant that the Cape Law in regard to beer was still in force. Beer was not allowed to be landed in the Cape if it contained more than a certain amount of sugar, but if beer were excluded from the Bill what guarantee would there be that the imported beers conformed with the Cape Law, and what was going to happen if Free State and Transvaal beers were brought into the Cape? He failed to see how the Government were going to enforce this. How were they going to prove that the stocks that the Minister of Railways carried and that the merchants sold complied with the Act? He would ask the Minister how he intended to administer these Acts of Parliament?

said that was a very important point. The Cape brewers were now put at a disadvantage. The brewers of the Transvaal and Natal were in quite a different position.

They are under the same regulations as before.

asked if the House was going to allow beer manufactured in the Transvaal and Natal to come into the Cape to compete with the brewers there?

They were under the same conditions to-day.

Yes, but the Minister introduces a new Act, and he simply perpetuates these disadvantages by allowing them to remain as they are. He allows these people to compete with the Cape brewers, and, in fact, they put the Cape brewers under the additional disadvantage of being knocked out of their own market.

Mr. Speaker, might I point out—

All these arguments should have been used when clauses 15, 16, and 17 were under discussion.

said his hon. friend had said that there was no difference in the position. He acknowledged that, because these were the statutes before Union, but they were now putting brewers in one part of the Union at a disadvantage.

Does my hon. friend consider that there is another side to the question—

No, no, this discussion must not go on.

If remarks are made upon one side, surely they ought to be allowed on the other?

The amendments were agreed to.

moved in clause nine, line 62, to omit “any description of ” and in the same line after “brandy” to insert “of any description”

Agreed to.

The remaining amendments were agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends the following grants, leases, eac., of land, viz.:

1. (1) Grant, for public school purposes, at Kwelegha.
2. (2) Grant, for slaughter houses, of portion of Nieuwe Molen.
3. (3) Excission of portion of Phokwani forest reserve.
4. (4) Grant, to Rhenish Missionary Society, at Walfish Bay.
5. (5) Grant, for school purposes, at St Mark’s Bridge Outspan.
6. (6) Grant, for school purposes, at Uitenhage.
7. (7) Grant, for burial purposes, at Cathcart Vale.
8. (8) Giant of Erf No. 5, Kuruman, to Divisional Council.
9. (9) Exchange of land at Porterville Road.
10. (10) Lease of fishing station sites at Walfish Bay.
11. (11) Withdrawal from demarcated forest area at Oudtshoorn.
12. (12) Reservation, at Bredasdorp, for fishing purposes.
13. (13) Grant, at Willowvale, for public library.
14. (14) Grant, for public hospital, at Kuruman.
15. (15) Grant, for library, at Lusikisiki.

Referring to item (2),

pointed out that he understood that natives were employed not only in killing but in handling meat. In the dressing of veal he understood it was the custom to blow up the outer skin. He was told that Kafirs did this with their mouths instead of using a bicycle pump. Only whites of cleanly habits should be employed in handling beasts, and where there was any blowing up to be done it should be done by machinery.

The paragraph was agreed to.

On paragraph 10,

desired to know whether this was a whaling site, because, if so, that no more sites of this nature would be given out.

This is not a whaling site, it is a fishing site.

said he personally declined to give the Minister power to let these fishing sites without their being submitted to public tender.

pointed out that this was done in consequence of a resolution approved by Parliament in April.

The motion was agreed to.

put recommendation No. 16, “Issue of titles to Natives in Tonyeddas Location.”

moved that the matter be referred back for further consideration. There were one or two conditions included in the grant, which, he thought it well, should be considered.

The motion was agreed to.

moved this committee recommends the following grants, leases, etc., of land, viz.:

(17) Grant, at Uitenhage, for hospital purposes.

Agreed to.

put recommendation No. 18, “Letting of vacant harbour lands, Cape Town.”

moved that it be referred back, for there were many who took strong exception to the course suggested. Land in the Dock area was extremely limited, and it was given out to manufacturers they would have a preferential position. Personally, he would like to see the plans first.

agreed to the matter being referred back.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends the following grants, leases, etc., of land, viz.:

1. (19) Grant, for church, in Tsengiwe’s Location.
2. (20) Grant, to J. F. Hattingh, at Siwundla’s Location.
3. (21) Grant, for burial ground, at Caledon.
4. (22) Cancellation of reservation, Market Square, Ugie.
5. (23) Grant, to estate of late J. Lloyd, at Port St. John’s.
6. (24) Lease, to Master and Co., of harbour buildings and land, at Port Elizabeth.
7. (25) Grant, for burial ground, at Tylden.
8. (26) Proposed sale to S. D. Snooke, at Mount Frere.
9. (27) Grant, for church, at Upper Lufuta.
10. (28) Grant for fishing station sites, at O’Obeek, Thorn, and Bakoven Bays.
11. (29) Grant, for crayfish canning factory, at Hoedjes Bay.
12. (30) Grant, for crayfish factory, between Slangkop Point and Schoesters River Mouth.

On paragraph 19, Grant for a church in the Tsengiwes Location,

said he had no objection to religious bodies having grants of land. He wanted them to have every opportunity to bring natives to their way of thinking, but he could not understand why one Church had been singled out, and he would like to know if any other application had been received.

said there had been no discrimination. The matter had been gone into, and it had been found that there was room for a church, and these people had got it at valuation.

said he quite believed there had been no discrimination, but there they had a particular denomination asking for a site on which to erect a church. The hon. Minister said that inquiries had been made, and it had been found there was room for a church, and that a site was granted: but supposing there was only room for one church, and six different denominations had applied, would he grant half-a-dozen sites?

said that there had been no difficulties of that kind.

The paragraph was agreed to.

On paragraph 21, regarding the granting of a piece of land for a church for burial ground at Caledon,

said, if the Committee were granting burial ground to some representative body, it would be well and good; if they gave a piece of ground to a church for burial purposes, especially when it was a town commonage, then they were giving a preemptive right to the church congregation, and their dead people could be buried there, to the possible exclusion of others of different denomination.

said that it was granted to the church in 1879, with the full consent of the Municipality.

The paragraph was agreed to.

On paragraph 24, regarding a lease to Messrs. Master and Co., of harbour buildings on land at Port Elizabeth,

in reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South-west, said that tenders were called for, and only one received.

The paragraph was agreed to.

On paragraph 28, in connection with the grant of a fishing site at Bakoven Bay,

in reply to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central said it was Bakoven Bay in the Cape of Good Hope.

The paragraph was agreed to.

On paragraph 30 in respect to a grant for a crayfish factory between Slangkop Point and Schusters River mouth,

said it seemed to be granted at an absurdly small rental, and it did not say whether it was by tender or whether somebody had been “biting the ear” of the Minister. Twelve pounds per annum for a crayfish factory, it appeared on the surface, meant a fairly large piece of ground, and within evidently reasonable access to the Cape Peninsula, otherwise it would not be useful for that purpose. The period was for ten years, and then there was the right of renewal. In his opinion the rent was infinitely too small.

said there was no room in the place, and he would like to know how they were going to get there. In his opinion it was a very high rental for it was right beyond Slangkop and it was absolutely all sand.

said there was no occasion for the hon. member to show heat, for he was merely asking for information. If it was not worth £12 it must be pretty inaccessible.

said there was two morgen of ground, and it was in an almost inaccessible place.

The paragraph was agreed to.

asked why the application for ground at Malmesbury had been refused.

said he would give the information later.

read the Schedule to the Select Committee’s Second Report.

moved: This committee recommends the following grants, leases, etc., of land, viz.:

1. (1) Disposal of agricultural lots on Crown farms, Division of Calvinia.
2. (2) Excision of farm “Oliphant’s Hoek” from demarcated forest area, George.
3. (3) Lease of buildings and premises of Adelaide Co-operative Creamery.
4. (4) Grant, for library, at Lady Frere.
5. (5) Lease of new residency site at Middelburg, Cape.
6. (6) Grant, for hospital, at Fort Beaufort.
7. (7) Lease of harbour land at Humewood.
8. (8) Reservation of Government Avenue and Paddocks, Cape Town.
9. (9) Grant, for school purposes, at Port Alfred.
10. (10) Lease of harbour land at Humewood.
11. (11) Lease of hotel premises at Hutchinson station.
12. (12) Lease, at public auction, at Fish-water Flats.
13. (13) Grant of portion of Commonage at Dysseldorp.
14. (14) Sale of portion of railway reserve at Cookhouse.
15. (15) Grant, for church purposes, at Butterworth.

asked for particulars as to No. 2.

gave the required information, and said the land was wanted also for other purposes.

asked for information concerning No. 3.

asked for some explanation with regard to No. 10.

said that in 1909 the Parliament of the Cape leased land at Humewood for a period of fifty years to the Council. This was a small piece of land which was being granted on the same conditions.

The grant was agreed to.

On reservation of Government Avenue and paddocks, Cape Town,

said he would like to point out that this land was one of the greatest ornaments and attractions of Cape Town. Unfortunately some time ago this land was fenced in and made the site of a pageant or something—

Oh, no—a gala. (Laughter.)

said he did not quite remember what it was for —(laughter)—but it was a most vulgar, disgusting thing. (Laughter.) The place was fenced in, and a sort of Chinese arrangement set up. (Laughter.) Soon after he became Prime Minister a deputation came and asked him to allow it to be continued —(laughter)—but of course he had the whole thing knocked down as soon as possible. (Renewed laughter.) It showed them the sort of idea some people had of maintaining the beauties of the metropolitan city. (Laughter.) There was no guarantee that something of the same would not be put up again—(laughter)—and that numbers of tickets, with a tax on, of course—(laughter)—sold. It was with great reluctance that he voted for the handing over of this land. His experience was that it would be better in the hands of the Central Government.

Has the Municipality applied for the ground? It is safer in the hands of the Municipality—

Oh, no, no, no. (Laughter.)

said that Cape Town had progressed a lot since the period referred to by the right hon. gentleman. There was not the slightest chance of anything of the sort occurring again.

No recurrence of that business? (Laughter.)

Oh, no.

The grant was agreed to.

On the grant of portion of Commonage at Dysseldorp,

asked under what conditions commonages were held in this country. (Laughter.) Were they many and varied? (Laughter.) They were rather suspicious of this grant, seeing that it was in the district of Oudtshoorn, where the ostrich feather industry flourished. Was this land being granted with the whole and sole object of being sold? His experience of farming common-ages was that they had been stolen by private people—he referred to England. (Laughter.)1 Had the Minister any idea of the ultimate object for which this land was being granted?

said it was only right that the hon. member should be supplied with the information as he appeared to be so ignorant. (Laughter.) The Minister was understood to say that the land being granted would be cut up into erven for sale in order that this community might obtain a water supply and proper sanitation from the proceeds.

said that the Minister would remember that they tried to get a member on the committee, but he refused.

asked to whom the ground was sold.

was inaudible.

The grant was agreed to.

put recommendation No. 16, “Lease for fishing and residential purposes, Division of Malmesbury.”

moved that this recommendation be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration.

Agreed to.

put recommendation No. 17, lease of site at Table Bay Docks.

said that it seemed to be a very small rental to ask for a site in such a neighbourhood on a 25 years’ lease. Cape Town was moving along, and it seemed to him dangerous to enter into such a long lease.

explained that the site was to be used for the storage of oil at Cape Town Docks, and the people would not entertain the idea unless on a long lease as their expenditure would be a large one.

I suppose it is an offshoot of the noblest institution in the world—the Standard Oil Trust. (Laughter.)

: No. Continuing, he said that the site was that of the quarry, which had been vacant for over 30 years. If the quarry were to be utilised for dock purposes the West Quay would have to be cut through at great expense, and then the new portion would be of use only for fishing boats. The quarry had been a white elephant. The company which proposed to lease it was an opponent of the Standard Oil Trust. When oil steamers came along it was quite possible that they would be able to pump the oil from the tanks direct into the ships. He thought the rent was satisfactory.

said the rent might be fair to-day, but provision should be made for its revision. It appeared to him that Government should take precautions in the matter. To let this ground in the docks at Cape Town, which was the principal port of entry to the Union, seemed to him to be giving away a great deal considering the enormous development possible in the future.

said the rent was certainly very low considering that a wool store at Port Elizabeth was being let at £400 a year.

: That is very different.

said the Railway Board approved the lease.

I think the Government is coming out at the very small end of the horn. Any land in the neighbourhood of the harbour is of the utmost value.

said he had only to mention the fact that the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) was a member of the Select Committee, for people to realise that nothing was put through without being thoroughly inquired into. (Laughter.) A comparison with Port Elizabeth was unfair. This was a quarry, and was only fit for holding rainfall. (Laughter.) The information given to the committee was that if the quarry were not let for this purpose it could not be let for anything at all.

thought the land was certainly worth more than £230 a year. Five years hence they would find that someone would be quite willing to pay a great deal more than that, and he suggested that the committee had been a little too lenient. The talk about huge buildings looked like an ordinary piece of bluff, for it now transpired that these huge buildings were simply oil tanks. He moved that the item be referred back to the Select Committee for reconsideration. He suggested that the committee should insert a clause in the lease stating that there should be a revision of rent every five years.

said the tanks would be an acquisition to the trade of Cape Town. The proposition was a perfectly sound business like one.

said that at first the members of the Select Committee were not satisfied, but afterwards they came to the conclusion that this was the best that could be done with the land. The officials strongly recommended it. The committee suggested a 15 years’ lease, but the company would not accept it.

said they were pot so keen on shortening the lease, but to get increased rental. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was evidently prepared to sacrifice everything in order to build up trade in Cape Town. But how much business would Cape Town get through it, and what benefit was the Union to derive from it? The rent was only £70 per acre which was what was paid for agricultural land in England.

said he was not rising to oppose the recommendation, because the site for any other purpose would not be very valuable, but what he wanted to ask the Minister was, could they not put a clause into the lease stating that if this company entered into an agreement or combination with the Oil Trusts, the lease would become null and void. If this was a genuine desire to compete in the open market for the supply of liquid fuel, he did not think there could be any objection to such a clause in the lease.

said he quite agreed with the hon. member on the cross-benches that it would not be right to allow these people to enter into any combination, but if they did not give them that permission they would go to Algoa Bay or Delagoa Bay. Anybody who had seen that quarry for the last ten years would realise that it was a nuisance.

asked how the Government were going to prevent these people having an agreement with the Standard Oil Trust? The Standard Oil Trust was stronger than Governments. It had proved that before.

pointed out that the common-sense position was this, that they had a piece of land to lease for 25 years, and these people would come along and spend a lot of money in employing labour for the purpose of providing liquid fuel for ships. He could not understand what was the objection.

said that this was one of the points that they would like more definite information about. The information they had received was something like that which stated they were going to put up costly buildings there. He thought that the hon. member for Germiston’s idea was a very airy one when he said that these people would employ a large number of men. Had the Government taken the trouble to see what expenditure these people wanted to incur in fitting up this quarry. Did they take the trouble to see that it was not in some way connected with the Standard Oil Trust?

said that anyone who had seen this quarry would wonder that anyone would pay anything for it at all. He thought the Government had done a very good piece of business in allowing these people to take it over.

supported the hon. member for Jeppe.

The motion was negatived.

moved: This committee recommends the following grants, leases, etc., of land, viz.:

1. (17) Lease of site at Table Bay Docks.
2. (18) Lease of farm at Van Rhynsdorp.
3. (19) Grant, for school purposes, Division of Calvinia.
4. (20) Grant, for plantation purposes, at Mount Frere.
5. (21) Grant, for school purposes, at Herbert.
6. (22) Withdrawal from Buffelsfontein forest reserve, Bathurst.
7. (23) Lease for fishery and crayfish canning purposes, Malmesbury Division.
8. (24) Lease, for crayfish canning purposes, Port Nolloth.
9. (25) Lease of railway land to East London Municipality.
10. (26) Excission from demarcated forest reserve, near Sir Lowry’s Pass.
11. (27) Sales, by Public Debt Commissioners, of properties in Table Valley, Cape Town.

said, with reference to paragraph 22, that this was a withdrawal from a demarcated forest reserve, in extent 20 morgen. This sort of thing was continually happening. He would like to know how much was being paid for this, and whether the Government was getting any other equivalent? This alienation of Crown lands must be stopped. Here they were looking forward to bringing people into the country, and they would want all the land they could get in South Africa.

stated that there had been a dispute about the actual ownership of the land. The Government were going to get an equivalent.

Paragraph 22 was adopted.

On paragraph 23,

drew attention to the cannery at Hanglip, and asked whether immature crayfish were being landed there?

pointed out that there was a very heavy penalty for the catching of crayfish under a certain size. He did not think that they could restrict the killing of either whales or crayfish by restricting the companies.

The motion was agreed to.

Speaking on paragraph No. 27, Messrs. Jagger and Creswell, and the Minister of Lands were all inaudible.

The recommendations were reported, the Chairman undertaking to bring up a report on the following day.

moved an amendment to delete the word “now” and substitute “this day six months.” He explained that he took that course owing to an unfortunate circumstance which prevented him from discussing the Bill on the occasion of its second reading. He would like to make a few remarks on the Bill. It embodied, he said, a very serious danger to the general body of the citizens of this country.

said it would be a little hard on him to keep him in the chair for six months. (Laughter.) The proper course for the hon. member to have adopted was to have moved an amendment “that the House go into committee on the Bill this day six months.” (Renewed laughter.)

said he would alter his amendment in that direction. The hon. member went on to say that he believed it was supposed that that Bill was going to slip through quite easily and the House would see no particular objection to it, but on careful perusal of the Bill and the circumstances which led up to its being placed before the House, it was entitled to more consideration than the House gave it when it was read a second time. He found there had been three Select Committees which had sat and taken evidence on that subject, extending over a period of eight years. The first was in 1805, another in 1909, and then there was a Select Committee which sat in connection with the present Bill. He would like to recapitulate the position as he understood it. The Minister of Lands explained his point of view in regard to the Bill when it was read a second time. So far as he (Mr. Andrews) could judge eighty or more years ago those celebrated Kafirs who were to act as a buffer between the Hottentots and the farmers of Victoria West, were placed on those particular pieces of country. The tract of land granted to those Kafirs was divided into two sections, and in a commonage of 11,900 morgen and an outer commonage of 86,000 morgen, those were large tracts of country almost the size of a county in England. They found the village was cut up into 204 erven, and of those, 96 had grazing rights in the inner commonage and 108 had grazing rights on both the inner and outer commonage. The hon. member proceeded to deal in further detail with the history of the land, and said that previous Acts had condoned departures from the terms under which the land was originally granted. It seemed to him that this Bill was a case of eating one’s cake and having it. The House was now asked to hand over land to people who had been using the land without really having the right to use it. He said that such a thing was wrong, and that it was not in the interests of the community. No doubt, hon. members were weary of listening to this side of the case, but he supposed that, if he had not been arguing from the point of view of people who had not what was called vested interests, hon. members would have filled the benches of the House and listened to him with rapt attention. He was being answered with yawns, for the simple reason that he was not supporting the people who had vested rights. Well, the whole thing boiled down to this, that as soon as this measure was passed, and the people concerned got title, the bondholders could, if they liked, foreclose, and take the land away, or, on the other hand, not take action, knowing that their security was better than ever.

at 10.10 p.m., called attention to the fact that no quorum was present.

It is your man who is speaking. (Laughter.)

A quorum having been formed,

proceeded, and having quoted from evidence given before the Select Committee on the Bill, said that they heard quite a deal on a former occasion as to the rights of the people who were put on the frontiers to keep out the savage hordes from overrunning the peaceful farmers of Victoria West. It was the bondholders for whom the Bill was evidently drawn up, for according to the evidence, the natives and coloured people were opposed to the measure. This particular piece of country had had a great deal of attention paid to it by the railway people, and Carnarvon was to be linked up with the railways. Naturally land was becoming valuable in the district. It was proposed to give a large portion of land to favoured people. In fact, it was nothing less than stealing the land from the natives. If the commonage belonged to anyone, it belonged to the 1,400 people of Carnarvon and their descendants. The land should remain the property of the people who were in the locality, and who could use it. (Labour cheers.) Certain smart individuals had disobeyed the spirit of the law, which granted them grazing privileges on the commonage, but others had considered the commonage as a commonage. The honest people were placed at a disadvantage, and they had to select their land after all the best pieces had been chosen by the more unscrupulous. That was an injustice, and some people had been driven right up into the mountain. The Municipal authorities were surely the people who ought to have control of this. He was glad to see that this Bill had come from the Committee without one particular blot on it, and that was, that the Committee had no power to sell other parts of the commonage. He had very little hope that anything he could say, or that his friends could say, against the granting of freehold title would have much support from hon. members. It was stated that, unless a man had a freehold title, he would not improve his land; but he (Mr. Andrews) believed that this was not correct, because so long as a man had security of tenure, he would improve his land. It did not follow that because they gave an absolute title to land—that a man never made—that the land would be improved. They were building up a landed aristocracy—which was exceedingly nice for the aristocracy, but not for the general public—sooner or later the mass of the people would come to the conclusion that they were right. They protested against this particular Bill in toto. They were against this principle of continuing what was a breach of the law. This was an unwise, unjust, and an immoral Bill.

seconded the amendment.

said that they had expected that the Minister would give some explanation why a freehold title should be given of this commonage. Proceeding, the hon. member quoted at length from certain statements made by Mr. Solomon Cornelius— who was acquainted with the points at issue —before the committee. The hon. member quoted, at great length, the evidence given by the authority referred to before a Select Committee which sat in 1905, and proceeded to amplify the details, regarding the history of the land, which had been given by the hon. member for Georgetown. He went on to say that the whole object of the passing of the Bill was to get the freehold so that the bond-holders might got security for their money and be able to drive the occupants off the particular commons. The land should remain in the hands of the Carnarvon Municipality for all time, and that was what they on the cross benches were asking for. They would at every opportunity endeavour to prevent giving the freehold title for the benefit of a few individuals, for they were satisfied that it would be in the interests of the community if all the land in the country was owned by all the people in the country.

said he was sorry the hon. Minister had not seen his way to give them some information as to who was pulling the strings. Any hon. member who gave even a superficial perusal of the report would find sufficient to justify them in giving them on the cross benches assistance in preventing the Bill going into committee. There were some interesting sidelights to be discovered in the committee’s report. In reply to a question, singularly enough by Mr. Merriman, a witness said that the Kafirs did not like the Bill at all. He knew that the right hon. gentleman protected the interests of the Kafirs. He knew the right hon. gentleman thought a lot of the Kafir. If hon. members had only known of the ins and outs of the business they would not have passed the second reading of the measure which the two right hon. gentlemen were trying to get through the House. These ignorant men were the buffers. They must have been very ignorant, else they would not have interposed their innocent bodies as a buffer between other tribes and the whites. Proceeding, Mr. Madeley said he could not help it if he detained the House longer than 11 o’ clock, but they were prepared to stay there as long as the House was What they wanted to do was to demonstrate to the House and to the country things which neither the House nor the country knew, and that was that these unfortunate Kafirs were being swindled. They knew what resulted from the bargaining with and the compensation of Kafirs—it always meant that the Kafirs had to be satisfied with the proverbial string of beads. Evidence was given before the Select Committee by the Mayor of Carnarvon, who had three erven himself, his wife had three erven, and away in the background there was a child who also owned three erven. He (Mr. Madeley) dared say they would find if the question were asked that there was a poodle which also had three erven. That was what the right hon. gentleman meant when he said that they must be scrupulously just to the people. From their experience and knowledge of the industrial and controlling whites they knew they would make the poor Kafirs work for them. He noticed the hon. member for Tembuland had just come in, and he was glad to see that, because he would help them to protect these poor Kafirs who were being deprived of their land. This Rhenish Mission went there to do two things, that was, to spread the light to the natives and lend them money. The hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

The motion was negatived.

said he gathered from the tone of the House that they considered that this was an occasion when they were wasting the time of the House. (Hear, hear.) In his opinion those who were guilty of wasting the time of the House were the right hon. gentleman the Minister of Lands and the right hon. member for Victoria West, in making the House, with a lot of important legislation before it, devote itself to what he thought to be a “job” for the benefit of a certain few. Whatever jibes might be cast at hon. members on the cross benches they might be sure that wherever they smelt a “job” they would call public attention to it. They looked upon that as a quid pro quo in connection with a little Bill dealing with very valuable pieces of property which was read a first time during the afternoon. An area as big as a fairly big English county was being given away to 50 people who would have the privilege of electing a committee of five. It was a very nice piece of oligarchy.

The original motion was then agreed to.

called for a division, and then withdrew.

moved that progress be reported.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit on the following day.

Have you put that, sir—to-morrow?

It is agreed upon.

Oh! we had no opportunity—(the remainder of the remark was inaudible).