presented a petition from the Mayor of Boksburg praying that provision be made for the admission of materials for the trackless tramways system installed by the municipality on the same conditions in regard to Customs duties as are applicable to materials for track tramway systems, or other relief. He moved that the petition be read.

The motion was agreed to.

The Clerk read the petition.

from W. A. Humphrey, Geologist, Mines Department, for leave to contribute certain arrears to Pension Fund.

from Martha E. M. Klerck, teacher, for condonation of break in her service.

from A. P. Blignault, teacher, for condonation of a break in his service.

from from C. J. J. van Rensburg, who was wounded during the late South African War, for relief.

from inhabitants of Steynsrust, in support of the above petition of C. J. J. van Rensburg.

from the Municipal Council of Port Alfred, and the Divisional Council of Bathurst, praying that the Municipality of Port Alfred and the Divisional Council of Bathurst be relieved from the repayment of the loan issued by the Cape Government in connection with the building of the Henry Putt Bridge, Kowie River.

from registered voters in Bethlehem, Harrismith, Frankfort, Heilbron, and Lindley, praying that Reitz be declared a separate fiscal division (three petitions).

Estimates of the Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works on the South African Railways and Harbours, year ending 31st March, 1915,

Copy of Government Notice No. 908 of the 30th ultimo, relating to appointments to the Local Boards of Pietermaritzburg and Port Elizabeth of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa.

moved that the Bill be set down for second reading on Thursday next.

said he would suggest to the Minister that a longer interval should be allowed, as nobody had seen this Bill.

said that the Bill was really a formal matter. The position was that, with a view to the Administration carrying out whatever it may propose in the future, they must get rid of two obstacles which existed at East London and Durban, where the law said that no wharfage should be charged beyond a certain amount.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill set down for second reading on Thursday next.

pointed out that in the notice of motion the words “of the Union,” after “Harbours,” had been omitted. He would take it that these words had been moved.

moved the second reading of the Indian Relief Bill. He requested members to approach such a thorny and difficult question in a non-controversial spirit. The House was now in a position to settle finally the Indian problem on a satisfactory basis, the recommendations of the Solomon Commission, which inquired into the grievances of Indians, having been accepted as a solution by the Indian Government, and also, with one exception, by the Indian community residing here. He recalled the passing of the Immigration Act last session, and the agitation which followed it. Mr. Gandhi had raised four points, on two of which it was possible for the Government to meet him. There were two other points on which it was impossible for the Government immediately after the session to meet the community’s views.

Then why did they raise the question?

said that if he were to answer that question it would take a very long time, and he did not think it was necessary to do so. It was a case that had presented some very extraordinary features. When it became clear that the Government could not satisfy the Indian community on these points the question of the £3 licence was raised. He did not intend to go in detail into that question, but he would say that was impossible for the Government, when threatened with a strike, to make any concessions at all. Then followed a great deal of bloodshed and violence in suppressing the strike, and subsequently the Solomon Commission was appointed. It was assisted in its labours by a representative of the Italian Government, Sir Benjamin Robert so whose services had been, as he could say from personal knowledge of the very greatest value to the Commission. He had smothed its work considerably, and had thrown light on many difficult questions. The Commission, it would be seen, had man fourteen recommendations. To give effect to most of these it required mere administrative action, and here he would say that it was the intention of the Government to carry out the Commission’s recommendations in their entirety, partly by legislation and partly by administration; and in this way to secure that peace which they were all longing for, that peace which was not merely of such importance to South Africa itself, but also to South Africa in her external relations. (Cheers.) The points dealt with in the Bill included recommendations Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 13 in the report.

said he was very sorry he was not going to support the Government. (Hear, hear.) The Indian community, under the advice and guidance of Mr. Gandhi, engineered a strike, and, to secure the support of the Indian Government and the sympathy of the British public, false statements of cruelty, coercion, and semi-slavery were cabled to every part of the civilised world. (Hear, hear.) The Government of this country appointed a Commission presided over by one of the judges of the Supreme Court to inquire into these allegations and to suggest remedial measures. Really it was the first duty of that Commission to nail down the falsehoods that had been circulated abroad in reference to the treatment of Indians by the white inhabitants, by the officials, and by the Government of this country. (Hear, hear.) He regretted that in some instances this matter had received the support and countenance of a number of white men on the Rand, to whose everlasting discredit it should be said that whenever any question arose between the coloured and white races in this country they could always on the slightest provocation discover more virtue in a coloured skin than they could in a white one. (Hear, hear.) In the course of their report, the Commission stated: “So far from assisting the Commission by placing before it the case for the Indian community for the redress of their grievances and by collecting evidence in support of the serious allegations of acts of violence committed upon persons sentenced to imprisonment in connection with the strike, the leaders decided on various grounds, which it is unnecessary to mention, entirely to ignore the Commission. The result was that not only was the Indian community not represented by counsel, but that, acting upon the advice given by Mr. Gandhi, no witnesses appeared to substantiate the charges of violence.” Mr. Gandhi and his friends, despite the fact that an important Indian official had been appointed by the Indian Government to watch the interests of the Indian community throughout the sittings of the Commission, prevailed upon all his people not to give evidence, alleging mainly that he objected to the personnel of the Commission. Mr. Gandhi’s objection to the personnel of the Commission was a mere subterfuge. (Hear, hear.) He was unable and so were his people to substantiate the charges which had been sent broadcast over the water, and he knew full well that their presence before that Commission would once and for all prove conclusively that they had engineered this strike on false premises entirely. (Hear, hear.) The Commission was very anxious, if possible, to acquire some evidence with regard to these charges, and, as a matter of fact, an Indian named Sooker did appear before the Commission to tender evidence. The Commission pointed out, however, that the evidence that he gave was hearsay, but he stated that there was in the precincts of the court a man named Balbadhur who was himself one of the men who had been ill-treated after the strike. This man was brought before the Commission, and his complaint was that, after the strike, and on his return to the mine, he was assaulted by the compound manager. This was investigated, and it was found that the three witnesses whom Balbadhur had called before the magistrate to investigate the charge against the compound manager all denied any knowledge of the alleged assault, and thereupon the charge was withdrawn.

The only single charge, therefore that was brought to the knowledge of the authorities was proved conclusively to be founded entirely on bad evidence. He (Sir A Woolls-Sampson) now wanted to take two points. First, the question of the reliability of the Indians in their statements; and, secondly, whether they were justified owing to ill-treatment. As to the first point, the Commission said that it was well to draw attention to a fact which constantly confronted us in this country, and that was that the Indian community itself was in a great measure responsible for the stringency of the investigations which were made into applications of all kinds by the officials of the Immigration Department. That had been rendered absolutely necessary by the numerous attempts at fraud and impersonation which were constantly made by Asiatics. This (said the hon. member) went to prove that, as far as reliability was concerned, the Indian statements had to be accepted with very considerable reservation. He wanted to point out that in this instance there was nothing to justify the attitude adopted by the Indians, because this report went to prove that they were at that time well treated by those who employed them. The Commission quoted returns in regard to the number of coolies re-indentured, and added: “These figures are eloquent testimony to the good relations which exist between the coolies and their employers, to which reference has already been made.” The hon. member went on to say that this all went to prove conclusively that there was no ill-treatment in the case of the Indians in Natal, that this strike was engineered purely for political purposes, and possibly far more to serve a political purpose in India than it was in this country. (Hear, hear.) It was made perfectly clear in reference to this £3 tax that when it was imposed it was imposed with the full consent of the Indian authorities, that it was imposed in the terms of indenture, and Sir Benjamin Robertson, who was the official appointed by the Indian Government, stated that, as far as it was possible to make this clear to the Indians, it was done, and that there could be no reasonable complaint on their part that we were imposing an unjust tax upon a number of people who were unable to pay it. “One thing, however, was clear” (the Commission reported), “and that is that all that could be done by the Government of Natal was done to explain the real position to them, and that it was upon the express understanding already set forth that they were introduced into the Colony. It is equally clear that, whatever may be said about the coolies themselves, the Government of India, which may be regarded as standing in the position of guardians to their ignorant subjects, accepted and acquiesced in the provisions of Act 17 of 1895, which are embodied in the indentures, and that they, at any rate, were under no misconception as to the conditions under which the coolies were admitted into Natal.” At this stage he would like to refer to the disabilities under which we laboured by the presence of an overwhelming coolie population as we had it in Natal. When Europeans went to India, China or Japan, they took with them large sums of money, they established factories, industries and works of all descriptions and found employment for the poorer classes.

Proceeding, Colonel Sampson said that the Indian in Natal, in the course of his industry, employed his own people. He sent very little money abroad. He quoted from the report of the Indians’ Grievances Commission and that the insurrection in Natal in 1906 had been brought about, it was said by the poll tax. He did not believe this, but nevertheless was of opinion that the withdrawal of the Indian tax would have a most injurious effect upon the native mind and would lead to an agitation for the removal of the Native Hut Tax.

asked whether the question of native taxation was being discussed?

The hon. member is in order.

said he thought the Minister was taking too optimistic a view of the result of the proposals. He ventured to differ from the Minister, and thought that the natives would regard the Bill as a sign of weakness. It was only nine months ago that the Indians in Natal adopted the passive resistance movement, and it was a fortunate thing that it had not ended in bloodshed.

said he felt somewhat at a disadvantage in having to speak after the previous speaker, who had a knowledge of the conditions of Natal which, of course, was denied to him. Living elsewhere, he (Mr. Chaplin) must say that the hon. member (Col. Leuchars) had taken what seemed to him an unduly pessimistic view of what might be the consequences of this Bill. (Hear, hear.) It was not popular in this country to do anything or say anything which might be interpreted as being in favour of the Indian or native population.

You are quite wrong, we do not want to handicap the whites.

said he hoped he would not come under the ban of the hon. member for Braamfontein if he took up a line different from that taken up by that hon. member. The members who had spoken after the Minister hal devoted themselves only to one subject, and that was the remission of the £3 tax. Of course the Bill was not by any manner of means confined to that. He thought the Minister certainly deserved credit for the very thorough manner in which he have followed the recommendations of the Commission in regard to this extremely complicated subject of the marriage question. Last year, when this matter was before the House, the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) moved an amendment which some of the members on that side of the House at that time hoped would settle the question so far as the marriage point was concerned. They were surprised to find that what they believed to be the ordinary meaning of the words inserted in the Act had been challenged by the Minister’s own officials. It seemed to him that that was an entirely unnecessary course. The practice was in accordance with what they desired, and therefore it seemed to them that no good purpose could be served by raising the question, as it was raised, by the immigration officer at Durban. What they had now before them, however, definitely settled that matter. Members distinctly understood that the words inserted last year referred to the de facto monogamous wife. If that position had not been remedied, he thought the Government, Parliament, and the people of, this country would to some extent, have been open to the charge of having been guilty of a breach of faith. They on the Opposition side of the House understood that this particular difficulty was going to be met, and it would be most unfortunate if a totally different interpretation were placed on it. It seemed to him that the Bill made a very fair attempt at meeting these marriage difficulties. Of course, without recognising polygamy, which they could not do, we could not go any further. He believed that the Indians would see that if this Bill went through the people of this country were going as far as they possibly could to meet the demands of the former. He now came to the question of the £3 tax, which was going to be the determining factor in the reception the House was going to give to the Bill. Two points had been made. His somewhat violent friend behind him (Sir A. Woolls-Sampson) had made two points. So far as the first point of the hon. member was concerned, it was perfectly true that the Indian community made a very grave mistake in not appearing before the Commission. He thought the Viceroy and the Government of India had quite endorsed that view.

It was true, in effect, that the Commission had found that the charges of maltreatment were very greatly exaggerated. But that was not a feature which was peculiar to matters in which Indians were alone concerned. (Hear, hear.) They had had a good many accusations made by other people in regard to circumstances on the Rand, accusations which had also been exaggerated. If they allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by the fact that some of the Indians had been misled and that others of them had made a number of erroneous statements—if they allowed that to weigh with them—then he was afraid that they would get no further and that they would be unable to deal fairly with the matter now before the House. It was fairly established that the tax had not, on the whole, served the purpose for which it had been introduced, and had not had the effect of inducing the people to go back to India. He supposed the reason was that circumstances had changed. Owing to the stoppage of the importation of indentured Indians into Natal there had been a scarcity of labour and the wages of those in Natal had gone up to a large extent, and that accounted for the very large number of Indians wishing to remain in the country. The main question put forward by the hon. member for Braamfontein and the hon. gentleman opposite was that the remission of the £3 tax might have a bad effect on the natives. The Government had much better information at its disposal as to the state of affairs among the natives than hon. members could possibly have. It had access to information furnished by magistrates throughout the length and breadth of the country. He (Mr. Chaplin) was not going to pretend that he had more knowledge than was obtainable by the Government through the countless sources of information at its command. He thought they were justified in assuming that the Government after having its attention directed to the raising of this question, as was shown in the report, was satisfied in its own mind that any risk of the kind might safely be taken. The Indians were a class by themselves, and this tax was not a tax for revenue purposes. It was not a licence nor was it a tax. What it was the report of the Commission pointed out—it was a penalty on continued residence in this country. That penalty was put on for a specific purpose, and had not been effective, and therefore the question arose: Why should this impost be maintained? Whether it was rightly or wrongly raised was not the point. The question had arisen and had provoked an immense amount of feeling, not only among the Indians in this country but the Indians in India.

If they in that House could assist the Imperial Government to keep matters smooth in this respect by removing this cause of discontent, he thought they were only doing their duty in supporting the proposal to remedy it. (Ministerial cheers.) Other strikes had taken place. Some of the things which employers were asked to do after the events in Johannesburg in July last were such as he thought they should not have been asked. But they were done in order to remove misconceptions and grievances. One had to try and get at the root of the trouble, and did not always get at it; sometimes went too far one way or the other. But if they simply took up the attitude that they were the stronger, and, therefore, should not be forced to do anything, then he thought they were not doing their duty. (Opposition cheers.) This was a matter which went beyond our Colonial borders. We were part here of the British Empire, and we had to recognise our liabilities as well as we had to recognise the advantages we got. What they were doing now they were doing on the faith of the statements which had been made by the leaders of the Indian community and the Government of India, and by the British Government on their own behalf. Whatever was done now was based on the assumption that the free immigration of these people to this country was to be stopped once and for all. They were all agreed on that, but if they could remedy these grievances, which went further than some of them liked, let them give the matter a fair chance, and see if they were not able to remove this ground of trouble, which, if something happened, they would be paying very much more for—not so far as money was concerned— than they were paying if they took the risk of supporting that measure. He hoped the Bill would be carried. (Cheers.)

said that contrary to the appeal made to members by the Minister he hoped that hon. members would save South Africa by not allowing this measure to go through. He said that they were not taking best advice from these people, but they should refuse to grant them rights they never had These people entered into contracts on the distinct understanding that they should pay the £3 tax or return to India. They accepted the £3 tax, and the Minister now asked the House to forego an honest contract. The hon. member for Germiston said that they should redress these things, and consider not only South Africa but other parts of the Empire. Let them look at what had been happening in another part of the Empire, where the people were standing shoulder to shoulder and refusing to admit the Indians. Those people were saving that Government and that country from what he would call an undesirable class, and were they in South Africa going to open the gates for the refuse of the back parts of India to overrun their country? He said it was the duty of the House to save the country. This was only the thin end of the wedge, and was not going to be the final settlement of the question. As soon as the Bill was passed these people would find something else. He hoped the House would not be kicked about by Messrs. Gandhi and Co., to accept what they put forward. He protested against the measure, and hoped the House would refuse to pass it.

said that the hon. member for Germiston understood him (the speaker) to say that he reflected on his courage. He (the speaker) did not do so. What he meant to say was that the hon. member not being South African had not the same interest as he had in South Africa.

thought he would be wanting in courage if he did not voice his support for the Bill. He had no love of Indian immigration for South Africa, and had, as a matter of fact, incurred a certain amount of odium in the old days in the Cape by opposing the demand of the Western Province wine farmers for the importation of coolie labour— they loved it so well. Over and over again he had pointed out the mischief and danger Natal was to the rest of South Africa by bringing these coolies in He recognised then that these coolies formed an element of their population which would grow, and sooner or later prove a trouble, But Natal suited their own convenience. They were selfish, and these were the people who were now standing up and objecting to the proposed modus vivendi from a: situation for which they were themselves to blame. So anxious were the Natal people to continue in their policy that they actually brought in 20,000 coolies within the last few years. The late Mr. Sauer disliked Indian immigration; but he adopted the only sound method of dealing with the native races. His policy was, “Don’t let them bring more into the country, but treat those who were here well; treat them as men, and give them justice and fair play.” That was the true principle. Of course, any proposal to ship the Indians back would be fought tooth and nail by the Natal coal owners, and those who employed Indians as shepherds and domestic servants—and better servants there were not in the country. They did not want the Indians repatriated, but desired them to continue living here under disabilities. But, of course, the Indians would not be content to do that. As a large body of people advanced in ideas of Western civilisation they were not likely to rest quietly under disabilities placed on them because of their colour and the place they came from.

It was an impossible state of things and he warned the House—it might not be in his lifetime—that as they sowed so would they reap, and if they sowed an injustice they would reap a retribution that would be very severe on this country. (Hear, hear.) In the Cape they had tried to be fair— without being altruistic—to the coloured races, and that was the only sound and safe principle they could go upon. He viewed the growing colour prejudice with alarm, because he was sure it would bring other things in its train. They must do their best, and in his opinion that Bill was doing nothing more than their fair duty. They said they would not have any more Indians in this country. Whether Natal wanted them or not she would have to do without them, because Natal was a part of the Union. But while the Indians were here let them treat them as they did the rest of their coloured population, and do not put them under special disabilities because of their colour or the place they came from. He appealed to his friends. He was sure they wished to do what was right and proper. Did they think the Government of India wanted to shunt these people here? No, they went and fetched them. (Hear, hear.) That being so, this was being used as a handle in India to stir up dissatisfaction. This question, small as it seemed to them, of kicking the coolies from one end of the country to the other, was used as a handle to stir up disaffection in India. Ac the King’s Coronation the King made a solemn promise to India that the grievance would be redressed and now they had hon. members urging that they should break that promise. That sort of thing made the ground for stirring up dangerous disaffection in India. Surely they ought to do their best to assist the British Government, instead of adding fresh fuel to tie fire, in the most difficult position any country had ever been placed of governing India truly and well. He was surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Braamfontein. He (Mr. Merriman) thought he was a Briton to the core, and he remembered occasions when the hon. member might almost have been called ultra-British. He (Mr. Merriman) wanted to ask him to search his own heart and see if in opposing this Bill he was doing a service to the country he belonged. If he persisted he (Mr. Merriman) thought he would be doing his country a great disservice. Let them treat these Indians with justice, but let them say they would have no more of them.

said he regretted that the Government had seen fit to introduce this so-called Indians Relief Bill, for, if passed, it would be highly detrimental to the best interests and welfare of the people of the Union, and especially Natal, and it would give little or no relief and would not be acceptable to the Indians as a settlement of their grievances. It was apparent that they did not intend to stop at anything short of equal rights, and he would give them credit for being bold enough to come out in the open and say so. He was surprised that the Government were so blind that they did not see that this was the thin end of the wedge. The Indians were knocking at the door for point after point until they could get full and equal rights with the civilised people of this country, which meant that they would have a full right to move in any part of the Union, and would also have trading rights. They in Natal had been accused of having imported these Indians into the Colony in the earlier days for their own gain, for their own advantage, to build up their industries. So far as he knew, the people of Natal were quite prepared to take the full responsibility of allowing them to remain there under present conditions, provided that the Government also carried out their part of the bargain by imposing the laws and regulations that were instituted by the Natal Government as safeguards against the Indians going too far. This was a burning question, and he was afraid that the present Bill would add more fuel to the flames. Proceeding, the hon. member sketched the history of the legislation passed by the Natal Parliament from time to time in reference to the Indian population. He pointed out how under their low standard of living the Indian traders and artisans were enabled to freeze out European traders and artisans, and how the condition of affairs eventually became so acute that the Colony had to say, “No more of this we shall have to stop this importation.” He quoted from the returns in order to show that, so far as the number of those who returned to India on the expiration of their indentures were concerned, the law in Natal was for some years effective. He admitted that of late years it had not been so effective, but he thought that every hon. member must admit that it was the intention of the Legislature and the people of Natal that these people should either re-indenture or return to India, or pay this tax. To repeal the law was not a sign of strength, but of weakness. The right hon. the member for Victoria West had stated that Natal had dragged these people here. He (Mr. Henwood) maintained that the contracts were fair and above, board. The right hon. gentleman had made a great point about Imperial spirits but they found that when the House was asked to give further assistance with regard to the Navy he had not the pluck and the courage to vote, but he walked out of the House. Proceeding, the hon. member urged that it was the duty of the Government to see that the existing law was carried out, so far as the Indians of Natal were concerned.

In 1860 there were 58,000 indentured Indians in Mauritius, and there was no law which provided for their return to India. To-day Mauritius was practically an Indian colony. That was a bright outlook for Natal—it was something to think of. They should think seriously of that matter while discussing a Bill of that description. If they took the standpoint of the Imperial Government they would approach the matter from another point of view, altogether. They knew that trouble was brewing in India, and they also knew that the Empire must suffer. In considering that question they must realise that they were laying a foundation stone for the prosperity of their children. He did not think that the House would be justified in dealing with legislation of that description until a referendum had been taken of the voters in Natal. He moved to omit all the words after “that” and to substitute “that this House is not prepared to deal with legislation for the relief of Indians until the subject matter of this Bill has been submitted by way of referendum to the registered Parliamentary voters of the Province of Natal.

seconded the amendment. He said that they had immigration laws in this country which applied to the white man and also applied to the Indians. The white man must have a certain amount of capital and educational qualifications. Why should not the same law be applied to the Indians? The most dangerous clause of all was the one dealing with the female class, because with every woman they allowed into the country there was the danger of them allowing an eventual large family to come in Any hon. member who knew anything about Natal knew that the Indian child of sixteen years of age was a mature woman. Indians married at the age of twelve or thirteen, and the idea of allowing every female child of that age into the country was a ridiculous and suicidal one. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he happened to be in England during last December, when this matter was being discussed in the English newspapers, and he well remembered the campaign of calumny and misrepresentation which went on. There was no word bad enough which could be said about South Africa on this matter. From the highest Indian official to the merest scribbler, who knew nothing at all about the subject, people denounced South Africa. No stick was good enough to beat South Africa with at that time. Reference had been made in the course of this debate to the Commission. He wished to say that he had given evidence before this Commission. The Commission’s report was to the effect that this £3 tax had been inoperative. But he the speaker) wished to say that he had the assurance of the Secretary of the Immigration Board in Durban that during last year considerably over 2,000 Indians went back to India, were driven back by this tax, and one Indian told him (the speaker) of a shipload of 300 Indians who were going back because of that tax; they did not want to go, but they simply had to on account of that tax. (Hear, hear.) If they could get Indians to do that, well, all he could say was let them go. In Natal they had more real knowledge of this question than people in other parts of South Africa had A case happened in his own constituency in which contracts for Government supplies were given to Indians who were displaced under white traders. The position of affairs in Canada had been mentioned. Were they going to support Canada in the stand she was taking up in that matter or were they going to support India? South Africa was held up as a warning in Canada at the present time. Of course, the official view in India was that we should make things better for them, but the matter was more deeply rooted than that. It was not a question of whether Indians should be allowed to remain in Natal or pay a £3 tax. It was far deeper than that, but his view was that so long as the £3 tax was having the effect of sending any Indians back it should remain.

said he would not have a great deal to say on the matter, because he realised that the less one said who was a friend to the Bill the better. (Hear, hear.) This matter had been referred to as a Natal matter. That was not fair. One might have expected a little word of gratitude from the Natal members regarding the development of the Natal industries which had taken place owing to the labour of the Indians in that Province. Where would the Natal industries be if it were not for those Indians. It was absurd to call that a Natal matter; it was a Union matter, and if an injustice was done, all the Union would have to suffer and not merely one part. Proceeding, Mr. Alexander said that no good purpose would be served by going into the Indian strike. When the other strike took place in January everyone would admit that the leaders of the Indian movement stayed their hand, and did not embarrass the Government at a time of great trouble in the country. It was no use the hon. member for Victoria County urging truth and justice unless it were to apply equally to members of the coloured community as well as to whites. Truth and justice were colour blind. He (the speaker) did not look upon these people as aliens. They were British subjects. They were introduced into Natal, and Natal had had full benefit of their work. A large number of Indians had been born in Natal, consequent upon recognised marriages in the country, and if a mistake, had been made it could not be rectified at the cost of a gross injustice to the people. The Bill before the House did not by any means meet all the wants of the Indian community, but it was an attempt by the Government to give justice as far as they thought possible to the Indian community without detriment to South Africa. Hon. members who had spoken against the Bill did not seem to realise that it did not go one single step further than the Bill of last session intended to go. It was only at the expressed wish of the late Minister of the Interior, who was in charge of that Bill, that the word “monogamous” was put in lest the law should be understood to recognise polygamy.

With regard to the £3 tax, that principle had already practically been decided in the case of women. It was not a new principle. They could not induce men to go back to India now that they could get higher wages. That tax did not assist in any way to influence their return to India. Was it not a better way to provide them with a free passage? With reference to the point made by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) regarding children under 16 years of age, that clause had been passed under the Act of 1913, and it was in the Immigration Laws of the Union when the Provinces were separate. The only relief the Government granted under that Bill was that the Indian child could not be penalised as against any other child. Monogamous marriages were to be allowed, and the children of such marriages were to be recognised also. That was simply carrying out the intentions of Parliament last year, though not as interpreted in the Courts of Natal. That was an Imperial question, urged Mr. Alexander. (“No, no.”) He was stating a fact; in other words the relations between that community and the Union of South Africa may have serious consequences in regard to other parts of the Empire. He did not say that South Africa ought to be asked to give up any of their rights or act unfairly as against their own brethren, because that was an Imperial question. But the Government was not asking anybody to do that. Under that measure no injustice was done of any kind to any part of the people of South Africa. If they could remove that difficulty and friction from South Africa it would do a great deal of good. Did not hon. members realise what a great cost that difficulty had been to the people of South Africa? By passing the Bill the Imperial Government would not only be relieved of a serious embarrassment, but South Africa would be released from serious difficulties. Other demands might arise in the future, but so far as the difficulties concerning us at the present moment and for a long time to come are concerned the Bill would remove a considerable number of them which were a hindrance to the progress of the Union. In solving the Indian difficulty South Africa would be benefited by a very statesmanlike solution of a pressing problem. Let hon. members rise superior to their prejudices and do justice to every section of the community and assist the Imperial Government in a very difficult matter, and by so doing hon. members would be accomplishing something they would be thankful for. (Cheers.)

said they had heard several impassioned speeches from hon. members for Natal, and so he would like to say a few words to show that all the Natal members were not of the same opinion. It was hardly to the credit of some of the hon. members who had spoken that they should be individuals who had waxed fat on Indian labour. The Minister of the Interior had always been recognised as a strong man, and he had never shown himself a weakling in dealing with the Asiatic question. The marriage difficulty arose through an error in the Act passed by mutual consent last year, and it was only because legal quibbles had arisen that it was imperative to alter the law. The main difficulty was the abolition of the £3 tax. Here we had a strong Minister who had never shown himself a pro-Asiatic and there was nothing in the Bill but the carrying out of the findings of a Commission which no one had accused of being pro-Asiatic. The Commission, which was possibly biased to some extent against Asiatics, had brought out findings which were embodied in the Bill, and the Commission came to its conclusions after taking evidence throughout the Union. He felt rather flattered that the opinion he expressed had been carried out in the findings. Perhaps the hon. members for Durban (Berea), Umvoti and Umlazi were a little bit hurt that their evidence was not accepted as gospel by the Commission. He was not aware whether the hon. member for Vryheid gave evidence, but he had the opportunity of doing so. That hon. member came from a portion of Natal from which Asiatics had always been most rigorously excluded. In fact it had been said that it was easier for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for an Asiatic to enter the Vryheid district. Did the hon. member for Vryheid mean to say that it was practicable that there could be a wholesale scheme for the repatriation of 140,00 persons? That would be utterly impossible. The Government had done the best thing it could towards encouraging repatriation, and he hoped a large number of Indians would take advantage of the opportunity of returning to their own country. By offering these opportunities South Africa would be treating the Indians like human beings. A good deal had been said about the bona-fides of the Indian leaders and that they would not accept this as a final settlement, but he thought they could trust the Minister to understand how far the Indian leaders were acting in a bona-fide manner. A little bird had whispered that if this Settlement was arrived at the person who was regarded in some quarters as a sinister figure, but who by other people was regarded as a cultured man with high ideals, would voluntarily deport himself from South Africa Mr. Gandhi had proved himself to be a man who could thoroughly be trusted. Surely the hon. member for Umvoti was speaking under a misunderstanding when he referred to all Indians as uncivilised persons. He (Mr. Meyler) wondered if the hon. member for Umvoti ever met Mr. Gokhale, a gentleman who could make speeches which would be an ornament to this House. All the Indians were not the uncivilised people he found working on his wattle estates. There was, continued Mr. Meyler, a lot of misunderstanding as to the operation of the £3 tax. This tax was not being collected, and whether the Bill went through or not, no Government would be strong enough to collect it in the future. What was the use of talking of the effect on the native mind of the abolition of the tax when the tax was no longer collected, and that tax would never be collected again. When the hon. member for Durban, Central (Sir D. Hunter) who was a man of the highest integrity, gave evidence before the Commission he was asked if he thought it opportune to remove the tax because of the possible effect on the native mind, and he said “it is never inopportune to do the right thing.” He intended to support the Bill, and he hoped that hon. Ministers would recognise that there were other things of vital importance that still had to be attended to. The tax, he thought, was a matter that should be dealt with in Committee. The hon. member for Victoria County proposed that a referendum should be taken in Natal. He (Mr. Meyler) was not the least bit afraid of a referendum, because he knew the good sense of the Natal people would carry the Indian question to victory. The hon. member for Victoria County and his friends were those who were surprised at the result of the referendum when it was suggested in Natal prior to Union. He (Mr. Meyler) thought it was an anomaly to suggest that they should have another referendum to deal with this one special point. He felt he could not support the amendment. In conclusion, he said they should forget the darkness of last November, and the terrible position in which they and the Empire found themselves. He thought the settlement should be made, and he considered they need have no fear that the Indians would not carry out the honourable understanding.

said he found himself in a difficulty. He realised that the people concerned in this Bill were most undesirable to this country, and he was afraid that the effect of the measure would be that the Indians might enter the country in large numbers. They could not allow the wives of those already here to come in But what was more, this was not going to be the end of the question, but simply the beginning of a movement which at present was spreading all over the Empire. By allowing these people to come in they would do a dis-service to the whole of the Empire, it might be said that it was Unjust to the Indians not to allow their Wives and children to come in, but a more important Question was whether it was just to the rest of the people of the Union to allow them in Indians squeezed out European tradesmen, and were a general curse to the country. He feared that if this Bill was passed a large number of Asiatics would enter the Free State and what then? he asked.

If they forbade the immigration of Indian women, those Indians who wished to marry would have to return to India. The Indians were asking for the abolition of the £3 tax under penalty of going on strike. Very well, then, let them go on strike. If they thought they were in a position to make such demands they were very badly informed. The policy should be to admit no more Indians, and at the same time to encourage the repatriation of those already here by giving them free passages back again and by the payment of compensation. He ventured to say that Town Councils would be found willing to contribute to the payment of that compensation. The country would have to be freed of those people, for at present they were pushing their way in everywhere. They were demanding that the Free State should be opened to them. If the Bill now before the House were agreed to it would mean that the Indians had won what they wanted by means of the strike, and afterwards there would be another strike in order to get the Free State opened to them. Then if the Kafirs heard that the Indians had been relieved from a tax by means of a strike, they also would go on strike with a similar object. It was necessary in the interest of the country, he would be willing even to treat the Indians with injustice. South Africa was not going to be browbeaten by Indians. If the Government adopted the policy of repatriating the Indians they would get support everywhere. If the levying of the tax had the effect of sending the Indians home, he was in favour of retaining it and of letting them go home. In the circumstances, he could not possibly support the measure before the House.

said that he just wished to clear up one or two points which had been raised in the course of this debate. It was unnecessary for him to enter into the details and the merits of this measure which had been made quite clear by the Minister of Finance. It seemed to him, however, that a large number of the hon. members did not quite understand the objects of this measure. The hon. member for Rouxville, for instance, had referred to one section of the Indian community, where as the Bill dealt with an altogether different section. He (the hon. member for Routxville) had referred to that section which was quite free and lived in such places as Port Elizabeth, Graham’s Town, East London, etc. The Bill now before the House had absolutely nothing to do with these people. They were in the country and were free to remain here, whether the Bill was passed or not (Hear, hear.) The class which had vested rights here could not be interfered with anyway. The Bill only dealt with these people who to-day were not here as free men—they were, indentured labourers, only a small portion of the Indian population of Natal, the poorest class of all.

Yes, and the very worst, too.

said he trusted the House would deal with the Bill and the principles involved therein earnestly and seriously. The principles concerned were by no means superficial. He well remembered how from the very first they had experienced difficulties in the Transvaal concerning the Indian question. It was quite impossible for any Parliament to say in an off-handed manner, “Put all these people out of the country, we do not want them here.” Only by paying millions of pounds in compensation could they have done anything like that, and even then the matter would not have been settled. In these circumstances he wished to appeal to members to deal with this Bill from the point of higher statesmanship than what they desired, and than what their own personal wishes were. He knew that in South Africa there was a great and strong feeling of prejudice against the Indians, but he also knew that the people of South Africa would believe him when he said that he had always done his utmost to keep these Indians out of the country, and that he did not regard their presence in the country with complacency. (Hear, hear) Nor did he rise in the House to embrace these people.

But whatever they did, whatever their feelings were, they must be just and fair towards the Indians. When the Government came to this House with a Bill such as the present one, it should be understood that the Government had gone into the matters involved most carefully, and had given all these matters its serious and careful consideration. The Government was responsible to the House and to the people for the measures it introduced, and he trusted that the House would regard this Bill from that point of view. (Hear, hear.) What had been most disappointing to him was to have listened to the speeches of hon. members representing Natal on both sides of the House. It was deplorable that these hon. members did not feel the matter so seriously when they introduced the Indians into South Africa. (Hear, hear.) If they had felt their responsibilities so keenly at the time they would have consulted the rest of South Africa, and to-day the country would not have been faced with all these difficulties. (Cheers.) But if today hon. members realised these difficulties so acutely, then they should not forget that these difficulties were entirely the creation of the people of Natal. (Hear, hear.) Unfortunately these Indians had not remained in Natal only, and to-day these people were found in other parts of the country as well. It was unpleasant having to say this, but it had to be said. (Hear, hear.) But they had to do what was right and fair towards the Indians as well as towards South Africa. Whatever their prejudices against the Indians, he (General Botha) quite agreed with Mr. Merriman that it was their duty in this House, as a Parliament and as a Government, to work for peace, justice and fairness. (Cheers.) They had to deal with people who were not represented in this House, and whose presence in this country was due to the action of the people of Natal. Therefore, he hoped that hon. members from Natal would help South Africa out of the difficulty in which it had been placed. And this they could do by supporting the Bill now before the House. The Indians, who had been introduced into Natal could not all of a sudden be thrown out again. (Cheers.) He knew the hon. member for Braamfontein (Sir Aubrey Woolls-Sampson) was a rough-rider, and he trusted that his rough-riding would now be in the interests of justice and fairness—(cheers)—and he was sure that if the hon. member carefully thought over the matter he would give the Bill his support. After all they had seen and gone through in this country, the Prime Minister went on, it must be quite clear that this House had to take the responsibility to deal with matters as they were to-day— (hear, hear)—and they should not introduce legislation with a view to what was good for them only. They no longer stood by themselves in four separate Colonies, and it was because they had to consider a greater cause that they should see to it that, especially in this matter, they did not go in the wrong direction. They must be careful lest they made their difficulties more acute than they were to-day, and more serious than they would become if this Bill were passed. (Cheers.)

He regretted the attitude taken up by some hon. members, who had coupled the native question with this Indian problem. They had no right to do so. (Hear, hear.) When they dealt with rative questions, they dealt with native questions pure and simple, and they had to deal with the Indian problem in the same spirit and on its own merits. (Cheers.) It was useless dragging in this native argument, because he wished to say emphatically that if there were one subject of which they had every right to be proud it was this, that they, as a small minority, had always easily governed the large native majority in South Africa, who were obedient to the laws and paid their taxes readily. (Loud cheers.) He would like to ask hon. members how often they heard of a native refusing to pay his taxes? The collector went round, and the natives came along of their own free-will and paid their taxes, He wondered whether any tax collector would have such an easy task if sent to a farming community to collect taxes? (Laughter.) He held that instead of this question having been dragged in in the way it had been done, this country had cause for gratification at the obedience to the law always displayed by the native population. (Loud cheers.) The hon. member for Rouxville had stated the Prime Minister went on, that the effect of this Bill would be that a large number of Indians would stampede for the Free State. The hon. member, however was mistaken, because the Bill did not deal with the general question at all Under this measure no such rights were given. Hon. members should be extremely careful in their statements lest they should spread wrong impressions among the people. The Indians who were in Natal to-day could not by virtue of that Bill go to the Transvaal, the Cape or to the Free State. This question had been fully dealt with in the Immigration Regulation Bill of last year. Hon. members should be careful not to spread the impression that this House was now engaged in passing legislation giving the Indians the right to go anywhere they pleased. This measure to a certain extent only gave a definition. (Hear, hear.) It was under the Act of last year that the women and children had Come in The matter now before the House was a most important one, and was one bristling with difficulties, but they in this House should see to it, and should see to it carefully, that the question was put right.

It was for that reason that he appealed to the House to deal with the subject on its merits, and he trusted that this House Would see the Government through. (Hear, heat.) He wished to make it clear that the Government was bound to pass this measure. “We have introduced this Bill (said the Prime Minister), and we must stand by it, and I cannot see how we can possibly drop it. Therefore, I want to appeal to the House to assist us in getting this Bill on the Statute Book. I know the subject is an extremely thorny one, but to anyone giving the matter his serious attention it must become clear that the way proposed in the Bill is the only way to solve the difficulties.” (Hear, hear.) Under the Act of last year it was laid down that the wife of an Indian domiciled in Natal, together with her minor children, could enter the country, and the object of the present Bill was merely to remove the difficulty which had been caused by a recent decision in the Natal Courts. Proceeding, General Botha referred to the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria County (Mr. Henwood). The hon. member was in favour of getting this question referred to a referendum in Natal. But he (the Prime Minister) asked, did not Natal have this referendum, when by a majority it was decided to introduce the coolies? (Hear, hear.) It was essential that a solution be arrived at. They could not have any more strikes or upheavals in Natal such as they had had It was impossible and impracticable to keep a standing commando there. Perhaps this Bill did not solve the matter in the way many hon. members desired to see it settled, but he (the speaker), held that it was the only proper solution. The question of the country losing revenue under this Bill had also been raised. To his (the speaker’s) mind, it had always been difficult to reconcile a policy under which one section of the community was taxed more heavily than another section as had been done in Natal. In conclusion, the Prime Minister said he hoped the hon. member for Victoria County would realise that his amendment was impossible, as this was a question for which the Union Government had to assume responsibility.

said there was no doubt this matter was one affecting the people of Natal much more than those in any other part of the British Dominions. He would not go into the whole question as to how this tax was instituted. It had been shown to the House very clearly that this tax was introduced by the Natal Government for a very definite purpose, and under very great pressure. The Indian population was increasing so rapidly in Natal that the Natal Government found it absolutely necessary to take some steps in order to try and keep the Indians out. They were quite prepared to admit that it was a mistake in the first instance to bring in so many Indians, but that was 40 or 50 years ago, and there was no use going back upon it They had to deal with the position as it existed to-day. That tax was introduced to force Indians back to India on the completion of their indenture. It had failed of its object. He thought they should look on this question from an all-round point of view. They should remember that, not only did the Indians who came into Natal under this contract know exactly what they would have to pay, but the Natal, Indian, and the British Governments were clear upon the subject. He held in his hand a copy of the contract form under which these Indians had been coming into Natal, and in view of that form it could not possibly be said that the Indians did not know what they were coming to. (Hear, hear.) This contract form had printed on it, not only the full conditions of the contract, but also the clause of the 1875 law which stated that Indians would be liable to pay the £3 tax. This was printed in English and two Indian languages, and the terms of this contract were explained to them more than once before leaving India, and also on arrival in Natal. There was no doubt that before he left India, an indentured labourer knew perfectly well what his contract was.

What did Sir Benjamin Robertson say?

Well, replied Mr. Henderson, all that Sir Benjamin Robertson had suggested was that the Natal people had done everything they possibly could do to make the contract clear, and that if anybody failed in the matter it was the Indian Government before the coolies left the shores of India.

Proceeding, Mr. Henderson said they had been told that this £3 licence had failed to effect the purpose for which it was imposed. He admitted that to a certain extent it had failed, but the reason was that it was never properly enforced. No real attempt had ever been made to collect this tax from the Indians, the consequence was that they were not forced to carry out the terms of their contract, and naturally did not take the trouble to carry it out. Another provision in the Natal law was that no employer could take an Indian into his service unless a receipt were shown for the payment of the tax, but this provision had not been carried out properly. Unfortunately, employers in Natal were not anxious that the Indians should return to India. They had evidence in the Commission’s report that the imposition of this tax had had some effect in sending people back to India. Mr. Henderson quoted the evidence tendered by Dr. Arthur Keith, surgeon superintendent, whose testimony was most emphatic. This witness said that the majority of Indians leaving here whom he had questioned in their own language said that they were leaving because of the £3 tax. Another thing this witness noticed was that Indians returning to India showed a great improvement in physique and financial position compared with when they arrived in the country. Moreover, all Indians who had been thus examined by this witness expressed satisfaction with the treatment they had received in Natal. The Commission, he continued, said they were impressed by the evidence of this gentleman, and took the trouble themselves to go down, to one of the steamers for the purpose of questioning Indians, but neither of the Commissioners could speak any Indian language. Mr. Henderson pointed out that, owing to their improved status, Indians could quite well afford to pay £3 without hardship. If the Government wanted to raise more revenue they could do so by enforcing the payment of this tax. Under the system of bringing in these Indians the Indian population of Natal had been increasing enormously during the past few years. In 1880 19,000 Indians had been introduced; in 1890 they numbered 33,500; in 1900 they were 66,000; in 1910 they numbered 109,000; and in October of last year they had reached a total of 115,500; These figures, he said, referred to those who were brought in under the indenture system. In addition to these, Natal had in October of last year 53,000 or 54,000 Indians not connected with the Immigration Department, who had come in in other ways. There were, therefore, about 140,000 Indian’s in Natal altogether, and the white population did not number 100,000. The crux of the position, said Mr. Henderson, was what was to happen to Natal if this rate of increase went on amongst the Indian population? It was all very well for the Free State and the Cape to stand by and say it was not an important matter; but they would take very good care they were not troubled with the Indian question in their own Provinces, and would insist upon these Indians being kept in Natal. In Natal the Indian population was increasing naturally four times quicker than the white population. The Prime Minister had said that he was going to keep Natal Indians in Natal; but they would not be able to do so unless they shot them down on their borders. They would force their way into other parts of the Union, in order to earn their living and get more scope for their energies. There would be no room in Natal unless the whites cleared out and made room for them. If the present condition of affairs continued Natal would be another Mauritius in a few years. They had also a native population on top of this Indian population. Indians, the speaker continued, would not be content to remain toilers in the fields. They would worm their way into other fields of labour, as they had done already. The speaker instanced whole villages in Natal where the entire shop trade was in the hands of Indians. Indian youths were now finding their way into offices, and were being well educated. It was not merely a question of taking off the £3 tax. The question was, what was to be the future of Natal? They had been told that the moment this tax was taken off Indians would cease to be indentured. That had been told them on very good authority. It had been said that there would be peace when this Bill was passed. If the Minister thought he was going to have peace, when he gave in to those demands, he was very much mistaken. The Indians had already told them that this was not to be the end of their demands, but that it was only one item, and that they were going on with something of more importance. He quoted from the report of an interview of an Indian deputation with Lord Crewe to voice grievances in connection with the Indians in Natal. They found that the deputation, not only repeated the slanders against Natal people of sjamboking and so forth, but it went further. Mr. Henderson turned aside to point out how lamentable it was that the Indians in Natal had failed to appear before the Solomon Commission to substantiate one item of these allegations. They telegraphed these charges all over the British Empire, yet had not the courage to come forward and substantiate them in one single instance. What were they to make of people like that? Proceeding, he said this agitation for the repeal of the £3 tax did not emanate from Natal. It emanated from India, and the poor Indian coolies, who had not to pay their tax at all, were simply being made tools of. Reverting to the deputation to Lord Crewe, Mr. Henderson said the members of that deputation made demands to Lord Crewe which included the granting of an Imperial measure by which the British Indian throughout the Empire should have the rights of citizenship. They knew what that meant, that every Indian in Natal and elsewhere in the Union would have the same rights and privileges as whites. Proceeding, Mr. Henderson said this agitation would go on. There was, he added, another danger, and that was, that the people of Mozambique were also getting alarmed as to the increase of Indians in that territory, and had put on a stiff tax to prevent Indians coming or remaining there. The result would be that those Indians would be forced to cross the border into Natal from Mozambique. Concluding. Mr. Henderson said he thought it was only fair that Natal’s opinion should have been taken before this Bill was passed. He strongly urged the Government to take the clause as to the £3 tax out of the Bill. The hon. member added, that it was difficult to know in how far the admission of minor children would operate legally as there might be some danger of smuggling.

said the country had been troubled with the Indian question for a number of years past, and the present would not be the last time that the House would have to discuss it. No doubt the question was a difficult one, and it was for that reason all the more necessary that they should show a firm front. Canada had given them an example which was well worthy of imitation. Canada had firmly refused to allow the country to be flooded with Indians, and had indeed resolved that not a single Indian should be allowed to enter. South Africa ought undoubtedly to follow that good example. So far as the £3 tax was concerned, it had been described as an unfair tax on one portion only of the community, but the same “tax” was quite wrong. The payment of the £3 per annum was merely one of the conditions of the contract which was entered into with the Indians. The Indians were not taxed. If they gave way to the demands of the Indians and abolished the tax, the latter would regard that action not as generosity, but as weakness.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

went on to say that the Indians would soon be bringing forward further demands, and they would be asking for admission to the Free State. If they gave way to that, it would lead to very disagreeable results. The coal mines in Natal were now being worked with the assistance of Indians, and if those people were sent away there would be plenty of work for the poor whites. With regard to the statement which had been made by the Minister of Finance to the effect that the £3 tax had not been fully paid, that, the speaker considered, merely showed weakness in the Department. The further fact that Indians were able to enter Natal with the aid of false permits showed also weakness in the Department. Persons who entered the country with false permits ought to be deported. The first law of a country was self-protection, and by forbidding Indians to enter the country they, were acting purely in the interests of self-preservation. Then, if the Bill did not bring about radical changes, as the Minister had stated, it was difficult for the speaker to see any necessity for its being brought forward. But the abolition of the £3 tax was in fact a radical change.

The Prime Minister had told them that they ought not to couple the Indian question with the native question, but the position was so serious that the Commission itself had referred to it. The natives would, of course, draw their own conclusions from the abolition of the £3 tax, because they and the Indians dwelt together in Natal and discussed matters with each other. The favour which had been shown to the Indians would thus cause friction.

In the speaker’s opinion the Indian who refused to pay the £3 tax ought to be sent back to India. The abolition of that tax was only the granting of one of the first of the Indians’ demands. They would go on. They would ask admission everywhere, and then when they were once settled it would be impossible to get them out again. It was a most dangerous thing to allow the women to enter, as the result would be that the Indians would increase faster than ever.

The Government had a lot of trouble with the Indians owing to the actions of men like Gandhi, Polak, and Kallenbach, and the speaker only regretted that those persons had not been included in the passenger list of the “Umgeni,” with the other men who had been deported. They had defied the Government. He therefore moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be read that day six mouths.

supported the amendment, and stated that the coolie was an undesirable, undesirable both for the white people and also for the natives. He constituted a danger to the whole country, as witness Natal. The Free State had always kept the evil outside its borders, and it was an evil that ought to be kept outside the borders of South Africa.

The speech which had been delivered by the Prime Minister had merely confirmed him in his belief that the Bill ought to be rejected. It was said that the Indians were paying a tax of £3, and that they demanded the abolition of that tax. If they gave way to that demand, the next thing would be that they would have to consider the demand for the opening up of the Free State. Well, the Free State would never agree to any such thing. He was not going to do anything which would help towards introducing that undesirable element into Natal. A Free Stater who was willing to allow a coolie to enter the country would never again be trusted by his people. If that Bill were agreed to they would give way to the demands of the Indians, and the more they gave way to Gandhi and his followers the more they would be asked to give. (Hear, hear.)

said he spoke as one who would rather that, there had never been a single Indian Come to this country to complicate the already difficult position in regard to the different races here. He always held, however, that we were bound to treat the Indians who were here, especially as they were British, subjects, with fairness and with justice, and he was still of that opinion. He would have imagined that any thoughtful person who had any knowledge of the contests that had been carried on in this country, both before and after Union, anybody who had anything like a statesmanlike mind, would have rejoiced that at last there was to be an end to these troubles, as a matter of compromise. In the Bill before the House he thought there was evidence of a compromise, Certain claims made by the Indians and those who supported them had not been satisfied in the Bill, but he was not going to speak about those, because he was willing to take the finding of the Commission. In regard to two or three points on which the Indians made certain claims, the Commission had made no recommendations. It had been said this afternoon that Indians were not at all satisfied with this and they only meant to make it a starting point for further demands. They had had a statement read out from the paper “Indian Opinion ” a short time ago, not he believed coming from any Indian in this country, but what some Indians in India had been saying about “equality” and that kind of thing. But surely members of this House ought not to be misled by that, when the people chiefly concerned, as far as he understood, Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Polak, expressed themselves as satisfied with this Bill. He took it that the Indians were satisfied with the Bill as it stood, and if so he was also satisfied on their behalf. The provisions of the Bill as to marriage and one monogamous wife and her children merely made plain the intention of the Parliament in passing the Immigration Act last year. He had more than once brought up the matter of the £3 tax since Union was consummated. The tax, after all, was the crux of: the opposition made this afternoon to the Bill. He could have understood the argument raised if that tax had been very much higher than it was, and if it had been an absolutely prohibitive tax, because then the Indian rather than pay would, he supposed, have gone It was made £3, and as a result it had not succeeded in bringing about the results which they hoped for. Yet this was the illogical position of the hon. gentlemen who had been declaiming against this Bill and the repeal of the tax. They had put it this afternoon as if should the tax be removed this country would be flooded with Indians, no more of them would go back at all, and the white man would be ousted in Natal, and the Indian would take his place. That seemed to him a ridiculous position to take up. This might be the position if that tax had been absolutely successful, but it had been an inoperative tax. Then there was another point. Did the Natal people want all the Indians to go back? Was it not the object of that tax rather to say “we will force the Indians to be re-indentured”? If they had put on a tax of £20 the Indians would have gone back. Only a few years ago they heard a big outcry in Natal because the indenture system was to be stopped. Apart altogether from what had been proceeding between the Indian Government and the Imperial Government, he thought it would be a good thing to repeal this tax at the present time.

The native question had been introduced into the discussion. That particular tax, he pointed out, was levied for a particular reason on a particular class of people. What particular tax was there with regard to the natives that was levied for a particular reason, and only applied to a particular section? There was not the slightest reason to believe that if they repealed that tax there would be a clamour for the repeal of any ordinary tax. That was a red herring which had been drawn across the trail; the hon. member for Braamfontein had got a fear of the black man on the brain. They should deal with the native when matters concerning the native cropped up, but they should not drag him in like King Charles’ head on every possible occasion. It was said by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) that a good many Indians had gone back to India on account of that £3 tax. Under the Bill at present before the House there would be more of them go back because of the very wise provision the Government had put in section 6 whereby passages would be allowed. He would suggest they move on those lines, and would even urge giving them something. (Hear, hear.) Why not repeal the tax and give them £3 instead He would suggest £5 to induce them to go back to India. There would be no question of compulsion; it would be perfectly voluntary on their part. If this plan were adopted more Indians would return to India than was the case at present; and as a consequence the danger which hon. members had made so much of, the increase of Indian population in Natal, would be proportionately diminished. Proceeding the hon. member said that he thought the majority of the people in Natal did not want all the Indians to leave. They only wanted a part of them to go. If they all went he believed there would be an outcry for tropical natives, or others worse than the Indites, to fill their places.

In respect of the referendum, Mr. Schreiner said he was in Natal when the strike took place and was astonished at the immense number of the Indian people there; that made him more wishful than ever he had been before that this experiment had never been tried, and that those people had never been brought into the country. But they had their duty to perform, and if they could put inducements before those people to go back to India, he thought they should do so. When they said leave that matter to Natal, he objected to that because if they followed those lines they would never be a Union. If they were to allow that referendum to take place in Natal he believed it would be a wrong principle, because there would be any amount of other questions referring to other Provinces which they would be called upon to deal with in a similar way, and then the sooner they tore up the Act of Union and went in for federation, the better it would be He was always in favour of federation, but he had accepted unification, and they ought to act up to it. Therefore they could not leave that important matter to Natal. His influence would go in support of the Government for he thought the country owed a debt of gratitude to the Government for having conducted the negotiations in connection with that difficult matter to that point that they had brought before the House a Bill which would not increase the danger in anyway from Asiatics or Indians in the country, and still prove a settlement of the question. He looked upon it as a compromise amidst conflicting ideas, and though he sympathised with the people of Natal, who were suffering from the fruits of their own doings, those difficulties ought not to make them unjust. They must try what they could do to induce the Indians to go back to India.

said he was on the horns of a dilemma. If the Minister had divided the Bill into two parts he could have satisfied his conscience. He was quite willing to agree to the first part of the Bill which endeavoured to remove disabilities from those Indians who were free to live within the borders of the Union, but not to the proposition that they should do an injustice to a large and important part of the community the white population of Natal. When they considered such an important subject as that before the House they should consider it on broad lines and try to place themselves in the position of those who were under a disability in the matter. The hon. member for Victoria County had briefly sketched the incidents leading to the position of affairs at the present time; he (Mr. Clayton) wanted to explain that the Indians in Natal might be roughly divided into three classes. The first, the Asiatic, or, as he was sometimes called, the Arab, was a man who came there of his own accord to trade with the Indian population, and who had since taken away the whole of the small white’s storekeeping trade in the country districts and much of the native trade. That class was strongly represented in the Peninsula here. The second class, the majority of the Indian population in Natal, were free to live or go where they liked in the Province or engage themselves in any pursuit they pleased. As a matter of fact they were entering into a wider sphere of occupation than would have been believed to be possible when they came into the country. The third class came under the operation of Act 17 of 1895, upon whom was laid the burden of either going back to India or re-indenturing and thus remaining outside of colonisation, or were called upon to pay the £3 per annum tax.

He hoped hon. members would not confuse these classes when dealing with the question. He maintained that on the main body of Indians in Natal this £3 tax which it was now proposed should be removed constituted no burden, but on that portion only which had come out knowing full well that unless they reindentured themselves or returned to India they would have to pay that tax. He would like the House to consider the grounds upon which the Commission based their reasons for removing the tax. They recommended it for two reasons: the first was that the Act was inoperative; another was that the tax was imposed upon a minority which would be placed in a worse position than those who had come into Natal in earlier times. With regard to the first objection, he had figures to show that the tax accomplished what it was intended to do. The Act was passed in 1895, but owing to the fact that certain Indians were then indentured, and as the tax was not made retrospective it became operative in 1901, because it was not proclaimed till August, 1896, having meanwhile been approved by the British and Indian Governments. It would then be seen that the Act, as soon as it came into force, had an immediate effect. The figures of those returning to India in 1895 were 415; in 1896, 296; in 1897, 418; in 1898, 188; in 1899, 503; in 1900, 448; in 1901. 639. Then the Act came into force in 1902, when 1,482 returned to India, thus showing the effect which that tax had upon the Indians who had served their term of indenture. In 1903 the number was 2,029; in 1904, 1,672; in 1905, 2,078; in 1906, 3,939; in 1907, 3,484; and in the following year, according to the evidence before the Commission, out of 7,735 who had completed their indentures, 3,989 returned to India, those who were left, of course, taking up their licences. In 1909 the number rose to 4,895. Who, he asked, would say that the tax was inoperative? Rather, had it not served the purpose for which it was imposed? The true reason was that the tax had not been collected of late. If that had been properly done there was no doubt but that the same proportion of Indians would have left Natal as in the previous years. He thought that disposed of the first reason given by the Commission for the abolition of the tax. In regard to the other point, that the tax was placed upon a small portion of the Indian population, the question might be asked: Why was it placed upon that small proportion and was it an injustice done to that minority? They found that prior to 1895 Indians had been taking up occupations in the country instead of returning to India.

Why didn’t you stop bringing them in?

said that a deputation went to India prior to 1895 to make representations to the Indian Government with regard to the return of its subjects. The idea was that the men should either work or go back and not settle down in Natal. Nothing, however, came of the deputation, and in 1895 the Act was passed. The Natal Parliament, however, did not wish to do an injustice to those who had been in Natal prior to the passing of the Act, and these were allowed to remain without any disabilities, because they had been called to Natal, but from that time forward the Government and people were resolved that those who came should be placed under the disability of paying the tax if they remained in the Colony, and there was no doubt that these people knew perfectly well under what conditions they came to this country. Personally, he might say that of all those who had passed through his employ he had never heard a man dispute the terms of his contract. (Hear, hear.) He did not think that when he left India any Indian desired to remain in the country, but that he looked forward to the time when he would go back to India, and in asking that this tax should be removed an act of injustice was being done to Natal. There was a very strong feeling in the northern parts of Natal that the country should not be overrun by Indians. At a recent agricultural conference two resolutions were passed. The first related to the undesirability of having a permanent Indian population and the second to the desirability of retaining the present tax of £3 per head.

During the existence of the Indian strike he (Mr. Clayton) had heard natives working in his own fields saying that if they could not get what they wanted they would have to strike as the Indians had done. The lesson of the Rand strike, followed by the Indian strike, would make it strange if on some other questions there might not be passive resistance on the part of the native population. That was a fear which had been expressed and made by public men in Natal, and that was what had passed in his own mind when he thought of their passing such a Bill as that. The Bill was not going to be final, and would be a sort of stepping stone to civil equality and the franchise. It might be contended that Natal was to blame for having brought these Indians to South Africa. The right hon. member for Victoria West had called them selfish. Well, in 1874 when the second importations had been instituted, it was on account of the drifting away of their native labour to the diamond fields of the Cape. Since then they had had the drifting of their native population to the goldfields of the Union. If they (the Natal people) had been selfish, it had been for their own preservation and to do something for their living and for their work. The question had been raised about these Indians being British subjects. How would that view be dealt with, he asked, if they were to send 100,000 of their native subjects to live in India free to do what, and to go where, they pleased? The desire not to embarrass the British Government at the present time was a point which appealed to him, but in reply to the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) he would say, suppose that a thousand Indians were shipped and arrived at the Cape. Would the hon. member say that they would receive them with open arms and make them their fellow-subjects? In Natal they had gone into the mire and they did not want to go deeper into it. They did not want a proposition which would make them sink deeper into the mire. Referring to what the Minister had said, the hon. member said that, as an employer of Indians and as one who came into contact with very many employers of Indians, effect had been given to the law of 1905, and the Protector of Indians had insisted over and over again that they should provide for the payment of arrears of the £3 licence by instalments. Every endeavour had been made to see that the law was brought into operation. No man was going to run his head into a noose for the sake of a few men who had not paid the licence. The case had been prejudiced, as he had said, by the non-collection of the licences in the past, in the days since Union. As to what the hon. member for ‘Weenen (Mr. Meyler) had said about waxing fat on Indian labour, the hon. member for Victoria County (Mr. Henwood) had never, so far as he knew, had an Indian in his employ, so that it would not be said that the hon. member waxed fat on Indian labour, nor could it be said of the other hon. members to whom he (Mr. Meyler) had alluded. Continuing, Mr. Clayton said that they believed that they represented public opinion in Natal on that matter, and that the colonists of Natal were opposed to the continuance of the Indians within the borders of Natal as colonists. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) had inquired what was the use of keeping the licence on. It was costing the employers of Natal just as much having that indentured labour as if these men were free men, but the difference was that if they became free men they might not return to India, but settle on the land or engage in other occupations. That was the the purpose of the tax, that a man must return after he had served his period. He knew that the Immigration Board had sent a telegram that they agreed to the abolition of the £3 licence for the purpose of not embarrassing the British Government. Their first duty in South Africa, said the hon. member, was to themselves—(Ministerial cheers)—and they had a right to protect themselves, so that those who came into the country knowing that they would have to pay, and were now serving out their periods of indenture, might finish their time and might be compelled to carry out the terms of their contract under which they had come to South Africa. Knowing how the unenlightened native and Indian would regard that measure as yielding to force, he must oppose its second reading.

said that he took exception to the remark of the hon. member for Zululand, that he was speaking for the people of Natal. That was not so, because he was only speaking for the people who had brought the Indians into the country and who were exploiting them for their own ends. It was interesting to listen to the various Natal members who opposed the measure on the ground that the abolition of the £3 tax was going to flood the Province with free labourers, and that that would be bad for the white community. From what they had said one would have thought that they had stood up on platforms and advocated that these men should not be allowed to land. He (Mr. Boydell) had been connected for some years with an agitation which had for its object the prevention of these Indians being allowed to land in the country, and being exploited for industries which Natal could very well have done without. These were the men who had spoken in that House whom he (Mr. Boydell) and his friends had had to fight. One of the blessings of Union, so far as Natal was concerned, was the fact that the Union Government put a stop to the further importation of indentured Indian labour, and those men who had spoken in that House that night had waxed rich on the labour of these Indians. What had Natal got after all? They had got 135,000 Indians against 99,000 Europeans. They had a sugar industry which had they never seen the country would have been better off to the tune of half a million a year. He admitted that this was a problem that bristled with difficulties, but let not the Minister imagine that this was a final settlement. They were only starting with it. If they had to deal with it properly they would have to deal with it on more radical lines. But happenings during the last 12 months, the sacrifices by the Indian community and the bloodshed had forced the Minister to come to grips with the Indian problem. Incidentally he pointed out that the trouble in Natal in the past had been that the balance of political power had been held by the country party. He pointed out that all the members of the last Government in Natal were elected by 2,000 votes altogether, whereas the hon. member for Roodepoort, who was then the junior member for Durban, got 2,000 votes himself. Most of the clauses of the Bill they could not disagree with on principle. They had got the question of the £3 tax, and they had also got the very important clause which had not been sufficiently touched upon except by the hon. member for Tembuland, viz., clause 6, which provided for free passages back to India, not only to indentured Indians, but, he took it, to all Indians in Natal. That was a big step in the right direction, but it was not by a long way a big enough step. The indentured Indians in Natal had had their passes on the termination of their indentures, or, if they liked to re-indenture, any Indian, no matter how long he might have been in the country, could have a free pass back to India. With that part of the clause they were in agreement, but he hoped to move an amendment so as to extend the provisions of this clause in order that the Government might deal with this problem in the way in which it should be dealt with. That was why he would not be altogether against a referendum of the people in Natal if it were put on a wide basis so as to enable them to deal with the problem as a whole. They must remember that in removing the disabilities from one section of the community they should not create additional disabilities upon another section. They had got to take care that in doing justice to one section they did not inflict an injustice on another section.

With regard to the £3 tax, he was not one of those who in the past had attached very great importance to this tax, whether it was on or off. It was impossible to defend its retention on the grounds of principle. As had been shown in this House, it had been largely ineffective. The authorities had not been able to collect it in the past, and he did not suppose that, if it were retained, they would be able to collect it in the future. The hon. member for Zululand had quoted some figures showing the effect which this tax had had in making Indians return to India. As far as they went, those figures were quite correct, but they did not go far enough. It would be found that the number of Indians who returned to India or went back into indenture very largely depended upon the degree of prosperity or depression in the country. (Hear, hear.) They would find that when Natal was going through a period of depression the number of Indians who returned to India went up considerably. If the hon. member for Zululand had not stopped at the year 1908 he would have seen how, when there was a revival of trade, the number of Indians who returned to India fell in a very marked fashion. In 1908 the number who returned was 4,685, but in 1909, when things started to get a little bit better, the number who returned fell to 3,614, and the figures for the next few years were as follows: 1910, 3,199; 1911, 2,630; 1912, 1,409; 1913, 1,700. He would like to give the House the number of Indians who were liable to this tax in 1912, the number who paid the tax, and the number of prosecutions under the tax. This tax, to his mind, was nothing more or less than a blind, throwing dust into the eyes of the population of Natal, who were agitating for the stoppage of further importation into Natal. This was a case of the chickens coming home to roost. In 1912, out of a total number of free Indians of 46,000, the number of men liable to this tax was 10,206, and the number who paid the tax was 1,594. The Government collected £4,782 from the men, whereas they should have collected £30,600 if they had all paid the tax. The number of women liable was 5,089, and the number who actually paid the tax was 41.

The Government collected £123 out of £15,267 from the women. An hon. member asked why didn’t the Government collect this tax? He (Mr. Boydell) would like to refer him to the speech of Mr. Harry Escombe in moving the second reading of the Act of 1895. They could take civil proceedings for non-payment of the tax, but they could not put the Indian into gaol for non-payment, as it was not a criminal offence. Nor could they compel the Indians to return to India in the event of their refusing to pay the tax. In 1912 341 Indians were prosecuted for non-payment of the tax, but they did not pay after all, and 90 of them were prosecuted to show cause why they did not pay. Seven of that number wore put in prison, not for non-payment of the tax in the first place, but for refusing to comply with the order of the Court to pay so much a month. There was the weakness of the whole thing, and the people of Natal accepted that as a solution when it was only dust thrown into their eyes, and the sooner the people realised that whether the tax was on or off it made no difference in the general movements of the Indian population, the sooner would they find the solution of the problem. With regard to repatriation, said Mr. Boydell when the hon. members for Victoria County, for Berea, and for Zululand all professed a great interest in the white community of Natal, he thought they should support an amendment to ask the Government to inaugurate a scheme which would include the assistance of all parties concerned, the Indian Government, the Indian community of Natal, the Home Government and the South African Government, to see if they could not put their heads together to enable them to repatriate large numbers of the Indians, and give them sufficient inducement to go back to India. Large numbers would be quite willing to take advantage of it.

We must hear the scheme.

said it was not his place to lay down any cut and dried scheme, but he thought on the lines he had suggested they could work out a scheme which would serve the purpose. He had had many talks with Indians in Natal. One had told him that he had been there 21 years. He was a man holding a high position, and was very well educated. His social standing was equal to any white and he said that if the Government would offer him £50 to take his wife and family back to India he would be prepared to go to-morrow. He (Mr. Boydell) did not think he was any exception to the rule. A large number of them agreed it would be more satisfactory if they could go back to India, and receive some monetary compensation. That would be more acceptable than patch-work schemes.

It had been said that Indians would not be satisfied until they got full political and civil rights. Well, it would be difficult to Stop any community advancing in knowledge when there was latent capacity on their part to learn and adapt themselves quickly to the highest educational standards. If they were taxpayers and equal to the other citizens of the country educationally it was difficult in theory to deny them full civil and political rights, however disastrous that might be to other sections of the community. There were 50,000 adult male Indians in Natal, free and indentured, 27,000 women, and 58,000 children, making a total of 155,000 in all. Against that 50,000 men there were only 30,000 male adult Europeans. There was a majority already of 20,000 male adult Indians in Natal as compared with the white male population, and whilst the Indian population was increasing year by year by leaps and bounds the white male adult population of Natal had gone down by no less than 4,000 since the previous census. Ten years ago there were something like 200 white tailors employed, and very few Indians in Durban. To-day they could not find more than 60 white tailors there, but they would find between 200 and 300 Indian tailors. Many of those 60 white tailors could not possibly compete with the Indian tailors owing to the low standard of living amongst the Indians. In the French polishing trade the white men got 14s. a day, and the Indian £3 to £5 a month. Ten years ago the majority of the French polishing in Natal was done by whites, but to-day it was done by Indians. The same applied in the upholstering trade, and in the painting and tinsmithing businesses again, the Indian was ousting the white man out of the country altogether. The trade had increased tremendously in Natal, and that increase had been made possible by absorbing more Indians and Kafirs and doing with fewer whites. The position as regards Natal was indeed a serious one. We had either got to save our sugar industries or to save Natal. (Hear, hear.) The position was quite simple, they had got to save a few industries which had been worked by Indian labour or to save the white population of that Province, and it rested with that House to say what they were going to do. He did not doubt but what the Bill was an honest attempt on the part of the Minister to settle the question, but to his (the speaker’s) mind it was only a step towards a settlement. He had am amendment to move, although it was difficult to oppose a Bill while agreeing with its main principle. Much had been said about the Indian being fully aware of the contract he was entering into when coming to this country, but from reliable evidence they were told that this was not the case, but that they were more or less hustled into accepting the terms. His amendment was to omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House is of opinion that legislation modifying the present laws relating to the Indians in Natal should, contain provisions definitely prohibiting any further importation of indentured Indian or other labour to Natal and that the Government should take into consideration the advisability of providing inducements including monetary compensation to members of the present Indian population to return to India.” They wanted the Minister, when replying, to give a categorical assurance that something on these lines would be done, but something that would be fair to the Indians themselves. He thought an attempt should be made to settle them down in their own country, even if they had to pension them off for life. That was a view held by the majority of people in Natal—that some inducement should be held out to them to go back again to their own country. He would not be at all surprised if the Indian Government would, if asked, place land at the disposal of these men. He thought a gift of money here and land in India would induce them to return.

Will the hon. member read his amendment.

again read it.

No, no, that is expenditure—monetary contribution.

It is only asking the Government—

If that is carried, it means that the Government must introduce legislation incurring expenditure.

No; it is only asking the Government to consider the advisability.

Let me look at the amendment.

having read out the amendment, asked who seconded it.

seconded the amendment.

said that he desired to make a personal explanation.

Yes; with the leave of the House.

thereupon said that in the end of his speech he had misquoted a telegram, and he had not read the word “not” which appeared therein. The resolution which had been unanimously passed was that the Board approved of the action of the Government in not giving way to pressure, etc.

said that the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Boydell) had suggested two alternatives, but he thought that both could be carried out. The leaders of the sugar industry of Natal had told the Commission in 1908 that they could grow sugar in Natal at a profit by using white labour, if they could only secure conditions similar to those in Australia. The sooner the Government looked in that direction the better it would be for all, He thought that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Clayton) would agree that Natal had always been more than just to the planters, and now under Union the Natal planters were treated with more generosity. Had the planters taken advantage of their opportunity or had they turned their face in another direction, and had they not in spite of a large quantity of Indian labour available in Natal gone to India for another Supply? Did the hon. member remember what had been done at the end of 1910 or the beginning of 1911, when allotments had been cut up and Indians settled there as a bait to the people of India, but they had not taken the bait, and the people had not come? He did not understand the hon. member’s jeremiad about land being cut up and ousting the white man. He (Mr. Haggar) had found that it was not the white man who was required there, for when white men had been unemployed he had tried to get them to cut cane in the sugar fields, but not a single one was allowed to do so. The hon. member proceeded to quote from what Col. Wylie had said in the Natal Parliament that they had laid down a law that no Indian should work unless he had paid his licence and that no man could employ him until the licence had been paid; that the licence was payable through his wife and children, and that if had never been intended that the wife should pay.

He regarded this as the real black peril of South Africa. It was an economic menace whether it was a social menace or not, and anything that the Government did in the way of limiting or destroying the evil he would be prepared to support. He was sorry that the Government had not gone further than it had done, and said that 75 per cent. of the people of Natal would be prepared to support any movement on the part of the Government to send the Indians out of Natal. He then referred to a tour which he made in Natal with another gentleman, and said at every centre they held a meeting on this question they carried a resolution unanimously in favour of stopping Indian Immigration.

At this point,

intervened and said that the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, had moved an amendment which should be in the nature of a superseding amendment to the second reading of the Bill, and it stated that legislation should be introduced prohibiting the importation of indentured Indian labour. He thought that that was the law now.

No, sir.

That is the law under the Act of last year, as far as I remember.

said that the law did not definitely prohibit the importation of indentured Indian labour. He read the clause and pointed out that it rested with the Minister. There was nothing definite which would prevent a Government from acceding to a request that indentured Indian labour should be imported.

That was to attain the object, was it not?

said that the law did not specifically prohibit the importation at present.

The hon. member is quite right—the prohibition of importation is in general terms. That has been exercised, and the Minister has deemed that all Asiatics are unsuitable to the country.

said that other Ministers might think differently. There was no security that another Minister might not deem Asiatics suitable for the Province of Natal.

The hon. member can proceed.

said he believed that in two years all existing indentures in Natal would cease and there would be a good chance for the Minister to take a bigger step if he desired to do so. He referred to the prohibition of Kanaka labour in Australia, and said that, of course, at first there was a howl, but since then the industries of the country had been doing very well. In two years in Natal the Government could see that better labour was employed, or it could take over the sugar estates at a valuation and work them themselves. Dealing with the tax, he said that whether it was continued or taken off he did not think it would make a great deal of difference. The fact of the matter was that the principle was bad, and the speaker went on to deal with the tax in relation to Indian women. The hon. member went on to say that, if it were intended that the tax should not be paid by women, that injustice ought to be removed. He knew hundreds of instances where the men had been absolutely unable to pay the tax. It had been a very cruel imposition, apart from the amount and from any principle involved in it.

With regard to the object of the tax, he pointed out that he had heard planters, members of Parliament, and employers of Indian labour in Natal, say again and again that it was not the tax they wanted, but they wanted to compel the Indians to re-indenture. Hon. members in the Natal Parliament said that they would rather have the Indians after the first term, because they Were worth more money. They used and worked them until they could work no longer. They had been told that these Indians re-indentured because they were satisfied with the conditions of service. The Protector, however, said that the immediate object of re-indenturing was not to secure a passage to return to India, but because they were penniless and in debt, and had not saved enough to return to India. He (Mr. Haggar) was not going to say that cruelties had been very extensive, but there had been cases of very harsh treatment. He hoped the Government would make up their minds soon. He had a scheme whereby this matter could be settled. Let them take away the privileges from the sugar industry which it had enjoyed so long, and send the coolies back with a nice little sum in their pockets. In five years’ time they could empty the country at least of all the undesirables. They must put the Natal sugar industry on a fair basis, fair from the standpoint of the country, and not rob the country year after year, as it had been robbed and was being robbed to-day. On economic grounds this system ought to cease, on grounds of humanity it ought to cease, and if we had any Christianity at all it would cease and cease straight away. He hoped the Government would resolve that there should be a real settlement, a settlement that would endure.

said that on this Bill he took a view which was opposite to that of many of his colleagues from Natal. It seemed to him that the hon. member who had moved this amendment did not desire to see a settlement of this question, because his amendment would have the effect of indefinitely postponing legislation on the subject. That was part and parcel of the methods of the members on the cross-benches session after session. They wanted to create difficulties. The other amendment, that the second reading should be taken that day six months, meant postponing it for ever. He could not agree with that, and with regard to the referendum amendment, why that was equally impossible now that Natal had entered the Union. There appeared to have been an air of unreality about the discussion since two o’clock. The hon. member referred to the evidence of one of the witnesses before the Commission, which expressed the opinion that the tax was not an inducement to cause indentured Indians to return to their country. That was an opinion which the Commission itself also agreed with. That talk about goading the Indians into rebellion gave one to think that a tremendous number would be affected. But the tax had almost fallen into disuse, and of the 10,000 who were liable to be called upon to pay the tax it was only collected from some 3,600—those who were in constant employment and easily got at. The tax was not worth while collecting from a revenue point of view, and matters had now gone so far that it would not be possible to properly collect the tax. If it would put them in a position to remove embarrassment from the British Government it was not worth while to enforce the tax. But it was not the desire on the part of some of the Natal members who had spoken, so much to force the Indians to go back as to cause them to re-indenture. Why should they not be honest and say so? Even on that ground, however, it would not last very long, because further indentured labour had been stopped from coming into the country, and soon they would be all tree labourers. They would not go back, because there was more inducement at the present time for those men to remain in this country than previously. He wished to support the second reading of the Bill, believing it to be an honest attempt to settle the difficulty of the £3 licence, a matter of which far too much had been made.

said it was not his intention lightly to deal with an important matter like this. When they went to Natal and saw the position of affairs prevailing there, they at once realised the seriousness of this question. Every speaker to-day had emphasised that the coolie was an undesirable element. We did not wish to treat the Asiatic harshly or unjustly, but he held that an attempt should be made to get rid of the Indian. Instead of the Bill, however, doing that, it proposed to make matters easier for him. He felt that the £3 licence constituted an incentive for the Asiatic to return to India. And now it was proposed to remove this incentive. He could not see that there was anything harsh in the £3 licence, especially in view of the fact that the indentured labourers had come to South Africa knowing exactly under what terms they came here. The new danger which was being created was that the coolie could settle on the land as a free labourer. He remained here because in this country he could make a better existence than in his own country. In twenty years’ time the country would swarm with coolies, and the effects on the white population could only be disastrous. They already numbered 140,000 against less than 100,000 whites. Everyone who had come in contact with Asiatics knew how difficult it was to compete against them in every sphere of trade and commerce. Under the Act of last year the Asiatic was given certain protection, but this new Bill extended this protection even further. It was curious how certain suggestions made by “The Times” last year had been acted on, Mr. Wilcocks went on to say, by General Smuts as “Minister of the Empire.” He wished the House to realise the dangers to which it was exposing the country. They often heard of a white man’s country, but how could they ever make it a white man’s country in these circumstances? His fears for the adoption of this Bill had not been greatly reduced after the speeches of the Natal members. The hon. member for Umvoti (Colonel Leuchars) was to him like the Oracle of Delphi. On a previous occasion he had made his voice heard on an important question, and had caused a great tumult in the country. However, his voice had then been listened to. If it was again listened to now, he would go a long way towards mending the wrong he had done then. In conclusion, Mr. Wilcocks said that he hoped the Government would not go on with this measure.

said that he could not understand why that coolie tax had not been collected, and if there was a law which required that the tax should be paid, it seemed that there was something wrong because that tax had not been collected, and the Minister of Finance in his speech had not made it clear why that tax had not been collected. If the law was not to be carried out in regard to the Asiatics in Natal, it was no use passing another law if it would simply lead to another evasion. He asked if the Minister of Finance would allow them to escape the income tax if they wandered about the country—because the Asiatics did not pay their tax because it was said that they wandered about. The native poll tax, the hon. member went on to say, was collected through the country, and it seemed to him that there were other reasons for the non-collection of that tax on coolies than the reason that it was difficult to collect. Instead of imposing further disabilities on the Asiatics they were now removing disabilities and making it easier for Indians in that country. The hon. member proceeded to quote from the evidence given by Mr. Dick before the Indian Commission as to how Indians evaded and circumvented the immigration regulations. It did seem to him, said the hon. member, that instead of relaxing the laws they should be strengthened. The Asiatic question was such a serious one in South Africa that they could not, and dare not, trifle with it. The other dominions had taken steps to keep Asiatics out of their country, and these dominions had nothing like the difficult problem which they had in South Africa in connection with the coloured question. It had been shown over and over again how when Europeans and Asiatics came together the Europeans went invariably to the wall. As to what the hon. member for Durban, Berea (Mr. Henderson) had said about the Orange Free State sitting still, he would find the Orange Free State with him to a man in preventing the entry of any more Indians to South Africa. The Orange Free State at present was being invaded by Asiatics from Natal, as the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) could bear out, The hon. member (Mr. Henderson) might rely upon the support of the people of the Orange Free State in regard to restrictions against Asiatics entering that country. Dealing with the position of Natal, the hon. member said that if Natal had made a mistake in the past and Natal had seen that it was a mistake, South Africa should see what could be done to deal with that very great evil which existed in Natal. Continuing, he said that the removal of the disabilities would be an encouragement to Indians of all classes to stay in South Africa, and he thought that they should not complicate their problems by the importation of more colour into South Africa. A gentleman, whose opinion was valuable, told him that in time the Free State would be overrun by coolies, and he asked his friends not only to fight for the purpose of keeping the coolies out of the Free State, but to fight so that more might not enter South Africa. Messrs. Gandhi and Company had told them that this £3 tax business was merely the beginning, and that what they were aiming at was equality with the white man and for the franchise. He read an interview which had taken place with Mr. Polak, who said that they wanted the assurance of the Minister that the Immigration Act would be sympathetically administered. He also said that the acceptance of the Bill did not mean the abrogation of the claim to civil equality in South Africa. He thought that members from the Free State were opposed to any lightening of the burdens on Asiatics.

As a convinced opponent of the admission of Asiatics into South Africa, he would oppose any loosening of the bonds. Instead of sitting there and considering the question of removing disabilities on Asiatics in South Africa they ought to be considering legislation which would repatriate all these Asiatics that we had in this country. He would vote against this Bill, because he believed that in removing these disabilities they were opening the door further to the admission of Asiatics into South Africa.

said that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, knew as well as he (Mr. Creswell) did that this was the only stage at which it was competent for them to move an amendment indicating their objection to the Government measure, on the ground that there was no provision for expenditure in a certain direction, which they believed absolutely necessary to make the policy of this Bill efficient. It was perfectly open to the Minister in Committee to propose an amendment to strengthen clause 6 by offering distinct monetary inducement to any Indians who were prepared to emigrate back to their own country. With regard to the second point, about which Mr. Speaker had some doubt, the question of the importation of further indentured labour, they anticipated, approving as they did in the main of this Bill, that the main effect of the abolition of the £3 tax was going to be a distinct blow at the indentured Indian labour system. The effect would be that the planters, if they wished to retain their Indians, would probably have to pay them higher wages. They knew that influences would be brought to bear on the Government, to which the Government would always find itself amenable, to depart from their present stated policy of refusing to allow any further indentured supply to supplement the supply of labour, which would be found to be running short. In two years’ time they might have pressure brought to bear on the Government to cause some other experiment to be tried. They on the cross-benches did not want one form of indentured labour to be superseded by another; what they did want was that the Government should recognise that the difficulty was of our own causing, and that we must spend money to induce as many Indians as possible to return. Then, no longer under the fear of a continually advancing tide of Indian population, but with the stream flowing the other way, we should be able to deal with the whole matter in a calmer and wiser spirit.

said to him it appeared there was no hardship in the contracts signed by the Indians. But now it seemed that the Indians wished this House to alter the contracts which they themselves had entered into. After having concluded the indentures they had to obtain a certain pass, for which they had to pay £3, if they wished to remain here, or else accept a free passage to India. There were no real grievances. What were called grievances were what the Indians were told by agitators like Gandhi and Co. If the collection of the tax was difficult, where the magistrate had to hand out the pass to the Indians for which he was paid £3, then he wondered how the new taxes were to be collected. Surely the magistrate had a list of those people, and if they did not pay, there were the police. If the tax was not collected, why then was it not? How could, in these circumstances, the Government complain of lack of revenue? How did Gandhi, Polak and Co. know of this Bill, he asked, before even this House knew anything about it? He disagreed with the statement of the hon. member for Ladybrand, that Indians still entered the Free State. Since the passage of last year’s Act, he wished to say, to the credit of the Minister of Finance, that no Indians had entered the Free State. (Hear, hear.) He quoted the case of an Indian who had been sent back from Ficksburg to Cradock. It was simply a matter of Administration, and he wished to tell Mr. Gandhi that if he with his followers entered the Free State he would quickly be thrown over the borders. In conclusion, Mr. Keyter said that he could not vote for this Bill, and that he did not see any necessity to impose fresh taxation, seeing that such a large source of revenue was neglected and ignored, and he was not in favour of abolishing the so-called £3 tax.

in replying on the debate, said he had heard many arguments in the course of the debate, but very few indeed against that Bill. The whole force of the arguments had been directed against the policy—the fatal suicidal policy—adopted by the Natal people many years ago. That policy had been condemned here more strongly by the Natal members than by members from any other part of the Union. If Natal had made a mistake many years ago, and had been trying to undo that mistake by trying to pass impossible legislation, that did not absolve them from doing their duty. They found that it was possible to-day to arrive at a solution—the subject was a difficult one, and the matter had cost a great deal of trouble already, but to-day they thought they could get to some finality. Hon. members asked what reason had he or the Government for supposing that some finality might be reached in the matter. Well, they had heard from the Government of India that they were satisfied with the report of that Commission, and that if that report were carried out they would look upon it, from their point of view, as satisfactory. If the people of this country could come to some solution which could be approved of by the Government of England, as it had been approved of by the Government of India, they had gone a long way towards a solution of the difficulty. It was said, would the Indians accept it? The hon. Minister went on to quote from an article in “Indian Opinion” of June 3, where the Bill was referred to, and other administrative actions which had been taken in terms of the report of the Commission. The article wound up By saying that the struggle, which had gone on for years, and had meant enormous losses and suffering to the community, might be said to be fitly and honourably closed.

He thought therefore that they might assume, whatever might lie in the distant future, that if that Bill passed, and the Government carried into effect the other recommendations of the Commission, then they might assume that they would have peace. The hon. member for Greyville had moved an amendment, the object of which was to go a good deal further in the direction of repatriation of Indians. He (the Minister) thought that the hon. member wanted more effective steps taken to see the Indians in this country repatriated, and no further Indian labour brought here. To the last point no assurance was necessary. Unless something quite unforeseen happened no indentured Indian labour would come into South Africa again. With regard to the other point, to secure repatriation he might say that the Government would go a long way to secure that point of view. From what he had heard it was the universal opinion, not only of the people of South Africa, but also of the people of Natal. He could assure hon. members from Natal that the Government would do all in its power to get Natal out of the mire. They were at a very late stage of the session, and they were determined to get this Bill through. If they overloaded this Bill with repatriation provisions they would cause trouble. Let them deal with that matter separately, and on its merits. The Government would favour a policy of repatriation, and go a long way to see it carried out. He hoped the hon. members, on the cross-benches would not therefore shelter themselves behind this, amendment, because the Bill went a long way in the direction they desired. He thought the Government was proposing to take the right course, and he hoped the House would stand loyally by the Government.

put the question that all the words after “that,” proposed to be omitted from the original motion for the second reading of the Bill, stand part of the motion, and declared that the “Ayes ” had it.

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

Ayes—60.

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Hewat, John

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Mentz, Hendrik

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. C. Becker and F. R. Cronje, tellers.

Noes—24.

Andrews, William Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Keyter. Jan Gerhard

Leuchars, George

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Sampson, Henry William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

Thomas Boydell and C. T. M. Wilcocks, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendments proposed by Mr. Henwood, Mr. Van Niekerk, and Mr. Boydell, dropped.

The motion that the Bill be read a second time was then agreed to. The Bill was read a second time, and set down for the Committee stage on Thursday next.