from J. Wentworth-Sykes, a farmer, who incurred losses in an action for damages against the Minister of Railways and Harbours in connection with a fire caused by coal from a railway engine.

from A. G. S. Cooke and 1,658 farmers and others, in support of the above petition of J. Wentworth-Sykes.

laid on the Table papers relating to the Grants of Land in Native Territories, and moved that the papiers be referred to the Committee on Native Affairs.

The motion was agreed to.

announced that the Governor-General had been pleased to give his assent to the following Bills:

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill, Prescription Further Amendment (Transvaal) Bill, Cape Liquor Licensing Courts Constitution Amendment Bill, and the Natal Public Health Acts (Re-enactment and Amendment) Bill.

said he had a suggestion to make to the hon. Minister which would facilitate the passing of that measure, and that was that the clause should be withdrawn. The clause was unnecessary and was a clause which would be very much misunderstood in this country. He had indicated before that they considered the introduction of a clause of that character into the Bill was very objectionable, and he did hope that before they entered upon a long and perhaps acrimonious discussion of that clause the Government would reconsider the matter and withdraw it. He thought the Government had sufficient power under the Bill without introducing a clause of that description. It provided deportation for political offences where the circumstances were entirely different from other offences. To place in the power of the Government the deportation of people convicted of crimes of that description was not the sort of clause the Government should entertain. It made an invidious distinction in meting out to one section of the population a punishment they were not able to mete out to another section of the population. He hoped the House would not entertain a clause of that character. The clause would cause a tremendous amount of discussion. He knew the Government had a majority and could force the clause through the House if they desired, but he hoped the Government would not use that majority to pass a clause of that nature.

said he was surprised at the remarks of the hon. gentleman. Last year the House had unanimously passed the Immigrants Regulation Act, which included a clause of that sort. If that clause were to he misconstrued he could not understand why last year’s Act should not have been misconstrued. He knew that the objection was raised that it dealt with people who came from outside South Africa. In last year’s Act deportation was provided in respect of persons convicted of murder, rape, arson, theft, receiving stolen goods, fraud, forgery, or uttering forged documents, counterfeiting coin, housebreaking, burglary, robbery, threats by letter or otherwise to extort, or any attempt at those offences; in addition contraventions of the liquor law, and the immorality and gold laws. All that was intended now was to extend that punishment to crimes which were a menace to the State. Nobody would be more pleased than the Government if it never became necessary to enforce that clause. One of the best pieces of legislation the House had ever passed was the Immigrants Regulation Act. Unfortunately they had had a collection here, owing to the war, etc., of criminals from all parts of the world, men to whom ordinary punishment did not appeal at all. Several cases had come before him in the course of his duties and he could give a large number of instances. The last that had come before him was that of a man who was convicted ten times in Australia between 1888 and 1889 for various offences. He came to South Africa after the war and during his ten years in South Africa he had been convicted eight times for housebreaking, theft, etc. Why should they be saddled with the expense of such a man? Public violence was a crime that took place at a time of great disturbance, but not necessarily so. He knew of the case of a Chinaman who was sentenced in Natal to 4 years’ hard labour for public violence, and he could not be deported. The mere fact that the clause was going to be misconstrued and political capital made out of it ought not to sway the Government. All the Committee had to consider was whether the principle of the Immigration Act should be extended. He did not think anybody for a, single moment could say that an offence against the liquor law was more serious than an offence under that Act. He wished to correct the report which had gained ground on the cross-benches that the Government desired to deport men for almost any crime. That this was not so was clearly proved by the clause which mentioned the crimes for which the penalty was deportation, namely, high treason, sedition, and public violence. All these were very serious offences which struck at the very root of law and order. He could not withdraw the clause as he considered it to be a very sound one.

said there were one or two points in the statement of the Minister of Justice which he hoped he would reconsider. The first was the question of prohibited immigrants. He was aware, of course, that an immigrant could not be born in this country, but he wished to point out a confusion into which the Minister wished to lead them between prohibiting undesirable immigrants from landing and sentencing to banishment under the Immigration Act. If this were an independent country there would be a naturalisation law and the country would be as responsible for a naturalised citizen as for one born here, so that the Minister’s argument about the justice of deporting a man who was not born in the country fell to the ground. He maintained that it was a vicious principle to differentiate in regard to punishment for sedition, etc., as between those not born in the country and those who were. If banishment was considered an extreme punishment then it should be administered to those who were born in the country, because they were the greatest transgressors, and to them a sentence of exile would be a greater penalty than to the man who was simply returned to the land from whence he came. Any country naturally had a perfect right to prohibit the immigration of those they considered undesirable, but this clause was not for the purpose of dealing with immigration, but the deportation of citizens of the Union. In any case the basis on which the question of deportation should be decided should not be the accident of birth but the seriousness of a person’s guilt. Parliament had decided that when a man came to settle down here, if he committed a number of crimes the Immigration Officer had the power to prevent him entering the country. But he did not think they ought to contend that a man could be turned out of the country after once becoming a citizen of the Union. He might be made to suffer the penalties of his wrongdoing but should not be banished. He was going to move the deletion of the clause, but before doing so he would like to say a few words with regard to clause 22 of the Immigration Act. He was convinced that when the House passed that Act hon. members were not aware what they were doing. The question of banishment had not then assumed the importance which it had to-day, and he hoped the matter would be treated very seriously. The principle adopted by all countries was that penalties shall be adjudicated on by official officers and not be placed in the hands of the Executive, because the latter were likely to impose penalties which no court of justice would do. He did not believe that such a case as that in which Colonel Truter had a number of men torn from their surroundings and deported without trial could ever have occurred if the matter had been in the hands of official officers. Nor did he think that when the Immigration Act was passed that ever such circumstances were contemplated. The point was this: That they did not desire to have in this country a sort of lettres de cachet, by which, under the Police Act, it shall be decided that persons who committed a crime some years ago, but who had expiated their offence, should be considered undesirable persons. The power to inflict the punishment of banishment should be in the hands of a judge of the supreme court, and not of an executive officer. With regard to the crimes mentioned in the clause they had that of sedition, but the Minister of Finance had been at a loss to define the word. He had stated that it was a mediaeval crime. If that were so, then why was it placed in the clause? Hon. members on the cross-benches wished to be defended from the possibility of being charged with the crime of sedition should they by chance call the Government hard names. As to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), it would be a little difficult for an ordinary man to understand how a person could applaud, support and strongly fight for the banishment of particular individuals, who were objectionable to himself, without a semblance of trial, and talk in tones of solemn dignity against penalties being prescribed in law as a result of the conviction for the same offence. It was surely wrong to put into the hands of executive authority a penalty which was far greater than one a court could impose.

said that if the object of the hon. member who had just spoken was to get the Minister to reconsider his decision, he must say that the hon. member had got a funny way of doing it. He must lead a man by the hand, but not whack him over the head with a thick stick. Here they saw the hon. member for Fort Beaufort trying to come back to firm land and there they had one of his friends striking him over the head. He did not know of any baser ingratitude. (Laughter.) The hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt) had voted for banishment without trial, and here he spoke against a man being deported after trial. He (Mr. Merriman) did not much approve of deportation; it was a barbarous punishment. It had long ago been given up, not because people were more humane, but because of its futility. How were they going to carry out their perpetual banishment? Were they going to prevent these people from living in German South West Africa ? They could not have an “Umgeni” hired every day to send them 6,000 miles away. Would they put them in a little nest where they could stir up strife? He would recommend those gentlemen who were such converts to banishment to read the extremely interesting case of Thomas Muir, who had been tried by Scotch judges and sentenced to transportation for seven years, his sole crime being that he had advocated reform. He had been sent oversea, but had struggled back to Europe, and had died before he could get back to his native country. The right hon. member went on to say that one could not look at a man who had committed high treason as one looked upon a dirty rascal who had stolen gold or committed the crimes mentioned in the Immigration Act. (Hear, hear.) How many of them on that side of the House would have been deported and banished for life ten years ago? They had all been accused of sedition and stirring up sedition. He wondered if his friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours had never been accused of sedition in that country? Of course, he had He would have been sentenced to banishment ten years ago. Proceeding, the right hon. member said that these things were distasteful to him. One thing they were going to do was to advertise these people. Some of them they would rather be without, and what were they going to advertise them for? Treason and sedition, of which a definition had not been given. The New Zealand Act contained a definition of seditious intention. He would not read the whole of it, but just quote one gem; it was “To promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects.” He thought that there was another section in that House which was prompting ill-will and hostility between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects besides the Labour Party, and they might also be disposed of by that clause. Where were they going to stop? He feared that the Minister was going to walk into a pitfall, but he was afraid that his (Mr. Merriman’s) words would not have any effect on him after he had been whacked over the head by the hon. member on the cross-benches. He (Mr. Merriman) thought he would have been more successful if he had had an earlier innings, for he would have preferred to lead the Minister by the hand. He was afraid that that clause was going to bring about the very thing the Minister wanted to avoid—the creation of feelings of ill-will amongst different classes of people. For public violence they were going to banish a man for life. An election in the country from which his hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) came would not be an election if there was not some sort of public violence. What was a shillelagh for, and a head for, but to bring them together. (Laughter.) In conclusion, the right hon. member said that he thought the Bill was necessary, but it was not added to by these two clauses.

said that that particular clause had caused more animosity against that Bill and had created more ill-feeling than anything else. He quoted the Act of 1913, and said they were told that it was for the purpose of dealing with criminals, and in that respect he agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Jeppe. He felt bound to say that if the House had known how far the Government had intended to go he thought it would not have agreed to the inclusion of the deportation clause in the Act of 1913. The hon. member for Von Brandis had told him of a definite case. A man committed a crime ten years ago and expiated his crime. As soon as the Act of last year was passed the police threatened that they would deport this man under this particular clause. The man then threatened that he would appeal to the courts of the country, and when the police heard of that they dropped the proposed proceedings. Surely that was not the intention of the House when this clause was passed. Proceeding, he referred to the crimes of sedition and high treason, and said he thought that the Minister had made a great mistake in bringing forward this clause at all. Was it his intention to stop men convicted of these offences in other countries from entering this country ? He pointed out that Russia was deporting people from Finland because they would not obey the laws, and were they in this country going to stop the entry of these people? He pointed out that if this law of banishment had been in force since the foundation of South Africa many men would not have seen Parliament. This clause savoured entirely of” Russian methods, and he pointed out that the Russian authorities the other day denied entrance to a man because he was a Jew. This clause did not go so far as that, but it was a step in that direction. The hon. member also pointed out that ander the Immigration Act of 1915 it was possible to deport anybody convicted of crimes laid down in the schedule whether they were committed before or after the commencement of the Act. He pointed out that the clause gave extreme power to the Minister, and said that the Government if it liked could easily remove the Opposition by deportation for stirring up ill-will among His Majesty’s subjects. What about the hon. member for Uitenhage? Was he to be brought before the court and banished? The point was that they never knew how far the Government would go once it gained power of this sort. Then there was the differentiation between the person born in South Africa and the person born oversea, and he thought that would revive feeling that they hoped had died down. Let him take his own case. He (Mr. Jagger) was born in England, but he had been out here for about 30 or 34 years, and this country was his permanent home. By reason of this Bill he was under a different law even to his children. The policy of the Prime Minister had been conciliation, but where was conciliation in this clause? He thought that everybody should be treated alike, and in conclusion declared that the clause was unworthy of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.

said that without this clause the Bill would mean nothing. What would hon. members prefer—to have people who committed acts of violence here and caused general trouble deported or to have them executed? If they were executed the hon. members who opposed this clause would object even more. Conciliation had been referred to. That was all very well, but he was not prepared to conciliate with people who resorted to violence, with murderers and the like. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and the right hon. member for Victoria West did not know the position in Johannesburg, otherwise they would not have spoken as they had done. The right hon. gentleman was the same man who, during the indemnity debate, had asked, “Where are your laws, that you have been sending away these people without a trial?” No decent man need fear the provisions of this clause, but it was an efficient wall against criminals. Why should they be required to show hospitality to all the criminals from other countries? It was essential to protect the peace-loving citizens of this country, and for that reason he supported the clause.

said he had never stated that such a provision should be passed, but when the Bill was brought in he was bound to do his best to make it efficient, but they would be making the Bill inefficient to put in such a clause. His hon. friend did not see one inch further than Johannesburg. But Johannesburg was not the whole of South Africa. (Loud cheers.) There were a good many other places, and many people had been accused of sedition and incitement to sedition, and if this law had been in existence they would have been sent out of the country. They were not legislating merely for a passing phase. The idea of passing a law of this kind simply for one place at one particular time was not wise. They were passing it for the whole of the country and for all time. (Cheers.) They were not always going to have a Government in which they could have the implicit reliance they had in the present Ministry. He had seen other Governments and some very strange things done, and if the hon. member lived as long as he (Mr. Merriman) had he would bitterly regret that he had put such weapons in the hands of authority. He thought the clause was a foolish one, and would undo a great deal of good which could be done by the Bill, and he did not feel at liberty to vote for it. (Cheers.)

said he felt very strongly against the clause. The Committee should not be too much influenced by the fact that there was a clause of this kind in the Immigrants’ Regulation Act (section 22). Parliament should never have passed that clause—(Opposition cheers) —for it was a most dangerous one. It did not give a court of justice power to add deportation to its sentence, but it gave the Minister power, for any offence committed before or after the passing of the Act, to order a man out of the country by a mere rescript. To his knowledge that power had been used in a most unjustifiable manner. (Opposition cheers.) That was the danger of such a clause. A man for an offence committed ten years before the passing of the Act, and although he was loading a perfectly respectable life, might be ordered out of the country. This clause would apply to offences committed before the passing of the Bill. (Opposition cheers.) Parliament would be absolutely foolish to put that power into the hands of any Government. (Hear, hear.) While no doubt crimes of the nature contemplated in the clause were committed by men who were a danger to society, they were always committed in times of excitement by men who were perfectly good citizens—(Opposition cheers)—and whom the country would be the poorer to be without, for, after all, a country which had no political disturbances and no citizens who thought that things were not what they should be, was in a way to become politically dead. (Opposition cheers.) Authority was always apt to take a short, instead of a long, view in times of trouble. Although he was quite alive to the necessity of preserving order and preventing public authority being overthrown by people whose only object was personal gain, all the good that could be done by this clause would be far more than counterbalanced by the evil which also could be done under it. It would be an absolute, outrage to pass such a clause. (Opposition cheers.)

maintained that there was no necessity for the clause, for the Government still possessed exactly the same power to do as it did in January last, and there was nothing to prevent Government from ejecting men from the country to-morrow. But there was one safeguard—Government could only do this provided it felt confident that Parliament and the majority of the people were behind it. If the country were again faced by a set of circumstances similar to those which occurred in January last, the Government would be perfectly right to put that power into operation and he would support it. But they must not forget that political feeling was not yet altogether dead, and the power contained in the clause might be liable to abuse in the hands of a weak Government—(hear, hear)—which might be inclined to be influenced by political prejudice, and might hastily deport men who, in some way, were objectionable to the Government, although these men were not a real danger to the country.

moved the deletion of the clause for the purpose of substituting the following: “Any person not being a British subject who, after the commencement of this Act, has been sentenced to imprisonment for the crimes of high treason, sedition, or public violence or any conspiracy or incitement to commit any such crime, and who, by reason of the circumstances connected with the offence, is deemed by the Minister to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Union may be removed from the Union by warrant, and, pending removal, may be detained in such custody as may be prescribed by regulation.” The mover said that the sooner we recognised the duties and responsibilities of Empire the better it would be for the country, and no distinction should be drawn between British subjects whether they were born in this country or elsewhere. (Hear, hear.)

said the Minister had expressed the hope that the powers given under the clause would never be used, but the House had passed Bills with rather disastrous results. For instance, it had given power to make outstations for gaols, and mines had been used as gaols, and prisoners sent to work underground. Last session the Transvaal Precious and Base Metals Act was amended with the result that certain men had been ruined, and the work of safeguarding their own property which the mines themselves should carry out was now performed at the expense of the country. Again, Parliament took the Natives Land Act on trust because it relied on its sympathetic administration by the late Mr. Sauer, but a greater power had stepped in and Parliament was faced with a dangerous position.

The Romans used the power of deportation regularly, but that power was used to remove people to an island not necessarily outside the Roman Empire. He suggested that as they had islands in the Union where they might deport the offenders born in South Africa. Punishment by transportation which was frequently used in England many years ago was done away with 60 years ago. The right of removal was re-introduced in the Aliens Act of 1905, but not for political offences. The Government was therefore trying to introduce a system which had been abandoned for 60 years by civilised countries. He moved to add to clause 20, “and the said section 22 of the Immigrants Regulation Act of 1913 shall be amended by the deletion of the words ‘is deemed by the Minister.’” and substitute “has been declared by a judge of the supreme court on passing such sentence of imprisonment.” He said that since the passing of the Immigrants Regulation Act the Government had had 12 months in which to get rid of undesirables, and they had got rid of a good many. If his amendment were accepted, and the judge himself, having heard the evidence, declared a man to be an undesirable immigrant there would not be so much danger.

said he had one serious objection to the clause. He would like to know if the Minister realised that nearly every resident of this Union not born in the Union was born in the British Isles. Half the white people in South Africa were not born in South Africa, and that half were practically all born in the United Kingdom. The offence they were dealing with was not a case of theft, it was a case of treason against the King of England. Because a man committed high treason against the King of England, where were they going to send him—they must send him back to England. They were sending him to the dominion of the very man against whom he was said to have committed high treason in this country. International law had never considered one part of the British Empire banishing a man to another part of the British Empire. Supposing the Unionist Party were to make up its mind to indulge in seditious acts, he (Mr. Botha) might be a ringleader and his friend the hon. member for Fordsburg might take a part in it, but when they got before the Minister of Justice the Minister could not deport him (Mr. Botha), but he could deport the hon. member for Fordsburg. In principle deportation was wrong, but in practice, so far as this country was concerned it was absurd. Moreover, it left a very bad impression on the minds of certainly half the people of this country. The Minister was born in this country and it would be felt that he introduced that clause because he was safe. He could not understand any man born in the country voting for that clause. When a man was guilty of an offence under that Act, they made no distinction in their social behaviour to that man if he had been convicted of high treason or sedition or public violence. A man with the finest ideals might be guilty of public violence. The Minister had not defined public violence so he must take the definition under the ordinary law. He (Mr. Botha) did not want to put a stigma on his fellow-citizens, and he would therefore vote against the clause.

said he could not vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Boksburg, he having been born in this country. When the Indemnity Bill was under discussion the Minister had said that it had been impossible to indict these men. Now they were passing a law under which men could be indicted, so why should they go out of their way to impose another punishment? He (Mr. Struben) had said on a previous Bill that he condoned the action of the Government because he thought they had acted “bona fide” and in the interests of the country, but he had said that if they were making a law let them make a law for everybody. If they allowed people to come in here as inhabitants of the country the Government ought not to say that they were so weak that they could not govern them themselves. It was an indication of the most arrant cowardice.

You voted for perpetual banishment.

I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out that it was open to the Ministry to allow the men to come back. Continuing, he said that if the Bill were passed he would say let the nine deportees come back to-morrow. The Minister had now established a tribunal which he obviously thought would be efficacious in dealing with persons under that Bill. If that was the case why could he not be satisfied with that ? Continuing, Mr. Struben said he intended moving an amendment if the Minister persisted in forcing the clause through the House. He was certain that clause 20 was going to lead to much more trouble than it was going to stop. The Prime Minister had stated that the reason why he deported the nine undesirables to England was that a vessel happened at the time to be going to those shores. But the Minister knew well enough that no other country would have received those men. But apart from everything else there was the question that while they were creating criminals in South Africa the curious position was going to arise that these criminals would be allowed to remain in the country, while men, for far less crimes, but who happened to be born outside the Union, would be put outside the country at the whim of the Minister. He (Mr. Struben) realised that it was quite possible that a man who had lived an exemplary life might at a public meeting, in a moment of excitement, advise acts of public violence, and although no one might be prejudiced, or evil effects result, yet such a man would be liable to deportation. They were desirous of supporting the Government in strengthening the law, but on this occasion he thought the Government were going on wrong lines, and he was certainly going to vote against the clause. He would move to omit in line 29 the words “or incitement,” and to add at the end of the clause “Provided that in no case shall the powers herein contemplated be exercised without the conviction within the Union of the person concerned of one or other of the said crimes and the certificate of the convicting court that the case is a proper one for the exercise of the said powers.” His amendment meant that no man could be sent out of the country unless convicted in this country by a court or by one specially appointed for adjudicating on such matters.

said that in the course of the Minister’s remarks he had mentioned the words “our own criminals cannot be deported.” He would like to know what the Minister meant by “our own criminals.” He supposed it referred to criminals born in South Africa. But there were many criminals who might be called “our own criminals” who were not born in this country, but who had been made criminals by the conditions here obtaining. These were to be deported, while the persons responsible for such a state of affairs ought themselves to be deported. He would like to know why men who had lived 20 years in this country should not have the same rights as the men born here? He was surprised that hon. members on the Opposition side of the House, who were supposed to be above all things British, had not emphasised this point. It appeared to him that the whole trend of legislation was in the direction of discriminating between rich and poor, and Dutch and English. The Minister had also spoken with horror of the crime of illicit liquor selling, and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had used unflattering terms about the men engaged in gold buying. But these people were very often the victims of traps, and were tempted into these ways in order that convictions might be obtained for the purpose of the officers concerned receiving the congratulations of their chief and promotion in clue course. All these people were liable to deportation notwithstanding that the temptation to do wrong had been purposely put in their way. He maintained that this policy of deportation was a sign of weakness that the country had failed to deal with these people, and that the only alternative was their removal. But did the hon. Minister think that the removal of 50 such men in the same way would have the desired effect? He would find that there were still 50 more men. What the Minister had to do was to remove the cause.

The most sinister feature had not been mentioned. It was not the Government, it was not the courts, it was not the Minister himself who would pass sentence; but it was the police. They were more end more getting into the hands of the police, who, instead of being their guardians, were becoming more like the Russian police, the oppressors of the people. The hon. member went on to refer to evidence given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts by Col. Truter, the Chief of Police, and quoted from the first report of that committee. What had been the cause of the great increase in the expenses of the detective service? It appeared that detectives were not so much engaged in detect ing crime as in watching and besetting people who had once been convicted of crime, and seeing whether they could not get an opportunity of laying them by the heels again, and either deporting them or putting them into gaol. From the evidence of Col. Truter, it appeared that they had a special staff to keep these habitual criminals under their eyes. A naan who had once been convicted could not live in the Carlton Hotel or in Parktown. He had to live in the slums. These people must of necessity live, because of their poverty, in places where there were undesirable people, and if they associated with habitual criminals, they were, according to Colonel Truter, liable to be deported. Colonel Truter had also stated that he was only an instrument, and that the decision was left to the Minister, but how often did the Minister disagree with his “instrument?” On the evidence of the Chief of Police, the Committee must be convinced that it was not the Minister, and not the Government, but the police of that country who had the power of laying their hands on any man who had been convicted of any offence in the past and driving him from the country. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had made sneering remarks with regard to the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), and had said that they on the cross-benches were doing the right thing, but in the wrong way. He (Mr. Andrews) did not believe that the Minister would be influenced if the facts were not put before him in the nicest way, but that he would consider the facts on their merits; and, therefore, he thought that the right hon. gentleman had rather belittled the Minister of Justice when he had insinuated that the Minister could be influenced at all by the way in which the facts were brought forward, and the way in which they were stated. The Government were responsible for their legislation, and not responsible for the manners of the hon. members on the cross-benches. They on the cross-benches were frankly in opposition to the Minister and the Government, and they reproved the Government where they considered it wrong. They wore not in the habit of stabbing the Minister in the back and then voting for him. They preached the same doctrine in the country as they preached in that House. They would like to see the right hon. gentleman preach in the Market-square, Johannesburg, the same doctrine as he preached in that House.

said that as to what the hon. member who had just spoken had said, that he did not believe in differentiation in regard to their legislation, that read rather curiously, when they took into consideration the actions and the things approved of by those who belonged to the Labour Party. He had been reading in the “Cape Times” that morning about the speech of the leader of the Labour Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council, that only white men should make roads. Proceeding, the hon. member said what right had they to deport British born subjects to the Old Country? Nothing had brought South Africa into greater discredit with the Old Country than the events of January. Nothing had done the country greater discredit than the deportation of these nine people. According to opinions which had been expressed, he gathered that it was the meanest thing to send people they did not want to the Old Mother Country.

Another objection to the clause he had was that it was another extension of the tremendous power which the Executive was taking to itself in this country. He had endeavoured in the past to point out how in Bill after Bill there were tremendous powers given to the Executive which they did not know how the Executive was going to use. The powers in this Bill were more undesirable than the powers in any other Bill. The Minister had endeavoured to make out that the offences under this clause were on a par with the offences in the schedule of the Act which was passed last year, but he (Mr. Baxter) emphatically declared that such was not the case. They did not come in the same category. Could it be said that anyone guilty of treason or sedition had been disgraced thereby? Some of the taggest heroes in the world had been convicted of these offences. This clause, if it were carried, would revive the old controversy in the Transvaal twenty years ago. There were hundreds of men in this country who, by a stroke of the Minister’s pen, could be deported on the following day. The trouble was that this clause would be put into effect when the fires Were burning high, and he thought that the Executive must have realised in calmer moments that they had gone beyond their powers in January when they deported the nine men.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken had stated that the hon. member for George Town had not been consistent, but could the hon. member's party preach any other doctrine than that of white labour in the Transvaal at the present time? Continuing, he said that members on the Government side had not spoken, because they realised that their case was weak, and that if they opened their mouths they would stand condemned. The fact was that the shadow of the Johannesburg riots was over the Government side of the House. This clause was placing powers in the hands of the Government, which were not only not in the interests of the people of the country but were a danger to the State. For one thing there had been no definition of sedition. Who were to be the judges? The right hon. member for Victoria West said he opposed this clause on the grounds of its futility, because it was inoperative. He (Mr. Madeley) opposed the clause on the ground of fundamental principles. Hon. members seemed to forget that this was a part of the British Empire.

Business was suspended at 12.45 p.m.

said it had to be borne in mind that under this Bill they were not considering importation but deportation. Once an individual was allowed to come in and become a subject resident in this country, they had no right to turn that person out for any of these crimes. They had no right to make England, say, the dumping ground of all the criminals that might or might not be manufactured in this country. The Minister would be quite prepared to dump their own manufactured criminals, because they happened to have been born in England there to work their sweet will upon the State. A man came into this country, married here, as one of the deportees did, a woman born here, and they had offspring here. By deporting such a man, the Minister uprooted all their family ties in order to get rid of what he called a criminal. The position was ridiculous. The hon. member for Newlands had stated that he recently voted for the deportation clause, because he wanted to condone what the Government had done. On looking up the records, he (Mr. Madeley) found that the right hon. the member for Victoria West moved an amendment in the last clause to delete all the words after “Union,” the effect of those words being to make these men prohibited immigrants.

said that the hon. member could not discuss a matter which had been disposed of in a previous debate.

said he only desired to show the inconsistency of the hon. member who refused on that occasion to vote for the right hon. gentleman’s amendment, and there laid it down for all time that he was in favour of perpetual banishment.

It was not perpetual banishment.

said that he found the names of the hon. member for Newlands and the hon. member for (Fort Beaufort among the “Ayes,” in favour of those words standing part of the Bill.

You don’t know the law.

I know what that law was In conclusion the hon. member said he was very much afraid that this Bill would be made retrospective, and, as he was anxious to see his hon. friend the member for Jeppe continue the good work he was doing in this country, he would move as an amendment: “Provided that this section shall not apply in respect of any person convicted before the coming into force of this Act of the crimes mentioned in this section.”

said that, in the first place, he wanted to say a word in reply to the right hon. the member for Victoria West and the hon. member for Jeppe in regard to the action of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and other members on that side who voted for the deportation clause on a recent occasion. If that Bill were before the House again he should take exactly the action that he took at that time. The circumstances then and the circumstances now were entirely different. They then supported the Government because there had been during July and January certain circumstances which made it necessary for the Government to take extremely strong action in dealing with a situation which threatened the peace and security of this country. It was a very different thing supporting the Government in an action of that kind to asking them now to make it part of the law of the land that an unrestricted power should be given to Ministers to deport persons who had been convicted of certain political offences. (Hear, hear.) Let them consider what the position would be if, in the first years of Union, they in this House gave powers to the Government to deport a certain particular set of persons. They put the idea into the minds of people in England and elsewhere in the Dominions that they intended to mark certain individuals. (Hear, hear.) He ventured to say that that would have a most adverse effect over the water.

He ventured to say that if the clause was passed it would be regarded throughout the Empire very seriously indeed, in view of all that had happened in this country in the past. He hoped the Government even now, seeing where the appeal came from, and with the interests of South Africa to consider, would see where they were leading the country to. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, had put the details of how it would affect the people in this country who had already been charged and found guilty of certain offences, and there should not be a suggestion that those men could be deported. He hoped the Government would see their way to amend the clause in respect of people who, like himself, were born oversea but who were good citizens of South Africa. He wanted to say a word or two about the whole principle of deportation. He did not think the Opposition were actuated by the same reasons as the members on the cross-benches. It was with some surprise that he found the members on the cross-benches opposed to deportation. In the course of his readings he had come across literature which the Labour members read and studied, and he did not find in that literature that there was likely to be any very serious objection to deportation. He had in his hand a book which had been translated from the French for the benefit of the people of this country. There was a foreword from a prominent member of the Syndicalist movement—Mr. Tom Mann. The foreword went into the merits of the book, which was a history of the proposed Syndicalist revolution. Among other things they used were not only the weapons of deportation, but the proposal was that they should conquer the country by means of force and violence. In his foreword Mr. Tom Mann said the book was splendidly suggestive, thoughtful, and guideful, and he advocated the principles laid down in the book. The book said that there should be no more parliamentarism, that there should be revolution. The Government of South Africa had invented nothing when it suggested deportation. On the contrary, the Government merely took a leaf, perhaps, from the book he had in his hand, and deported men as they (the Government) would have been deported had the other gentlemen won. The book said that if all the refractories had left the country it would have simplified the problem, and it went on to say that the Syndicalists limited themselves to ridding the country of their cumbersome presence, that the refractories would be furnished with a little money and be transported. It also said that the warders and prisoners should be banished from the territory and landed where they wanted to go and also be furnished with some money. Continuing, Col. Crewe said that when they came across that sort of thing with the approbation of Mr. Tom Mann it became a little difficult to know the objection of the Labour members to deportation. The measures they might be likely to suffer under should the members of the cross-benches succeed in their desires would be ten times more harmful than the measures proposed by the Government. There was no doubt that kind of literature from which he had been quoting formed an incitement to revolution, and it was owing to the dissemination of literature similar to that that they had been through the scenes which affected this country in July last.

said he did not think anyone need wonder why people would no longer listen to the hon. members of the Opposition. The principle in the Indemnity Bill and the principle in the present measure was the same in each case. The question in each case was banishment without trial. Why, then, did the Opposition not allow the deportees to come back and stand their trial? He wanted to express his own disapproval and the disapproval of those whom he represented in that House to any extension of the immigration laws in that Bill. Earlier in the session he had endeavoured to get a motion through the House to the effect that an investigation should be conducted by a Select Committee on the working of that same clause 22 of the Immigrants Regulation Act. The Government had refused to allow them to see how that Act had worked. He could only infer from the action of the Government that something had happened under clause 22 which they did not want the House to know. Even now the Minister was lacking in frankness. That clause was designed for a deliberate purpose with regard to something that had happened in the past.

Certain persons were charged at Johannesburg at the beginning of the year with inciting to public violence; were they to be liable to deportation? A very large number of people in this country detested laws of this kind. (Hear, hear.) If deportation were part of the penalty it should be taken into consideration by the judge when he passed sentence.

said he did not like the punishment of deportation, and he voted against the deportation of the nine men mentioned in the schedule of the Indemnity Act, his chief reason being that those men were being permanently exiled without trial and without any charge being brought against them. The difference between this measure and the Indemnity Act was this, that under the former deportation was to be after trial. (Hear, hear.) He would like to see the clause withdrawn, but he recognised that the Government collectively and the Minister of Justice individually were responsible for the maintenance of law and order—(Ministerial cheers)—and if they told the House that after the experiences of the last few months they considered it absolutely essential in the interests of the maintenance of law and order that they should be armed with these powers the very fullest consideration should be given to their statements. (Ministerial cheers.) If the Minister of Justice could not withdraw the clause he (Mr. Currey) hoped the Minister would accept an amendment, more or less on the lines of the one suggested by the hon. member for Newlands, that deportation should be part of the sentence. If deportation was to become the law of the land the fudges who tried the cases should have this power. If years after an offence had been committed the Chief Police Officer could come down on the accused and punish them by deportation he was afraid we were setting up for ourselves a store of trouble not only in this country, but that we should be creating difficulties with the Imperial Government and the other dependencies beyond the seas which hon. members might regret before they were very much older. (Cheers.) Let them see how curiously this differentiation between a Home-born and a Colonial-born man was going to operate. For instance, the hon. member for Jeppe—the Leader of the Labour Party in the Union Parliament —and the Leader of the Labour Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council, might be on the same platform, and might be guilty, in the eyes of judges, of sedition. Under the Bill as it stood the hon. member for Jeppe could be deported, but the Leader of the Labour Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council would have to be kept within the boundaries of the Union. That seemed to bring the measure in some danger of being ridiculed. So he regretted the whole thing, but what he regretted most of all was that the measure could be made retrospective— that they could go back on a man who had been guilty of an act of sedition when he was a young man and deport him now when he was an old man. It was contrary to the principle of all legislation under the British flag to make punishment retrospective in that way. He hoped that the Minister would accept the suggestion to insert a proviso that the provisions of this section should only apply to the convictions after the commencement of this Act. Another point with which he did not agree was drawing distinctions between members of families, one of whom might have been born during the casual visit of his South African parents across the sea. He (Mr. Currey) did not like to strike a personal note in this House, but he felt personally in this matter. He had a son born in England—he had two other sons born in this country, and it was not fair to make distinctions between brothers in one family. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Currey moved the following amendment: Provided that for the purposes of this section, section 22 of Act No. 22 of 1913 shall read as if after the word “born,” where it occurs in, the first line of that section, the following words were inserted, viz., “or whose parents were born within the Union, and at the time of his birth were domiciled”; and provided, further, that the provisions of this section shall only apply to convictions after the commencement of this Act.

said an hon. member on the cross-benches had stated that under the Bill the Minister could have the power to declare what was sedition and what was not, but of course the Bill said nothing of the sort. Another hon. member had stated that the Bill meant punishment without trial, but of course it did not, for in either case there must be a conviction. The matter was quite serious enough without importing into it other considerations which did not exist. He (Sir Henry) was opposed to the deportation clause in the Indemnity Act, and the only portion of the arguments of the Minister of Defence which seemed to carry any weight was the statement that we had not any law in this country which could adequately deal with the offences committed by the deportees. That was the great argument, the main basis on which the Minister of Finance and the Government could in any way justify their action in deporting me to without a trial. Here they were dealing with those very offences in that Bill of which the deportees were suggested to be guilty, and of which the House thought that they were guilty. Why now, when these offences were being created and machinery was being provided under which people could be punished, was the necessity for the clause that the Government should have the power to deport? It seemed to be so utterly illogical and unreasonable, and the Government was cutting away the ground under their feet, because they justified their action in removing these men without trial only on the ground that they were without a law under which these men could be brought to trial. If that were so there was no need for the extraordinary course which was now proposed. He thought the Ministry was wrong, on its own showing, in attempting to obtain the power to deport people who were guilty of these three offences. This clause was not going to be a real protection, because the Bill was retrospective.

I am going to accept the amendment of the hon. member for George.

I am very glad to hear that. Continuing, he said he was not prepared to say what were the laws with regard to sedition in other parts of the world. They knew the liberty for which those two races represented in that Parliament fought for resulted in a freedom which was not common to the whole world, and they knew the crime of sedition in many countries was very narrow, though, of course, it was wide in its terms. What they in this country would almost smile at, brought up under the aegis of liberty, was considered a very severe offence and equivalent to sedition in other countries. What was public violence? What did it cover in this country? He was not prepared to say, that it could be punished by a magistrate. The jurisdiction of magistrates in the Cape Province did not include any offence which was punishable by death or banishment, but under the Roman-Dutch law there was hardly a crime they could think of for which the sentence was not death or banishment. Death was provided in the case of perjury, and yet the Eastern Districts Court held that the magistrate could try the offence of perjury. He was not clear whether a magistrate could deal with it, but just imagine the position if a magistrate could deal with the crime of public violence. A man could be brought up and fined 10s. and it would be within the power of the Minister to deport him. (Hear, hear.) It was no use the Minister becoming restive because that was the case. The hon. member proceeded fo quote Van der Linden on public violence, and said that that crime for which they were asked here to give power to the Minister to deport was a crime, in the opinion of those 18th century lawyers, punishable by death if a man robbed the attendant of the mail, but yet an offence in which a fine could be sufficient punishment. Was this Committee going to give power to any Minister to deport a man who happened to be convicted for this crime? They were putting greater powers into the hands of the Minister than they should do. Despite the Minister’s acceptance of the amendment, he did not give a man the safeguard of this special court. Suppose a man in Holland was to be convicted of public violence, would they prevent him coming into this country? Did those who traced their ancestry to Holland agree that a man convicted of public violence there—he did not know what it actually was there—should be prevented from coming in here by the Minister? The power given the Minister seemed to him to be enormous. What he did not like was the spirit which was at the bottom of the proposal to make the clause retrospective. There would be no doubt that not only the four gentlemen condemned to death in the Transvaal, but the whole of the Reform Committee would come under this clause and those not born here would be liable to deportation. He could not believe for a moment that that was the spirit that animated the Minister of Justice, but Government changed very quickly and one never knew what might happen. They might get a Ministry whose doctrines were based upon that book which had been read by the hon. member for East London, and those who happened to be in the position of being their political opponents would be sent off, as they had advocated, quietly deported with a little sum of money to some convenient island. Any person not born in this country, anybody who had any relatives who had not been born here, those members of the family could be departed, and those members of the family who had been born here could not be deported.

He could understand a country saying that they were not going to have the criminals from other countries, but here we were under one flag and under one Empire. High treason and sedition in one part of the Empire were high treason and sedition in another. It was not as if they were dealing with Frenchmen, Germans, Russians, or Hollanders, and saying that they would not have those people in They were setting up the position that, although it was one and the same flag against which one happened to commit high treason, because one happened to be born in one place he would not be deported, but because one happened to be born outside of it, though in the same Empire, he was to suffer deportation. (Hear, hear.) There was no logical reason about that. He did not know whether the Minister was going to take that part of the amendment of the hon. member for George doing away with the distinction between persons born here and persons not born here. Under these circumstances, he thought there was no justification for this clause, and that was why he should oppose it as much as he possibly could. (Cheers.)

said that the hon. member for Springs had stated that nobody on the Ministerial side of the House had said a word in support of this clause. If there were one reason why he would give his support to the clause, it was the strenuous opposition which came from the Labour benches. (Laughter and cheers.) When any member or section declared that it was their intention to upset the existing state of society by any means, he thought they could have no measure too drastic. (Ministerial cheers.) He thought the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was very correct when he said he felt nervous in finding himself in accord with these gentlemen. When he (Mr. Watermeyer) listened to the debate upon this clause it seemed to him as if they were trying to give every possible latitude to evil-doers. Hon. gentlemen who had spoken, and especially the hon. member for Harbour, had treated the House to a number of hypothetical cases of what could happen if this clause should pass. He (Mr. Watermeyer) admitted that if they wanted to make hypothetical cases this was one of the most dangerous clauses they could put into a Bill. (Opposition cheers.) But they had safeguards under constitutional Government. He did not care what Ministry they had in power, any Ministry that was going to apply this clause in a way that did not meet with the approval of this House was going to have a very short life. The hon. member for Turffontein admitted that deportation was necessary.

I never said so.

I beg your pardon. It was the hon. member for Braamfontein.

I said under special circumstances.

Anyway, if those circumstances arose. If deportation is necessary under certain circumstances when there is no law, then deportation may easily become necessary again, and it is just as well to have a law on the Statute Book to give a set power. He went on to say that hon. gentlemen were nervous that if this clause were passed it was only going to apply to people not born in South Africa. Surely the history of this country showed that they need not fear that any man because he happened to be born in England was going to have any less justice meted out to him than a man who was born here. (Cries of “Oh.”)

He wanted to explain why this clause was necessary. The Minister of Justice had said that every country ought to consume its own smoke. He (Mr. Watermeyer) thought that in every instance in which cases arose the men who were to be punished would be punished here. It would be only in such very extreme cases which he could not imagine that the system of deportation would be resorted to.

Then take the clause out. (Hear, hear.)

This clause remains necessary, because we might admit a man born in England, whom we might find afterwards is very objectionable. Proceeding, he said that they could take the representatives of organised societies across the water. They could take the Syndicalists who were sent across the water, to come here and try and press their propaganda. South Africa in its present state was not able to cope with such organisations. He thought this clause was absolutely necessary to enable them to send these men back. (“Oh.”) That was a case in which it could be applied, and that was the only case, he thought, in which it could be applied. He intended to support this clause without feeling at all that it would be abused, or, if it were abused, that Parliament was not able to cope with it.

said that, before the hon. member for Clanwilliam spoke, he was wondering why the Government had imposed a ban of silence on their supporters. Since the hon. member had spoken he was surprised no longer. (Opposition cheers.) He could now quite understand the nervousness of the Government. The hon. member had said that the history of South Africa had shown that no such thing as discrimination would be made. His memory must be very short. It was not long since they passed in that House a Bill concerning the deportation of certain individuals whose very birth-places were set out in the Bill. The hon. member had talked about hypothetical cases. They did not propose to legislate for men who had done something that was not a crime. They did not legislate for things that were past and done with. All their legislation dealt with hypothetical cases. There would be very few hypotheses when the time came to put the clause into operation. The speech made by the hon. member he could have understood some years ago. It was frank Uitlanderism. (Hear, hear.) He was surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for George. The hon. member got up in this Committee and said that this was a most objectionable clause, and he lamely ended up by saying that, if the Government told him it was necessary, he was going to vote for it. The differentiation which it was proposed to make between those born in South Africa and those born oversea was a reflection on those who had assisted in the development of South Africa. This country had had to rely largely for its development upon men who had immigrated to this country, and if they were going to tell the whole world that they only wanted those born in South Africa they would be insulting some of the greatest pioneers who ever came to South Africa. From the figures given in the last census returns the clause would affect 584,881 persons who were not born in this country, but were resident here. These people who would be placed in the hands of the Government by the clause were never likely to commit treason or sedition, and they saw in this legislation the same persecution that had driven them from other lands to this country. People were asking how long it would take the Government to deport them for less offences than those of treason, sedition and violence. They felt that the thin end of the wedge of persecution was being introduced. The member for the Gardens Division (Mr. W. D. Baxter) had referred to the Reform prisoners, and under the clause they would be liable to deportation. The Minister, however, had promised that the clause should not be made retrospective, but the Minister when he framed the Bill could not have been ignorant of its scope, and must have known to what extent the clause was likely to affect well-known people.

I took the Bill which you approved of last year.)

said he did not know that he had ever been accused of being in favour of the Immigration Act. Such a view as that now being taken by the Minister of Justice in regard to high treason and sedition was not shared by the Government in the year 1900, while the war was still on, and when the question was before the country as to what should be the punishment oi those who were guilty of open rebellion. It was then thought by members opposite that five years’ disfranchisement was tremendously severe, but that was the spirit in which members now on the Opposition side of the House viewed the question, although they might easily have been influenced to think differently by the fact that the longer the term of disfranchisement the stronger their position, politically, would be in the country. Those were the opinions held at that time by members opposite, and amongst those who shared these “opinions were the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) and the late Mr. Sauer.

If they took the history of South Africa itself they found that high treason had been dealt with in quite a different way to that which was proposed now. When two people came to blows the best way to deal with the matter was to get at the root of the trouble, not to try to deport one of them. It had been a question of Briton and Boer, who had been bitterly hostile to one another, but who were now being drawn together. Did not the Government realise that there was a feeling of hostility among those engaged in the industries against those in control of industries? Were they going to bring those two classes of the population together by legislation of that kind? No, they were going to put them farther apart than ever. The better way to deal with that matter was to let any man convicted under the laws of the country be punished in the usual way. He thought the powers given in the Immigrants Regulation Act to deport were much too wide. When they came to deal with political crimes they very often found that the political crime of to-day was the correct thing to-morrow. If they read history they found that the rebel who succeeded was a great hero. Toput rebellion on the same basis as theft or robbery and that sort of thing was absurd. The clause was a sign of weakness. The better way to deal with those men was to use their constitutional machinery.

said that with regard to banishment a man might be tried for a petty offence which came within the definition of sedition and might be convicted, and any time thereafter the Minister could deport him. The court that tried the man would not take any notice of the possibility of his being banished. The Minister of Justice had from time to time quoted various laws in different Colonies in justification of the laws he wanted to bring into force. He had not told them what country he had gone to to find a precedent for deportation on any ground, much less than on such trivial grounds as were mentioned in the Bill. The Minister had said that deportation struck terror into the hearts of the evildoer. Did it? Severe punishment of that description never struck terror into the hearts of anybody. Wherever severe punishment had been applied it had always failed in its object. In January nine leaders of the Labour movement were deported, including the secretary and chairman of the Federation of Trades, and the secretary of the Labour Party. Within a week or a fortnight there was another secretary and another chairman of the Federation of Trades, and another secretary of the Labour Party, and it must be so with any reform movement. So that argument to his mind, did not go very far. In 1834 eight labourers of Dorchester were deported for seven years, and there was such an agitation that they were brought back again. In the same year five members of the National Consolidated Trade Union were deported for seven years simply because they were members of the Trade Union. Now, in 1914, they had the monstrous sentence of deportation for life.

Dealing with the word “sedition,” the hon. member said that under that Bill there was no definition of it at all, and they had every right to suppose that they would deal with persons charged under that section as those who had been charged with sedition a few months ago, who had been charged under Act 38 of 1902, passed under Lord Milner’s Government at the closing stages of the war, when there was quite an exceptional and extraordinary situation. It had been special legislation for a special reason, which should have been wiped off the Statute-book long ago. It had now been brought into force at the eleventh hour and enforced against citizens to whom it had never been intended to apply. It was a very strong commentary on the situation that after the war they had had in that country the penalty imposed in the Act he had referred to, which was, for a first conviction, imprisonment not exceeding five years, and said nothing about banishment for life and deportation. On a second conviction the penalty was one not to exceed seven years’ imprisonment. For the future well-being of South Africa it was exceedingly dangerous that that Government should have such wide powers as were given to it under the Peace Preservation Act, to deport citizens who were found guilty of the minor offence of creating disaffection amongst His Majesty’s subjects. There were very few Trade Unionists who would not come under that definition of sedition under that Act in times of strife, and even in times of peace. A person who should be deported under that Bill was the Minister of Justice himself, because he was going to create more disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects by passing that Bill than any other man in the country. That clause was going to create the greatest hostility, ill-will and disaffection among the people of South Africa. What would be said if such a thing were done in Canada as was proposed under that clause?

was understood to say that they were deporting men there every day.

said that that was the Indian question, and they were not at present dealing with that question. They were dealing with Europeans, and the Minister of Justice was begging the question. Continuing, he said that it would take many years to live that measure down. The right hon. member for Victoria West had said that that was going to be a law for all time. He (Mr. Boydell) hoped that even in South Africa they would have an enlightened Government some day in power, which would wipe that iniquitous law off the Statute-book. They were lighting a flame that was going like a prairie fire through the country. In view of the magnanimity of the British Government in granting self-government to that country, that was what they were getting in return. He, as a British-born subject, felt it as a personal insult. It was not only class legislation, but race prejudice and race legislation, too. The Prime Minister and his followers were protected, but why not treat all inhabitants alike? Why single out those who had not been born in South Africa? He was personally opposed to that clause, and if the Government ought to be defeated, that was certainly an occasion when the defeat of the Government would be justified and hailed with welcome throughout South Africa.

said that he thought that that red herring of being born in South Africa had been drawn sufficiently across the trail now. He had expected to have heard such things from the cross-benches but he could hardly understand having heard such arguments as legal members from the Opposition side of the House had advanced. The hon. member who had just sat down had said that he took it as a personal insult as a British-born subject, but there was not a word in the clause referring to that. Why did the hon. member consider it an insult now, and why did he not consider it an insult in the Immigration Act of last year?

We did.

said why did they not propose to delete the words “born in South Africa?” He did not want to delete them because whether these words were in or not, he could not, as he had explained before, deport people who were born in South Africa. It was a hollow argument to say that that clause applied to people who were not born in South Africa. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) had put various legal positions, and had asked what was the necessity for that clause. The hon. member’s own argument had shown the necessity of it. He had said that he had voted for the deportations because the Government could not proceed against these people by the law of the land—

said that the hon. member had not said that he supported the deportations.

said that they ought to have a law on the Statute-book to deal with these matters. If the penalty was a fine of £25 they would know what it meant. A fine of £1 would be the punishment meted out to people who turned the country upside down. If a man were only fined he could not be deported, because the Immigration Act said that a man could only be deported who had been sentenced to imprisonment. The question of a fine did not apply. If the Government were so foolish as to deport a man who was fined 10s. no Parliament would condone that Act.

The Government was under the direct control of Parliament in everything it did, and if Parliament did not approve it turned the Government out. As to putting greater powers in the hands of the Commissioner of Police, if the Minister left the carrying out of the law to the Commissioner of Police that would not relieve the Minister of responsibility. He could quite understand that hon. members who made sneering remarks about the Commissioner of Police did not love that gentleman. Then the hon. member for Victoria West had stated that this was a futile punishment, but he (the Minister) did not agree with that. There were ways of enforcing the law. It was true that a deported man could come back to South Africa, but it was also easy to send him out of the country again. The hon. member for Weenen had stated that they could not take matters on trust, but he (the Minister) was not asking the House to take anything on trust. He had stated that he hoped circumstances would never arise to make it necessary for putting such a clause into effect, but he did not want to leave the Committee under the impression that the clause would never be used, but the Government would be as pleased as anybody else if the clause remained a dead letter. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens had referred to the harm done in England owing to the events which occurred in South Africa last January. But even the Mother Country would have to take a leaf out of our book, and then instead of having a bad effect this might have a good one. (Ministerial cheers and cries of dissent.) He could understand there being feeling in the country if such arguments were addressed to the people as were used here by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle. The hon. member’s argument was an insult to the 322,000 people born outside South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.) He (the Minister) took it; that the majority of them were law-abiding people and would not be subject to any pains or penalties laid down for criminals. This was a law made for criminals, and the law-abiding man born outside South Africa was as safe in this country as any other.

No—no man is safe here.

said it did not follow that British subjects were free to go from one portion of the British Empire to another. South Africa kept out various classes of British subjects, even although they had committed no crime. At the present time Canada was very busy keeping out some of His Majesty’s British subjects. We had to deal with practical politics and not with theories. He could understand hon. members fighting deportation on its merits, but he appealed to them to leave this question of South African-born. If the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, wanted to move the clause out be would accept it, but at the same time it was only fair to say that the effect would be the same, for unless, we made arrangements with the Mother Country to receive our South African-born criminals we could not deport them. As the Minister of Finance stated during the debate on the Indemnity Bill, there were some people he would have liked to deport, but he could not do so because they were South African-born. In conclusion, the Minister said the Committee had discussed the matter very fully, and he hoped they would come to a vote very soon.

said he was surprised that after five hours discussion, and when the Ministers had had an opportunity of realising the depth of feeling that had been aroused over the clause, that they had not decided to with draw it. (Opposition cheers.) No argument had been brought forward to show that a clause of this sort was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of law and order which was the reason for introducing the Bill. (Opposition cheers.) When it had been made extremely clear that the clause would be misunderstood in the country and would be given a racial interpretation, it ill became the Prime Minister not to meet a request of that kind, made not only by members on the Opposition side of the House, but made also by some of the most prominent supporters of the Government. They had a right to appeal to the Prime Minister to withdraw the clause, a clause which would engender a great deal of ill-feeling which it should be the desire of both sides to see obliterated. A Government having this power in its hand and finding behind it a majority which might not take a liberal view of matters might find in this clause a weapon to do an unrighteous thing, a thing which under ordinary circumstances it would not have done. Was he to understand that the Government had introduced the measure to conciliate a certain section of its followers, and if that were so it was not the manner in which legislation should be carried out. All the Opposition could do was to protest against the clause and the Government must accept the responsibility and the country would have an opportunity of judging what were the reasons. The hon. member for Ficksburg need not look in that way. (Laughter.) The hon. member knew that last session another measure was introduced under pressure, and he (Sir Thomas) was afraid that during this session the same state of affairs had occurred, or otherwise the Government would have recognised the reasonableness of the request in regard to the inadvisability of placing a clause of this sort on the Statute Book. (Opposition cheers.)

said that the speech of the hon. leader of the Opposition reminded him of a tightly wound spring that had just gone off. (Laughter.) He wished to advise the hon. member not to get excited, because by getting excited they could only do harm to the country. After the lucid speech of the Minister of Justice, who had made the Government’s attitude perfectly clear, he had thought that it would have been unnecessary for him to speak on this matter, but after the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition it had become necessary for him to say a few words. If any ill-feeling was created, or if any misunderstanding arose in the country it would not be the result of this clause or of anything the Minister had said, but the result of some of the arguments which he had listened to to-day. Least of all could he understand the attitude taken up by the legal luminaries, such as the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta), a man for whose views he had the greatest respect, but he thought that the hon. member really had been deceiving himself by his own arguments. (Ministerial cheers.) Really no single person, knowing anything of the existing state of affairs would allow himself to be misled by the remarks of that hon. member. To say that if this clause was passed all the members of the Reform Committee who would have been punished by the South African Republic might be deported was too ridiculous for anything. What Government would do a thing like that? A number of these members of the Reform Committee sat on both sides of the House, and two of them had even been members of the late Transvaal Government. Surely no one would think that any Government would ever deport these gentlemen. (Laughter.) As to the arguments that South African born people were excluded from the deportation clause he regretted the wording of the Immigration Act on that matter, and the Government was prepared to accept an amendment on that point, although at the same time he wished to make it clear that the effect would be exactly the same and, naturally, it was quite impossible to deport anyone born in South Africa for a crime committed here.

He went on to express surprise at the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition who, he said had alleged that the Government were making a racial question of this. Anyone who had always stood on the outposts and took credit for having done his utmost to do away with racialism should not have made a remark like that, and he (the Prime Minister) regretted the attitude now taken up by Sir Thomas Smartt, an attitude which he feared might create feelings of racialism. An attitude like that was not worthy of the Leader of the Opposition. Comparisons with the conditions which prevailed under the late Republic were most misleading and would only cause mischief. Such an argument showed lack of confidence in the older population. He (the speaker) knew the people of South Africa as well as anyone. He knew they were worthy people and could be trusted, and he knew that this clause would have no such effect as was alleged by the Leader of the Opposition. If anybody was to be trusted it was the old Boer population. They were dignified people, a people with character and honour, and he could tell the Leader of the Opposition that they would keep that compact which had been agreed on in the past, and they would make no distinction between the races for the benefit of one section of the population. To compare the penalty clauses which existed in the days of the old Republic with this penalty clause they had here, was absolutely ridiculous. The insinuation of the Leader of the Opposition that he (the Prime Minister) in introducing the clause had done so in consideration of certain demands made by a certain section was most undignified. To withdraw this clause was out of the question, especially after the speeches that House had listened to, and he could tell the House that this clause was introduced with a view to do what the Government thought was the best for this country. He thought, however, that the amendment of the hon. member for George might be accepted, as it was an improvement on the clause as it was drafted in the Bill. The Prime Minister proceeded that he could not understand the opposition there was to a clause which only dealt with certain crimes which, to his mind, were more serious than the crimes already covered by the Immigration Act. Unless they had a clause like this on the Statute Book he was afraid that criminals would not be deterred from coming to this country, which they might regard as a happy hunting ground. He was surprised at the attitude now taken up by some members who, in January, had urged that legislation should be passed before people were banished and who offered that as their only objection. In conclusion, the Prime Minister denied that the clause introduced any racialism. All the Government wished was to do something for the welfare of the country, and in the circumstances he hoped this clause would pass without further discussion. It had nothing in the world to do with racial questions and was solely meant for the preservation of peace and order in the country.

deplored that the attempt had been made to make that a racial question. It was something more than that; it was directed against the movement represented by them on the cross-benches. There had been some misunderstanding regarding that matter being used as a racial crime. He wanted some information from the Minister of Justice. Why could not a man born in South Africa be deported? Was it because the Minister had not sovereign rights?

We could not get any other country to accept them.

asked if that stood in the Government’s way when they sent Poutsma to England, although he was born in Holland, or when they sent Waterston to England although he was born in Australia. That was exactly the answer he wanted from the Minister of Justice. That would dispose of that point. Further, the Prime Minister desired not to give colour to the idea that they wished to differentiate bet ween men born in or out of South Africa If he desired to treat all alike why should they not prescribe some punishment for all alike, and if it were a punishment which he felt he could not apply all round, then it was one that should not be on the Statute-book. The Minister of Justice had made a scornful allusion to the remark made by himself (the speaker) and the hon. member for Springs, that the administration of that matter was in the hands of the police.

I spoke about the Commissioner.

said that the Commissioner had powers which no Commissioner of Police should be allowed to exercise. They did not want the clause at all, and they were going to vote solid against it, although they knew that the Government had a majority. If that Government majority was going to place the liberties of the people of this country at the mercy of the Commissioner of Police they must realise that it was only to-day that they had a majority Government of that sort was not going to be popular with the British section or men of Dutch descent either. They were going to support the proposition of the hon. member for Weenen, which was that if a man was to be deported he should not be deported by the Commissioner of Police, representing the Minister, on the Minister’s responsibility. No man should be deported except by the decision of a judge of the supreme court. Such a power as that should be taken out of the hands of the police and out of the hands of the Minister. They on the cross-benches would vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen, and also vote for the deletion of the clause.

said it was most unfair on the part of the Prime Minister that he should say that the argument consisted of nothing but an appeal to racialism, the point he was trying to make was that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice made no distinction between ordinary crimes and political offences. Every country recognised the difference between the dumning on their shores of political and ordinary criminals. They recognised the difference between an ordinary crime and a political crime, and laws should not be passed in such a way that discretion should not be allowed so that persons should not become the victims of political injustice. Both the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister ignored that but they could not ignore the teachings of history; a power of that sort should not be placed in the hands of any political body. The object of that Bill was to put into the hands of the Government the power to drive any political opponent out of the country. (Ministerial cries of dissent.) He did not say they would do that, but they could do it. It was one thing to have a person punished by the court and another to have his punishment in the hands of political opponents. That was the vital difference between the Immigration Act and that clause which was under discussion. It was no use the Minister of Justice quibbling about deportation. The Roman-Dutch law made allowance for the punishment of people whether Hollanders or other people; whether born in this country or not He could not understand the Minister saying that they could not punish a person born in this country. Of course they could if the law had not become obsolete, but the great point was the difference between a political crime and an ordinary crime. They did not all agree what was a political crime.

Mr. Struben’s first amendment was negatived.

withdrew his second amendment.

On Mr. Madeley’s amendment,

pointed out to the hon. member (Mr. Madeley) that this was covered by the amendment of the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey). He suggested to the hon. member that he should withdraw his amendment in favour of the one moved by the hon. member for George.

I have no objection to withdrawing that amendment provided the Minister gives us an assurance that the amendment of the hon. member for George is going through.

I have accepted it.

said that the Minister had just told them that he was going to accept this amendment. Where were the arguments of the Minister to which they had listened two or three times during the course of this debate that it was impossible to deport a man who was born inside this country?

The amendment of the hon. member for George makes provision for the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Springs and himself.

Is the Minister not prepared to accept an amendment to this effect, that section 22 shall be amended by the deletion of the words “or who was born outside the Union of South Africa,” to make it cover all parties, not only those who are the children of persons domiciled or born in South Africa, but children of any persons whatever, whether they were born in South Africa or not? (Ministerial laughter.) It seems to me that the Minister here is going to have that read as if it read “except from the operation of the Act persons whose parents were born in this country, even if those children were born outside.”

said he would move an amendment which he understood the Minister was prepared to accept viz.: To add at the end of the clause “Provided that for the purposes of this section, section 22 of the Immigrants Regulation Act, 1913, is hereby amended by the deletion of the words ‘(not being persons born in any part of South Africa which has been included in the Union)’; and provided further that the provisions of this section shall only apply to convictions after the commencement of this Act.”

amendment was withdrawn.

said he hoped the Minister would accept this. Instead of the proposal of the hon. member for George removing the inequality it seemed to him to accentuate the inequality.

suggested that section 21 of the Immigration Act should also be amended consequent on section 22 being amended.

said he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger).

said he would withdraw his amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was agreed to.

then put the question, that clause 20, as amended, be agreed to.

said that in the event of the clause being passed, it would not be competent to amend the schedule. He would therefore move that the clause stand over until after the schedule had been considered.

agreed, and the clause was allowed to stand down.

On clause 22, Interpretation of terms,

said he would move to delete the paragraph defining a Trade Union.

said he would like to move an amendment in regard to the definition of police, that all reference to the Defence Force be deleted. He accordingly moved: In the definition “Police”, to omit all the words after “force”, in line 52, down to “disorder”, in line 55.

said he hoped the Minister would see his way to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen. Was the definition of “police” to include private forces of armed men to be employed as guards—one section of the community armed and disciplined to put down another section of the community ?

said he hoped the Committee would not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen, because if there was one useful purpose for which they did need the police, it was to put down the riots referred to in the Bill. He had been opposed to the Bill, because what they wanted was not so much law, but a lot of policemen. There was no doubt that the only way to deal with ruffians was by brute force. He hoped the Committee would not accept the amendment, because he thought it was in an entirely wrong direction.

said he thought the Minister would be well-advised to alter the definition, and leave work of that description to the regular police force of the Union. While he would support the motion of the hon. member for Weenen, he thought it would be better if they were to insert “police shall mean the regular police force of the Union of South Africa.” In clause 4 it was laid, down that a policeman could call upon a gathering to disperse. Police duty was something of an art that had to be learned. Nothing was so dangerous as an inexperienced policeman.

said he hoped the Minister would not ac cept the amendment. He only wished to draw the Minister’s attention to a clause in the New Zealand Act which provided that Sheriffs, Justices of Peace, and other authorities should be liable to two years’ imprisonment if they omitted to do their duty in suppressing a riot. He commended that to his notice. It was not that the police had got too much power, but that they did not use it. It was no use passing violent Acts unless they were properly administered. As to minimising the clause, he thought it was the duty of every man to support the law.

said he hoped the Minister would not pay attention to the evil counsel of the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman had been leading his friends into a hole, and he now admitted that the Bill was a violent one.

A strong Act.

(continuing) said that the right hon. gentleman had left the point alone—the point that those were delicate functions not to be lightly trusted to inexperienced people. Many hon. members who heartily disagreed with him must know at delicate times everything depended on the skill of the officer in charge.

said he hoped the Minister would pay attention to what had been said by the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West. The amendment of the hon. member for Weenen was not moved with the object of doing good, but for the purpose of slighting the Defence Force. They knew what hon. members on the cross-benches thought of the Defence Force—one of them had called them hired assassins.

said that on a point of order he understood the reference was made to him. He had explained his remarks to the Committee.

We know what the cross-benches think of the Defence Force.

Some of them.

said they knew and they had all seen that the police had dealt with the people in January too gently, but when the Defence Force came on the scene there was a change. He was entirely in favour of all reasonable methods to strengthen the hands of the Government.

said he was very much afraid that the little incident that happened on the Market square at Bloemfontein still rankled in the mind of the hon. member for Bloemfontein. A photograph of one C. L. Botha had been burnt. To show the attitude taken up by some people he would refer to the constituents of the hon. member for Victoria West—to show how some members were so blinded by red-hot prejudice that they were prepared to go to any length at all.

You say that I don’t know about the merits of the case?

said that he did not say that. The right hon. gentleman, however, was allowed to say over and over again things in that House for which he was applauded, but he was not applauded in the country, as he would like to be.

Do you think I care a button?

said that what he wanted to point out was that they should have the regular police and not police appointed specially for the occasion. Some of the mines were forming Civic Guards and dislikes were formed, which might be brought to a head in case of trouble. He strongly supported the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe.

said that their regular police in Natal were part and parcel of the Defence Force. That definition had been very carefully drawn up, and he could not see his way to accepting the amendment. The question of the police was involved, and they had different bodies of police in the Defence Force. As to the Civic Guard, he did not know whether they fell under the Defence law or the Police law. He hoped that the Committee would pass the clause as it stood.

said that he did not understand why the Minister should put that in, because it was provided for under the existing law. Full powers were given under the S.A. Defence Act. He moved the deletion of the definition, as being quite unnecessary.

said that he thought that the Minister’s explanation was not quite satisfactory. Referring to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Botha) he asked whether the hon. member could not see that when they used people for functions they had not been designed to be used for, they were casting a slur on the force? He would be glad to hear whether the people of Bloemfontein were in agreement with the hon. member that the orderliness of Bloemfontein last January had been due to the presence of the Defence Force. If they wanted a Defence Force of which they could be proud let them be kept for the purpose of defending the country, but not to be put to other purposes.

said that if the hon. member for Bloemfontein had attended the session more regularly he would have heard of instances given of acts committed by certain members of the Defence Force which were a disgrace to that body. He could not see any reason for the Minister’s refusal to accept his amendment, which he would withdraw in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe.

put the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe, and a division was taken, with the result that only seven members—Messrs. Boydell, Andrews, Creswell, Sampson, Madeley, Maginess and Meyler—voted for the amendment, which was accordingly negatived.

said he wished to refer to the cases of insurrection for which no provision had been made. The kind of insurrection he meant was that where the ordinary man should be sworn in to quell any disturbances. What, he asked, were the responsibilities of such people? In January last certain disturbances had occurred at Jagersfontein, and had it not been for the prompt action of the citizens great trouble might have ensued. Was it not possible to give powers to special constables in such cases ?

replied that the ordinary man when called on to assist in quelling disturbances was duly protected under the law. He had the same rights as a policeman.

urged that proper provision should be made for the calling up of such a force and for the appointment of officers in cases of emergency. The person who swore in the special constables should also be put in command.

then put the question: That all the words after “mean”, in line 50, to “disorder”, in line 55, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

declared the question affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell, dropped.

put the question: That the definition “Police”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

declared the question affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander negatived.

drew attention to the definition of “public place,” and urged that if a dozen members of the public met twice in his backyard, for instance, it might be held to be a public place within the meaning of the Act.

asked the Minister in charge of the Bill if he would explain the terms “Habitually used” and “Private property.”

pointed out that an open space meant any space not covered in or with a fence round it. A backyard would not be an open space if it were enclosed or had a fence round it. That did not, of course, apply to such open spaces as parks which might have a fence round.

wanted a definition of “public gathering.”

said the definition was as in the English law.

The amendment of the Minister of Justice to delete the definition of Trade Unions was agreed to.

had intimated that he wished to move an amendment, when

Business was suspended at 6 o’clock.

moved to add at the end of the clause: “and shall commence and come into operation as from the date of promulgation of same in the ‘Gazette,’ and shall cease to be in force on the first day of July, 1915.” The mover said as this was experimental legislation it would be very useful in a year’s time to see how the Bill had worked and how the Government had behaved itself.

supported the amendment.

said the amendment was a reasonable one.

asked the Minister of Justice if he could give any reason for not accepting the amendment.

Will you make it terminate on July 5? (Laughter.)

Now the Minister has betrayed himself. Continuing, Mr. Made ley said that no mandate had been given to the Government to introduce the Bill, and the Government had no right to pass a law which, as one hon. member had put it, would be operative for all time, but he (Mr. Madeley) could assure the Government that this Bill would not be operative for all time.

said, he would supply a reason why the Minister should not accept the amendment—if the hon. members on the cross-benches were so certain that they were going to have a majority in the next Parliament, they could repeal the Bill then.

said he had received a telegram from the citizens of Volksrust emphatically protesting against the Bill.

The amendment was negatived.

suggested the title should be altered to Riotous Assemblies and Anti-Trade Union Act.

The clause was adopted.

On the schedule,

moved to include “Ordinance 38. of 1902. (the Transvaal Peace Preservation Ordinance), part II.” This Ordinance, he said, gave the Government great power, for it enabled the magistrates, assistant magistrates, or police superintendent in any district in the Transvaal to arrest a man without a warrant if they considered he was guilty of the crime of sedition. He thought the drastic powers given to the Government under that Act should be repealed, because although passed in 1902 for a special purpose, they were put into power during the strike in January last. He thought it would be quite clear that the second part of this Peace Preservation, and Indemnity Bill should be repealed.

asked the ruling of the Acting Chairman whether the amendment was in order?

thought that Ordinance 38 of 1902 ought to be repealed, pointing out that the Act referred to would apply in the case of any person arrested for offences mentioned in the Bill now before the House.

pointed out that the Ordinance for the withdrawal of Martial Law was a special Ordinance, as it referred to acts committed under special conditions.

submitted that as the law was in general application throughout the Transvaal it therefore ought to be repealed, as it was being superseded by the present enactment.

ruled that as the Ordinance referred to in the amendment was passed under a special title (to withdraw martial law and to make special provision for the maintenance of good order and the public safety), which has no reference to the criminal law of the country, he was of opinion that the amendment transcended the scope and intention of the Bill now under consideration.

said that before legislation of the character now before the House was passed it should be ascertained whether some of the existing disabilities could not be removed. In his opinion the Ordinance in question was one of those disabilities, and the Acting Chairman in ruling the amendment of the member for Turffontein out of order was in error.

said it was customary, if the Government consented to accept the Chairman’s ruling. Personally, he thought it was an amendment that should have been accepted.

moved that Mr. Speaker’s ruling be taken.

The motion was agreed to.

resumed the chair, and the Acting Chairman submitted his ruling for consideration.

On Mr. SPEAKER calling upon the mover to state his case,

submitted that it would not be outside the scope of that Bill, repealing the provisions of Act 58 of 1902 of the Transvaal, which also dealt with the crimes of sedition and high treason.

Is the law in the Transvaal with regard to sedition and public meetings and matters of that kind dealt with under the Act of 1902? This is the first time my attention has been drawn to this Act. It seems to be an Act passed to withdraw Martial Law.

Yes, in the first part. The amendment deals with part 2, and that provides for authorising Magistrates and Police Officers to arrest, without warrant, any person who is under suspicion of having committed high treason, sedition, conspiracy, and the like. It gives power for the stopping of letters and the like.

Is that the law now?

Yes.

That is the criminal law of the Transvaal to-day? Well, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice.

Ordinance 38 of 1902 of the Transvaal is a special Ordinance, and not an Ordinance which purports to amend the criminal law. It is an Ordinance, firstly, to repeal Martial Law, and secondly, to make special provisions for public safety. The Bill that we are now dealing with is a Bill to amend the criminal law in certain respects, and the point I raised to the Chairman of Committees was that if this repeal was put in the Bill it would have had to be put in the title.

May I say a word on this subject?

I would like to hear the right hon. member.

went on to say that the Bill that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Wyndham) wanted repealed brought back some of the darkest memories of South Africa, and had been passed in the time just after the war to keep down a section of the population. Now, in times of profound peace, they were asked to keep on that law. He should have thought that his hon. friend the Minister would have been glad to get rid of every piece of legislation of that kind. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Merriman) had felt ashamed at the time that Bill had been passed—a shocking Bill —and now in a free Parliament the Minister proposed to keep on a Bill like that. It seemed to him a monstrous thing. The hon. gentleman who had expounded reasons for repealing that Bill had been an official of the Crown Colony Government of those days, and here that Bill was defended by one of the persons at whom it had been aimed. “Truly the whirligig of time has brought in Its revenges.”

What is the procedure?

went on to say that if the hon. member was ruled out of order, he had a perfect right to put on the Paper, on the consideration of amendments, a clause repealing that Bill.

said that that Ordinance of 1902 was cognate with the first part of the Bill. The first line stated, “Whenever a Magistrate thought that the public safety might be endangered,” etc.

said that in the schedule of the Bill they found: Laws repealed 1904 Transvaal, sections 36 and 37; Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, section 7, of the Transvaal. He would submit that if these criminal laws were amended, surely the other criminal law might be amended.

In regard to the question put to me, I would like to refer to Part II. of Ordinance No. 38 of 1902 (Transvaal) which is now sought to be repealed. Section eighteen of this Ordinance falls under Part II. and prescribes a penalty for certain seditious acts there specified. This section which I have taken as an example, creates an offence and Is therefore part of the criminal law of the Transvaal. The title of the Bill now under consideration by the Committee specifically includes a provision “to amend the criminal law in certain respects”, and I am of opinion that the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Turffontein is clearly germane to, and within the true intent of, the Bill under consideration. Accordingly I must rule that the amendment is in order. (Hear, hear.)

having left the Chair, the House resumed in Committee.

said that perhaps the hon. Minister would have no objection now to inserting in the schedule what had been suggested, in view of Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

asked if the Minister would accept the amendment? Surely hon. members from the Cape Province, the Orange Free State, and Natal could not see their fellow-citizens suffering under a law like that in the Transvaal.

I accept the amendment. (Cheers.)

The amendment was agreed to.

in reference to his new section referring to the age of consent, said that the Minister of Justice had given an assurance that it would be dealt with next year.

was understood to say that he had intimated that he had sympathy with the hon. member.

said that sympathy was of no use.

said that what he told the hon. member was that his experience of Parliamentary work was too short to enable him to give an assurance with regard to the following year.

said if he could get the slightest assurance from the Government that in connection with the amendment of the criminal law which was to take place next session that matter would be attended to, he would be glad to withdraw his motion.

said it was his intention the first time he dealt with the criminal law to bring in a provision that the age of consent should be uniform.

called attention to the Free State Act of 1902, which was a similar provision as in the Transvaal Act, and which should be repealed at the same time.

moved formally to insert at the end of the schedule in the first column O.F.S., in the next column Ordinance No. 25 of 1902, Indemnity and Peace Preservation Ordinance, and in the fourth column, Part 2.

The amendment was agreed to.

The schedule as amended was then passed.

The Committee reverted to clause 5, Restriction as to use of firearms or lethal weapons.

moved in line 9 to substitute “and” and “and” for the two “or’s.” It would then read “and unless and until any of the persons assembled at the gathering kill or seriously injure or show manifest intention of killing or seriously injuring any person; or (b) destroy or do serious damage to or attempt to destroy or do serious damage to or show a manifest intention of destroying or doing serious damage to any valuable property.” He moved another amendment to omit the words “show a manifest intention of destroying or doing serious damage to,” and a third amendment that at the end of paragraph (b) to add “provided that such destruction or attempted destruction is likely to cause injury or death to any person.” With regard to the manifest intention of killing one wanted to put that out of the realm of conjecture. It was an exceedingly serious thing if lethal weapons were to be used upon citizens in a panic or anything of that sort. It was impossible to define what was meant by showing a manifest intention of doing anything. The hon. member used as an example the habit of the people living in the Latin countries to wildly gesticulate in connection with small matters. It would be far safer in the long run to leave it to lead “to kill or seriously injure or attempt to kill or seriously injure,” and the same argument applied with regard to the proviso provided that the destruction or attempted destruction was liable to cause injury or death to any person. The Committee ought to be prepared to uphold the principle that human life should not be sacrificed for the protection of property. They must have every possible safeguard against firearms being used in a panic or being used for the protection of property in the case of some trifling attempt.

thought it was possible to tie up too closely the actions of the police. Regarding the definition of “manifest intention,” he quoted a judgment of an English judge, which justified the action of firing on a crowd by troops and killing, not the rioters, but some bystanders. He hoped the Minister would not allow any alteration to that clause, otherwise they might find on some occasion that the rioters would get the upper hand. People had been brought up in England for not using firearms and not taking measures in time.

said human life was sacred.

Pooh!

That is the attitude the right hon. gentleman takes up.

You are not going to riot are you?

said he thought the judgment which had been read was very probably right. If they passed that clause it would give the individuals who would be responsible very wide powers indeed. They could interpret any action as a menace to life and property. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman could not understand how men lost their heads under certain circumstances. He (Mr. Madeley) had been amongst it, and knew how all thought and judgment was lost under the circumstances provided for in that Bill. Men were men whether they were in uniforms or not When a man had a rifle in his hands he was itching to use it. They should not give them every inducement to take every opportunity to shoot down their fellows. All the property in the Union was not worth one single life.

said the report of the Featherstone Commissioners had been quoted. Under that section they had tried to put crisply and concisely the principles of the common law, which were principles underlying their law, too. As soon as they went into details they found all sorts of difficulties. The hon. member for Springs had said that the destruction of property should not be included under that section.

No, no—manifest intention.

said that clause was an important one, and that was why he had suggested that it should stand over. The Feather stone Commissioners had said in effect that the destruction of property was an outrage on society, which one was entitled to meet with lethal weapons. Supposing there were a riotous gathering, and they had loaded revolvers in their hands, and certain shots were fired. If that was an “attempt,” they must say it was an attempt to shoot a particular person. If a man shot off a revolver in all directions it might not be an attempt to shoot a particular person. The military had already a very difficult task, and if they overstepped the mark they could be punished for culpable homicide. The law, as laid down in that clause, had so restraining an effect upon any person who had to restrain a rising, that he had doubted whether it was wise to put it in the law. He had thought it wise to put it in, so that everybody should see what were the provisions of the common law. He thought that under the circumstances it was best to leave the clause as it was.

said he did not think the Minister quite grasped the point. He referred to the report of the Disturbances Commission in connection with the case of Allan Muir, of Kleinfontein, who was wounded with a bayonet by the military. The judges had found that that was an unjustifiable act and that there had been no manifest intention on Muir’s part to attack the soldier. If the military used their weapons prematurely, the Commander of the troops would be held responsible, but then the damage would have been done. Rather have excessive delay than premature use of force. He submitted that the Committee would be wise in view of the possibilities of the future to make it as difficult as possible for the military to use their weapons. The Minister had referred to cases where the police had been blamed for not taking earlier action. He (Mr. Creswell) could only remember one case where the police authorities were blamed and that was during the Trafalgar-square riots of 1885 or 1886. The Commissioner of Police was then superseded, but it was never suggested that lethal weapons should be used. He would rather see every window in a street smashed than see one man hurt.

said that the Witwatersrand Disturbances Commission reported that many innocent people were struck by bullets and that the method adopted by the military in stopping revolver fire endangered innocent citizens, although the Commission was not able to suggest any better method. The modern bullet, went on the hon. member, would go through three or four persons when fired at short range, and it was possible for a person to be killed by a rifle bullet at a distance of two or three miles. It was a fearful danger to turn men loose in thickly populated districts armed with weapons of that sort. He suggested that adaptors should be placed in rifles when soldiers were called upon to quell civil disturbances. There were far more innocent people killed and injured in Johannesburg on July 5 last than guilty ones. This, however, was not the fault of the authorities, but of the system.

said that on June 29 last a meeting was held at Benoni in connection with the strike, and at the conclusion of the meeting a rush was made for the New Kleinfontein Mines, many of the people taking part in it being merely sightseers. Under the Bill the soldiers would have been quite justified in shooting down these people as they walked towards the mine, and no Court would have convicted the soldiers of manslaughter. The Minister should amend the clause so that firearms should he used only when an actual attempt was made. The clause would cover almost any dastardly deed done by the troops on suspicion.

put the question: That the words “or unless or”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

declared the question affirmed, and the first part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell, negatived.

put the question: That the words in lines 12 and 13, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

declared the question affirmed, and the second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell, negatived.

The proposed omission of the words in lines 15 and 16, was negatived.

The proviso proposed by Mr. Creswell was put.

declared the amendment regatived.

Clause 5 was then agreed to.

New clause 17 proposed by Mr. Nathan, was negatived.

The question, that clause 21 stand part of the Bill, was put and agreed to.

moved that the Bill be reported with amendments.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was reported with amendments.

moving that the consideration of amendments be set down for Friday,

said the mention of Friday was a mistake on the part of the Minister, as the Committee had been clearly given to understand that the next stage would not be taken until certain remedial measures had reached the same stage. A further reason why it should be delayed was that a Bill with amendments should be in the hands of the House before the next stage was taken.

said he was agreeable to make it Monday. What had been stated was that the third reading would not be taken.

thought they should come to an understanding about the matter. The Minister made a distinct promise to the House that a further stage would not be taken until certain other Bills had passed through Committee. If it was agreed to take the consideration of amendments on Monday it should be on the understanding that the Bill would not pass its ultimate stage until the other measures had passed through Committee.

said he had assured the leader of the Opposition that the House would proceed with the Industrial Disputes Bill and the Workmen’s Compensation Bill as soon as the present Bill was finished with, and the Minister had repeated that promise. He could now tell the House that the Government would proceed with these measures.

moved that the Bill be taken on Wednesday instead of Monday.

said that there was no doubt that the Minister of Justice had made a promise as stated by other hon. members on that side of the House.

said that he did not want to have his good faith impugned in any way. What he intended was that before the third reading of that Bill was taken other Bills should be taken.

The amendment was negatived.

The motion was agreed to. The consideration of amendments was set down for Monday.

moved that the amendments made by the Senate in the Fruit Export Bill be considered to-morrow.

This was agreed to.

moved that the amendments made by the Senate in the Justices of the Peace and Commissioner of Oaths Bill be considered to-morrow.

This was agreed to.

moved that the amendments be now considered.

Agreed to.

The amendments made by the Senate in the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill were considered.

The amendments were concurred in.

said that the amendment made by the Senate with regard to wages paid by a contractor narrowed it down.

said that the effect of that amendment made in the other place was, as the hon. member had said, to narrow the meaning of the clause. In the other place it had been thought desirable to put beyond any doubt that the wages were wages paid by a contractor and a contractor only. As far as the Government was concerned, it took the same view, and he hoped the House would accept the amendment.

said that the amendment considerably narrowed the meaning of the subsection, and now it had been narrowed down to wages paid by a contractor.

said that the hon. member read “wages” in clause 1 without reference to “wages” in clause 17, where it was further defined. He considered the amendment quite unnecessary himself.

The amendments were concurred in.

moved, as an amendment, in line 8, after the words “ad valorem.” to insert the words “or calculated upon tonnage and ad valorem.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved, as an amendment, to add at the end of the clause: “Provided that in fixing the amount of such wharfage dues as mentioned in paragraph (a) regard shall be had to the different circumstances of each harbour.”

It was agreed to add the proviso.

moved an amendment, to add at the end of the clause: “Provided further that if within fourteen days after any such regulation has been laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament as provided by law a resolution is introduced into either House disapproving of the same such regulation shall not continue to be of force and effect if rejected by both Houses of Parliament during the session in which such resolution has been introduced.”

did not know quite what was intended by the amendment. He could not understand why the form adopted had been used at all.

thought it should read, “provided that regulations should not be introduced if within fourteen days a resolution was introduced and was carried.” He thought that would meet the case.

thought the amendment was not happily worded. The hon. member meant such regulations should not continue to be in force and effect if rejected by both Houses.

The proviso was agreed to.

The Bill was reported as amended.

moved that the amendments be now considered.

objected to the consideration of the amendments at once, and it was agreed that their consideration should be put down for tomorrow.

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Unauthorised Expenditure (1912-13) Bill.

asked when the Minister of Finance is going to bring on his Estimates. The Minister must be short of money. He had only £1,260,000 to carry him through the month, and it took two millions a month to carry him along with regular expenditure and loan expenditure.

said he would have to come to the House in a couple of days to make further provision. As to the Estimates, he was trying to hurry them on as quickly as possible. (Laughter.) He thought they would be able to get to the Estimates in a very short time.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved: That the clause of the Bill stand over until after the Schedule has been disposed of.

Agreed to.

On the schedule,

moved, in the first line of the third, item to omit “section 11, sub-section (2)”; and in the fifth line of the same item, after the word “occurs,” to insert “and in section 11, sub-section (2) where the word ‘loans’ first occurs”; in the first and second lines of the ninth item to omit “section 12, subsection (2)”; and in the sixth line of the same item, after “occurs” to insert “and in section 12, sub-section (2), where the word ‘loans’ first occurs”; and to omit the word “immediately” wherever it occurs.

said he hoped the Minister was proud of his Bill. It was a tin-pot Bill—(laughter)—and yet the heads of the department were not able to draw up the schedule correctly. It was a disgrace to the department. He regretted that his hon. friend’s efforts at legislation had been so unsuccessful.

The amendment was agreed to.

The schedule, as amended, was agreed to.

The Bill was reported, with amendments, which were set down for consideration tomorrow.