as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, as follows—

Report considered and adopted.

as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, as follows—

The total sum requiring to be covered by vote is therefore £26,295 18s. 3d., apportioned as follows: Revenue services, £26,278 5s. 3d.; Capital and betterment services, £17 13s.—£26,295 18s. 3d.

Your committee recommends the sum of £26,295 18s. 3d. for appropriation by Parliament.

Report to be considered on 3rd March.

with leave, made a statement as follows : Difficulties having arisen in regard to the interpretation of certain articles of the convention regulating the introduction of natives from Portuguese East Africa into the Transvaal for work on the mines entered into between the Government of the Union of South Africa and the Government of the Portuguese Republic, the Minister of Native Affairs was delegated by the Union Government to visit Lourenco Marques to discuss with the Governor-General of Mozambique the points in dispute and endeavour to secure agreement. The matters upon which agreement was reached are the following:

1. 1. Under Article XVI of the convention the Union is required to treat all Portuguese natives other than those employed on the mines contemplated by the convention as prohibited immigrants. It has now been agreed that such natives actually found in employment in the Union will be granted a temporary permit to complete the unexpired portion of their contract but not for a longer period than six months. A Portuguese native who enters the Union after the 1st March next and who is already in employment when identified as a Portuguese native may continue in such employment for such period not exceeding three months as will enable him to earn sufficient money to pay the cost of his repatriation.

Unemployed Portuguese natives found within the Union will be given the opportunity of taking employment on the mines under the convention. Natives refusing such employment or found to be unfitted therefor will be repatriated.

The Portuguese authorities, though pressed, would under no circumstances agree to any departure from the principle laid down in the convention that Portuguese natives shall only be allowed entry into the Union for employment within a fixed quota on the Rand mines.

1. 2. It was agreed that any native engaged subsequent to the 1st May, 1927, under the 1909 convention will, if medically fit, he allowed to enter into fresh contracts operative from the date of expiration of the period of service under the 1909 convention for such further period or periods as are specified in the convention of 1928. Deferred pay will operate in regard to such natives from the first shift worked.
2. 3. Questions relating to the interpretation of Article XV; compensation due in respect of natives accidentally killed; the repatriation of natives engaged on the mines under the convention of 1909, and the repatriation of Portuguese native women, were satisfactorily disposed of.
3. 4. The Portuguese authorities were not able to make any concession in regard to Article XII relating to the maximum period of employment of Portuguese natives on the mines, nor was the Minister of Native Affairs able to meet the request of the Portuguese authorities for the application of the deferred pay system to all Portuguese natives engaged on the mines. I may say I propose in a few days to lay on the table of the House the correspondence containing the arrangements come to.

I would ask the Minister whether he would not give us a little longer —say Monday week.

The order paper is very full, and the measure will probably not be reached.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I should certainly he neglecting my duty if I did not rise again to point out to the Government the sad and distressing condition our farmers are in at the moment, and not only the farmers in general, hut even the farming industry itself. Although there are other parts that are suffering, I want to direct attention particularly to my district.

What vote is the hon. member discussing? He can only debate votes on the additional estimates.

I did not hear very well. I was under the impression that we were debating the Partial Appropriation Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

At the end of the second paragraph under this head the following observation occurs—

I should like to ask the Minister if he will make a short statement about this observation.

Hon. members will remember that we decided last year to include the booking on and off times in the calculation of the fourteen days’ holiday. This means 96 hours for drivers, and 118 hours for stokers, ticket-examiners, and guards.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 5, “Traffic Expenses”, £29,862, put and agreed to.

Head 17, “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £1,150, put and, after discussion, agreed to.

Head 26, “Interest on Capital”, £500, put and agreed to.

I should like to ask the Minister whether the general manager’s recommendation has been adopted. The general manager, in his report, has stated that manufacturers have been asked to tender on their own designs. He considered that the railway department was not getting sufficient value out of manufacturers’ designs, and that the department should go back to their former system of submitting their own designs, and asking the various manufacturers to tender on them.

I should like the Minister to tell me whether the construction of locomotives takes place here, and how many vehicles are built in this country.

The hon. member will see that the locomotives are imported according to Vote No. 4, but are erected here. The vehicles mentioned in the following two votes are built in our own workshops.

I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government has tried to get a reduction of the freight on maize.

That cannot be debated here.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 4, “Harbours”, £120,000, put and agreed to.

Head 8, “Unforeseen Works,” £40,000, put and agreed to.

Additional Estimates (Railways) and Additional Estimates (Capital and Betterment Works) to be reported, without amendment.

I move—

I do not think I need go into details, but there are two or three points other than textual amendments which I want to mention. The first is in relation to the power of the Minister. The Minister has no power to set the wage determination in motion, to make an investigation apart from a recommendation. The fact of the investigations is a distinct stimulus in the direction of the industrial council. It is necessary for me to have power to conduct a preliminary investigation before I take action. The other provision is also in the same direction, that of facilitating or, rather, helping forward the organization of the industrial council. Under the Act as it stands, once determination is in force no industrial council agreement can be entered into, unless it is the same thing as determination. In practice I have found that where determination prevails both employers and employees are prepared to come to an agreement. In one case I have hung up the whole determination for the time being. The Cape Peninsula have come to an agreement. If the others do not come to an agreement, then I can apply the determination to them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and referred to Select Committee on Industrial Conciliation (Amendment) Bill for consideration and report.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this amendment. I think, perhaps, when the matter was last discussed, the Minister was irritable at some of the criticism, and decided to accept an amendment which was somewhat sprung upon him. I want to appeal to him from the point of view of ordinary humanity. Members of this House have been inundated with representations from persons all over the country who want their families to come out. In some cases money has been sent out, and now the Bill is being brought in two months earlier than was intended, and the relatives are being put to a good deal of trouble and inconvenience. I think the Minister should consider this. It will not affect very many people, perhaps 100 or 200 at most. I appeal to the Minister, on behalf of these people who are anxious for their relatives to come out. I have had wires on the question from members of the Nationalist party—wires from the Free State—pointing out cases where, in the case of some intending immigrants, all arrangements have been made for them to arrive during the second week in May. I am sure the Minister would not entail undue hardship in such cases. It will meet with the wishes of large numbers of people in South Africa if the Minister will agree to bring in this Bill with as little hardship as possible.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). In doing so, I hope the Minister will not think, for one moment, that I am pleading for the admission of a few more Jews into South Africa. I was away last week, when the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) moved this amendment. When I heard it I was absolutely shocked. The hon. member has a reputation for springing amendments of this description on the House, and for doing disagreeable things. But I never imagined that he would bring up an amendment of this description. Least of all did I imagine the Minister would adopt it. What. I am pleading for now is not that the Minister will allow a few more Jews to come into South Africa, but rather that he will appreciate that the altering of this date from July 1st to May 1st will make a considerable difference to those people who have already made arrangements to come in. A similar position arose when the Quota Bill was brought into operation in America. Something like 2,000 or 3,000 Jewish people were stranded in passage en route to America. They had to subsist for some years, in many cases, under most distressing conditions. They could not return to the place whence they came, and they could not go to America. They were stranded in England and in other parts of the world. In England, with their customary generosity, they allowed these unfortunate people to land, and they were maintained by other members of the community until, by degrees, they were returned to their own country, or were allowed to go to other parts of the world. I fear that we are appealing in vain to the hon. Minister, who is not even condescending to listen to my arguments. I repeat, that, of the unfortunate features connected with this Bill and its mode of introduction, nothing has been more hurtful to me than the alteration of this date to May instead of July. It is a miserable alteration. I am not pleading for an extension of time so that more immigrants can be admitted. I am appealing seriously because the alteration of this date is going to leave certain people, who quite legitimately were coming to South Africa, held up and unable to enter the country. I cannot believe that the Minister has altered the date really with the object of restricting those who originally intended to come in. I rather understand that the idea was to shorten the date so that an effort could not be made to bring in an unduly large number of people into the country. It will not have this effect. I am informed, if the date is altered to the 1st May, it will have the effect, as already pointed out, that numbers of these people who are practically in passage, will be held up and stranded, being unable either to go back or to come to South Africa. I do not know if the Minister will accept a proposal to revert to the original date, July 1st. If not, it is futile to move it. I make a last appeal to the Minister. This alteration of the date from the 1st July to the 1st May is the culmination of a series of actions which will hit the people I am pleading for very hard indeed. I cannot believe that the Minister is really frightened of the possibility of a few additional people coming into this country. If that is the case it should not weigh against the cause I am pleading for, that a number of these people who were legitimately intending to come here, will be probably held up somewhere in passage and unable to go back to the place whence they came, or to come into this country. I appeal to the Minister to allow the date to go back to the 1st July, or even to the 1st June, in order to avoid the hardships I have already indicated.

I think the House will abide by the decision it has already taken in regard to this matter. The matter is largely out of my hands at this stage, and I could not have accepted it at the previous stage. The House must not forget, in connection with this particular amendment, that there was a division of the House. All the arguments that are being brought forward now were brought forward on the previous occasion, and after the House had considered the matter there was a division, and this amendment was carried. I think it would be wrong for me, in view of the previous decision of the House, to go back on that decision.

I do not understand the Minister’s logic at all. The amendment was sprung upon the House in committee, and it is only since the effect of the amendment has become known that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and other hon. members, have realized what a great hardship the acceptance of this amendment will work. The Government drafted this Bill after taking stock of the position, and they took July 1st as the date in question. They were satisfied that the mischief they wished to check would effectively be checked by the operation of the Bill being fixed at the 1st July. That did not satisfy some of the die-hards in this House, and the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) thought he would improve on the Minister’s effort by moving that the date of the operation of the Bill be fixed at May 1st. The Minister gave that proposal his blessing, and it was carried after a division in this House. The Minister’s original proposal, after considering all the circumstances, was the 1st July. All that he is asked now is that the Government should stick to its original proposal, and not abide by a decision taken on the spur of the moment, and without the knowledge of the people chiefly affected by the Bill, who were not aware of what was going on. They realize the position now, and they tell us that it means unnecessary hardship in the case of quite a number of individuals. If the Minister thought that by moving forward the date to the 1st May he was shutting out a lot of fictitious immigrants, who were trying to avoid the effects of the Bill, I can understand it. But he has not said that, He has not said that there are a lot of immigrants who are threatening to come in on the spur of the moment.

Of course I did.

Has the Minister any definite information that unless the date is moved forward to the 1st May we are threatened with an inordinate influx of immigrants?

Yes.

If the Minister says that, then I can say no more.

Amendments put and agreed to.

On amendments in Clause 3,

I move, as an amendment to the amendment in line 11—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 3 put and agreed to.

I move—

I gave notice of my amendment because when the Bill was before the committee of the whole House and an amendment was sought to be introduced to Clause 9 on the lines of my amendment the chairman ruled that that could not be done, because Clause 3 precluded an amendment of that nature being made to Clause 9. Therefore it is necessary for me to move an amendment to Clause 3. It will be necessary for me to explain the nature of my amendment to Clause 9 in order to justify the amendment to Clause 3, because if Mr. Speaker should approve the ruling of the chairman and my amendment to Clause 3 is lost, it will be out of order for me to move an amendment to Clause 9. I wish to put briefly to the House the difference between the amendment I propose to move in Clause 9 and the amendment which the Minister has on the paper to Clause 3. They both deal with the same matter, namely, the position of the wives and children of persons now lawfully and permanently settled in the Union, these wives and children being still resident in the countries which are not scheduled in the Bill. What I ask the House to adopt is this—when a man is permanently and lawfully resident here and who has left in the country whence he came a wife to whom he was married before May 1 of this year—we are not opening the door wide to all future wives or children born after that date—these wives and children should be allowed to enter the Union. What I ask is that that wife and these children should be allowed to come in as a right, not at the discretion of a board, or going before a board and being dependent on them, whether they are to be allowed to come here or not, but because a man is a citizen of the Union and lawfully and permanently settled here, he ought to be allowed to bring his family here, if he wishes to do so. The Minister’s amendment is different. According to the Minister’s proposal, these wives and children must make application to the board, which may say “no,” we are not going to admit anyone over and above the quota of 50 allowed to your country. In that case they are barred. All that the Minister’s amendment does is to say if the board does admit from that country, over and above 50. these wives and children shall have the preference. Well, that is something. It is a little better than the Bill as it stands, but it still leaves this objection that the man who has lived here does not know whether or not he will be allowed to bring in his wife and children from the country from which he came. The board are entitled to say “no” if they choose to do so. It is a precedent which has been followed in other countries which have restricted immigration that in cases of men who have become citizens of the country, their wives and children who have been left behind are allowed to come in as a right, and not as part of the quota. The Minister need not be under any misapprehension that if this amendment is adopted we are going to open the flood-gates to an unlimited and unknown mass of immigration from these countries. This is limited as strictly as it is possible to do. It is doing an act of elementary justice and humanity to men who are citizens of our country. I do hope hon. members will bear with me, that there is a claim upon us. We are bringing into force at very short notice this restricting Act. People in this country who have wives and children overseas have not had time to make the necessary arrangements by which they would have brought their families in.

I second the amendment. We can fairly hope the Minister will accept this amendment. There seems to be a certain amount of misunderstanding about the amendment he has put on the Order Paper. He will remember how this position was approached when we discussed this matter in committee. We asked that the wives and children of persons already domiciled in this country should be allowed to come in free of the quota and free of the board. The Minister said he would like to take time to consider the proposition, and he came forward and said he had agreed to meet our wishes to the following extent—he would allow these women and children to come in up to the number of 750 in any one year, and then I asked him, “Does that mean they have to come in subject to the discretion of the board or not?” And he said, “No.” I said, “They come in, board or no board,” and he said “Yes.” We were most distinctly under the impression that these wives and children would be allowed to come in as a matter of right, and not in the discretion of any board. The Minister may think this particular section sets that forth and honours that particular understanding, but as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said, I do not think it does, and all the Minister’s proposal means is that those people can come in subject to the discretion of the board, but if they do want to come in they have priority over strangers who have never come in before. That was not what the Minister promised. I would say the Minister must do one of two things—other accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, or allow this matter to stand over so that he can give Clause 2 further consideration, because I would put it to him that Clause 2, as drafted, does not meet the case. I know that when we were discussing the matter in committee I thought the defect could be met by putting in certain introductory words, which he has now put on the paper. I submitted somewhat hastily, that that might meet the position, but on further consideration I do not think it does. Supposing these words are put in in Section 1 [Sections 1 and 2 read]; I read that as meaning as the hon. member for Yeoville has read it, that these wives and children shall, up to the number of 750, have priority over anybody else; but they still come under the governing clause of the section, and still have to run the gauntlet of the board. These wives and children up to 750 should have an indefeasible right to come into the Union, board or no board. I think that was what the Minister intended, but I have more than a doubt as to whether this will be effective. I am almost certain, from my reading of subsection (2), that it does not effect this. If I have correctly stated the intention of the Minister, and if this sub-section does not effect it, there is only one way of getting out of the difficulty, and that is to adjourn the discussion. If I have not correctly interpreted the intention of the Minister, then there has been a misunderstanding. The trouble is that we are now at the report stage, and I shall not be able to speak again on the matter when the Minister has spoken. Perhaps while I am on my feet the Minister will tell me if I understood him correctly ?

Yes.

I thank the Minister. I have discussed this matter with half-a-dozen legal members on this side of the House, and they assure me that the clause does not effect what the Minister intended. I ask the Minister to agree that the debate be adjourned, so that he may further consider the matter, and put it on a proper footing. Let me point out a further defective drafting in sub-section (3). The Minister will notice that in sub-section (1) he recognizes the fact that this Bill starts to operate for a broken period of the calendar year, that is, from the first of May, and he has put in the clause the number who may enter for the remainder of the year, but sub-section (3) deals with the calendar year, and speaks of the number of persons being admitted for the calendar year, namely, 1,000. He has apparently omitted to make the same provision for the broken portion of 1930 under sub-section (3). In a spirit of co-operation with the Minister, I certainly think that the drafting of this proposed new sub-section is imperfect. It does not attain the object that the Minister wants to attain, and I move—

I don’t know whether it is competent for me, having seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) to do so.

Why move the adjournment ?

The Minister tells me that he thinks sub-section (2) attains his object. The hon. member for Yeoville does not think that it does, other members do not think it does, and I do not think it does. I think the matter should stand over.

seconded the motion.

I do not think that I can agree to the adjournment of the debate. If I may speak on the arguments used by the hon. member—

The Minister cannot debate that now, but only speak to the motion for the adjournment.

I withdraw my motion.

With leave of the House, motion withdrawn.

I think it will be best for me first to move my own amendment, so that it will be before the House.

I do not think the Minister can do that. It will be better for the amendment, which has been moved, to be disposed of first.

What I want to move is an alternative amendment, and in order to discuss it, it must be before the House. I move—

I also want to move a few verbal alterations in the English text, and separately in the Afrikaans text. We have here before us two alternative amendments, the one is that proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), and the other is the one I have just handed in. It has been said by the hon. member for Yeoville, and by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the alternative I have proposed practically leaves the matter as it was before with regard to the entry of wives and children of persons resident in this country before the 1st of May. They say that it still leaves the 750 that can be admitted from other countries under restriction to the discretion of the board. I am much surprised that there are so many lawyers opposite who support such an interpretation, according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It seems to me as if it were the same with lawyers as with archaeologists, and that the law is just as little an exact science as archaeology. It looks very much as if the legal opinion on the opposite side of the House was exactly the reverse of that on this side. Let us look at the matter clearly and read the clause that I want to amend first in English. In English it begins as follows—

I think that anyone with common sense will see that the board will not get discretion to deal with the unallotted quota of 1,000 as it pleases, but will be subject to the provisions of sub-clause (2). That is what I am now proposing that the discretion given to the board shall be subject to the provisions of sub-clause (2). What the hon. members opposite tried to explain was that sub-clause (2) was subject to the discretion of the board.

No.

What I am here proposing is that the discretion of the board will be used “subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section.” It is, therefore, the discretion of the board which is subject to Clause 2. The new clause I want to propose reads in English—

It is clear, therefore, that the board is bound by the provisions of sub-clause (2). Sub-clause (2) will then read—

“Preference” is mentioned.

Yes, but if we use common-sense we shall see why it is necessary to speak of “preference.” It is because two classes of persons are not included in the 1,000 of the unallotted quota. The first is the 750 in connection with which the board has to take action, and then there is still the 250 where it can use its full discretion.

The board is not bound to 750.

The board starts with number 1 and not with number 1,000. When there are applications to the board then it must grant all applications from wives and children up to 750, and they must keep opening up to that amount.

The board is not compelled to do so.

The Dutch text says “must.”

But they speak of “preference.”

The matter is so clear that if there is a difference of opinion among lawyers I can only come to the conclusion that legal opinion differs from sound common sense. The latter can only give one interpretation to it.

Why then do you not make it plain ?

Suggest something then. I will consider it. But it is quite plain here that there can be no question that the board must allow 750 of these wives and children before all the others. Let me add something here in connection with what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that I had admitted that there was an absolute right for these wives and children to come to the Union. I did admit it, but with the reservation, of course, that they were subject to the ordinary immigration law. There may, of course, be criminals amongst them, or persons with contagious diseases.

Of course, we understand that.

But just because we do not give up that right the applications must come before the board so that they can decide whether the provisions of the ordinary immigration law have been complied with.

May there not be a question of the board being able to exercise its discretion under this Bill against those wives and children?

According to my motion, the wives and children of those who were here on the 1st of May must be included in the maximum number that are allowed in that year under the quota. In the first place, the 50 of the quota for the country concerned must be exhausted, and then the general unallotted quota in respect of the countries under restriction. But I am not prepared to open the door wider. The principle is this, that if the women and children come in, and I want to give them all the right, then it must be done at the expense of their own compatriots who want to come in. We are opening the door for them, but it closes the door for their other compatriots. Hence they are included in the quota of 50, and the 1,000 which is granted to the countries under restriction. The hon. member for Yeoville wants to do that. He wants to give them the absolute right of coming in over and above the definite quotas. If we did that, then this Bill would, to a great extent, be useless. Then we should be opening the door very wide. The question is whether my proposal goes far enough. The department informs me that it makes ample provision for all wives and children. One thing I will concede, viz., that if we had accepted the limitation of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, viz., that this right should only be granted for three years, then that provision would not have been sufficient. But now that we are not applying that restriction, my department informs me that this provision is quite ample. There will, in all probability, be no one who will be able to come in. Therefore I think that there can be no question here of the restriction causing hard cases. My motion amounts to this, that the people can come in, but that they must come in under the quotas for the unrestricted countries, i.e., under the 50 for every separate country, and the 1,000 of the unallotted quota, while the hon. member for Yeoville wants them to come in freely over and above the quota.

seconded the amendment.

In effect, therefore, the Minister makes no concession whatever. He absolutely sticks his toes into the ground and does not move an inch. I understood, a couple of days ago, when the hon. Minister last spoke on this subject, that he was going to make a concession, a substantial concession, which would remove our grievance. Now it is perfectly clear that no concession whatever is made, not in the least. The hon. Minister has not moved an inch forward. He is still saying that he sticks to these two limitations of 50 for each country, and in addition 1,000. In regard to the women and children, in so far as they have to be accommodated, their numbers must go in abatement of the quota of 50 or of the 1,000. I say that the Minister has made no concession whatever. In another form of words he has come round to exactly the same position. The complaint we made originally remains, that the Minister has not met the position fairly. Now the only way to meet the position is to adopt the amendment my hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has moved, and to make the number of women and children to be admitted additional to the limits which have already been laid down in the Bill. That is the concession the Minister can give over the 1,000. Well, the position is quite clear. The Minister says he is advised that if his proposal is adopted and the 750 women and children are allowed in as part of the 1,000, that the case will be fairly met. He says that is his information. If that is so, if the case will be fairly met by letting in 750 women and children per annum, then what remains of his argument that, if they are additional to the 1,000, a wide door will be opened and very large numbers of people will be let into this country? I assume that the Minister’s information is correct, that the stream of women and children which is likely to come in under the amendment is not likely to exceed 750. That 750 per annum is a fair number to allow. That shows that there is no danger of excessive immigration under this amendment which the hon. member moves.

That is 750, over and above.

That 750 will not spoil the position. Surely the Minister will agree that that number is not excessive, and that number, when you are dealing with the total immigration to this country, is not an excessive number at all. If the Minister is right in his advice that 750 is a fair provison to make for the women and children that will come in, it is quite clear that the amendment of my hon. friend will be accepted and the number of women and children let in under the amendment will not be excessive. The Minister must see that under this amendment a very great hardship is committed. Only this morning I received a letter from a gentleman in Johannesburg, who writes to me to this effect: “We are three brothers here who, years ago, came to this country and are lawfully resident here. We have a mother in one of these prohibited countries. What is the position? Can we get our mother in?" I do not know. I do not know whether they can get their mother in or not under the provision which the Minister is making now.

Yes.

Oh, no! She may find that she may have to wait for years before she can come into this country. She may find that the 50 quota has been exhausted and the 1,000 has been exhausted. She may not have the opportunity to come in for years. That is why we want to exempt these people, the wives and children of citizens already lawfully resident in this country, from the provisions of this Bill. Surely that is perfectly fair. Let them know where they are. At present they do not know. Nobody can answer that gentleman who wrote to me this morning, saying what the position is, whether he can get his mother in the next six months. Nobody knows what the position will be under the conditions and restrictions placed here by the Bill. I think the charge of unfairness and harshness is not escaped by the amendment the hon. Minister moves. In these circumstances, I hope the Minister will see that, on the whole, it will be far better and far more humane to accept the amendment moved by my hon. friend.

The hon. the leader of the Opposition said that the Minister of the Interior was firm and did not yield at all. It seems to me, however, that the Opposition has vacillated, and now brings up a fresh point of attack. The other point was that they felt sorry—and we all sympathize with them—for the wives and children of people who are domiciled here. The Minister has met the objection by allowing 750 of them to enter annually, and the leader of the Opposition has, himself, admitted that that is generous, and that no injustice is being done to those people. But where is their pity now, what has become of the oppression they spoke of? The hon. members of the Opposition now say that we must admit a large number. They are no longer sorry for the women and children, but they now say that 1,000 is not enough, and that we must increase the figure. The Opposition have only been looking for a fresh point of attack, and I want to point out that they are no longer concerned about the wives and children because they, themselves, admit that 750 is adequate, but that they merely want to admit a larger number of immigrants.

The hon. member for Colesberg Dr. Lamprecht) said that we were making a fresh attack, but I want to point out that the Minister said that he wanted to treat the wives and children fairly and justly, and to create no difficulties for them. I expected the hon. member for Colesberg to regard the matter from a fair and just standpoint. The Minister, however, is only proposing here a different way of making trouble. If the Minister admits that it is fair and just to allow free entry to the wives and children of persons living here, why then does he want to restrict them? If it is fair for them to come in, then they have a right of doing so whenever they wish without coming under the quota. The Minister must understand that he has taken a very serious step in Clause 1 in altering the date. I think it is very small-minded. In this case there are family and marriage bonds, and we must not try to break them. I know of cases where men entered the country five or six years ago. They made a living and became citizens of South Africa, and now only have they got out their wives and little children. I think it is unfair to say that they may not come in.

Where is that said?

It is not said directly, but there is a chance that they will experience difficulty when they want to come in. The Minister has so worded it that it can be construed in two ways. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) introduces a clear amendment which is not open to a double construction. If the Minister actually wishes to be fair, then he, and the hon. member for Colesberg should agree with this, so that no difficulty may arise.

I think there is something in the contention of hon. members opposite in regard to the wording proposed by my colleague. I move, as an amendment to the amendment—

In regard to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has said about these people coming in as a matter of right, it stands to reason they will have to make application to the board and the direction given to the board that these applications shall be granted, ought to be sufficient.

seconded.

I am very glad the Minister of Native Affairs has moved that amendment, although it does not meet with my requirements, but, at any rate, it makes the meaning clearer. The Minister of the Interior, when he takes his stand, is so bigoted about it that nothing will move him. I am glad the Minister of Native Affairs has driven him out of his obstinacy. The Minister of the Interior must have known that the objection was a very valid one. I am not moving any amendment because I realize the absolute futility of trying to bring reason to bear with the Minister of the Interior. The amendment does not meet the demands of ordinary, bare justice and although it effects an improvement it means, so far as this provision is concerned, not only that these women and children are not coming in as a right, but they will still have to go through all the machinery before they can have an opportunity of coming into the country. It is true that after going through all the machinery the board will have to allow them to enter South Africa, but the Minister will deduct their numbers from the quota so, in effect, as far as new immigrants are concerned, the door will be closed. They can come in, not as a right, but as a grudging concession at the expense of other people. The amendment the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is much more creditable to the House and the country because it recognizes the sanctity of family life. I do not propose to reason with the Minister on that matter, and I would leave it alone were it not for the fact that I have the highest regard for the good name and the reputation of South Africa—higher than the Minister and his supporters. Before very long they will find they do not represent the true instincts of the people of South Africa, but in the eyes of the outside world, who cannot distinguish between the people of the country and its Government, a definite idea will go forward—absolutely justified, by the action of the Minister of the Interior and his friends—that South Africa not only has a disregard, but a contempt, for family life, and rather has a regard for assimilability, which in the eyes of the outside world will not be distinguishable from miscegenation, than for domestic life.

It appears now that the Minister sees some amount of substance in the difficulties we saw in the amendment. Now that his colleague has moved to delete those words it has more of the effect of the amendment as originally promised by the Minister. We are now entitled to ask, which do we prefer, the Minister’s suggestion as now made, or the suggestion made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). It seems to me the question resolves itself now not into a hardship for the wives and children, but what is left of immigration from the nonscheduled countries, once this is done. I do say that you are practically shutting the door entirely to immigration from these countries. The clause says persons from non-scheduled countries can come in only if they are of good character, are likely to be assimilated by the inhabitants of the country, are not harmful to the economic and industrial welfare of the country and do not follow an occupation which is already full in this country. If you have a person who is so wonderful as to fulfil all these qualifications, and over and above that, commends himself to the discretion of the board, you do not need any limit over and above that. The thing is grotesque and ridiculous, and I do not understand what the Minister is driving at in regard to it. The amendment falls far short of what we, in common sense, desire in this matter. We are just as keen as the Minister in seeing that the immigration into this country is selected and that we are not flooded by those countries by which we are being flooded to-day; but we do say the Minister is going too far, and the reasonable thing to say is that new immigration is limited in these two ways; but why ban the children who have a right to come in, independent of any quota, and under the provisions of Section (9) as is to be moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

I just want to say that we, on this side of the House, sympathize just as much as anyone else with family life.

You don’t show it.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) thinks that he is an authority on family life. I just want to point out that he ought to know that there is no other nation in the world that feels so strongly about family life as the South African, that has more honour for it. We have shown this by accepting the amendment. The hon. member ought to know it. It is not necessary for him to threaten and to say that we will find that we do not represent the feelings of the people. I can assure him that we absolutely represent our people. The misfortune is that the hon. member thinks that this measure is directed against the Jews.

Undoubtedly.

I deny it emphatically. The hon. leader of the Opposition, Gen. Smuts, also said that, but the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) denies it with us. If I were convinced that it would go against the Jews, I would vote against the Bill, because I have many good friends amongst them.

It is noticeable that every anti-Semite talks of the number of his Jewish friends.

It is easy to make such wild statements, but we attach little value to them. Everyone who uses his common sense knows that it is so, and I am glad the Minister of Native Affairs has moved the amendment to make certain that the wives and children shall get precedence, because we feel that that should be so. It would be unfortunate for the husbands to have to live here without a chance of getting their wives and children out. The question we are now asked is to allow the 750 to come in without their coming under the quota of 1,000. As for myself, personally, I sympathize with it a little; I feel that the provision that they must form a part of the 1,000 will practically close the door to immigrants from those countries. The wives and children must, however, come in the first place, and, in the second, I feel that if the Minister of the Interior had been convinced of the reasonableness of the request, that he would have complied with it. I know he is a man like the late President Kruger who sticks to his point, but when he is convinced that he is wrong he gives in. I have, myself, had the experience when I tried to convince him of something, but I was unsuccessful. He has, however, proved that he gives in when convinced. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is once more talking prohibition. Our view is that good suitable immigrants who adapt themselves to our people are desirable, and therefore immigration from other countries is permitted. I also feel that we must yield as much as possible in this direction. I wanted to say these few words to point out that the South Africans need stand back for no one in their respect for family life.

It is quite true that now that the amendment moved by the Minister of Native Affairs is adopted, the only point between the Minister of the Interior and myself is that under this amendment these applicants will go before the board, and will come in as part of the quota. The Minister knows perfectly well that limited as this amendment is to persons who are married before this Act takes effect, and to children who are born before this Act takes effect, you cannot have a stream of 750 a year, or anything like it. Therefore it is absurd for the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) to talk as if we were going to add to the quota 750 a year, or anything like it. I should say that 750 altogether is much nearer the number who would come in if my amendment were adopted. I ask the Minister not to press this in what I may call a niggardly spirit. Let these people come in. It will be no possible detriment to the future welfare of South Africa.

I would like to ask the Minister whether this proviso in Section 1, as it stands, will not be incorrect. Should not this proviso only apply to Section 1, and then Section 2 come after it? Otherwise the whole effect of the Minister’s amendment will be destroyed. This proviso, Section 1, does not remain a proviso to Section 1.

What do you suggest ?

I suggest that there be a proviso to Section 1, and that Section 2 be a distinct clause.

Say what the words are which you suggest.

In support of the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) I would like to ask the Minister to consider this point. The Minister told us a little while ago that it would involve the admission of 750 persons, the wives of men to-day resident in the Union, and their children. I should say that the Minister is right, and that it would be about 750.

Seven hundred and fifty per annum.

The Minister has got access to information which the hon. member (Dr. Lamprecht) and I have not got.

Seven hundred and fifty per annum, for a number of years.

If you find that the numbers coming in as wives and children are so great that it would be dangerous to allow more of the unallotted quota in, then you need not allow any more of that category into the country. Therefore, I think, in the administration of the law you can get exactly what we are aiming at, and at the same time give way to this humanitarian appeal which we are making. If the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is accepted, you still have all the power you need, under Clause 3, to exclude too great a number. The board will have its discretion and need not allow even one of the unallotted quota to come in, and I think we shall be quite safe in leaving it to the discretion of the board. I seriously ask the Minister to consider that point.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On new paragraph (c).

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Mew paragraph (c), as amended, put and agreed to.

In Clause 9,

Amendment in line 42 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

I move this amendment although I know it is inconsistent with the amendment the House has just adopted. I formally move it, however, because, without it, the provisions of my previous amendments are unintelligible.

seconded.

I am unable to put this amendment as it is inconsistent with the amendment to Clause 3 which has been moved by the Minister of the Interior and agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 10,

I move—

I move this because I am advised it is necessary and if we do not have this amendment, the provisions of this Act will prevail over the provisions of the principal Act.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 3rd March.

I should like to have further information from the Minister about this clause than he gave on the motion for the second reading. I listened to his statement carefully but it appeared inadequate to me, and therefore I referred to what he said as reported in Hansard, from which I quote—

That statement is not only inadequate, but it is also incorrect. From the statement he made it looks as if the clause only applied to universities in South Africa, but it applies to graduates of universities in the Union from elsewhere. I know in the main what the intention of the clause is, but what I would like to know is why the clause is drafted as the Minister has drafted it. Apparently the intention is to prevent the clause conflicting with the changes made in the universities of other countries. But I should like to know why we are here departing from the corresponding section in the Act of the Witwatersrand University, and also the clause in the Bill for the University of Pretoria, which is now under consideration by the House. It is certainly desirable to have uniformity in the Universities Acts in South Africa. I should like to know whether the Minister will have any objection to an amendment to bring this clause into agreement with Section 16 of the Pretoria University’s Bill and the corresponding section in the Witwatersrand University’s Act?

It is not a real departure from the other University Acts. The intention is the same as is set out in the constitution of the Witwatersrand University. It is only a verbal amendment for the sake of greater clarity.

The clause as it stands is exceedingly difficult to interpret, and for that reason the clause in the Acts of the other universities is better. I refer more particularly to sub-section (b) (ii). What does “such degree” mean? It cannot mean the degree of doctor or master, and it cannot refer to the degree mentioned in line 21. The clause is open to the charge of vagueness, and I therefore move—

I do not think the amendment makes any difference, but I cannot concede that it is clear.

I must again ask the Minister to tell us what the words “such degree” in Clause 1, line 25 mean. He says that the University will have the right of admitting “such person to the status of holder of such degree in the university”. Amongst these there may be persons who have no degree. Clause 1 refers to students who have taken lectures at a technical school, e.g., the Royal School of Mines, or a course for women, at Cambridge. They have no degree, and what then do these words “such degree” mean? I think that it will be well to report progress and ask leave to sit again so that the Minister can consider this matter, when he has had an opportunity to consider my objection, he will see that it is well grounded. I therefore move—

Motion put and negatived.

May I again ask the Minister what he means by those words?

I can only refer to what precedes this clause. The preceding clause reads—

Does the Minister seriously mean that a student who has passed at say the University of Cambridge or the Royal School of Mines an examination which is only equivalent to an examination for a B.A. degree in our universities shall be entitled to be admitted to the status of the degree of doctor or master of the University of South Africa? As far as I can see, what the Minister does mean is admission to membership of convocation, and if that is so why should he not say so. There can be no object in admitting people who have passed an examination equivalent only to the bachelor’s examination to the status of master or doctor of the University of South Africa. By the Minister’s own admission, there is a vagueness in the drafting of the clause, and I should like to ask the Minister again what the words “such degree” mean. Perhaps he will also be able to tell us, why he has departed from the phrasing of the University of the Witwatersrand Act and the Pretoria University Bill, which was drafted, I understand, in his own department ?

I have no objection to accepting the amendment because it makes the matter clear, but I think the hon. member, who was on the committee who investigated this matter, ought to have raised his objection there. I also think that he had an opportunity of putting his amendment on the audit paper so that we could have considered it. Now we have to consider all kinds of amendments and hurriedly go into what the effect will be. In any case I think the amendment makes the matter clearer, and I have no objection to accepting it.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Hofmeyr put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 3rd March.

As representing a very large urban area, in which there are two very large native locations, I would like to make a few remarks on the Bill. The principal Act referred to in this Bill was passed in 1923, and provided for the segregation and control of natives in urban areas. That Act, I think, worked very well. It is one of those Acts, like a good many passed in that period, which worked very well. Now it is proposed to improve on that Act, and it seems to me this Bill is going a little bit further than the principal Act. It provides that the natives outside urban areas should be controlled. It is quite natural, after a period of six or seven years, that circumstances will arise which make it necessary to amend an Act and put in further provisions. The Bill will operate right through the Union, of course, and we must assume that the conditions prevailing in the different urban areas vary very much in the different provinces. I have listened very carefully to the speeches made by hon. members, and I must say that as far as I can see their conception of native rights in the different areas, also varies very much. I want to give those who spoke, especially on the other side of the House, every credit that what they said was genuinely their opinion, although it was different from mine. I would like to support, very strongly, the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who made, I think, a very moderate and statesmanlike speech, and appealed to the Minister of Native Affairs to allow this Bill to go to a select committee. I was sorry to see certain hon. members on the other side of the House take very strong exception to the Bill being allowed to go to select committee. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said it would be a good thing to send the Bill to select committee so as to give the natives an opportunity of giving evidence. As far as I could see the idea of members on the other side of the House was that if we allow the natives to give evidence before a select committee it will to a certain extent spoil the natives. One hon. member said that if the request made from this side of the House were granted it would be an encouragement to the agitators. My view is that it would to some extent stop the agitators from agitating if you give the natives a fair chance of giving evidence before this select committee. I listened with interest to the speeches made on this side of the House, and particularly to the speech of the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane). He did not seem to be in favour of sending the Bill to a select committee. He said that Natal wanted the Bill as it was, and he indicated that the natives of Natal are having a very good time. I think he mentioned that they were earning very good pay, and that they did not wear clothes. After the hon. the Minister of Justice went to Natal with an expeditionary force he sent a commission there, and the report of the commission does not show that the economic conditions prevailing among the natives are so excellent. I do not want to criticize the state of affairs so far as natives are concerned in other provinces. I am going to deal with the natives in our province, and especially with regard to the Cape Peninsula. Coming to the Bill itself, I feel that from the speech made by the Minister of Native Affairs he has been appealed to by local authorities to bring in this Bill, and making my own deductions I cannot help thinking that the Minister has not given these people all that they asked for in this Bill. Some of the clauses of the Bill are very drastic. If I were a native and read some of the clauses contained in the Bill I would regard them as very drastic. It is possible that the Minister thought it necessary to make drastic clauses if the Bill were to be effective, and that he relies upon the public authorities, who will administer the Bill if it passes, to be as lenient and as sympathetic as possible. There is one clause I would like to refer to, and that is a clause whereby upon the request of a public authority the Governor-General may issue a proclamation preventing a native from coming into an urban area for the purpose of seeking work. I know that some of my hon. friends on both sides of the House will disagree with me in what I have to say on that clause, but I must say that I cannot agree to that policy, a policy whereby we want to make a law to prevent a man from seeking work. I feel that the natives has to bear taxation directly as well as indirectly. He has to pay his direct tax, and if he does not pay it under a law we have made we put him in jail. We deal with him in quite a different manner to what we deal with a European. On the other hand we are making a law here whereby we want to prevent him from seeking employment. That is not a fair way of treating the native, to make one law to prevent him from seeking employment, and to have a law on the statute book saying that if he does not pay his direct tax we will put him in jail. I know that there are people who say that the native is competing with Europeans and with the coloured people in the labour market, but I am not prepared this afternoon to go into the question. It is a very big question. Here in the Peninsula our natives, unlike some of the natives in Natal, all wear clothes. I think you will find some of them even going about with Piccadilly suits and ’varsity caps. The clothing manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the boot manufacturers do not object. We encourage the native to uplift himself because we feel that he then becomes a consumer. The more he uplifts himself the more he becomes a factor in the civilized life of the Union; in fact a boot manufacturer told me that if half of the seven million natives were to wear boots every factory would be working full time. From what has been said I make the deduction that the Minister was not only asked to put in this clause, but that he was asked to go further and to make provision in this Bill that where there is in the opinion of a local authority an overplus of natives in an urban area they can be repatriated. I am glad to see that the Minister, if I am right in my assumption, has not put that into this Bill. Some of these clauses are drastic. There is only one hope for the native in the urban areas—especially the native living a civilized life holding a responsible position such as in a store. That is that the Minister will remember the great responsibility which devolves on him to ensure that the Act is administered sympathetically. Millions of natives are looking to him; their destiny lies in the hollow of his hand. As far as natives in the Cape are concerned, if the law is administered in a sympathetic manner, it will certainly work much better than the policy of the mailed fist, I appeal to the Minister to instruct his departmental officials to see that if the provisions of this Bill are not carried out in a sympathetic manner, he will again come back to the House and ask for an amendment in the law.

While thanking the Minister for Clause 16 of this Bill, I nevertheless want to assure him that the principle contained in Clause 10 will cause general dissatisfaction, and I might almost say general indignation in the Free State. The reason is that the principle of that clause is diagonally opposed to the old Free State policy in connection with locations adjoining villages. The Free State view always was that locations next to villages were only sleeping and living places for the coloured people who were required to do the work of the villages. The Free State policy never was for the locations to develop into native villages. The principle of the clause mentioned tends in the direction of creating a state of affairs which will end in a native township being established alongside of every European village in the Free State. We cannot get away from that. When the locations were established the villages intended them to be just as a farmer engaging his servants for work, and then saying: “Boy, you can build a house there.” Just as little as the farmer could be expected to be compelled to have to take out a licence in the town for his work-people to carry on business, just as little can it be expected here. I can assure the Minister that this feeling does not exist only in me, but right through the Free State. Every Free State member has received telegrams and letters from the villages in his constituency, to use his influence to prevent the clause passing in its present form. I may point out that the telegrams come from town councils that represent every section of the Free State population. The Minister must not think that the opposition to the clause is caused by envy. It is not the people who have small shops in the villages, or trade with the natives who dictate the policy at municipal elections. The big shopkeepers, doctors, attorneys, farmers, who have retired, make up the town council in the villages, and they are decidedly opposed to the provision that the Minister may give power for native shops to be established in the locations.

Why not?

The reason, of course, is that the locations are on ground bought by the municipality, it is the property of the municipality, and the natives have paid nothing for it. As it belongs to them, the municipality always wants the right of saying how business is to be conducted there.

If the natives paid for the ground, would you approve it then?

We do not sell ground hurriedly in the Free State. I think it would not be permitted. The Minister, moreover, need not be afraid of following or honouring the Free State policy, because it is the one province in the Union which has introduced no problems. No Asiatic question, no drink question, no native franchise question were introduced by the Free State in the Union to be settled by the Union. We have always been a clean, white country, and want to remain so, and therefore we do not wish the Minister to drive us in a different direction. I also want to say that I do not believe that this provision will benefit the natives much, because we have the example adjoining our boundaries. In Basutoland the natives are allowed to carry on business as they please. As far as I know, there is not one that does so, but the trade is in the hands of Indians and Europeans. The Basuto, himself, does not carry on business. I just want to raise a few more points which are against the stipulation. In the first place the natives in the villages do not possess the necessary capital to establish proper shops. The Free State municipalities to-day have a right of allowing natives to set up shops, but they find in nearly every case where a request for a trading licence in the location is made by natives they are employees of one of the white shops in the villages. The trade is not done for the benefit of the native, but of some one else in the village, and I do not believe that it ought to be allowed in the circumstances. Then I want to say that such a business in the locations will make the work of the police considerably more difficult, because it will lead to liquor smuggling, and all sorts of vice, and will make the estimates of the Minister of Justice much higher to give every village in the Free State more police. That this is so I can illustrate by a small incident in a village near to my constituency, where they gave a native the right to open a butchery. About three months ago he was prosecuted, and it appeared that he had slaughtered about 40 cattle belonging to neighbouring farmers, including a good stud animal worth about £40. The Free State is very strongly opposed to that, and therefore protests strongly. I hope that if the Minister does not wish to introduce the Free State policy throughout the Union he will, at any rate, not force on us the provision as it now stands. We have a white population there in white villages, and the work-people in the locations merely live there. That is our view, but this clause will establish about 50 native townships in the Free State, and that we should not like to have.

I rise to support the amending Bill before the House in its broad principles. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Chiappini) referred to the provisions of this Bill as being drastic. I realize that in many respects this amending Bill can be construed as drastic, but I think, after examining it, that the drastic provisions will not fall heavily upon law-abiding natives. There is one clause in the Bill which I do think is too drastic. That is Section (4). Under this section it gives one municipality the right of purchasing land within the area of another municipality. Furthermore, it gives the purchasing municipality full jurisdiction over that area, which is a very far-reaching measure. I should like to point out what the significance of this clause is. Let us take, for instance, the case of Port Elizabeth and Humewood. It means that Port Elizabeth, if it so desires, under this particular section, could establish a native village in the Humewood area and have complete jurisdiction over it. On the other hand, the town council of Humewood would be permitted to establish a native village in the Port Elizabeth municipality. I am sure hon. members will realize what an uproar there would be if anything of that sort transpired. I, therefore, take exception to that section of the Bill: I realize that this particular section is devised for the town of Durban. I happen to represent a constituency outside the municipal area of Durban, and I should like to read a telegram which I have received from the South Coast Junction Area Local Administration and Health Board, which runs as follows—

I think that puts the matter in a nutshell. I appeal to the Minister before this Bill becomes law, that he will see his way to so modify this particular clause that it will not be undermining the authority of these various local bodies which surround Durban. There is another section to which I should like to refer. It is Section (10). Under this section it gives to the local authorities certain trading rights in native villages, and native compounds, but prohibits anyone else to trade in the area except natives. I think that is a very good provision. We hear a lot of talk about the upliftment of the native, and giving him a chance to rise in the scale of civilization, and I think this is one of the cases where we can encourage natives to trade with their own people, and earn a living in that way, besides giving employment to many other natives. I think a local authority should give every encouragement to natives to trade in this way. There is one danger, of course, that natives who are not well-versed in the matter of trade, and unless protected, will be exploited by other traders. I think this particular sub-section should be tightened up in some way to prevent traders, other than natives, from in any way getting control of trade in native areas and simply using the natives as their tools. There is another question in Section (10) which I wish to refer to. It gives the local authorities the right to carry on trade themselves in native areas, and it specifies what these trades may be. The trades are those of general dealer, butcher, baker and eating-house. I should like to see that list increased, and should like to see municipalities or local authorities having the right to run bioscope entertainments in native areas; I do not mention this in any frivolous way. I do not suggest that bioscopes should be run in native areas solely for the sake of entertainment, but properly controlled bioscopes, exhibiting suitable films, would be a means of giving education to the natives, and at the same time, it would keep them occupied in the evenings. I commend the suggestion to the Minister to include the running of bioscopes by local authorities in native areas. I am quite sure that if this were done, quite a lot of good Would be derived by the natives. Of course, Whatever is done in that respect, the very strictest censorship should be exercized in regard to the type of film that is exposed. As one realizes, it would do the native no good to see many of the films that are exposed in European bioscopes. Another matter to which I wish to refer is the question of the curfew. So far as the Durban district is concerned, the re-introduction of the curfew daw will be welcomed. But I can see, one weak point in it. Natives are allowed out if in possession of a Written pass from their employer or other authority, but I would remind the Minister that a great many natives can read and write, and in those areas, generally speaking, there are only native police who can neither read nor write. Owing to the increased number of educated natives, there is nothing to prevent natives writing their own passes. I think the Minister should tighten up that section in some way so, as to obviate this weakness in the law. I feel quite certain that unless something of this sort is done, the curfew law will not be of very much use in Durban and district. As I have said, on broad principles, I support this amending Bill. I should like again to appeal to the Minister in connection with Section (4) so to modify it that it will not be as drastic as it appears to be at present.

I just want to add a few words to what the hon. member for Senekal (Mr. Visser) has said. In the Free State we have, always had a different view about these things to the rest of the country. My hon. friend here is right. We took up a different point of view with regard to the Liquor Act. We also took up a different view in connection with the Asiatic question which came from Natal, with the result that we are not bothered to-day with all these things that concern the other parts of the country, and I think the other provinces ought to have followed the example of the Free State. In our province we can also boast that the native is more justly treated than in the other provinces. We willingly give him his full rights there. When he lives in a native territory we give him every right. But we have always hitherto held the view that a location is not a native reserve. It is a place where work-people live, and of course the work-people of the town or village, and therefore it is simply the village Management board or the town council which must have the say as to how the location must be controlled and regulated. It more frequently happens every day that working people lie idle in the locations and if we take away the right of the town councils to control the locations, then it will become still more difficult for them to keep the natives in order there. If I had a location of working people on my farm then I would dictate how things should he conducted there, and in our towns and villages we must not take this right out of the hands of the town councils. In.-the Free State we feel that it must not he left to the native to put up his own shops in the location. In the past, in his reserves and in Basutoland where the natives have full say, what part have they in the shops? They are in the hands of the white man. This shows that the natives have not the desire and aptitude to have shops in their reserves and why must we give him the exclusive right to have shops in the locations. He will subsequently want ownership of ground and other rights which will cause much trouble to town councils. The land belongs to the town councils and it is they who are responsible for good government. I think there is something behind it. Trading is not his metier. He does not want it, because in the places where he has full rights, he also has that right, he does not use it, and does not take up trading. I hope the Minister will consider these points. The town councils must have full control over the locations if we do not want difficulties. I am convinced that the Free State is strongly in favour of the Minister meeting us on this point. It is the town council (not the Minister) that is the competent authority to decide whether there shall be trading in the locations or not.

It would be a very fair proposal to refer the Bill to a select committee. Many believe that the crux of the native question is to be found in urban areas, where you have contact between black and white, in more marked degree than is to be found in rural areas. There, also, you have contact between the workers of the two colours—the white artizan and the black labourer—and because of that contact the whole future, as based on the native question, is set out before you, because ultimately the knowledge the native will imbibe will be the basis of his desire to improve himself. Because of his contact with the European he will have a desire to emulate the way in which the Europeans live, and seeing the European’s habits, ways and appearance he will desire to emulate him sartorially. I think also that we are trying to legislate without giving sufficient consideration to the natives’ economic future, and yet we go on gladly and merrily legislating. It is also a fair statement to make that unless you have some idea of the economic future of the native you should go very warily with your legislating. This benign Government more or less throws its responsibilities on the local authorities to administer what is a very difficult matter. I have some reason for saying that I think you are shirking your responsibilities in many respects in asking the urban authorities to carry out a duty that in many respects is difficult. Take your ordinary municipality run on modern lines. You have a body of 18, 20 or 30 men—sometimes women, which makes it more difficult—and they have to administer a tramway system carrying 49,000,000 people a year and all the complexities that go with that; they have to administer an electricity department selling 80,000,000 units a year as they do in Durban; on the other hand they have the abattoirs to administer, a general revenue fund and a borough fund to deal with; you have 20 or 30 departments to administer, and on top of that there is the native question—the administration of the Urban Areas Act. It will be realized how little time, study and real thought you can give to a question of this kind, when you have to deal with so many other multifarious questions. Having realized the difficulty that an ordinary town council is faced with, I have come to the conclusion that the administration of this Act is far too great a responsibility for a town council committee. I have come to that conclusion after working on various town council committees for five years. I think this House should give some consideration to that aspect of the question. There is another question to be considered. Every town throughout the country is widening its boundaries, or, if it is not doing that, it is taking on responsibilities for areas outside of its boundaries. The reason is that people who do not take kindly to control get outside the boundaries of a borough, and for that reason you have difficulty in an urban area, and greater difficulties in an extra-urban area. How are we going to deal with this? To my mind it has been definitely proved that an ordinary committee of a local authority finds this matter too difficult to deal with. It has not the time. Further, it has no power outside the boundaries of the local authority. How can we best administer this Act so as to deal with these various aspects of the question? I think the House should consider the establishment of a council, composed of representatives not necessarily members of a town council under the chairmanship of the resident magistrate, in each urban area. Take Durban’s position. We have our own borough council, and we have 38,000 natives within that area, The peri-Durban area has seven health boards, each dealing with as difficult a problem as that which Durban has to face, though the number of natives is smaller. Durban tries to improve the condition of its natives in one respect, and immediately there are repercussions over its boundaries. Infectious disease may break out in the town, and outside there may not be any infectious disease, but you find the utmost difficulty in dealing with the peri-Durban area because of dual control. When you have to administer public health in big towns, it is necessary to have some sort of unified control. I suggest a joint council as a means to that end. I think you could in Durban, for instance, nominate two or three town councillors and one representative from each health board, and there you would have a body of men who could administer the Act. You could appoint the magistrate as chairman. The administration of this Act is so important that we should take steps to ensure, as far as possible, that it will be efficiently administered. I think the debate went over a very wide field in the first instance. It was stated—I think by the Minister of Lands—that the reason for the influx of natives into the towns was that they wanted to enjoy bioscopes and the gaieties of town life. On the other hand, the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) said that natives were being pitch-forked into the towns because they could not live in the rural area. It only shows how divergent opinions are on the question. The point is not so much how the native enters the town, but whether he is reaching the town for his own good and that of the European as well. That raises a very difficult question. The Minister does not like the natives coming into the towns at their own will, but is this a matter for local authority to prevent? Once he is in the town, he is difficult to get rid of. It is a national job; the Government should control natives before entering towns. It is for the Government to find ways and means to deal with the method of dealing with this question. I think there are brains in the Government; if not, they could borrow from our front benches. The point is that the entry of natives should be stopped in its beginning. In Durban it is chiefly male adults who live in the compounds. By Section 4 you are prepared to allow Durban to buy land to establish a native village. Do you want us to establish a principle of encouraging-native family life in the towns? If so, then let us hasten slowly, as by so doing we might be laying up trouble and difficulties in the future that we little realize. I have urged on the Durban Town Council that we should hesitate before establishing a native village, the present system works so well, why break it down? I want you to go into the question of Durban and not alter our system which has worked so well. I want to say, further, in dealing with these matters, that the question of the curfew is one that will please the women of Durban. I do not want to say very much. I have a divided mind on the question of strict control and subjection on matters of that kind. But I appreciate it on behalf of the women of Durban, who have their own fears and anxiety of being under-policed at night time. I hope the Minister will give these points some consideration, it involves so much. It involves the whole native question. It also involves the poor white question. The more we can get the natives into their own areas, the more we shall help to solve the poor white question.

I wish to refer to one or two aspects of this Bill. In the first place, there are portions of this Bill which, to my mind, are futile, I am not opposed to them, but I think they are futile. There are other portions of the Bill which, to my mind, are harsh and unfair. First of all, Section 22 of the Bill is repealed, and a new section is substituted, which says that local authorities may trade in a location. That is possible under certain conditions, but highly improbable, because municipalities to-day are opposed to such trading for the reason that the commercial communities in the municipalities are very large ratepayers, and the municipalities get large taxes paid by these people.