laid upon the Table:

Report referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

laid upon the Table—

1. (1) Statement in terms of section twenty-three of the Land Settlement Act No. 12 of 1912, as amended by Act No. 23 of 1917, Act No. 28 of 1920 and Act No. 21 of 1922, showing the number of applications for the allotment of holdings received under Chapter III. of the said Act, and giving the names and addresses of the applicants to whom the holdings have been allotted and the situations of those holdings and the names and addresses of the applicants who have been refused, or have not been provided with any allotment whatever, from 1st July, 1924, to 31st January, 1925.
2. (2) Schedule of advances made to lessees of Crown Lands during the year 1924, under the Land Settlement Act, 1912, as amended by Act No. 23 of 1917, and Act No. 28 of 1920.
3. (3) Report on land purchased under sections ten and eleven of the Land Settlement Act No. 12 of 1912, as amended during the year 1924.
4. (4) Statements, in terms of section one (1) of Act No. 38 of 1924, for the period 1st September, 1924, to 31st January, 1925, giving particulars of—
   1. (a) Grants of rights of temporary occupation of Crown lands to probationary lessees; and
   2. (b) Expenditure in connection with the Hartebeestpoort Closer Settlement Area.

Papers referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I lay on the Table the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds during the year ending March 31, 1926, excluding the Railways and Harbours Administration. With the leave of the House, I wish to state that yesterday in the course of the debate I informed the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that in the Estimates which I intended laying on the Table this afternoon no provision was made for continuance of the bounty in respect of superphosphates. When I gave that information to the hon. member I had in my hand, as I have now, a note from the department, from which I had made enquiries, stating that no provision had been made. I now find that such is not the case. The hon. member will understand that this was done unwittingly on the information I had from the head of the department.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Before the first Order is read, I beg to move that the Order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged. In taking this course I do so because since the Bill has been put on the Order Paper, the hon. Minister of the Interior has, as I understand, given a definite assurance that he will bring in comprehensive legislation this session in connection with the Asiatic question. I think I am correct there. I realize, as most members do, that this is a very thorny and a very big question, and I am very chary of doing anything that would prejudice this very great question or embarrass the Government in dealing fully with it. Although I feel strongly about this little Bill and have considerably curtailed its scope, it might be premature and lead to the duplication of arguments and a certain amount of wasted time. I think by moving its discharge I am leaving the opportunity to any member to move any amendment on these lines, should this phase of the question not be included in the legislation that the hon. Minister has promised us. In these circumstances I move that the Order for the second reading be discharged.

seconded.

I think the House will be pleased to know that the air mail from Durban to Cape Town, which left East London at 7.40 a.m. this morning, arrived safely at Cape Town at 1.57 this afternoon.

Delivered the goods.

I move—

This small Bill has reference to the South African Museum, of which the main building is in the Avenue, although it also has a branch in Strand Street—the Koopmans-De Wet Museum. The museum in the Avenue, which contains objects of natural history, is an institution of which this country can be proud. The one in Strand Street is concerned with old objects, especially Dutch. The purpose of the Bill is to bring the constitution of the body controlling the museum up-to-date. The present constitution was laid down in an Act of 1857 and has not been altered since. We now wish to amend it as well as to create a provident fund for the employees. The present board of trustees consists of three members nominated by the Government, apparently for life, since there is no provision for the termination of their office unless they are removed by the Governor-General or are absent for twelve months. It is now proposed to increase the number of trustees to five, of whom we propose that three shall be nominated by the Government, which contributes about £6,000 per annum; one will be nominated by the Cape Town City Council, who contribute £400; and the nomination of the fifth we propose to place in the hands of the Royal Society of South Africa, who are really the most representative body of scientific men in South Africa at the present moment. We propose that these trustees shall hold office for three years, though they may stand again for nomination. The fourth clause proposes that the board should have the power to create a provident fund for its 15 employees—for whom there is at present no provision in the event of their death or retirement —as has been done in the case of the Public Library and other institutions.

It will perhaps be as well as this is a matter which falls under one of my departments that I should say a few words in connection with it. In principle I have no objection to the Bill of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). On the contrary, I think with him that a change in the direction indicated should be made. The existing law under which the museum comes was passed by the old Cape Parliament. Then it was a small institution and it belonged to the Cape Province alone; but with the commencement of the Union this museum changed from a local or provincial institution to an institution of the Union. The Union took it over and so it obtained a more general national position. I therefore think that the increase in the number of curators from three to five—this is the kernel of the Bill —has become necessary. This pertains to the higher status that the institution has obtained since the commencement of the Union. While the various sections were being passed only one consideration came up in my mind and that is with regard to section 6, which says that if four members are present at a meeting, viz., four curators, and they are equally divided, that the point cannot be decided until a subsequent meeting where all five curators are present. In a previous section it is provided that no one shall cease to be a member unless he is more than a year out of the Union. Suppose now that an urgent matter comes up and there is a member who has just gone to Europe so that he still remains a member a full year, then during the whole of that year no meeting can take place to decide the urgent matter, and I think that in the committee stage the hon. member should propose an amendment in that respect.

I wish to heartily support this Bill, and especially what is laid down in clause 4 in regard to the creating of a provident fund. The want of such a fund has caused great hardship in the past, and I now especially wish to mention the name of the late director of the museum, Dr. Peringuey, a gentleman who has contributed more, perhaps, than any other scientist in this country to scientific research in regard to our museum especially. I think he was in the service of this semi-department of State for over 40 years. Unfortunately he died very unexpectedly last year, and his widow is not entitled by law to a single penny as regards pension. I can assure you that this has caused a great deal of heartburning, hot only among the personal friends of the late Dr. Peringuey, but also I should say among all scientists in South Africa, and I still hope that this Parliament will recognize the very great services which the late Dr. Peringuey rendered to this country through many, many years’ arduous and earnest service.

I might state that my attention has been called to this matter, and I have an amendment which I wish to submit to the House. In regard to the case of Dr. Peringuey, that has really brought the matter home to us very strongly. As a matter of fact, the trustees have no power to give a pension, and the funds would not allow of it. Unfortunately, his widow has absolutely no claim, and it is to remedy this state of affairs that I have brought the matter forward now. It is a very hard case.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 3,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 6 and the title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Amendment to be considered on 20th March.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committees mentioned, viz:

Petitions of Simonstown Municipality and Others: The Minister of Defence, Messrs, van Hees, Struben, Steytler and Stuttaford.

Amendment of South Africa Act: The Minister of Mines and Industries, Messrs. Krige, Keyter, Rood and Coulter.

I move—

This is a Bill on a very delicate subject indeed, and I feel it is my duty, as I have felt it my duty on previous occasions when introducing the Bill, to mention the matter so that any person who might be within hearing of the discussion of the Bill might have the opportunity of leaving the House, if they so wished, because the Bill is, as I say, a very unpleasant matter indeed, and one which will have to be discussed with extreme frankness. It is with that purpose I venture to give this warning or hint, so that any person present may take the opportunity to leave the House before I proceed. I refer particularly to ladies who may be in the precincts of the House, who might find in the middle of the discussion certain things said which they might not wish to listen to. This Bill is one which has been introduced by me on two or three previous occasions, which was very nearly carried last year, and which I venture to introduce again, not only because of its own intrinsic importance, but because I would like the determination of the House as newly-constituted upon the merits of this Bill. The simple object of the Bill is this. Under the Act of 1916, section 2 of which I seek to amend, it is made a criminal offence for a man to consort with a girl under the age of sixteen, and penalties are provided for this criminal offence. But there is a proviso under section 2 of the Act relating to this matter, under which two defences may be set up. One defence is that it shall be a sufficient answer to the charge if it is made to appear to the court or jury before whom the charge is brought that the girl at the time of the commission of the offence charged was a prostitute. I seek to remove that defence from the Act. I do so not only because I personally feel very strongly now, as I did when the Act was passed, that the provision is a blot on our law, but because I am fortified by the very strong expressions of opinion which have reached me from all parts of the country, from women’s gatherings, women’s associations, National Council of Women, Women’s Christian Temperance Union and others. I have had letters from all over the country urging me to continue this Bill and expressing the very strong views that the women themselves have on the merits of this particular matter. I consider it a very great honour in this matter to be able to represent their feelings before the House here. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that, having created an offence of this nature, having made it an offence for a man to consort with a girl under the age of sixteen, we proceed to allow that man to set up a defence which amounts to this: “I am guilty of that offence, I have done that which the law prohibits, but the person with whom I committed that offence is a person of immoral life, and not merely of immoral life, but of an immoral profession.” Good God, to call that a profession, to characterize a person of that kind by that name in an Act of Parliament when the person so characterized is a child under the age of sixteen, while the whole policy of our law is to protect all those of that tender age from any association or contamination with the kind of conduct indicated by the name. It does seem to one an abominable thing that we should tolerate on our Statute Book a provision of this kind, which enables a man to plead as a defence what I would imagine would to most people be a gross exaggeration of the offence. That Act, of course, deals with the question of what is known as the age of consent, and the age of consent has, as the House knows, been changed from time to time. The Legislature of this country has, as the Legislatures of other countries have, considered it essential in the interests of young people to provide that young girls under the age, originally, of twelve, then fourteen, and then sixteen, should be protected to such an extent, even though they voluntarily do that which is prohibited, that the law says that they are not of an age to be able to give their consent. Yet this proviso which I seek to strike out allows a profession of this sort to be recognized as a statutory thing amongst children under the age of sixteen, while otherwise it is the object of the law to protect them against it and to protect simply on the ground that the law makes the conclusive presumption that, because they are under a particular age, they are, therefore, unable to give consent to the act. I have before now drawn the attention of the House to what is the statutory provision in regard to children. The Children’s Protection Act, No. 25 of 1913, is known amongst most people who work amongst this class of person as the Children’s Charter. Under that Act it was the deliberate policy of the Legislature to protect the child under the age of sixteen and remove it from all contaminating influences, yet when it comes to the creation of an offence by virtue of the consorting of a man with a girl under the age of sixteen, the man is able to set up that the child is a prostitute. The whole policy of our law is to guard the child against any influence of that kind. I view with all respect the opinions of those who, I know, are opposed to this, but I regard myself as the mouthpiece of many in this country who say that this clause in the Act is a horrible clause. What are the objects, besides what one may call the sentimental or moral side, of this amendment? One practical thing, to my mind, is this, that when you have the class of man who commits this class of offence two consequences very readily follow. These consequences are, first, that this charge contained in the defence that the complainant is a prostitute will be made use of in a facile and easy way, because it will be known that if that charge is brought against a complainant or is likely to be brought against the complainant, many a charge will be hushed up rather than expose the complainant to an attack of this nature. How far do we know the extent to which that young girl’s life is blighted afterwards by the fact that she has had this charge laid against her? No matter how unjustly, that charge having been made, its reverberations will go round against that child and not only make her future life miserable, but also help to make the administration of the Act impossible. The administration of the Act as it is beset with grave difficulties because of the reluctance of people to bring these things to public notice. I venture to ask the House to believe that the man who commits an offence of this kind is the man who will have very little difficulty in procuring trumped-up evidence to meet the charge brought against himself. We have also this, that in many cases probably grave injustice will be done by reason of the facility with which evidence of a certain kind is obtainable in these unfortunate cases. That makes the administration of the Act gravely difficult and if allowed to continue it makes for stigma and shame for the life of the unfortunate complainant through circumstances for which she is not to blame. I ask the House to hold that is a just and fair line on which we ought to agree for the removal of this blot from the Act. We have arguments brought to the contrary. There was the argument advanced by the Prime Minister that the object of the Bill is not to protect those who are unchaste but those who are chaste. I am sure on consideration the right hon. Prime Minister will agree that that is not a correct statement, because under the Act, the defence only is that the girl is a prostitute. But according to the definition adopted in our courts a prostitute is a person who has promiscuous intercourse for gain, and the result is that you may have a large number of girls who are entirely immoral but do not fall under the definition. Such girls are protected because of the technical definition of a prostitute, which has been acted upon by courts under this very Act where cases have failed because the girl led an immoral life, but not such an immoral life as to be covered by the definition of a prostitute. That argument does not hold against my Bill. Then you get other arguments, for instance that about hardship. Now we have this law on the Statute Book which lays it down that anyone under 16 is protected because of her age against herself. But when you are giving protection on account of age you have to fix an arbitrary line, and wherever you have that arbitrary line, of course there are cases of hardship. But the point in regard to this objection is that the law requires the court to determine the one solitary fact: not what the man thought, or the girl thought, or the girl agreed to; but the one solitary fact that the act was committed with a child under age. The sort of argument in question would have been a very sound argument against the Bill when it was introduced in 1916, and that argument was actually used, but in spite of that the legislature of the Union laid it down that whatever potential causes of hardship there might be, this should not interfere with the essential principle that age should be a protection in itself and the age should be 16. The third argument used against the Bill is that of blackmail. Well, if we are going to refrain from doing the right and decent thing because of possibilities of blackmail, we might do away with the whole of our divorce laws and tear up a good deal of our legislation. Because any lawyer of experience can point out that the possibilities of blackmail are abundant, not in cases which will arise if my measure is passed, but in an abundance of other cases under the existing law as it stands. From the other point of view, how about that kind of blackmail which exists in taking the defence itself—in the threat of exposure which will be brought and in the fear of having to face this charge of prostitution? That is a species of real blackmail, if not of technical and legal blackmail. I just want to emphasize this, that at the present moment, while the principle laid down in the Act of 1916 is that the act is an offence if committed with a child under 16, there is one other defence, that is that the male who commits the offence is under 16. I tried in the first case to introduce a clause into my Bill repealing the provision in the Act of 1916 permitting this defence, but I found that it was impossible. I have therefore left out of my present Bill any reference to this other defence. What is the consequence? The consequence is that under the law the dice are loaded against the girl, because a boy under the age of 16 has the defence that he is under that age, whereas the girl under 16 is exposed to this villainous charge. Is that fair? We hear a great deal about the equality of the sexes, but in a criminal matter of this kind it is only fair and just and logical that the girl should have the same unqualified protection by her age as the boy has by his age. I entreat the House most earnestly to adopt the Bill, and so remedy one of the real injustices to the young girls of this country.

I shall speak early because unfortunately I have presently to attend to other business, and then I cannot be present at the discussion. I am sorry that during the last few years I have actually had repeatedly to oppose my hon. friend the member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I wish to give him the assurance that I and others of us here highly appreciate the motive that influences him to come to the House each year with this Bill. On the other hand, I am so concerned about the matter and feel so strongly about the evil consequences that may be caused by this Bill that I cannot sit still and let it go through. When he says that there is strong feeling amongst people on this matter who work amongst the poorer classes and they would be glad to have this Bill passed, I can quite understand it But I ask if in the circumstances those who do this work are actually acquainted with the peculiar male passions. We must take account of them as facts which we cannot push to one side. When we come to moral questions we will always find that the best of our people insist strongly that changes of this nature should be introduced, but the largest proportion of the people is ignorant about the practical result thereof, and those of us who have had a little experience of life are called upon to see that the good which they want to do will not be detrimental to us, by opposing them a little instead of encouraging them. I would like to again point out that there are dangers, and I want to put the matter as plainly as possible. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) wishes to prevent when a girl under 16 years falls that the additional stain shall be put upon her which will be put by the plea in court that she is a prostitute. Now I would clearly point out what this will mean, or what it may mean, and we start with the assumption that such instances occur or may occur. Let me at once acknowledge that this is a defence which is often made in the courts. The girl has fallen, she has offended against the moral law which says that purity is the greatest asset in the human being. Because it is the greatest. There is nothing that is of greater value to a woman and also to a man when he thinks about a woman, but here we proceed from the standpoint that the purity of such a girl has been taken away. I think we often find that this has happened from anything but reasons of badness, but simply that at that moment there was a weakness in opposing the natural desires. Be this as it may, the purity of such a person or young girl is gone. We must note that the purity is gone, and, what is more, that the man who has done the deed may say in the court you are a prostitute. Her purity is already gone, and all that can be added is that she can be defamed as being a prostitute. The girl is then either guilty or not. If she is a prostitute then I do not know why she should be protected. If she is not, well, I have sufficient confidence in the courts that the plea will not be accepted. The hon. member, however, says that the stain which has been laid upon her will still remain. But she is surely guilty of immorality, and she must be satisfied that the court has decided that she is innocent of the further charge laid against her. All that she further suffers is that there are persons who will suspect her of it. We must all admit that this is the worst that can happen to such a fallen girl. Let us now look on the other side what may happen if the Bill is passed. A prostitute, a hardened prostitute, of under 16 comes in one way or another with the most deceitful and crudest temptation and leads astray a young man, not only a boy under 16 years, but a young man in full vigour of his life. He has already enough to do to bridle his passions. She comes to him and leads him astray. He is over 16 and she is under. He is brought before the court and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, 25 lashes or a fine of £25. or all of them together. He is exposed to all this, and yet he may be entirely innocent. He may perhaps come from the countryside to Cape Town and he is led astray. We who have knowledge of life know how these things go. He will then not have the right to plead that he has been led astray by a prostitute under sixteen years. Now I say that the dangers that the hon. member has mentioned cannot weigh against the dangers and injustice to which the man is exposed. This is greater than the accusation against the other young person, who has already lost her purity, that she is a prostitute. My hon. friend will admit that I have put the dangers just as they exist, and therefore I would ask the House and my hon. friend that he should imagine for a moment that his son was in such a position or the child of such mothers as are anxious to have this law passed; are you ready to have your sons given the punishment that I have just mentioned if you know that the girl with whom he has misconducted himself is a prostitute? I am convinced that not one of them will wish that. We must be very careful in this matter. I will repeat what I said last year. We all want our daughters to be chaste, but the first requirement is upon the mother, and if she does not do her part then all the laws in the world will not help. And what are we going to do now if we pass this Bill? We are going to remove half of Her burden from the shoulders of the mother who already fails in doing her duty as she should. Members know what is happening at the moment. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will know because he has had such cases. The young man and the young girl who have done what they ought not to have done, if it is a respectable girl who forgot herself for a moment, then the young fellow marries her and escapes the punishment provided. Now I ask does the hon. member want that when his or my son possibly gets into unhappy circumstances that he should marry a prostitute. That is the only alternative if we do not want that he should undergo the said punishment. And what will then be the unhappy position? Conditions are to-day sufficiently unhappy, and we shall then have more unhappy marriages. Not only will the parents be unhappy but the persons concerned will be unhappy and also their children. I admit that the laws already exist and that we must accept them, but we must see that we do not go further. Such ills will come upon our sons that I do not think we are justified in going further. I have opposed the Bill on other occasions and I cannot act otherwise this afternoon because I see that it will bring unhappiness upon parent and child. Those who are in favour of the Bill have a right to their opinion, but I feel fully convinced that I am taking up the correct point of view.

I agree with the hon. Prime Minister in recognizing the motives which have moved the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) from time to time to bring forward this Bill. I have always taken up the attitude which the Prime Minister has so eloquently expressed. It is regrettable to have to discuss a subject of this character, which is not of a very savoury nature, but if, after the warning of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), certain young members of the other sex did not consider it necessary to leave the House, that is no reason why hon. members should not perform what they consider to be their duty. While, perhaps, I may be rather old-fashioned and Victorian in my ideas, I regret the changes which are taking place in this country, as they are in Europe. We see reports of divorce cases with very nauseating evidence appearing on the cable pages of newspapers, and I do regret to see people almost lighting for a prominent place in the court to hear this nauseating evidence. I, for one, as the father of daughters, would not like to see my daughters have the opportunity of hearing a discussion of this character. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has made out a strong case in favour of the protection of young girls. I think we all join with him in feeling that we are prepared to do all we possibly can within reason to protect the chastity of the girlhood of this country. But in doing so we must be extremely careful that we do not do a grave injustice to many of our young fellows as well. I agree entirely with the Prime Minister that those who know the conditions of this country can realize the circumstances in which many young men from the veld, coming to the educational institutions, have never had the opportunity of being associated with the conditions of immorality which exist in our towns, and are subjected to temptations of such a nature that those who fall are very often more sinned against than sinning. They come down here, they are solicited. Every possible temptation is brought in their way, and we know perfectly well that in this country, in this town and the surrounding towns there are many prostitues under the age of 16. You are here living in a climate and a condition in which development takes place much quicker than in cool European countries. You are also living in a country where fortunately, or unfortunately, there is an intermixture of races which brings forward development much quicker than it otherwise would be, and I feel certain that many of our young fellows coming down here are subjected to temptations of an extraordinary character, and subjected to temptations by girls under 16 whose development would not allow one to think that they were under that age. Is this House, after having gone into all these circumstances when the Bill of 1916 was drawn up, and after having all the facts then brought forward, going to deliberately alter clause 2 of that Act and prevent a young man who is accused of this crime bringing forward the plea that the girl with whom the offence was committed was a prostitute? I say that if you do that it won’t be many years before you will have great sorrow brought into many households in this country. You will have the life of young fellows who through great temptation have gone astray—you will have the brand of Cain put upon them; you will have them subjected to six years’ imprisonment and 24 lashes —the £500 fine does not appeal to me. Surely no matter how anxious we are to improve the morals of this country, we must pause before we embark on a policy of that character. I agree with the Prime Minister that there is only one means of improving the morality of this country, and it is to bring home to the mothers of the girls of this country the duty they have to perform to their daughters, and I say unhesitatingly that there are a large number of mothers in this country who, for what reason I do not know—sometimes for the pursuit of their own individual pleasure—do not give that attention to the lives of their daughters which they ought to give. That is the place where you have to protect young girls and that is the place where you have to protect young boys. Under conditions prevailing in this country at the present time liberties are allowed to young girls which I maintain as a father of daughters should not be allowed to them at that age. That is going on. You cannot help it; you see it everywhere you go. I am not one of those who do not recognize that under the conditions of the twentieth century a great deal more liberty has to be given to young girls than was given before. You cannot keep them as in the old Victorian epoch, where they were practically never let out from the eyes of older people. But you can try—and there I would say to my hon. friend he would do no better work in the great desire he has, and which I very much appreciate, than preach among the mothers of this country the necessity of curtailing to a very large extent the unnecessary freedom that exists at present to young girls who are allowed to go about at all hours of the day and night with young fellows, and he will do that without doing a possible injustice to the young men which he will do under this Bill. I know fairly well the circumstances of this country, and I know the circumstances that exist in many of the towns. I think the hon. member will agree with me that I am anxious to do all I possibly can to preserve the morality and purity of our girls. But you should not attempt to do that by doing what may wreck a life when a young man is more sinned against than sinning. I think before the House votes on a question of this sort they should pause and consider all the circumstances. I feel certain that if they do that, the opinion of this House will not go with my hon. friend, and that as on previous occasions the House will not alter what was put into the Bill in the Act of 1916 and which under the circumstances of this country was considered necessary as a protection to the young men of this country who are also likely to be subjected, very often without their seeking, to temptations of an extraordinary character.

Whilst hoping that the House will associate itself with everything that has fallen from the lips of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) I do think there is one point which he mentions to which there is another side. It is the question of the presence of the public at discussions such as this. After all, we know that the members of the public, and as far as the public is concerned it applies to both sexes, have certain rights in courts of law, and not least of all in what you may call the High Court of Parliament, where subjects are discussed some of which are savoury and some of which are not. But seeing that the public has this right; that the press is there to make use of this right, my submission is that this is not a case of such a nature that one ought to insist that the public or the whole public should be excluded. In connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close)—this particular amendment and its effect on the Act— I do hope that the House will not be carried away with the eloquent way in which he put his case; by the sentiment underlying his arguments which no doubt impressed the House; because it seems to me that this is a matter which should be dealt with by means of cold reasoning only. Motives based on sentiment are very excellent in themselves, but we have here a question of the amendment of an Act which has been in operation for a number of years and which I venture to say in spite of what has fallen from the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has worked very well indeed, and the administration of which has not been bound up with nearly as many difficulties as he indicated. To begin with, what is the object of the particular section allowing this exemption in the case of a prostitute? In fact, what is the reason for the offence? The reason is this: that young girls under 16 should be protected from being debauched by persons over the age of 16, but the idea underlying the section is the moral idea that they should not be morally debased by being treated in the way which the Act forbids. The idea is not that the physical effects or after effects in themselves are of such a nature that for that reason it is constituted a criminal offence, because we must not forget that so far as the age in connection with marriage is concerned under the Roman-Dutch law, it is possible for girls under the age of 16 to marry; so we are reduced to this, that the reason why this is made a criminal offence is on moral grounds. Can it be said that the moral reason applies in the case of a prostitute? I agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that a prostitute has been defined as a female who practises this kind of thing for purposes of gain, who engages in intercourse promiscuously for purposes of gain. So that there is no question of a prostitute being created as a result of this offence taking place. That is not so. My submission is that the only argument really advanced by the hon. member is that there is a possibility that an innocent girl may be branded as a prostitute when, in fact, she is not a prostitute. The Prime Minister has dealt with the case of a girl who is unjustly accused of being a prostitute and has indicated that there would be no hardship in such a case, because the judgment of the court would remove the stain from her name in that connection. The only reason which the hon. member can advance is, I consider, this, that there is a possibility that an innocent girl may be branded as a prostitute when, in fact, she is not a prostitute. That is going very far indeed, especially for a member of the legal profession, who must know how very rare it is that a case is based upon perjury and subornation to perjury. The whole argument in favour of introducing the very grave amendment is that there is a possibility that, after perjury and suborning a number of witnesses to commit perjury, an innocent girl may be branded as a prostitute. If you go into the question of where these cases occur, where an admitted prostitute under the age of sixteen is found in the company of a man over the age of sixteen and where these things have taken place, we find that it would be almost exclusively confined to the big cities. We know as a matter of practice that in the big cities your Immorality department knows practically every case of the ordinary acknowledged prostitute, and it is almost impossible to conceive that where a man is charged with the offence of having connection with a girl under the age of sixteen, where the police are not prepared to say that such a girl is a prostitute, the magistrate or the judge and jury will, in spite of the absence of police evidence, find that such a girl is a prostitute and will brand her as such. Such a miscarriage of justice need hardly be contemplated. In the smaller towns, where everybody knows everybody else’s business, is there any likelihood that such a miscarriage of justice will take place? It has been said that one of the arguments which has been used and would be used again in connection with this particular question, was the argument of blackmail, but the hon. member (Mr. Close) only put it as high as the possibility of blackmail. My suggestion is that if this proviso is removed from the section in question it will not merely create the possibility of blackmail, but it will be an absolute encouragement to blackmail. My submission is that, quite apart from the possibility of blackmail, the introduction of this Bill, the omission of the safeguard at present in the Act, will lead to a very active encouragement of blackmail. Then the hon. member said there were cases of girls of bad character who were not actually prostitutes, but who were protected by the Act. That, I would urge, is a point in favour of the omission of this amendment. If, as a matter of fact, only the worst kind of immoral girls are excluded, if there are other girls who are not so bad as prostitutes who are in fact protected, that is a very potent argument why this protection should not be extended to the admitted prostitute. I, therefore, hope that the House will not be carried away, one can almost say be misled, by the very excellent motives underlying the attitude of the hon. member (Mr. Close), nor by the eloquent way in which he has put forward his case, but that the House will consider this question on the cold facts only and, in conjunction with that, will realize the very grave danger to which the Prime Minister and the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) have referred.

The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Pirow) says that we should consider this question as a question of cold fact. What is the cold fact which emerges from this discussion? It appears to me to be this, that we, in a legislature consisting entirely of men, are asked to acquiesce in a state of affairs which says that we recognize in South Africa that there is such a thing as child prostitution, that a girl of 15 may sell her body and that anybody who has intercourse with her shall go scot-free. That is the cold fact before the House and the country.

It’s a shame.

I say it is a shame. As long as we keep this provision on the Statute Book of this country we are saying in effect that there is to be no protection to a little girl of 15 from herself and from her enemies, and I say that if we pass my hon. friend’s Bill, if we accept the great moral principle in that Bill, we will lay it down in future that no man can plead, when charged with intercourse with a baby girl of 15, that she is a prostitute. In other words, we will say that the State will no longer recognize, no matter what may be the case with regard to a grown-up woman, that a girl of 15 may legitimately sell her body.

I have listened attentively to the speeches that have been made in this debate and I can assure hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and the right hon. Prime Minister, that I appreciate to the fullest extent their motives in opposing the Bill. I venture to say that those on our side of the House are entitled, equally with those on the other side of the House, to stand on a high moral plane. We give credit to them for having high motives in this matter, and I am sure they will give equal credit to us. No case has been made against the Bill at all. What the opponents of the Bill have laid down is this, that the Bill must be thrown out because there is danger of injustice being done to young men. The whole thing is narrowed down to a difference between those who wish to make the cardinal point the protection of young men and those who wish to make the cardinal point the protection of young women. Young women being of a class who require protection have been protected, but the only basis the law has recognized is that of age itself. Having heard these arguments this afternoon, I repeat that there is not one single thing which either the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) or the right hon. Prime Minister has said that is not an argument against the Bill which is now law. The whole of these arguments were used against the passage of the 1916 Bill, but there are few to-day who do not recognize that the Bill is a vital part of our legislation; it is a law that must stand and should not be repealed. “But,” says the Prime Minister. “while I recognize that, I cannot agree to any extension”; but what extension is there in this? The Prime Minister in discussing this question of bringing a charge of prostitution against a young person who has been complained against, said that either she would be found guilty or that she would be found innocent. If she was found guilty then the charge would be justified, but if she were found innocent she must be satisfied with the judgment of the court. I should have liked the Prime Minister to have directed his attention to my argument on that point. If a young person is innocent and is acquitted, she has nevertheless gone through the fires of hell, very often before her acquittal is brought about, and not only that, but her family has also gone through the fires of hell before she is acquitted of the charge. And how long is it going to take to get rid of such a blot? The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) says that in small country places everybody knows everybody else and everybody will know that the girl has been acquitted. Some of these country places, as we know, are hot-beds of slander, and the mere fact that a girl is acquitted is not enough to prove to everybody in the district that she is innocent. How many are going diligently to foul her name? They will say: “Yes, she has been acquitted; but what about the fire behind the smoke?” The hon. member for Zoutpansberg also says we must deal with this matter in the light of cold reason, but curiously enough two moments later he said the whole Act was based on the moral idea. We say the whole Act is based on the moral idea. It is a grossly immoral thing to recognize in any shape or form child prostitution. The hon. member discounts entirely the great risk every girl runs in regard to getting an acquittal. He knows the risk that may arise through a miscarriage of justice, not due in any way to the magistrate or the person who has to try the case, but to the difficulty of meeting the case. The hon. member says that that risk is a rare one, but I can assure him there are more such cases of risk than he thinks. There is a risk of a miscarriage of justice in that the law cannot be carried out because the people concerned will often not dare to face the risk of the charge being brought against them, however unjustly. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg further stated that in the big cities the immorality department knew all the prostitutes under the age of 16 as well as those over 16. That was an extraordinary statement. I refuse to believe that the immorality department know these things and countenance these things. It is a strange argument that because the immorality department know the child-prostitutes that there could be no miscarriage of justice in that way. If this Bill is going to be defeated I hope it will be defeated on different lines from those put forward by the hon. member The argument of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is perhaps the greatest argument against the Bill, but I say deliberately, in spite of having heard that argument over and over again, that I feel convinced that where you get two grave risks, you have to decide where the balance of justice lies. Is the greatest risk, on the one hand, that of the young man who has been misled, being made the victim, or on the other hand, that of the unfortunate girl who is made the victim? It is a question of which is called for most, protection for the young man who moves about the world and mixes with his fellows, and knows to a large extent the danger he is up against, or protection for the innocent young girl who is exposed to the tragedies of life. I feel from the bottom of my heart that the arguments which have been used against the Bill have been used in all sincerity, but I also feel that the balance of argument, justice, logic and facts is entirely in favour of those who support the passing of this Bill.

Motion put, and Mr. Pirow called for a division.

Whereupon the House divided:

Ayes—38.

Alexander, M.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Duncan, P.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Grobler, H. S.

Hay, G. A.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius. N. J.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Naudé, J. F.

Noes—49.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, D. M.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius. J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vermooten, O. S.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Allen, Jno.; Brand Wessels, J. H.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

If there is one thing to be desired in connection with elections, first it is the purity of elections, and secondly, that the system should be such that the feeling of the electors should be represented. I have brought forward this Bill for the last two or three years. A great many persons object that there is not sufficient known about the principle of proportional representation, but by limiting it—as I do in this Bill— to the Provincial Councils, you will be able to make the system known and understood. At the present time more elections are conducted on the principle of proportional representation than under the ordinary system. In fact, there is nothing new in proportional representation, which was started 60 years ago and has gone on successfully ever since. Most of the large trades unions in Britain and many other public bodies elect their committees by the system of proportional representation. I suppose one of the most intelligent bodies which ever sat in this country was the National Convention, which drew up the Act of Union. The first draft of the Act prepared by the Convention laid it down that the elections should be by proportional representation. It is important to remember that this recommendation was made by a body of men representing the whole of South Africa, and after mature consideration away from the atmosphere of heated politics. However, when the draft was published the political wire pullers began to count heads and principles were dropped. People asked how would it affect their seats, and in looking at their seats they forgot their principles. Consequently proportional representation was thrown out. The only argument against the principle that was worthy of consideration was that of large areas, but I have provided for that in this Bill, so that that argument falls to the ground. Another consideration in favour of the Bill is that the Union Senate is elected by a system of proportional representation. If it were not so elected a party in this House and in the Provincial Councils with a majority of five, or even of one, could carry every seat in the Senate. You would have had no Labour representation in the Senate, and the Government of to-day would have few members in the Senate, and possibly at another election the party which sits on this side of the House would have no representatives in the Senate. One objection which has been urged against this system is that proportional representation is not understood. The system has been tested in elections for school boards in divisions in which over 100,000 persons voted, and there were far fewer spoilt papers than under the ordinary system. The elections in Ireland have been conducted under proportional representation, and there they have far fewer spoilt papers than we have. I ask any member to quote a single authority from any of the Irish constituencies to say that after two elections under proportional representation they want to go back to the old system. The question has been asked: “How does proportional representation work?” All the voter has to do is to number his ballot paper according to the number of candidates. In Germany you have to vote as a bloc, but that does not give proportional representation a chance. Mussolini, the Italian Premier, has adopted proportional representation on the bloc system—whichever party in Italy obtains the majority is entitled to two-thirds of the seats. That is not a very fair system, but it does give a working majority to the Government. Let us take the elections in this country, and I wish a larger number of members were in the House this afternoon. In 1921 the South African party had ten more seats in this House than they were entitled to; today our hon. friends opposite have ten seats more than they are entitled to under fair representation. My opponents will admit that I have never approached this subject in a party spirit. At the last election the South African party lost 26 seats, but under proportional representation they would have lost only 7. One party which has never been truly represented in this House is the Labour party.

Hear, hear.

Yes, you are here, but the other fellows are not. And the position is that they have never had their proper number. When you consider the Nationalist party to-day, the fact is that, although they get up and talk about “the voice of the country,” they are speaking with a very small voice indeed, because this country has never declared itself in any strong way for any party yet, and I contend that there should be a system whereby the voice of the country could be heard. I put it to the hon. members from the Free State whether it is fair, just and equitable that those who differ from them should not have a single representative from their province in this House, as is the case. I am sure that if I asked them individually, they would agree that no country can prosper and succeed without a strong Opposition. Is there one of them who would put his hand to his heart and say that that is true representation? They would agree that the minority has a right to be heard, because, if it is not, that is the way to breed trouble and discontent. Take again the Cape Peninsula, Port Elizabeth, or the other large centres—in all these places the minority voters are not represented. No man who goes into the figures can say they are. That is entirely due to our system. In the Cape Peninsula if a party has a majority of one hundred votes in each constituency it can sweep the whole Peninsula. One or two objections will probably be raised. The first is the difficulty of large constituencies. I admit that is a very serious objection in a country such as this, but this Bill lays down that the commission may decide that any large constituency, such as Bechuanaland, may be left out of the whole proportional representation system. There are other countries which have constituencies with just as large areas as we have, and where this fact has not been found to be a serious obstacle, in these days when newspapers go into every hamlet and education is progressing. But people of this country think they must see their member and shake hands with him. I think it was Mr. Abraham Fischer who laid down in this House—at any rate he said it privately to me —that the principle could be applied if you have a voter for every two square miles. Another objection that may be raised is in connection with by-elections. Take the case of Johannesburg with, say, three constituencies, immediately after an election each of the members would choose to represent some particular part of the constituency, and in the event of a by-election this would take place only in the particular area represented by one member. This would get over the difficulty to a very great extent. In proposing to make this system applicable to the Provincial Councils I have been guided by the fact that the Provincial Councils should not be political bodies. No man, I think, believes in Provincial Councils being political bodies. If you put this system in force you will to a very large extent get rid of politics in the Provincial Councils, and that is why I have moved this measure. I hope members will feel this subject is worthy of consideration and of placing before the country. I ask the House to bear in mind this fact—that elections under Proportional Representation are at present conducted in a number of countries, and that not one of them has gone back upon the system. I move the second reading.

I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill, and I think that anyone who has studied proportional representation must admit that its principles are sound. The unfortunate thing has been in the past that when a party has come into power they have realized the necessity of opposing it while they are in power, because of temporary party gain. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) urge that the matter should be approached in a non-party spirit. No matter which party controls the destinies of the country, the principles of proportional representation remain the same, though the party in control are in no hurry to put them into force. So it is essential to have this matter discussed on its principles alone, apart from party bias. Let us take the statement made some time ago by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey), when he said the Labour members in this House with one exception would not have been heard here unless they had the support of the Dutch vote in their various constituencies. But on the other hand, many South African party men prior to the Pact arrangement would not have sat in this House but for the divided vote of Labour and Nationalists, so that the injustice exists in both ways. The Nationalist voters, the Labour party and the South African party voters did not have the opportunity on every occasion to vote in the manner they would have liked; therefore proportional representation would do away with this difficulty. According to the opinions the people have they put No. 1 for the member they first favour and then No. 2 for their next choice, and so on. In the event of their No. 1 choice being at the bottom of the poll, then the No. 1 votes are put No. 2; therefore their vote is transferable, and if they do not get their first choice they have another choice. I know the argument will be used that it is not so easy for the people to understand this system as it is in the direct vote with the cross. We have a practical illustration that the public can very quickly understand the system. For a number of years we had proportional representation in the voting for the municipality in Johannesburg, and that system existed, I think, for about six or seven years, and during the period it was in vogue, after the first year or so, there were very few spoilt papers indeed, and I think I am correct in saying there were no more than in voting under the present system.

Why was it done away with?

There was a change in the Transvaal Provincial Council and the party in power were opposed to proportional representation on party lines. That is why I prefaced my remarks by saying that the only way to approach the subject is on non-party lines. The temptation was there, when the party control of the Provincial Council changed, to remove this system; it was not because the system was wrong, but for the sake of party advantage. This subject has been discussed time and again in this House, and I think everybody has to admit that the only thing that can be said against it is that there might be some party advantage in sticking to the existing system.

Motion put, and Mr. Roux called for a division.

Whereupon the House divided:

Ayes—28.

Alien, J.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Hay, G. A.

Kentridge, M.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux, J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Reyburn, G.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Naudé, J. F., Sampson, H. W.

Noes—56.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Robinson, C. P.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J., Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

Owing to a somewhat fortunate accident to the Order Paper this afternoon, I am in the position of being able to introduce a second Bill. I do hope in regard to this Bill that what seems to be the prevailing fashion of the House this afternoon in regard to Bills introduced, viz., to reject them, will not be followed, and that the House will pass this Bill almost with unanimity. I think every man who is a lover of his country takes pride in everything which makes for the beauty of the country, and in our fauna we have a thing to be absolutely proud of as South Africans. We have in many ways a unique collection of wild birds amongst our fauna, but we are liable to find, before we realize it, that a great part of our wild birds have suffered extinction. There are two ways in which the wild birds of the country can be protected. One is by a general Bill (which would have to be introduced, as I hope it will be introduced, by the Government, because it will involve considerable expenditure) which will protect the wild birds throughout the country. I hope the Government will find time to consider this matter, which is of national importance. Another way of protecting, which is at the same time possible for a private member to suggest, is this matter of prohibiting the export of wild birds. I am not moving on mere theoretical ideas, for I know that during the last few years there has been an exportation of wild birds going on from this country to the extent of thousands per annum. Just before this Bill was originally introduced about a year ago, there had been one consignment of 5,000 birds alone sent from Table Bay.

What kind of birds?

It is difficult to find out what the kinds of birds were, but the birds that were sent out numbered 5,000. As a matter of fact, if you read the advertisements on the other side of the water of people who deal in birds, you will find that such things as sugar birds must be amongst the exports, because they are advertised for sale in England as birds brought from here. The day after the Bill was gazetted, a stranger rang me up and said that, if I were to go down to the railway station, I would find a consignment of about 1,500 birds of all kinds. Those are facts which justify this Bill being introduced. Shortly after the Bill was introduced a man called upon me and said: “You are going to ruin me, because you are going to prohibit my trade.” He stated that he had just come to this country with capital behind him and his business was going to be that of the export of birds. He further stated that he had come from Australia, and that that was his business in Australia. In reply to a further question, he admitted that he had left Australia because the Government had made it impossible for him to carry on the business of export. I think it is time that we took steps to place on the Statute Book a Bill which is designed to deal with the actual and possible evils of exportation, but at the same time not interfere with the export of such birds as the country can well spare. I know there are some grain farmers in the House who will say what about the vinks, weaver birds, bishop birds, etc.? The Bill has, therefore, been designed upon an elastic system, and lays down that birds shall not be exported from this country except upon the permit of the Minister of Agriculture, who will have the advice of his technical experts. His technical experts will tell him, for instance, whether the vink is really a serious danger to the grain farmer, and if these birds are at any time held to be a serious danger then their export can very well be allowed. I go further and propose that the Minister can, by notice in the “Gazette,” grant authority for the exportation of birds of any species, from a particular district, though otherwise the general idea is that the exportation of birds will only be permitted on a specific authority granted by the Minister of Agriculture to a particular individual. I do not think that there need be anything more elastic in the Bill than that. The Minister of Agriculture will be able to revise his list from time to time. I have chosen that method in preference to the method of putting a specific list in the Bill, for this reason, that we know that farmers are apt from time to time, as experience has shown us in many countries, to regard as their foes birds which they have afterwards found to be of the greatest value to them. We know that in New Zealand at one time, birds, which under the old native custom were not exterminated but encouraged, were, after white settlement took place, shot out; and what was the result? They had to import the homely English sparrow or starling to redress the balance of nature and enable them by means of bird life to fight the pests which destroyed the farmers’ crops and were ruining them. The same thing has happened in other parts of the world, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House by going into detail. We know how opinion has changed in England in regard to this matter. There are authorities in this country like Dr. Haagner of Pretoria and Prof. FitzSimons of Port Elizabeth, whose opinion is of the greatest value, and they cordially support this Bill. If one wishes to study the subject may I ask him to read the last book of Prof. FitzSimons of the Port Elizabeth Museum, published about a year ago, dealing with the bird life of this country. It is a most interesting and most fascinating study to consider, from the point of view of a man of knowledge, what it is which justifies our protection of bird life in this country in the fullest degree. Even the vink has a great deal to be said for it. Prof. Fitz Simons made experiments in this connection. He shot vinks after harrowing, after sowing, when large flocks of these birds came to the fields. He examined the crops of the birds he shot and found in a large number of the vinks that a large proportion of the food consisted of insects, grubs and other things which would have done an infinity of mischief to the crops. There is one serious aspect of the matter which we have to consider, and that is as to how far the presence of plague in our country districts is affected by the destruction of bird life which is going on at the present time. This is a serious problem and I think that serious attention should be devoted to it. There are many birds that have been shot out of this country, birds whose natural food is the rodent of the country, and it is the rodents, as we know, that spread the plague. It will be a matter of serious consideration to the Government as to whether special measures will not have to be taken in the country districts to protect large birds whose food is rodents. But that is by the way. I am dealing with the question of the prohibition of export from this country of birds from two points of view, from the point of view of the preservation of the natural beauty of the country and also from the point of view of utility. On both grounds I appeal to hon. members of this House to pass this Bill. It is drawn in a most elastic fashion, it leaves a great deal of discretion to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and I trust, although it may entail a little extra work on him and his department, that he will give the Bill his blessing. He has the right to change his views or his schedule from time to time, and in the circumstances no farmer in the country should have any objection to this measure being placed on the Statute Book, and no person who has love of the country at heart can offer any objection to this Bill. For these reasons I move the second reading.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has introduced this measure because I regard it as particularly useful and very necessary. The fact is that even in the interior quite a lot of little birds are caught, and if you ask why they are caught the reply is that they are sold to this or that person and that person buys the little birds up for a small price, perhaps only 6d. a bird, and he sends them to the Cape for export. I think this is one of the cases where we do not know how things exist in nature. How one thing is related to the other. One finds certain nuisances that develop to a certain extent and then are stopped and broken off. It is simply on that account that nature makes provisions so that one or other insect or bird or other animal in turn destroys such an animal which has become a nuisance. One of the clearest instances is, as we know, that of locusts, how the locusts come and stop and do damage and how with all our attempts we can minimize the plague, but how we have to wait until the locust birds come, and that then an end is made of the locusts. If we make a study of small birds and we should do it—we see that with very few exceptions the birds rear their young ones not with fruit or grain, but the insect. There are some exceptions, such as turtle doves, which rear their young ones with grain, and the mousebird, which is worthless and can be destroyed. But beyond the few exceptions the other birds rear their young ones with insects, worms, etc. If one notices how all daylong the birds fly this way and that way and bring to the three or four little ones worms, locusts, and other small things, then we understand how useful they are. There is a certain bird who usually frequents lanes under trees, and if you watch him with a telescope you will see how the bird is occupied to look for worms amongst the rubbish. This means that they prevent the larvae from becoming insects. Other birds again pick some of the bark from trees to take the worms and insects from underneath. Others do outstanding service, and often we do not know what is destroyed by them. As has been said by hon. members, the great danger is the export of birds by dealers to other countries that buy them. I am glad that the motion has been brought before the House, and I hope that the hon. Minister will go further and will inaugurate a movement by which children are taught that they must not just shoot little birds. I am glad that provision is made that the hon. Minister of Agriculture shall have the right to permit the export of wild birds in exceptional cases. It is interesting to see how in nature everything is compensated, more or less. When there is a surplusage of one sort of bird then there is not enough food for them and the consequence is that they don’t breed so fast and in this way a surplusage of these birds is prevented, and in certain circumstances it could be allowed that of one or the other kind a certain number should be permitted to be exported, if there are too many of them, because one must also remember that there are people who make their living out of dealing in birds and in this way other countries will be able to get birds if they require them. These exceptions can be permitted as long as they remain under proper control, and this control will exist because the Minister of Agriculture can issue or refuse to issue permits; his department knows sufficient about birds. There is a point that I think the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) must look at again. It is sometimes very difficult for a lover of birds to part with them. Now it happens that when he wants to leave the country and arrives at the port he is told that he may not export the birds. It may happen that there is a person in the Union—no trader—who has become possessed of a pair of pretty birds that he dearly wants to take with him, and he will learn at the port that he cannot do so without the special permission of the Minister, and this is not only so of the ports but it also applies to people going to Rhodesia or other adjoining territories. When he comes to the border he finds that he cannot take the birds with him. I am referring only to private individuals, not dealers. I think in this connection an amendment can be made when the Bill is in committee and I will then do the needful. I hope the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will accept it. I hope that there will be no opposition to this important Bill but that everyone will be in favour of it and will do everything to make it a success.

I, too, gladly support this Bill and I hope there will be no opposition to it, but as this Bill is designed to prevent cruelty to birds I must say I would like to see it extended to prevent anybody from keeping birds in cages. It is a curious thing that the S.P.C.A. will arrest a driver for using a horse when its back is sore, but the far greater cruelty of keeping birds in cages is overlooked. Curiously enough the ladies are among the worst offenders in this matter. Personally, when I see a bird caged, I feel inclined to, and would if I had the legal right, break open that cage and release the bird. I always think it is a cruel thing when I see birds, eagles and so on, at the Zoo, looking pictures of misery and boredom. I think the hon. member might add a clause preventing birds from being kept in cages.

In reference to the remarks made by the hon. member who has just sat down, I would like to say the S.P.C.A. have no power to interfere except where cruelty is practised. It is a moot point whether some birds are not better in cages than when at liberty. I, however, do not by any means advocate captivity of birds. I have for many years been associated with the S.P.C.A. in Johannesburg, and I know they have no powers to interfere where birds are caged. I consider it a privilege to say a few words in support of this Bill. If there is one point in which the Minister of Agriculture can confer a great blessing on the country it would be this: If he could teach not only children, but adults, the economic importance of bird life in respect of agriculture. It is not going too far to say that where you exterminate the bird, there agriculture ceases. The greatest enemy to farming is the insect pest, and man would be helpless and hopeless against the hordes of insects if it were not that he has a powerful ally in the birds. I am glad to see this Bill is aimed at stopping the indiscriminate export of one of our most valuable assets. America has had lessons in this matter. At one time there was permitted a ruthless destruction of bird life in the United States. This went on until people who had some vision took the matter up and brought home to the American public how much bird life meant to the agriculturist. Exhaustive inquiry by scientists at Washington showed that there was permitted at one time in the United States the indiscriminate killing or 37 varieties of birds which destroyed cotton pests. The matter was brought home to me here not long ago when a friend of mine in the Rustenburg district said he could do nothing to cope with the boll worm which was attacking his promising cotton crop. He also said that the Agricultural Department had been unable to help him. In another instance, in the Pretoria district, the value of bird life was shown by a man who demolished the boll worm which had got into his cotton by bringing a flock of turkeys to demolish the pest. One thing is certain, we have it from the experience of the United States that without the assistance of bird life it will be impossible to carry on cotton growing in this or any other country. The fecundity of insects is enormous. I would recommend the Minister to instruct his technical department to get statistical information in regard to the multiplication of insect life because in that way he could bring home to the public what an enormous threat this is to agriculture. A grasshopper consumes his own weight of vegetable matter daily. If a horse were fed at the same rate he would consume a ton of hay a day. One of the greatest assets to agriculture is our bird life. In the Eastern Province guinea fowl were removed from the list of protected birds, but when locusts made their appearance the guinea fowl played such havoc among them that there was a united demand by the farmers’ associations for the renewed protection of guinea fowl. I should like to see the scope of the Bill extended, but it is a step in the right direction, for we cannot allow the indiscriminate exportation of one of the most valuable assets of the country, and I hope the House will show that it is alive to the importance of the measure by voting for it.

I heartily support this Bill. When we see what great benefit the operation of the Bill will bring then we ask if there can be any objection to it. I think we will get most enlightenment from the Minister concerned. I cannot see any objection because it only provides control by the Department of Agriculture, and I do not think that there will be any difficulty in carrying out and applying the Bill. On the other hand, it is possible that delaying the Bill may cause much damage, and it has surprised me this afternoon that the farming members have not spoken more and that they did not insist that this Bill should be accepted. As a representative of farmers I want to give it my full support. We have not appreciated in the past the full value of this natural possession, and it is time that we did so. Enough has been said about the beauty of birds and I will not enlarge upon it but add a few words to what has been said of the great use and value of the bird to us, viz., what they mean to our farmers. In the past the stock farmer has had much benefit from the ordinary starling, and still we find that we despise the starling. We do not see what he means to us and consequently we do not understand his value. Then I come to the fruit farmer. It has been calculated how many millions worth of damage has been brought about by rats in England, and it would be interesting if the Minister of Agriculture would tell us how much damage the fruit farmers suffer by the devastation caused by moths. Farmers spend a good deal in spraying and on expensive remedies to fight the moth, and this makes the cost of production of fruit high, and yet we have never yet thought what the natural enemy of the moth means to us The first natural enemy of the moth is the bird. If we could know more of the life history of the moth and of its natural enemy the bird then we could take other and cheaper measures to fight the moth. I think we feel that no protection of the bird which is injurious to the farmer is intended here. The Minister of Agriculture is not prevented from acting as he thinks best in this connection. He is only asked to control the export so that we cannot suffer damage in the first line of defence of the farming population. I think we must also urge upon the Minister of Agriculture that he should give a special subsidy to a person at one of our universities to devote more attention to our birds. I know of a professor at the University of Sheffield who makes a study of the birds in England and Ireland. He has devoted his life to it and it has been of great benefit to the English people. If we get someone to devote his life to the study of South African birds then we shall also be grateful to him, one day. I will speak of this matter again on the agricultural Estimates. I only want now to give my earnest support to the Bill.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has asked that I should also bless this Bill. I willingly grant his request because I think that the more our birds are protected the better it will be for us and that the birds would be a very great blessing to us in more than one respect. The Bill provides that permits for the export of birds can be obtained from the Department of Agriculture. This will naturally entail extra work, but I gladly take it upon myself because I think that the danger of export of birds is not so great from the side of private people who wish to take birds with them, but lies rather in their treatment. The mothers of young birds are caught and the little ones die or the eggs go bad if the old birds are taken away, and so the increase of birds is limited. Instead of an increase we may expect a decrease of these birds. For this reason, and because I feel that we should encourage the keeping of birds in our land which are valuable and render services to us, I support this Bill with all my heart. I have already asked the provincial administration to stop the reckless killing of birds. I think that we kill far too many birds and do not appreciate sufficiently their value and the good services that they render in connection with the combating of diseases and otherwise. I do not wish to go further into this matter and hope the House will accept the motion without opposition.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

I think it is necessary to make some provision in the case of a private individual who, not for the purpose of trade may on leaving the Union wish to take a few birds with him. I beg to move—

A man may have a few birds, or his children may, and it might be for them a disappointment if on leaving the Union they found they were unable to take the birds with them.

I think the amendment is rather a dangerous one. A man may take as his own property under this amendment six birds of thirty or forty different kinds, some of which we do not wish to see leave the country. The sailors on board ship might each do the same, acting as agents of the exporter. I ask the hon. member not to press the amendment the effect of which I do think he does not realize.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that this is a very dangerous amendment. Provision is made in clause 2 for an owner who wishes to take birds out of the country to obtain a permit on application to the Minister.

I do not think that what the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) suggests is likely to happen. I am thinking of the private individual who does not deal in birds and does not intend to do so, tie may have a couple of birds of which he has become fond, and may not have the slightest idea that he is not allowed to take them out of the Union. I am, however, willing to accept any number that the hon. member for Rondebosch may suggest.

I think that section 2 gives sufficient effect. Anyone taking a bird out of this country knows that he has to book it, because the shipping companies will not carry it without a charge and he will have to pay for it. In that way he will have ample notice. I was at first inclined to support the amendment, but on after-thoughts I think it will lead to trouble. I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.