announced that he had appointed the Minister of Labour and the Rev. Mr. Mullineux to serve as members of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders in the stead of the Minister of Defence and Mr. Sampson.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Sampson from service on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Catering and on the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements and appointed the Rev. Mr. Mullineux in his stead; and had also discharged Mr. Sampson from service on the Select Committee on the subject of the Imprint Bill and appointed Mr. McMenamin in his stead.

I beg leave with the permission of the House to make a personal statement with reference to certain remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries concerning me yesterday afternoon. I was not in the House when he first made reference to me, and therefore, I could not deal with them until I had the opportunity this morning of reading his remarks as reported in the “Cape Times.” The Minister stated that I was the attorney of the Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa, Limited, and, if he were not mistaken, also the attorney of Sir Ernest Oppenheimer. He added that I might be quite entitled to take part in the debate and to criticize the Bill, but that his own attitude would have been not to take part in, or vote on a matter upon which he had been consulted, adding later that this view was expressed—

Notwithstanding the Minister’s concluding remark, I ask that the House permit me to make this statement in order to avoid any possible misapprehension as to my position as one of its members. I have acted professionally in Cape Town as the attorney of the Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa, Limited, and I will assume that the hon. member for Kimberley can be treated as identical with that company of which he is the chairman. I have also acted in Cape Town and in South-West Africa as one of the attorneys of the Consolidated Diamond Mines of South-West Africa, Limited, and as the attorney of two of its South-West African subsidiaries since their inception in 1920. The knowledge I have of the diamond industry and of the diamond trade has been gained in the course of this work. I claim, therefore, that I am entitled to bring to bear, in discussing the public measure now before the House, the fruits of that experience. I have no interest, direct or indirect, in any shape or form in the measure before the House. The Minister suggested in general terms that I had been consulted professionally on some matter, which he did not specify. It might be inferred from this remark, that, in dealing as a member with the Bill before the House, I was furthering some professional interest. There is not the slightest justification for this statement and I repudiate it entirely. I have taken an active part, at the express request of my party, jointly with other members, in studying the measure and dealing with the projected am moments thereto, but all as part of my ordinary functions as a member and with the aid of an unfettered and uninterested judgment, and not at the request of Sir Ernest Oppenheimer or any other company or person. In the course of my speech on the second reading of the Bill I dealt with Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill relating to freehold land in the Cape Province, the limitation of owners’ rights, the prohibition of subdivision and the restriction of rights of corporate bodies, and the question of the limitation of output—all of them public questions and criticized by me solely from the point of view of their public interest. If the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries intends to challenge my right to deal on this basis with any matter that may come before the House, I contest the correctness of his view and shall continue to act in respect thereof precisely as heretofore.

Before we reach the amendments to Clause 2, I want to ask whether the hon. member for North-East (Rand) (Dr. H. Reitz) will be willing to allow them to stand over till I have moved an amendment to Clause 3?

I have no objection.

I move—

I second the motion.

I object.

I move, as an amendment to these amendments—

1. (c) perform the work of an architect or quantity surveyor, respectively, for renumeration in respect of any premises within the boundaries of any municipality having a population of at least ten thousand Europeans.
   Provided that nothing in this Section shall he deemed to prohibit—
   1. (i) any person employed as an architect or quantity surveyor by the Government, the South African Railways and Harbours Administration, a Provincial Administration or a local authority from performing for remuneration, work as an architect or quantity surveyor in the regular course of discharging the duties of his appointment or engagement:
   2. (ii) any person having the right to vote as a member of—
      the South African Society of Civil Engineers,
      the South African Institute of Engineers, the South African Institute of Electrical Engineers,
      the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers,
      the Institution of Structural Engineers (London),
      the Association of Certified (S.A.) Mechanical and Electrical Engineers, or any similar member of some other similar institution, society or association which the Minister may by proclamation declare to be of a standard equal to that of one of the said institutions
      from carrying out or performing
      any function or exercising any power as such, which, if this Act had not been passed, such members as before mentioned might lawfully have performed or exercised;
   3. (iii) any person from preparing drawings sufficient merely to comply with the requirements of the bye-laws of a local authority at a charge not to exceed the fees prescribed by architects by regulations made under this Act, provided that he registers his name with the Minister within six months after the commencement of this Act, and that all such drawings bear his name and address;
   4. (iv) any person who, while performing the work of an architect or quantity surveyor (as the case may be) in respect of any premises within the boundaries of a municipality having a population of less than ten thousand Europeans has registered his name with the Minister, from continuing to perform the work of an architect or quantity surveyor (as the case may be) for remuneration in such municipality, notwithstanding that after such registration the population of such municipality has increased to at least ten thousand Europeans;
   5. (v) any person engaged in the building trade or in any of the crafts or occupations subsidiary thereto from preparing, for remuneration, plans, specifications or quantities in respect of, and supervising, for remuneration, such buildings, portions or accessories thereof as he may construct or supply: Provided that such plans, specifications or quantities bear his name, occupation and address; or
   6. (vi) any person from being employed as a clerk of works for remuneration.

seconded.

If the amendments are passed will not the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) be affected.

If hon. members prefer I will read the amendments in English first.

I only want to know what the position is.

I think under the circumstances this should stand over. An important amendment to another amendment is put forward, and it is not on the order paper. I move—

I second.

The hon. member should move the adjournment of the debate.

Well, I will move—

seconded.

I rise to support this motion, and would like very briefly to give my reasons for so doing. I would like to recapitulate, for the information of the House, a little of the history which has led to this amendment being moved. As you know, there is a big principle in this Bill. It affects not only the profession of architects, but many other professions. Should these professions be granted a protected title?—that is, should no one be allowed to describe himself to be of a certain profession and give out that he is a qualified member of such profession and lead the public in any way to believe that he is a member and that he is duly qualified unless he has passed the examinations and other tests prescribed by such professions? That, in the opinion of many hon. members, was a reasonable request. On the other hand, an alternative suggestion was—and the professions are very anxious for the House to adopt it—that the profession itself should be protected, not the title. Many members of this House, while very willing to concede a protected title are resolutely opposed to a closed profession. The promoters of the Bill, and I take it that they were honourable men, asked if they could come to a compromise and said to those of us who resisted the demand for a closed profession—

After discussion with the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) and with the representatives of the architects it was decided that sub-section c of Clause 3, which protects the profession, would be dropped, and that the promoters would be fully content with a protected title. When the Bill was in Committee of the Whole House, and we were discussing Clause 2, the hon. member for North-East Rand, on behalf of the Society of Architects, formally accepted the position of protected title and withdrew the clause which gave them a protected profession. His speech will be found in Hansard (column 2136) and in the course of that speech he said that he must accept the deletion of sub-section (c) of section 3. That appeared to me to be a most emphatic pledge given on behalf of the Society of Architects, and it seems to me almost incredible that a society which consists, as I understand it does, of honourable professional men should induce any member of this House to come forward with an amendment which absolutely nullifies the honourable agreement arrived at with that society and agreed to by the hon. member for North-East Rand. The whole position is now completely altered. Had that clause been left in, or had we known that it was intended to introduce this amendment, it would have necessitated very considerable revision of other clauses. Now the House is in this position that if it accepts the amendment, unless amendments are moved as amendments to amendments we cannot further discuss the Bill. I must express my surprise, and I hope my words will go out to all the architects in South Africa, that after a committee of these gentlemen attended in the Lobby and entered into what we regarded as an honourable agreement on the part of that society, other members of the society should now repudiate their action and should induce a member of the House to put forward an amendment which entirely upsets what I looked upon as a gentleman’s agreement. I am more surprised than I can express that a society should lend itself to an action of this description.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

I trust that the House will accept the motion for the adjournment, for if we accept the amendment many of us who are interested in seeing that the Bill is passed in a form which will be an advantage to the country as well as to the architects, will have time to go through the Bill with the promoters and endeavour to place on the order paper amendments which will have the effect of giving the Bill a workable form.

If the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Pretoria North (Mr. Oost) had Been merely to restore the position in which the Bill was when it was originally introduced members would at least have known what the amendment was about, or, if the hon. gentleman had placed the amendment on the order paper, the House would have some idea of what it is asked to do. Instead of that the hon. gentleman read out in an exceedingly indistinct fashion a long amendment, of the purport of which we on this side of the House have no idea. If Parliament is not to be made foolish there should be delay over this matter. Either the hon. gentleman must withdraw his amendment, or time must be given to the House to enable it to know what it is all about. I have inquired of the Clerk of the House, and I understand the position to be that if we agree to the motion to adjourn the debate the Bill will not be killed for this session, as having reached the report stage, it will automatically be placed on the paper for next Friday. If that is the position then any objection to the motion for the adjournment must disappear. Assuming I am right, and my information comes from the Clerk of the House, then we should agree to this adjournment. In any case, having regard to the circumstances under which the amendment has been moved, and the feelings already stirred up, there is no doubt that further time should be given in which to consider the position. It is six or seven weeks since the House was in committee and this change was agreed to, and these gentlemen have had all this time to decide upon what they wanted to do and they could have quite clearly set down an amendment on the order paper to restore the position as they wished it to be restored. It is to be deplored that the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) has come here without notice and has read this long amendment which seems to be the half-way house between the Bill as it originally stood and the amendment introduced in committee. I am not going to vote one way or another until I know what it is about. Therefore we should accept the motion for the adjournment. There is another reason. Accusations of bad faith are already being made in this matter. The Bill originally produced sought to protect the profession of architects just as the legal profession is protected. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) got up in the committee stage and objected to that and said they were only prepared to protect the title, and that they would fight the Bill in committee unless the mover of the Bill accepted an amendment in that regard. In other words it was to make the Bill like the Accountants Bill, that is, to protect the title of accountants, and that, I understand, was the compromise arrived at. I was sorry it was arrived at. I would have liked the original Bill. But this House is not going to allow that compromise to be upset without very cogent reasons for it being done. It is not a matter of the rights and wrongs of the original Bill versus the amended Bill, but a matter of good faith and of the House accepting the position arrived at in committee.

Might I appeal to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment? We arrived at an honourable understanding, and this is going too far. Much as I dislike the understanding, I preferred the original Bill, but having accepted the understanding we should stand by it now. If the hon. member will withdraw his amendment my hon. friend on this side will withdraw his motion to adjourn. After all, the promoters have been put to a tremendous amount of expense and are prejudiced by this Bill not going through. I appeal to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment.

I only want to say a few words in explanation. It is possibly my fault, not that of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz), if there is any blame in connection with the amendment introduced by me. I was unfortunately away from Cape Town while the debate on the Bill—which some hon. members attach so much importance to—took place. I thought that the clause which was deleted was of the greatest importance for the building up of a distinct architecture in South Africa, and not being bound by the decision of the House I thought that I could introduce the amendment, which is of the same nature as the clause deleted, but is easier for the country members because it provides that only towns with more than 10,000 white inhabitants shall come into consideration. I understand that there are hon. members on both sides of the House who agree with me in principle but who think that the principle has been laid down that the clause must be deleted. I should be the last one to do anything contradictory to the good name and traditions of the House. I want to repeat that I do not hope that any of the hon. members will blame the hon. member for North-East Rand in connection with what I have done here. It is my work and I take the responsibility for it. For the reasons mentioned by hon. members opposite I withdraw my amendment.

The fact that the hon. member has withdrawn the amendment does not alter the position which the House has before it. I suggest that the hon. member who has moved the adjournment should put it to the vote and set down the date for dealing with the Bill for next Friday. I think the House should do that because it would show the hon. member for Pretoria District (North) (Mr. Oost) and the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz), that the House objects to the attitude they have adopted this afternoon. We ought at least to put some penalty on the hon. member to show that we do not like the position. The hon. member for Pretoria District (North) moved his amendment in a manner difficult for us to follow, those of us who do not understand Afrikaans very well, and I feel that having promised the hon. member for North-East Rand we would see the Bill through in view of the compromise that I want to follow the hon. member. I believed he was going to do what he said he would do, and this is an awkward position to be placed in. Without going into the merits of the Bill this House should not tolerate such a position and we ought to vote for the motion so that we can have a week to think over the action.

In view of the fact that the hon. member has withdrawn his amendment I withdraw my motion for the adjournment.

With leave of the House amendment proposed by Mr. Oost withdrawn.

Is it not necessary to revert to Clause 2?

The. House decided to dispose of the amendments to Clause 3 first.

On Clause 3,

I move, as amendments to the amendment—

This is purely a consequential amendment, consequent on the victory of the platteland.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Omission of Clause 4, amendments in Clause 5; omission of Clause 6, amendments in Clauses 7, 8, and lines 54 to 64 of Clause 9 put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 9, new Clauses 8 and 9, omission of Clauses 10 to 34, new Clause 10 and omission of Clause 35 put and agreed to.

On new Clause 11,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Omission of Clauses 36 to 40, amendments in Clause 41, on pages 34-36, omission of Clauses 42 to 45, new Clause 13, amendments in lines 60 to 71 (on page 40) and lines 1 to 14 (on page 42) of Clause 46 put and agreed to.

On the amendment in lines 15 to 23 of Clause 46 (on page 42),

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 46 put and agreed to.

Amendments in lines 37 to 39 in Clause 41 (on page 42) put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 41 accordingly dropped.

Omission of Clauses 47 to 61, new Clauses 16 to 20, omission of Clauses 62 to 68, amendments in Clauses 69 to 71, and the omission of the schedules, put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 2 (standing over) and the proposed definitions of “work of an architect,” “work of a quantity surveyor” and “local authority” put and negatived.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in the preamble put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

objected.

Third reading on 6th May.

I regret I was unable to be present last night. I understand the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) raised the question as to whether these native councils would have jurisdiction over Europeans resident within those areas, and I understand that the Prime Minister said that would be so.

No.

Act 20 does not say whether they will have jurisdiction over Europeans or not. We have always understood that whenever Europeans were living within those areas they would not be affected in any shape or form, and that where they were rated they would be rated by the divisional council. We should like to be quite clear upon that point.

The position will be exactly the same as that of the Europeans in any other area to-day where these councils exist. Hon. members can well understand that we cannot make a difference for Europeans living on native areas in council areas which have not been proclaimed by Parliament as native areas, and these areas which are also native areas and also subject to the council. There would be no sense in it to distinguish between one and the other, and the result is it is contemplated that they shall be in exactly the same position as Europeans anywhere else. May I draw the hon. member’s attention to this, that we have here to do either with lands such as these which we bought lately in Glen Grey for the specific purpose of having natives there and for being native areas, or the other, which is practically the same, what we call Crown land, but Crown land already set apart for native purposes; so practically you must say it has to do only with native areas, the ownership of which rests with the Government, but which by the State have been assigned for the purposes and benefits of the natives in them.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. I understand from the Bill there is no alteration in the position of any European owner. What is the position of European owners in a native area at the present moment—native areas you have already proclaimed probably?

Does my hon. friend mean the position of the European in native areas under the existing council? I am not prepared to say exactly in every respect what it is, but I may say, where these native councils are in operation, they are intended exclusively for native purposes, and these councils have specific authority to deal with this and that under the Act of 1920. They have that authority to deal, within these powers, with anybody on native ground within a native area, whether European or native. We are practically dealing with your scheduled native areas, which are areas where Europeans are not supposed to live or have rights at all, and we allow them there for purposes of trading and so on. As far as native life is concerned, the European, if I mistake not, is in every respect to be in the same position as the native. I am informed by the department that it does not affect the European, and the Act applies only to the native, and they alone can be taxed. A European cannot be a member of the council.

We wish to be quite clear that these regulations will not be applied to Europeans; for instance, there is the suppression of diseases of stock, the construction and maintenance of dipping tanks, the destruction of obnoxious weeds—have the native councils jurisdiction over European farms?

No. They have no authority over European farms, because European farms are not included in the native areas.

Yes.

No. They may be situated within the radius within which your native farms all lie, but they, as European farms, are not in native areas or native lands.

I may point out that a good deal of this difficulty has arisen owing to the way the Bill is drafted. [Clause 5 read.] It simply means that, so far as the Act of 1920 is concerned, it refers to native areas under operation at that time. Does my hon. friend intend to apply it to grounds which may come under.

Quite. That is the whole thing.

I do not think the Minister of Native Affairs is quite right there, from the judicial point of view. If you look at the powers given to the local councils under the Act of 1920, it gives them specific power to deal with the destruction of obnoxious weeds, the diseases of stock, etc., by bye-laws. It appears to me that European farmers living within the area of jurisdiction of the local council under the 1920 Act will be subject to such bye-laws unless their farms are specially exempted from the operation of the Act when the areas are proclaimed.

It states—

Now this will only be areas belonging to the Government.

Many natives have title, and it is not Crown land entirely.

The ground belongs to these natives, and consequently, it does not affect the ownership of Europeans. I don’t see how your European farm is going to be affected by this.

My hon. friend has not followed what I have said. The Act of 1920 makes provision for native areas, or areas that may hereafter be defined by Parliament. Does not the amendment of the Minister allow to be set aside native areas without the consent of Parliament? If so, it is altering the Act of 1920.

It is adding to, supplementing, the Act of 1920.

But the Act of 1920 had to have parliamentary authority.

Exactly Parliament has authority in future to declare certain areas native areas; but this section would give the Governor-General the right to proclaim certain areas as native areas, and when this has been done they would stand upon the same basis, as far as native councils are concerned, as an area under the Act of 1920 declared by Parliament to be a native area.

I have considerable difficulty in following the position as defined by the Minister. Quite clearly, under Section 5 of the Act, it is contemplated that native areas may hereafter be set aside by Parliament, or in other words, there is only one authority that can create native areas. I have looked through the Act to see whether there is any other machinery by which native areas can be created, and I find there is not.

That is quite right.

And the amendment says—

All that is done is by inference. I am quite certain, if the matter came before the courts, they would say that it is not sufficient, and that Section 5 is so plain—that native areas can only be constituted by Parliament—that it could not be extended by inference to the Governor-General. Does the Minister intend in future that the Governor-General in addition have power to create new native areas, as the term is understood under the Act of 1920? If so, why does he not put in a substantive amendment to that effect? If it is not the intention, why a somewhat—if I may use the expression without offence—clumsy amendment of this sort? It creates a considerable amount of misgiving and doubt in my mind as a lawyer. What the effect will be in the mind of the average person I do not know. If this is a point of drafting that has been overlooked, it will be better for the Minister to report progress, and for this to be cleared up.

There is, I admit, from the lawyer’s point of view, a good deal in what my hon. friend has said. The words—

after “Governor-General” might be added. The department is not anxious about this Bill, but the hon. member for King William’s Town (Maj. Ballantine) has been so insistent upon it that I thought of doing him a service by bringing this in. I move—

As the Government is buying new land the intention is that they should be included. It is not establishing a new native council

Nothing of the kind.

I just want to make the point clear to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). In 1913 certain native areas were fixed and Act 23 of 1920 laid down that within a native area there could be a local native council. If an adjoining farm is added by purchase to the native territory then the native councils, according to the Act of 1920, cannot exercise authority over the farm so purchased. The Bill says that the Governor-General can determine that the native council shall exercise authority there, although the farm which is purchased does not become a native area.

I hope I am not under a wrong impression, but my constitutional soul is being disturbed by a reference to the possibility of Parliament authorizing the Governor-General to do certain things. Is that correct?

Oh yes.

I do not want the House lightly to depart from the spirit of the Act, which states that new native areas are to be set up by Parliament only, and not by the Governor-General. The amendment proposed by the Minister of Native Affairs will meet my original difficulty. He asks the committee to alter the Act so that in future native areas may be created, not by Parliament, but by the Governor-General. But that is a power which we should watch carefully. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has pointed out that it is contemplated to use that power only where an existing area is extended by the purchase of adjoining farms.

There are certain areas belonging to the State which are to-day considered and treated practically as native areas.

And are contiguous to native areas.

Yes.

The purpose of everybody can be met if the Minister will narrow down his amendment to meet that case only. I am reluctant to agree to the Governor-General and not Parliament creating fresh native areas. I move—

I have no objection to that.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I asked the Prime Minister last night to give the House some information as to the intention of the Government in bringing the Glen Grey district under this particular clause. I do not object to the clause, but in view of the fact that the council has been established for 32 years, it should know the reason for this change. Neither the natives nor the council concerned have, I understand, been consulted in this matter, and unless the reasons for the introduction of this Bill are fully understood by them, a certain amount of dissatisfaction or suspicion may be caused. I hope the Minister will not make any change in the present position without giving the Glen Grey Council a full opportunity of ventilating their views on any suggested alteration in the system now existing.

As I pointed out last night, unless we take this authority with regard to Glen Grey, then it will never be in a position to avail itself of what the other native territories have. As far as I know there is always a fear amongst the natives that something may be imposed upon them against their will. However, there is no intention to do that, for I have always disapproved of any attempt to force these councils upon the natives. I am positive the time will come when they will ask for this, but until they want it, I don’t contemplate forcing it upon them. The natives also fear that they may be forced to come under the Transkei General Council, but there is no such intention whatever. All that is wanted is to put them in the same favourable position as the other native districts, so that they can avail themselves of the opportunity of having a general council, if they so desire, at any time.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clause and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 2nd May.

We had yesterday from the Prime Minister a very careful exposition of this measure, and as a result of that we understand the measure better than it was possible for us to do merely by reading the text. However, the alarm with which I first read the Bill has not entirely disappeared, as Parliament is being asked by this measure to give away all power to deal with native affairs. The powers conferred by the Bill are so great that it would be very difficult for Parliament to deal with them even if proclamations and regulations have to be laid on the table. Hence, the real effective control by Parliament over native legislation is taken away. It would have been much better if the Prime Minister had drafted the proposed regulations and appended them to the Bill or laid them on the table. Now the whole native code will be dealt with by regulation. We do not know at the stage what the regulations are going to be. Under these circumstances this Bill should have received the scrutiny of a select committee before it is proceeded with. We have been told that is difficult in view of the other native Bills, but it would be very desirable that they receive scrutiny by the Native Affairs Committee before we are asked to deal with them in committee of the whole House. Look at the provisions of Clause 4 and the tremendous powers given to the Governor-General in which the Governor-General may define the boundaries of the area of any tribe and deal with boundaries and the alteration of boundaries, and he may remove tribes, or individual natives if he is satisfied such native has been guilty of any offence as may by regulation be prescribed by the Governor-General. These are about the widest powers given by Act of Parliament you can conceive. What the Governor-General is going to prescribe we have not the faintest idea. The Prime Minister told us we could deal with the matter afterwards, but it is very difficult once it has been dealt with. Look at Section 21, in which the Governor-General may from time to time amend the provisions of the Natal code of native law. Section 22 gives very wide powers indeed. Under this clause laws may be repealed or amended and new laws may be made by the Governor-General by proclamation in the “Gazette.” Then you come to Clause 23, which has a safeguard in that proclamations have got to be laid on the table. Even so they are in force unless Parliament, by resolution, requests the Governor-General to repeal them. Section 24 is one which I drew the Prime Minister’s attention to when he addressed us. I cannot understand why he has taken powers referred to in sub-section (c). In (e) the Governor-General may make regulations for such purposes as he may consider necessary for the control, improvement and welfare of the natives and in furtherance of peace, order and good government. Why then was it necessary to put in (c)? It is an extraordinary provision under which you may prohibit gatherings for any purpose whatever, even if they are not for unlawful purposes. The Prime Minister gave as an example tribal fights, but this is dealt with under (b) and (e), and also under the ordinary laws. We have ample power to deal with people in that way under the ordinary law too. One short clause might have given the Governor-General power to do what he pleases in this regard, because the substance of parliamentary control has gone and the shadow only remains. There is just one thing I would draw the Prime Minister’s attention to before passing on to the contentious clause. He has put in, very rightly, in Section 14 that advocates and attorneys of the Supreme Court shall be entitled to appear in a native appeal court, but he has not put it in that they may appear at the native commissioner’s court, and I take it the Prime Minister’s intention is they shall be able to appear in any court. I suggest he moves an amendment at the proper time to Section 14 to put in “or a native commissioner’s court.” Now we come to one of the clauses which has caused a tremendous amount of discussion and criticism, namely, Clause 26. Before alluding to that, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on Clause 28, because there is the only bright spot I see in the Bill under which it is recognised that natives are not always going to remain in a position of absolute inferiority, but they are going to have a chance to rise in the scale of civilization. Under that clause the Governor-General may grant exemptions so that they will not always be treated as savages, but on their merits with the same consideration as European citizens. As far as native problems are concerned, I am nearly always in disagreement with the Government, but I am glad that clause has been put in, because in it I recognize the germs of a new policy. So far as sedition is concerned, the law is not as clear as it was originally thought to be. For some time lawyers treated sedition as if it was under the ordinary English laws, but as the matter is now you cannot prosecute people for sedition unless it is established that there is actual proper or a state of public rebellion. You can still prosecute them if it amounts to high treason or for inciting to public violence. I am not suggesting that these things should go unpunished, but that the existing law is sufficient to meet these cases, that is, cases of high treason, public violence and incitement to public violence. The Prevention of Disorders Bill was not proceeded with, but lapsed at the end of the session, and has not been re-introduced. One legitimate criticism of the present Bill was reflected by the natives in their resolutions and meetings, in which they hit the nail on the head, and I propose later to read those resolutions. It is not that these people want to commit crimes, but when you bring in new legislation creating new crimes, and you want to apply them to one section, they are entitled to come and protest. They say, you make it a crime for the natives to commit any of these things, but not a crime for the white man. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) does not realize how objectionable it is from the point of view of those who want to do justice to the native to find a section applies in a native administration Bill only. The hon. member’s leader was right when he said that the logical thing was to take it out altogether, either deal with it as a whole or take it out altogether. You have your laws adequately dealing with the matter now. If you do not consider it adequate introduce a general law making it adequate.

Do you support a separate Bill?

No, my view is that the existing law is adequate, but I submit you want a better administration of the existing law. There is such a thing as constant incitement to public violence, but, under the Act of 1914, Act 27, we specially provide for it. If hon. members will look at the Act they will find powers in Section 7. [Clause read.] That is a section which would lead to the prosecution of numbers of people who to-day are allowed to go scot free. There is the law. You do not want to bring in new laws to deal with matters of this kind. That is a general law applicable to everyone. There are other clauses, too, of Act 27 of 1914, which deal with this subject. [Section 15 (2) (b) read.] You have got your legislation. That is a law passed in 1914. I am surprised that the law is not more often put into operation.

Do you disagree with the evidence of Mr. Lansdowne before the select committee?

I have read his evidence. I do not disagree with that evidence. I have just explained that he pointed out that under the interpretation of the courts sedition itself is no longer a crime unless it is connected with oproer. My point is that there are other crimes for which people can be prosecuted, leaving out sedition altogether, and that you can get everything you want by the administration of your existing laws. I say, further, that you must not be too thin-skinned about public speeches. There is a good deal of steam let off under our free institutions which is a good deal better let off in that way than kept underground. Propaganda underground is very much more dangerous than propaganda in the light of day, which may be subjected to criticism. I have never been in favour of too much legislation on the subject of free speech. The Prime Minister was candid enough to say that it was because of the Labour party’s request to him that he has dropped this particular clause. I think it was a splendid bit of work for the Union when the Labour party got this particular clause left out in its present form, and I only wish they would use their power in another connection and get something else dropped which may come before the House later on. I think the Prime Minister and the Labour party are entitled to great credit for what the Prime Minister told us, that this particular thing had been left out, I would like to read a resolution which was passed at a mass meeting under the auspices of the I.C.U., and held on the Grand Parade, Cape Town, on March 27th last. The mention of the word “socialism” always seems to stir the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) a good deal. I would like to point out, in fairness to this Union, the I.C.U., that they expelled the Communists from their organization some time ago. As I look upon this organization, it seems to me to be a native trade union. Why should not the natives be allowed to form their trades unions the same as the Europeans to form their trades unions and try and get better conditions for themselves?

What are you referring to? I never referred to the I.C.U.

No, not on this occasion, but the hon. member and his friends constantly do so. In the resolution adopted at the mass meeting to which I referred just now, regret was expressed that the Union Government had introduced and passed the first reading of the Native Administration Bill. The resolution affirmed that the Bill was unnecessary, and asked for its withdrawal on the grounds, inter alia, that the natives had at all times been loyal, orderly, law-abiding citizens, and that this Bill would violate the great principle of personal liberty, also that it was unjust and inequitable to introduce a Bill dealing with sedition, and apply it to one section only. The resolution further set out that the Bill was contrary to and violated the recently declared policy of the Union Government. Now these natives look upon this particular clause as an attempt to break up their trade union. That brings me to the reference of the hon. member for Zululand, who does not look upon the dropping of this clause as the work of the Labour party. He says it was the work of a socialist organization. When I asked him if he was referring to the Trade Union Congress, he said that was what the was referring to. That is not like the hon. member, who, as a rule, is a man of argument, and not a man of abuse. I was reading a book by the Webbs recently on the early history of the trade union movement in England. It used to be fashionable in England at one time in the early days to decry trade unions in the same way as hon. members do in this House.

I never mentioned the words “trade union.”

No, exactly, but the hon. member spoke in a contemptuous way of the Government having yielded at the behest of a socialist organization. I ask him whether that is a fair way of describing a congress of the trade unions of this country, the working men’s parliament in South Africa. He seems to have forgotten that these trade unions are recognized by this Parliament, that in 1924, under the Industrial Conciliation Act passed by the Government that he supported, they recognized these trade unions, and that those unions are registered under the law. These are registered bodies of working men who are under the law engaged in forming industrial councils to try and get industrial peace in this country, and the hon. member thinks to insult them by saying that the Prime Minister has given way at the behest of a socialist organization. That sort of argument won’t go down either here or elsewhere. The hon. member seems to have forgotten that the trades union congress is a congress largely of white workers. It is also a congress of some coloured workers who are members of unions affiliated to the organization. I look upon the trades union congress as one of the best factors we have got in South Africa making for industrial peace. If you did not have these unions, these big bodies, you would have a perpetual state of industrial war in South Africa. It is a great credit to this congress that, although natives are not members, they are on this occasion going to stand shoulder to shoulder with the native workers to get justice under this Bill. It is a great credit to them, and they do not deserve to be abused and insulted because they have done the proper thing. They have given the Prime Minister the very best advice. We have heard from hon. members over here that there are agitators going about the country putting up the natives against the Europeans. I very much deplore the attitude of anyone who tries to stir up strife, but do we hear condemnation of people who try to stir up whites against blacks? We do not hear anything about that. There are things going on in this country that I would not like to express my views on now, because I think they should be the subject of an inquiry. When it comes to a question of medical practice it does not matter whether a man is a native or not; the thing is, if he has behaved himself. These things are not a battle of black and white; they are a battle of the people who behave themselves and those who do not. You find the very same people who strongly take sides in the matter when it looks like a question of white versus black, are those who do not realize that it is just as serious a thing to put white against black as to put black against white. I do not see why there should not be a new policy, not to promote antagonism, but under which the two races would remain absolutely distinct, and yet there would be the utmost co-operation between black and white. The black races can be of the utmost possible benefit to the white races, to themselves, and to South Africa, if they are treated fairly and squarely, and not as an inferior people incapable of rising in the scale of civilization. The Prime Minister said that, except for 300,000 of them, they are children. I do not know whether one can go as far as that; they are rising very rapidly in the scale of civilization. There will never be a chance for South Africa unless we can realize that South Africa is big enough for Europeans and coloured and native races as well. What we have to try and do is to educate the native races of this country. The educated native is a much better man than the uncivilized one. You will not be able to exploit him; the white worker and the white manufacturer will receive the benefit of the uplifting of the native, and the whole of South Africa will receive the benefit. People have a mistaken idea that as long as you keep the native down the white man will benefit. As long as you keep the native down you will drag the white man lower and lower until he gets to the level of an uncivilized man. I do not like the wide powers given in this Bill, and I should like some enquiry to be made, before it becomes law, by way of a select committee. But in deciding to drop Clause 26 the Prime Minister has come to a very wise decision. I hope he will drop even his proposed amendment. Leave it out altogether, because whatever you put in it will be a recognition of the fact that you want to make one law for the natives and another for Europeans. Do not let the native get the idea into his mind, as he will by this legislation, that you are only going to punish offences within the scope of sedition when they are committed by natives. Under these circumstances, I think the rest of the Bill will not prove so contentious and may have a speedy passage, but I urge hon. members, many of them on this side, and especially those from Natal, not to ask the Prime Minister to put back against Clause 26 in its original form.

I think that I agree in more than one respect with the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), that it is a great pity that some clauses of the Bill were not thoroughly discussed in a select committee. Certain clauses are certainly far-reaching, and I think the people who are interested in them on account of their work in the country ought at least to have had an opportunity to thoroughly investigate them and discuss them with the Government. There are, e.g., Clauses 9 and 20 to which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) referred. He spoke very strongly last night, and said that the Government was making a frontal attack on the missionary societies in this country. I will not put it so strongly, and want to say that it is probably incorrect that the missionary, societies will be very hostile to the proposal of the Government, but I think those societies, who are doing so much for the native population, and have been engaged for so many years, ought to have had the opportunity of discussing certain clauses with the Government or with a select committee. In Clause 9 it is laid down what law shall be applied in the native commissioner’s courts. The provision of the Transvaal law which was so objected to by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), because it lays down the standard of European civilization, is being so amended that we shall have the Natal point of view, although the Natal wording is being altered. Clause 9 (1) reads—

The Afrikaans translation is clumsy, and it speaks of “natural fairness,” and I think that it will possibly have to be altered. Then the sub-clause further provides—

I know that lobola is acknowledged by the Natal code and in the Transvaal, but in view of what is laid down in the succeeding clause, it is very important for us to understand what is meant by lobola. It does not mean the same thing to all natives. Even the Natal code acknowledged lobola, but not in the form the Zulu used to have it in the past. Only an amended form was acknowledged. Now the clause says that the court shall not be entitled to make any alterations with regard to lobola. Clause 9 (2) gives the court the right to take into consideration the altered circumstances of different tribes and the different customs. It is not exactly as the hon. member for Standerton explains, and if an attempt was being made to make everything uniform. Sub-clause (2) provides—

If one or other tribe applies a different system of lobola to that in use to-day in Zululand then the court will have to take notice of it. This is a matter about which there is a difference of opinion, even amongst the missionary societies. I know that the societies in the Cape and in the Free State are very strongly opposed to the lobola system. In Central Africa the missionaries are sometimes compelled to permit lobola in certain circumstances, because it has become impossible for Christian men to get wives if they cannot practice the principle. I do not know whether the question ought not first to have been fully debated with the people who really appreciate the danger of the system. I think it would be difficult not to acknowledge it, but I think that in some cases it must be accepted in an amended form, so that the evils may be prevented. We know that there is a kind of lobola among the natives which must not be confused with polygamy. This does not mean that the two go together. It is more a kind of evidence that a native has actually taken a woman as his wife, and it is said that our custom of giving a wedding ring is a relic of the lobola system which our ancestors practised. There is no doubt that it lowers the status of the woman, because she is regarded as the property of the family that has paid for her. The children, e.g., do not belong to the mother, but to the husband’s family, and in some tribes the lobola system has the very pernicious result that the family relations who contributed to and helped the husband to pay the purchase price will have certain rights over the person of the wife for whose purchase they have contributed. If we want to acknowledge lobola then we must, in any case, be certain which system we are going to acknowledge. I know that the system has its advantages. The native woman has a chance of being better treated under the present circumstances than otherwise. We know that it helps to make marriages more binding than what they otherwise would have been, and there is no doubt that it promotes virtue among the native women. The native woman knows how her own family will have to suffer and will have to repay the purchase price of her husband’s proprietorship is invalidated in any manner by her incontinence. These are advantages which are attached to it. If we are going to acknowledge the system then care must be taken to avoid some of the evils. Certain provisions are contained in the Natal code which are an improvement on the lobola System in force in other parts, and I hope it will be generally laid down where the lobola system is acknowledged that it will not take place according to the practice in many native tribes. The lobola system has always hitherto, to a certain extent, prevented polygamy. It was provided under the Natal code that a woman should openly acknowledge before a magistrate that she accepts the husband her family have provided for her, although even that does not quite prevent the evil. But if we abolish the lobola system we run the risk of completely undermining the choice of the woman in so far as it still exists under the lobola system. That we should not do. We should consider how far the Natal code can be applied throughout the country, and in addition as in the Natal code the maximum which may be paid, which a native has to pay to take another wife. I mention these few things to indicate the great value we should attach to the experience of the persons who have had to do, and obtained experience in connection with the matter. They should have been very fully consulted with regard to this lobola system, and have been given an opportunity of expressing their views before the Bill is passed. Clause 20 may lead to the complication mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) yesterday. I think it is desirable to also obtain and consider in connection with that clause, the judgment of those experienced people, especially missionaries. Their object is, as far as possible, to introduce Christian monogamy among the natives. If I rightly understand the clause, it really goes in the direction of encouraging polygamy, and precautionary measures are even taken against it by the native in his raw state, and I do not think that we should take it away. We know that in most of the native tribes, even amongst the least enlightened natives who still live in the most heathen state, it is felt that the system of concubines should, as much as possible, be opposed. They give, e.g., to the concubines and to the children of the concubines different rights than to those of the first lawfully wedded wife, or as the native says, the wife his heart loves. Under that clause we are going to give to the concubines, however many there are, the same right as to the lawfully wedded wife, and the children of the concubines will have the same rights as those of the first wife. In this way we are taking away the higher status of the first wife, the lawfully married wife. That is how I read the clause.

The concubines are also legal.

They must, indeed, be entered up as lawful in the register, but it is a point which ought to be looked into, and which we should debate in committee. The whole matter of lobola, of the status of the native wife is certainly a thing that effects the honour of the community, and we must take care that we do not undermine the self-respect of the concubines as it still exists to-day. The great grievance of the concubines is often that enough is not paid for them. A missionary told me quite recently that a woman came to him and complained that too little had been paid for her. She had only one eye, and so only one ox was paid for her, and the other women then mocked her because she was only worth one ox. That self-respect certainly serves to somewhat prevent concubinage, although the other evils remain. Then I am very glad that it is provided in Clause 24 that the Governor-General shall have power to promulgate appropriate regulations about all matters concerning the exhibiting of undesirable pictures in locations, native territories, etc. This is something which has long been necessary, and I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Native Affairs to the fact that it will possibly be necessary to go a little further. The prevention by regulation of the exhibition of undesirable pictures—probably films are chiefly intended, in any case they are included—is very good, but, according to the Bill, it only applies to locations and special native areas. As if natives were only found there! We surely do not forget that natives are walking about our streets. There are thousands of natives in the towns among the white people, and in towns like Cape Town there are special bioscopes for natives to which thousands of natives go. The pictures often shown are certainly not of such a nature that they ought to be viewed by natives at the present stage of their development. I do not wish to speak of films only, but there are often pictures which are used for advertising purposes which are such a kind that we seem to forget that natives are living in our midst. It especially came to my notice in a Free State village one day last year. When I was walking in the street I saw a large poster of the play “No, No, Nanette,” a play which made such a sensation in South Africa, and which, doubtless many hon. members have seen. I do not wish to attack it, although it was advertised in such a way so many plays are advertised now-a-days with a tendency of which we have heard so much in America lately, viz., a more immoral tendency. This advertisement to which I am referring particularly attracted attention by showing that in the play about ten women are exhibited performing on the stage in bathing costume; women who, according to the impression got from the advertisement, are nearly naked. In connection with all we hear about the black peril it was certainly not a thing which would do the native good to see. I saw about five natives standing in front of the advertisement, and I could see from their faces and movements what remarks they were making.

Did you go and see the play?

I am not talking about the play itself. I twice had a free ticket sent me, but I did not go once. It is in any case, not a matter to joke about. It touches the honour of the country, and the moral development of the native who lives in it. Then I want to say a few words in connection with Clause 26, about which so much has been said. I do not agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) that we ought to emphasize that the native population of our country ought to be treated to a great extent as children, and with regard to the advertisements, some of them are such that we do not want even our children to see them. We must bear in mind that a large part of the natives in the country are to-day still in the childhood state of development, and I think we should to a great extent view Clause 26 from that standpoint. I agree that we ought to go very carefully to work in curtailing liberty. It might have a dangerous result on special organizations, e.g., on organizations which are out to improve labour conditions among the natives, and that we should take care that they do not come under the prohibition. But there can be no doubt that we need legislation to deal more effectively with certain agitators who trade upon the childishness of the native. Recently, I read the interesting report of the Native Affairs Commission, issued shortly after its establishment in 1920. One of the first things the commission referred to was the danger of that class of agitator to the natives. Inter alia, I noticed that the commission, which stated that they were striving to bring about a good understanding between the whites and the natives, but also chiefly wanted to advance the advancement of the natives, accepted as their policy as is stated in the beginning of the report that the commission, in the first place, is the friend of the native, and as such, will regard the advancement of the natives with every sympathy. Not only the Native Affairs Commission, but everybody, and the Government also, must strive after a healthy understanding between black and white. But even with this ideal before us the Native Affairs Commission at once pointed to the danger of half-educated agitators among the entirely uneducated native community. I fear that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) is thinking of his native electors in Cape Town when he thinks of the native population.

No, that is not so at all.

I think that he does not appreciate the state the natives in the country are in, and how dangerous it is to permit people to go among them preaching doctrines which they cannot understand, and which may have an injurious effect. There is a danger that there may be a collision between the whites and the natives which may cause bloodshed if we do not take steps to control the agitators. I am in favour of the Government giving every guarantee for natives to be organized in a constitutional way for legal and ordinary improvement of labour and social conditions. I think, however, that a law must be made to control the agitators, because if that is not done we shall soon have bloodshed in the country. Matters have reached such a pitch to-day that it will not take very long. Hon. members have read what happened recently at Heilbron, where, on both sides, bloodshed was spoken of. I think that it is not necessary, as the Prime Minister said, to have sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c), and I also think that sub-clause (d) is very vague, and that it does not actually touch the real question. I think the amendment moved by the Prime Minister last night wards off a great deal of the danger, although I should have liked to see that something was left of what was proposed under sub-clause (1), viz., that the Governor-General should have power to make regulations to prevent the natives being stirred up to disturb the peace and order of the Union. I know that the fear exists that trade unions will come under it, but there are doctrines, however, which are being spread, of which no one can say that the intention is to stir the natives up against the whites, but they may yet have that effect, because we know the natives are very ripe for it. I hope the Minister will retain something of sub-clause (1); whatever is done, I hope that the Minister of Native Affairs will not completely abandon Clause 26. If we mean well By the natives and white people, then the position is such that we must prevent the state in which the natives are living being exploited by people who take no account of the consequences. If the Minister withdraws the clause, and does not put a similar one in its place, the result will be that, within a short while, we shall have a state of affairs in the country which will have the most far-reaching results to the detriment of the white and native population.

It is necessary, as far as possible, to carry the confidence of the natives, having regard to the fact that they are not represented in the House by people of their own kind. It seems to me there is very little in this Bill which can be criticized as being likely to offend the susceptibilities of the natives, or lead to any resistance to the application of its provisions. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) thinks the Government have taken too much power as regards legislation by proclamation, and that we were giving away to some extent the powers of the House. Nobody views with more alarm the tendency of present Government, and this Government in particular, than I do in taking to themselves discretionary powers which can be used as and when they think fit. I believe a good deal of this tendency is due to the fact that Ministers and their advisers have not thought out beforehand the proper application of the legislation with which they deal. In dealing with legislation relating to natives who cannot be called, in the ordinary sense of the word, civilized, I cannot think that objection applies so much. The natives like personal rule, and as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said last night, the native appreciates the fact that the Governor-General is his great chief. That habit of mind is probably responsible for the practice that has prevailed for many years, I believe in the Cape Parliament time, and I think it was introduced first by Mr. Rhodes, of making the Prime Minister specially responsible for native affairs, and that has a lot to recommend it. I do not think many of the provisions of the Bill can be criticized, because they give the Government too much power. It is highly undesirable that a mass of the ordinary administration should take up the time of this House, as it might, if too little was left to the discretion of the Government, lead to the production of political discussions. Therefore I find nothing to disagree with in the provisions relating to land settlement, judicial procedure, the marriage laws and legislation by proclamation. A great many of these provisions have been, to my knowledge, in operation in Rhodesia for many years past, and many of them might have been copied word for word from the Rhodesian legislation. That legislation has worked very well, and I do not see why this Bill should not work well. It is true in different parts of this large country, stretching from here to the Zambesi, the characteristics of the natives differ, and legislation that suits one part need not necessarily suit another part. But, as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said, there are a great many characteristics in common between the natives of South Africa. There are a great many legal provisions which, being suitable to one district, may be safely applied to others. I do not think there is any likelihood of difficulty in that respect. But there is one matter in which I think the Bill is rather deficient. The Bill, of course, looks to the fact that the vast majority of people to whom it will apply are people living as tribes and not treated as civilized individuals, and the Bill in Section 28 makes provision for exemption of civilized natives. I think that is a very necessary provision, because the provisions in some of the early sections of the Bill are undoubtedly of a somewhat drastic nature, if it is thought that they are going to apply to civilized persons. In one section, for example, any native can be deported from one part to another if he has committed any offence in terms of this Bill. As the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has already pointed out, offences are created under this Bill. The Government may make regulations, and for disobedience of those regulations a native may be, for example, deported. I think it is quite right that that power should exist in dealing with the uncivilized native, but when it applies to a civilized native that is a very different thing. Is it to be contended that a man who is civilized, educated, who is, if you like, a voter in this part of the Union, who is qualified as a medical practitioner, to take a case which has been alluded to, is to be treated exactly in the same way as an uncivilized native, and to be liable to deportation for disobedience to some regulation which is not in existence today and which may be created for some special purpose in terms of this Bill? It is very difficult to provide for all kinds of cases, but I think that the solution of the thing would be to make certain exceptions in that particular section and say that this shall not apply to the later section, and when we come to the later section see whether the grounds of exemption cannot be enlarged. The grounds of exemption in this section are restricted. There is to be no exemption relating to taxation and liquor. That is in direct conflict with the clause which was inserted in the Bill which the Minister of Justice put before the House in dealing with liquor matters. In that Bill there was a clause which specially provided for the exemption of natives. I think we must all of us, at any rate those of us who live down in this part of the world, have come across cases which show the absolute necessity of making provision for dealing with natives who have become civilized. I have got cases in mind which have come within my personal knowledge. One is the case of a man who has been a native teacher, who can read and write English and, for aught I know, Dutch as well as any of us, and that man to-day is treated, because he is technically a native, as a native; for example, as regards the legislation for the tax which was imposed the year before last. The proceeds of the tax imposed by Act 41 of 1925 go to the development fund, that is, the fund provided for the development of the native territories. That man has lived all his life in the Cape Peninsula, he has no more to do with the native territories than I have, and yet here he is treated under this Act as a native, and so he has to pay poll tax, the proceeds of which go to the development of the native territories.

That is not so.

I have a letter which the man received from the official concerned, in which it is clearly stated that he is liable to the tax imposed by this Act of 1925. [Letter read.]

That is quite so, but the proceeds do not necessarily go to the development of the native territories.

Then I know of another case. This man is, technically, a native, but he has never lived as a native, and does not know any native language. He is married to a coloured woman. He has to pay a tax, and some part of the money goes to the development of native territories. Those are examples, and there must be many others, and I say that I think more should be done to indicate that the House does sympathize with the position of these people, and when we come to the committee stage, I think the exemption should be made easier and the grounds on which it may be given should be somewhat enlarged. There is only one other point to which I want to refer, and that is the vexed question of Section 26. My view of the matter is this, that the clause in itself, apart from any context and apart from any previous history, does not seem to me an unreasonable clause, either as it existed originally, or as it is now proposed by the Prime Minister, but the trouble is this, that we had this so-called Sedition Bill introduced, and hon. members on the cross benches made a clamour because they thought it was going to interfere with their activities, and so the Government did not persevere with that Bill. Then comes this Native Administration Bill, and the clause, to all intents and purposes, is taken out of that Sedition Bill and put into this Bill. Naturally the natives say—

If that Bill had gone through in its original form, I do not suppose the natives would have objected, because the clause in itself is not unreasonable. There are undoubtedly people who go about making trouble amongst the natives, and I think it is quite right that the Government should have power to lay these people by the heels, whether they are white people or natives, and personally I think there is more trouble from white people in that respect than there is from natives. I read recently some reports of speeches by a gentleman who used to be a member of this House, Mr. Andrews, and another gentleman called Mr. Glass, who are leaders of one section of the labour movement. They assured the natives of their support in resisting this clause in the Bill, and strongly advised them to follow the methods that had been followed in Russia and now being followed in parts of China, and thereby get their freedom and get control of the country. That is mischievous, and I think that when men make speeches of that type to natives, it is desirable that they should be laid by the heels. I have no doubt whatever —I do not want the Prime Minister to divulge information which would not be in the public interest—but I have no doubt that there are in this country agents for communist or bolshevist organizations, directed from London or Moscow, and I have not the slightest doubt that they are spending some money. I hope and believe that these people are known to the police. I have reason to believe they are known to the police in London, because I was told so on good authority. It is quite right there should be power in any legislation to deal with these people whenever they set to work to stir up trouble among the native population. We must try and deal with the natives by inspiring them with confidence in the manner in which we handle them, but there must be people among them who think they can best show their utility by being mischievous and stirring up trouble. It is quite right there should be powers to deal with those people, but, as I say, it is most unfortunate that because the original Bill seems to have conflicted with the aims and objects of some of the hon. members there and their friends that that Bill was dropped and these special clauses were put in. I quite agree that the clause the Prime Minister now proposes is an improvement on the previous clause, but I do think it would be better if these clauses were embodied in a general Bill, and that no question, therefore, should arise of special legislation directed against the natives which might cause a certain distrust as to the intentions of the Government. I have no doubt, when the Bill comes to the committee stage, we can perhaps improve, or try to improve, some of the clauses. The success or otherwise of the Bill will, of course, depend upon administration. I have a good deal of faith in the administration of the Native Department. I think, as far as I have seen, that they have the interests of the natives at heart, and I think the fact that we have a Native Affairs Commission is also a very valuable safeguard. When you have people specially selected for a commission of that kind by virtue of their knowledge of native affairs, their opinions should be made known to this House.

This Bill, of course, only has reference to native administration, and the Bill has been drafted after years of investigation among the people who had to do with the government of natives. We can therefore take it that what is here proposed is based on the experience of men who have been working among the natives. The first part of the Bill deals with the administration of native affairs by the appointment of commissioners. I do not know whether it is known that a few years ago, under the late Government, the Public Service Commission abolished a certain number of native commissioners, and that magistrates were appointed at some places to also hold the office of native commissioners. The experience we had when we went about during the recess to explain the native Acts to the natives is that the natives of those districts where there are commissioners are, as a rule, orderly, obedient, and willingly listened to what we had to say. But it happens that native commissioners are appointed who are at the same time magistrates of a district where there are a large number of Europeans. Hon. members will appreciate that they have their hands full. They have to do the administrative work among the Europeans, act as civil officers and look after the farmers’ interests, and in that connection attend numerous meetings of farmers, etc. The result is that the native administration of such a district is neglected. Natives are peculiar in this respect, that they want a head to look up to. A native likes to know who is the head of his district, apart from his own chief, and it occurred that we met natives who said that their native commissioner was their father, and if there was anything to be explained he would do so, and he would do what is right. I am glad that the Minister is again returning to the system of native commissioners. In districts like Waterberg, with its 60,000 or more natives, the magistrate cannot possibly do all his own work and that of the native commissioner as well. The native administration is then carried out by a junior clerk. Large districts, such as Pietersberg, Waterberg, and others with many natives, ought to have a separate native commissioner. It may cost the country a little more, but it is in the country’s interests. Then I come to the powers of the chiefs among the native tribes. I admit that there is truth in what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) says, viz., that the whole policy followed in South Africa in past years was the breaking up of the tribal powers of the chiefs. The whole administration of the Cape Province, to be precise, was intended to break down the tribal life of the natives. In Natal the tribal system was almost completely maintained, in the Transvaal still, to a certain extent, but not so much as in Natal. Now by this Bill certain powers are again being given to chiefs with regard to the exercise of judicial functions. It is a step in the right direction. The hon. member for Zululand said that two members of the Native Commission were schoolmasters who were working on the line of breaking down the powers of the native chiefs. I must say that my experience during my co-operation with them was that the hon. member is not correct. They work, as far as I can see, on the lines that the native chiefs will also have to adapt themselves to existing circumstances, that it can no longer be permitted that a chief should be absolutely ignorant of the point of view and way of living of educated people. Their aim is that the native chiefs shall receive a certain amount of education with reference to the laws. The other principle is with regard to native customs. They are mostly based on the lobola system. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. van der Merwe) said that we must be careful, and not go too far in this connection, so that we do not come into conflict with the churches. I want to point out to him that there have often been difficulties in connection with the lobola system. The courts do not acknowledge that system. It occurs when a native comes to court and wants to know how much lobola he must pay, that the court will not acknowledge it, and refuses to take such a thing into account. It has never been acknowledged in the Transvaal in the past, although mutual arrangements have actually been made, and the natives always thought that it was not right for the lobola not to be acknowledged. He pays lobola, and subsequently has no recourse against the contract breaker. I want to go further and say, notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. member for Winburg, viz., that to a certain extent the morality of the native is advanced by that system, because if an offence takes place with a native wife then the offender can be fined by dealing with the lobola. But under existing circumstances a young native in many cases refuses to pay the fine, and says that he does not come under native law, and that the European law does not acknowledge lobola, and that he therefore need not be afraid. I think the natives have all regarded this as a great grievance, and I am glad to see that the grievance is being met in this Bill. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said yesterday that great difficulties would arise because the person presiding would not know whether he had to administer the European or the native law. But even in the Cape Province, where native law does not apply, natives’ laws are applied by a special court. That will, of course, depend on existing conditions and circumstances of the case, and both sides will have to agree to have their case heard by such a court. That will give satisfaction to the natives. The magistrate dealing with the case will be quite competent to say which cases should go to the native court and which not. If such a native court is established, where only native cases are heard that fall under the native commissioner, then it will also be much cheaper" for the natives in future. It happens to-day that a native possibly goes for some trifle to an attorney. The attorney is instructed to sue another native. The little matter comes before the court; it is postponed, other witnesses have to be subpoenaed, and in the long run it costs the poor native a tremendous sum, while otherwise the matter could be disposed of in a few hours and the native would be satisfied. Now the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has strongly protested against native legislation by proclamation. I think the practice has been followed for 50 years in the Transvaal and the Cape Province, of enforcing native laws by proclamation, and there is not the least dissatisfaction about it. In most cases, if the measures are not very urgent, and if there are Native Councils, the measures will first be submitted to the Native Council, and then sent for approval to the secretary for native affairs, and then to the Minister of Native Affairs, and in this Bill provision is also being made for them to go to the Native Affairs Commission as well. I do not think there is great danger in the proclamation system. I do not think that we should be committing an injustice to the native. Parliament is always there to intervene in the last instance and to prevent injustice. Then the hon. member for Winburg spoke about the rights of the natives when they were married by Christian rites, and he argued that we were adopting a line in the Bill which would lead to the increase of polygamy. The hon. member for Standerton said the same thing. But that course is actually being taken to prevent particularly hard cases. What happens? A native has three or four wives, afterwards he is influenced by a missionary or someone else to take a lawful wife, and to be married in church. He does so, and simply sends back to their parents the four or five wives he had under native law. The wives have absolutely no claim to compensation. What is now proposed is merely that when a native marries, he must first make a declaration how much property each wife possesses, and how much he will bequeath to a specified wife and her children. The native will therefore no longer be able to say, “I now have a legal wife, and I no longer acknowledge the other wives.”

What about community of goods?

I have not yet gone into that. Then I come to the clause about sedition. It is said that this Bill is not the best suited place for incorporating such a thing. I do not agree. We absolutely need some such thing for the control of the natives. We must prevent the possibility of causing insurrection amongst the natives by means of some person or other who wants to stir them up. It is quite germane in a Bill which deals with the administration of natives, and I am a little sorry that the Minister of Native Affairs has agreed to water down Clause 26.

Why a “little”?

I think that the clause is absolutely necessary. Now hon. members say that we must take it out, and introduce it in a general Bill on sedition. I doubt, however, whether Parliament will pass it, and do not know whether the Opposition will be in favour of it, but I agree with the hon. member for Zululand that we must not water down the clause. I am speaking here not only from the standpoint of the European, but also, and especially, for the natives themselves. I have been about the large native territories, such as Zululand and the northern Transvaal, and have seen how very easily influenced they sometimes are by an educated native so that one is astonished. I saw in Zoutpansberg, when we addressed a meeting of thousands of natives, how an educated native carried everyone with him by his eloquence. Even the chiefs agreed with everything that he proposed. The natives, of course, are very much more impressionable than the Europeans. We would say that someone was a fanatic, but if he told the same stories among the natives, then quite a different impression is created. It is said that the natives regard the inclusion of the clause as a reflection made upon them, but I want to quote a proposal which was introduced into the Transkei General Native Council. The Government was respectfully requested in the motion to consider the taking of immediate steps against the propagation of dangerous doctrines by Dr. Hansford Wellington and others, because they might have serious results, especially in the Mount Fletcher district. I do not know whether the motion was passed or not, but the Council is still in session, and it will probably be passed. If the natives in the Transkei, where they are fairly progressive and educated, see the danger and appreciate what the results may be, then I think this House should give its attention to the matter, and as protector of the natives should see to it that the agitators do not subsequently bring the natives into great trouble. If we do not take care, then later on a dispute will arise between the natives and the whites. We must prevent sedition being preached amongst the natives, and I therefore want to appeal to the Minister of Native Affairs not to give up Clause 26. He has now amended it a little, and it is not so clear to me as the original clause, but I am not a lawyer. If natives commit the offence of incitement, the Government should have the power of arresting them and putting them in gaol. The people who eventually suffer will not be the Europeans, but the natives, because the latter will later on do something which will oblige the Government to exercise discipline over them, and they will have to bear the consequences of it. I hope, therefore, that we shall not run away, but will pass the clause with regard to agitators.

I heartily support the Bill as it is printed, and I am very sorry the Prime Minister contemplates altering Clause 26. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) desires the removal of this clause on the ground that the Government already possess all the powers they require. I venture to tell him that he is wrong. Last April a native, Thaele, addressed a seditious gathering of natives. I called the attention of the Minister of Justice to the report, and pointed out that a continuance of this sort of thing would lead to bloodshed, and he agreed. I said—

but the Minister replied that the Government had not the necessary machinery, but that a short sedition Bill would be drafted. That was done last session, and I sat on the select committee which considered the measure. Now the whole country is deploring the withdrawal of that Bill, this withdrawal being due to the unholy alliance between the socialists and the Nationalists, the former placing a pistol at the heads of the latter and making them withdraw the Bill. The lack of machinery to deal with this trouble is most serious. A meeting of natives was held at Johannesburg on March 31st, which was addressed by Mr. Andrews, the secretary of the trade unions. Mr. Andrews said—

Mr. Glass, another member of this organization, addressing the same meeting of natives, said—

Without Clause 26, or a sedition Bill, these men are free to carry on this propaganda. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) told us that he was at a meeting in Zululand, and he found that educated natives had an enormous influence on the less educated ones. How much greater influence, therefore, would Europeans such as Mr. Andrews and Mr. Glass have Are these men to be allowed to go about and to achieve their object, and to bring about bloodshed between Europeans and natives’ The hon. member for Waterberg fears that, and he is in a position to know; for one thing, he is a member of the Native Affairs Commission. He has warned the House, and I re-echo his warning. Every farmer I am facing now in this House wants these powers, and the country wants them. Why withdraw Clause 26, as it meets the situation? I am sure there are sufficient members to carry the clause. Let the Prime Minister realize the danger which is facing the country, and leave the clause in the Bill. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the introduction of the measure. Clause 2 gives protection to a tribe against its chief: in one case I have heard of a chief who bought an expensive motor-car, and to pay for it he imposed a levy on his tribe. The power given to remove a native from his own area to another area is a very necessary one. It is almost impossible to farm stock and sheep on account of thefts, and there is no greater deterrent to sheep stealing than the removal of the offender to some other part of the country. As to Clause 9, I am very pleased to see that the Government does not intend to interfere with the old institution of lobola. If that were interfered with, I am sure it would be the speediest means of bringing about a revolt amongst the natives. I am glad the Prime Minister has strengthened the power of the native chief. We want to maintain the power of the native chief the same as in the past, and if the power of the chief is maintained, then the father of the family should also be supported, because that would prevent the moral degeneration of our native girls, and in this direction it is deplorable to what extent degeneration has taken place. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) deplores Clause 24—the power given to the Governor-General with regard to ordinary meetings. If the hon. member lived in Natal, where we have one quarter of the whole population of the Union, and a population which is most warlike, he would not think the same with regard to these gatherings at which beer is always drunk so that the fire is put in the grass. Before these native beer drinks take place, it is the custom to give notice, and the Native Affairs Department is always an fait with these things in the district, and they should have the power to prevent meetings of native tribes when it is necessary. No season passes in Natal but where these gatherings take place there is always fighting and bloodshed. It is the nature of the Zulu. He is a warlike man, and gets rid of his superfluous energy by fighting, like the Irishman. Clause 25, dealing with the pass laws, is also very necessary, because the law is so chaotic that it is entirely inefficient. Coming back to Clause 26, I hope the Prime Minister will let it remain as it is.

Why?

To prevent what happened in the Bambata rebellion of 1905 and 1906 when I lived on the borders, and I recollect we had to remove our families to a place of safety, and then return, shoulder our rifles, join the commandoes and protect the country. That rebellion persisted until 1906, until eventually the Government had to capture Dinizulu, the king of the Zulus, and put him on his trial, but not until after many valuable lives, both European and native, had been lost, and cost Natal Government one million sterling. Prevention is better than cure, and we must pay attention to the writing on the wall. Not long ago the secretary of the I.C.U. said that unless the native houseboys receive seven or eight pounds a month, they would go on strike. Once on strike they would become skibengas, which is a Zulu word for outlaw, and we have to spend much of our time dealing with these skibengas, who roam about the big towns, and are responsible for many of the murders. I am in favour of the law preventing natives from carrying weapons. If you read the papers, you find when a native commits a crime, it is usually with a knife. I congratulate the Prime Minister on putting in that clause. Clause 28 deals with exemptions, and the native, to enjoy the privileges of civilization, must qualify for it. We have well over 1,250,000 natives in Natal, and in the last 17 years, since Union, it will show you how slow the evolution is, because only 1,144 natives have taken up letters of exemption. There has been a lot of criticism about the alteration of the native code by proclamation. Is this House to bring in a Bill every time we want to alter the native code? That would be absurd. We have altered them seven or eight times by proclamation to my knowledge, and it has worked well. In conclusion, I hope the Minister will not withdraw Clause 26.

I think we feel on all sides of the House that this Bill is urgently required, not only in the interests of the Europeans, but also of the natives. I do not think there is one hon. member in the House who has noticed the state of affairs recently who will approve of the speeches that are bang made. I do not think the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) will approve of the speeches which have been made in the north. I am glad that the Minister of Native Affairs has introduced the Bill, because we all feel that an end should be put to the seditious language and to the unrest which is caused by such speeches. The hon. member takes offence at certain things, but I want to ask him to notice the natives in the north, and not those that he sees in Cape Town. Natives cannot be treated in the same manner as Europeans who have advanced and are educated. It is impossible. Even the natives feel that something should be done in their interests. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) said that the natives of the Transvaal had proposed a motion against the agitators who were going round there stirring up the natives.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.7 p.m.