As I understand the purpose of this Bill, it is to render applicable to the natives of the Union a modified system of native law—a system under which the majority of the natives of this country would prefer to be governed if they were allowed to have their own choice. Perhaps I may in modesty claim to have more than an ordinary interest in this discussion. Native customs and usages to my mind, have always been invested with a national and civic value and force far transcending their mere ethnological or academic interest and have been far too much neglected in the past. Since my earliest days, though forbidden by a wise parental rule from fraternizing or being familiar with the natives, their customs and usages have always been to me of very great interest both because of their arresting novelty and the light which they shed upon the philosophy of the people themselves. And it is because this Bill connotes a return to a native administration in harmony with the philosophy of the natives that I welcome its principles and many of its provisions. We well know that from the earliest stages of a native’s development the formative influences belonging to native customs are brought to bear upon him. Even during childhood he is addressed by his surname or family totem, when being hushed to sleep—a form of address usually reserved for his father—in that way encouraging the idea of manliness and of his modelling himself after the pattern of his father at the very earliest stage of his career. Then the native’s communal life enlists him in a wide range of ambitions and activities and in that manner he is involved in a large number of duties which belong not only to his family or clan but in a wider sphere to the entire tribe. Under the native regime it may correctly be said, as under the Mosaic dispensation, “The end of the law is obedience.” A comparison of the ethical codes among primitive people shows great similarity, and Mr. W. D. Hambly, the anthropologist to the Welcome expedition to the Sudan whose recent work is the best comparative study of racial development ever published emphasizes the impression of uniformity of many of the customs with which we are familiar in South Africa. There is no doubt the antiquity and authority of these codes has been established, and the system in which they are embodied provides an external authority, the most useful ever devised, for native government. These are among the reasons which influenced the late Sir Theophilus Shepstone in founding his policy upon the administration of natives under the tribal system and their government under native law. It is of interest to find his views so remarkably confirmed by such an authority as Mr. Hambly who has had the opportunity of studying the ethical codes of primitive peoples throughout the world. He says—

When we come to this Bill there is one outstanding defect, that is, that the Governor-General is not expressly constituted as the supreme chief over the natives. In the code of native law in Natal and in the law of 1885 of the Transvaal he is so invested with the position and power of the supreme chief. A though in the Transvaal his position as supreme chief has been challenged in the courts from time to time, that has only occurred because the scope of his power is not expressly set forth in any detail in the law of 1885. I can call to memory two instances in which the power of the supreme chief was challenged whilst I was native commissioner in the Transvaal. The most important case was that of a native chief who had to be deposed for habitual drunkenness and misconduct, and because it was not expressly stated that the supreme chief had that authority, the aggrieved party appealed to the courts, and the Governor of the Transvaal was called upon to vindicate his authority. A large body of evidence was led to show the enormous power which the supreme chief held. Among other cases one was cited of a chief, Madhlangampisi, from Wakkerstroom district, after whose name in mis-spelt form, Slangaapiesberg, the principal range of hills in that district has come to be known. This man’s father died in the time of Chaka, and messengers were sent to report the death to Chaka and nominate his successor. The heir’s name was Sibankwa, the Zulu word for lizard. Chaka on being informed of this, expressed his dissatisfaction, exclaiming “Sibankwa! That contemptible creature that runs on its belly! Is there none other?” He was told that Madhlangampisi was the next, whereupon he said “Madhlangampisi! He who eats with the wolf! He who ranges with the wild animal! Let him be appointed. Remove Sibankwa!” This serves to illustrate how absolute was the authority of a supreme chief under native regime. It certainly would be a great advantage for the Governor-General to be constituted as supreme chief, because in the native mind a very large body of law is implicit in the authority of the supreme chief, and those who maintain—and I am sorry to see the Native Affairs Commission in this category— that Clause 26 is out of place in this law, need to be reminded that the very existence of a supreme chief under his own regime was a challenge to sedition. Most of the offences which would be termed sedition were offences against the authority of the supreme chief. Any disrespectful or insulting language used and any conspiracy against the supreme chief or disregard of his authority would be regarded as a form of sedition. On that very question I recently had my notice drawn to a most insulting reference made in a native newspaper to the Governor-General, and I submitted to Mr. Speaker an enquiry as to whether a question might be asked in the House on that matter. And although such a question was not in conflict with the standing rules and orders, I bowed to Mr. Speaker’s reasonable view that the matter should not be brought on the floor of the House in that form. I propose to give the Minister of Native Affairs the offending article so that he may see the length to which native journalism goes in its offensiveness to the governing authority, the supreme chief. In that connection I want to deal very briefly with a good deal of misunderstanding that there is as to the real aims of the Industrial and Commercial Union, which is led by Clements Kadalie. I have in my possession a letter addressed by Kadalie to one of his colleagues in which he makes this remarkable confession—

Setting out from that point, we may well bring to bear a keener interest on the pronouncements and declarations which Kadalie has made since that date, which was the 20th May, 1920. He was the publisher of the offensive article to which I have referred—and he strongly endorsed it in an editorial note. He was also the author of several other astounding articles in what he has described in his own evidence before the Economic and Wage Commission as the official organ of his union. In dealing with the general strike in Great Britain, he wrote—

Another article published in this paper deals with a similar question. It is by Mr. Gomas, the provincial secretary of the I.C.U. in Cape Town—

That is the sort of stuff the ignorant natives are being nourished on, and this is the sort of appeal being made to join this particular union. On 14th September, 1926, Kadalie is reported to have made a speech demanding the abolition of pass laws and other things, in which he says—

On the 27th March, 1926, he says—

In a portion of one of his speeches he says—

On the same occasion he said—

What about the white scoundrels who were encouraging them?

I am coming to them in due course. For every word uttered by Mr. Kadalie you will find white men—I can scarcely regard them as white men—willing to go one better. Besides slandering the highest in the land, he also insults the State, the Church and the missionary. He says—

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) has drawn attention to an inflammatory address made in his district by one Keable Mote of the I.C.U. The occasion upon which that individual insulted the Dutch Reformed Church at Heilbron was not the only one on which he let himself go. At a conference of his Union he said—

Kadalie published in his paper an appeal from the International Association of Oppressed Peoples of Canton, China, and he commends this appeal to the readers of his paper. In that appeal the doctrine of the “Oppressed Peoples” is made very clear—in short it is that as the black and coloured people outnumber the whites they have only to use their strength fully to annihilate the whites. Kadalie recently announced at Durban that he had accepted an invitation to attend a conference of this body in Berlin. There are those who hold that Kadalie does not belong to the communists, simply because for his own reasons, he has expelled one or two men who were prominently identified with the communists. From within the association itself, however, we have testimony that Kadalie’s communistic tendencies were the reason why the Government put a ban on his movements in the Transvaal. His one-time colleague, “Professor” Thaele, has issued printed leaflets against Kadalie making this statement in definite terms. If we consider what the effect is of this sort of propaganda it is made clear to us why the natives under the influence of Kadalie’s association have been so remarkably aggressive and have behaved in a manner which has necessitated the calling in of force to make them comply with law and order. The Port Elizabeth riot was the first occasion on which this association took up a definite stand in regard to the question of the observance of law and order. Although I am quite aware that a commission, consisting of Senator Schweizer, Senator Roberts, and Dr. Abdurahman, held that the magistrate and the officer in charge of the police should have granted bail to the native Masabalala, leader of the I.C.U., who had been arrested in the first place, I wish to point out that these officers had no option in the matter. This was a case in which the leader of the Natives Union was charged with public violence; actual acts of violence had taken place against natives in the location —including violence against Dr. Rubusana. The late Captain Haise, replying to the accusation that he erred in not granting bail, pointed out that section 116 of Act 31 of 1917 lays it down that the police may, under certain circumstances, accept bail, but they had not this power in regard to offences contained in the first schedule of the Act. Incitement to public violence is one of the offences mentioned in that schedule. The magistrate was also appealed to to grant bail, but he refused to comply with the demands of the natives. Let us come to the real facts of the matter. These natives were determined to release their compatriot, and the evidence of their own secretary, Alfred Sidzumo, shows how keen their determination was. The secretary, in the evidence he gave before the commission, stated that he acted as interpreter, but the natives would not give the magistrate a hearing at all. The secretary added—

This completely disposes of the idea that harshness was displayed to these people, and that they had not provoked and attacked the police in their attempt to make a forcible entry into the Port Elizabeth police station. You can go from one event to another in which this society has figured, and you find the same result—at Port Elizabeth, where 23 men and women were killed; at Bloemfontein in 1919 where the police had to fire their rifles in the air in order to protect themselves, at Johannesburg in 1920, and also in Cape Town. At Bloemfontein in 1925 —when this Government was in power—a, commission enquired into the last-mentioned disturbances. The commission consisted of Mr. McCormick and Mr. A. G. Pienaar, the present chairman of the Public Service Commission, and they referred in these terms to this society—

The commission which enquired into the Bulhoek riots known as the Native Churches Commission, came to a very similar conclusion, namely, that the leaders of this society make inflammatory speeches from time to time, and that the society conducts a newspaper whose tone is for the most part, anti-European.

The I.C.U. had nothing to do with the Bloemfontein riots.

I have quoted from the report on the Bloemfontein riots by these gentlemen who took evidence and arrived at their findings as recorded.

It had nothing to do with it; read what the judge said.

The hon. member would have us believe the commissioners were drawing upon their imagination, but I prefer to believe he himself is doing so. On that occasion these influences, remarked upon by the commission, with other influences which were at work, resulted in casualties on both sides and deaths on the side of the natives. Let me remind the House of the model upon which Mr. Kadalie has framed his conduct. We have the figure of this man, Marcus Garvey, who got his deserts in February, 1925, when he was committed for five years’ imprisonment in a penitentiary in America. That man was the pioneer of Kadalie. I read, from an article by a well-known American writer, Mr. Chirgwin, dealing with the race question in America, that the movement, of which Garvey was the head, emerged during the turbulent days of the war and the peace that followed it, and he goes on to say that the flame of the new ideas worked strongly on the minds of the negroes. The Irish rebellion, the Russian revolution, and Nationalist movement in India, the Islamic and Polish revival added fuel to those fires. The same sort of propaganda is constantly used by Clements Kadalie to inflame his readers.

Mr. Kadalie is anti-Garvey.

So far from being anti-Garvey, we have a fullpage in his paper in which he commends him.

What date?

The 27th March, 1926.

Has he shed his skin since then?

You know he is anti-Garvey.

So far from being opposed to Garvey we have his paper boosting the publications of Garvey in the manner of an American advertising sheet. I come now to another remarkable figure who goes hand in hand with Mr. Kadalie. I should be sorry to mention the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Barlow) in that category, but he seems to be an active champion of Kadalie too. We have Mr. W. H. Andrews—the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), judging from that “hear, hear,” appears to approve of Mr. Andrews.

He is worth about twelve of you.

Perhaps in the hon. member’s estimation he is, but then his approval would make me shudder! Mr. Andrews says—

At this point we can see how much Andrews and Kadalie have in common. Mr. Kadalie would prefer to be, and his essential object is to be, the great Marcus Garvey. Mr. Andrews sees nothing wrong in a shirtless native being the dictator of South Africa. That brings me to a little plain speaking. Mr. Andrews, Mr. Bunting and Mr. Glass belong to a precious combination which South Africa could well do without. They are people who are hastening the day when there will be a most bloody conflict between the natives and Europeans in this country, and they primarily will be responsible when that comes about. We have Mr. Andrews glorying in this sort of thing, not mitigating nor modifying in any way his statement that the natives must follow the example of Russia and China. The example of Russia and China communicated to the native mind means only one thing, the overthrowing of white authority in this country. Kadalie is careful to say he does not advocate any such thing, but having read what he does advocate, we must be left to form our own conclusions. He says he has more brains than to advocate that the blacks should attempt to oust the whites from South Africa, but he is constantly preaching the rule of the proletariat and he knows what that means. He preaches that the worker must rule, knowing that if it comes about it is not the European who will rule, because, as a matter of fact, he would be completely outnumbered. He said in his paper on March 18th, 1927, that the I.C.U. was not out to set the native and coloured people against the European. They had more brains than to do such a thing. Their object, none the less, is one which is insurrectionary, and aims at setting the natives in this country in revolt against the European and bringing them into bloody conflict with those in authority!

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

[Several members rising to propose an extension,]

Any objection?

Yes, I object. The reason I object is this—

Order.

It is a matter of very little consequence to me whether the South African party agree to my objection or they don’t. The reason of it was this, that the Prime Minister of this country has on his shoulders to-day one of the greatest tasks that any Prime Minister ever had. Here we have a man in this House deliberately setting himself up, the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) not only to be anti-Dutch, anti-Jew, but also to be anti-black.

Is it in order to deliberately accuse me of being anti-Dutch?

I do not think that it is against the rules.

The hon. member for Illovo sets himself not only to be anti-Semitic, anti-Dutch, anti-Labour, but now anti-black—

Nonsense.

—to make the position in South Africa as difficult as he can make it. He is a greater danger to South Africa than Kadalie ever was or ever will be. That is not the way to settle this particular question that the Pact has gone out of its way to do its best to settle. I put it to the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), does he agree with the speeches that are being made by the men who sit behind him from Natal? Will he, or will the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) get up here and make those speeches? They dare not. There is not a single man representing the Cape in this House, on the side of the South African party, who dare make that speech.

What speech?

The speech made just now by the hon. member for Illovo. I challenge any member of the South African party representing the Cape to make a speech on the same lines as the men in the South African party from Natal have made. The country is convinced that that party is not trying to solve this native question on proper lines, but is trying to make political capital out of it. What are these speeches made by the hon. member for Illovo meant for? They are meant to set the white people against the Labour party. No other reason at all.

Is Mr. Andrews a member of the Labour party?

Mr. Andrews is a well-known member of the trade union movement, a man who has the deepest respect from every Labour man in South Africa. We stand up in this House and protect Mr. Andrews if we think he is right. If we think he is wrong, we say so. The hon. member for Illovo is not out to protect the white man. He is going in for this research policy of his, and he brings up the Port Elizabeth riots which took place in 1917, knowing very well that a commission appointed by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) sat to inquire into those riots. He does not quote the report of the commission. He does not quote what Dr. Abdurahman said, because Dr. Abdurahman has the South African party in the hollow of his hands. This very commission on which Dr. Abdurahman sat as chairman went in favour of the natives. If an election came on in the Cape to-morrow, Dr. Abdurahman would be the first man who would be called upon to fight for the South African party. What did Dr. Abdurahman say? He went to India, and said that the white people in South Africa were the scum and froth of the slums of Europe—the vomit and the froth of the slums of Europe. The South African party are the only political party in this House who, as a party, dare not say anything about the native question. They have to say it in divisions, in detail. The Cape men have to cringe to the native, and the Natal men have to slander him, and that is the party that wants to get back to power and rule the country in which the greatest problem is the native problem. The country knows them; the country has found them out. If it were not that their press disguises these things, if the hon. member for Illovo only made these speeches in public and the public could only know what the position of the South African party is, the native and the coloured man would vote against them. I challenge the South African party members on the front bench from the Cape to Port Elizabeth to get up and say what the hon. member for Illovo has said, and approve of what the hon. members from Natal have said. The black man does not vote for the National party, and he does not vote for the Labour party. He votes for the South African party, and the South African party pretend to be his friends in the Cape, and they hate him like perdition in Natal. We do not want the black man’s vote—

You cannot get it.

My hon. friend is right— we cannot get it. The Labour party takes up a policy which the black people would recognize, if they were sufficiently educated, as not antagonistic to the black people. The Labour party will stand up in this House and defend the rights of men,, whether these men be black or white. I am going to defend Kadalie here to-day, and defend him openly in front of this House, knowing that I have not one black vote in the whole of my constituency. I think Kadalie has been a brave man, and has done a thing which has taken a man to do. He has turned the communists out of his party. It requires an enormous amount of courage and pluck to do what Kadalie has done during the last few weeks in turning the communists out of his party. He is carrying on on sane and steady trade union lines. As long as he does that the Labour party will support him, and I, for one, will support him. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) sneers and laughs. What he would do would be to shoot him, as they did at Bulhoek. The South African party is going to support the native until the native asks for a living wage. The day the native asks for a living wage in this country, the South African party is going to fight him. If we were to follow the arguments, or the line of action which has been laid down by the hon. members from Natal, what are we going to do? We are going to drive this native agitation underground. When you do that, your trouble will begin. The Prime Minister has taken up a very wise course. He has deleted these clauses, and he has deleted them because the Labour party asked him to delete them, and other people asked him to delete them. I was one of the men appointed by the Labour party to ask him to delete them. I would have voted against them if they had not been deleted. We are quite open about it. We believe that if these particular clauses had been brought into force and the right hon. the member for Standerton had got back, he would have used them against us. We would not have been the only people in danger. Let us read Clause 26—

It goes on—

I ask what hope would the hon. member for Illovo have, if that went through? He would be in jail under an indeterminate sentence. He has done nothing else in this House but promote feelings hostility between different races in the Union. Let us wait until the Flag Bill comes on. It won’t be long now, and you will hear some of the speeches that are made from that side of the House. If this was law and those speeches were made, those gentlemen on the Opposition side would be in jail for life. There is nobody on earth who has caused more feelings of hostility between the different races in the Union than a large number of members of the South African party. We do not want to drive this trade union business underground. We say this: If you take the native and you put him into industry and chain him to the wheels of industry, you must allow him to agitate to get proper working conditions and proper hours. You cannot have it both ways. If you bring these men into your factories, into your mines, into your works, they have every right to form themselves into trade unions and see that they get proper hours and proper conditions for their labour. That is what the Labour party is fighting for, and what the Labour party is going to fight for all over the world. What do hon. members opposite want to do? They want to bring the natives into industry and pay them a very low rate of wage, so that they can compete with the white people. They want them to have long hours. As soon as these men start agitating and saying that they are going to have proper conditions of labour, they are told that this is sedition. The coloured man and the native are going through the same process as the forefathers of the British workers went through years ago. In those days they were even put into jail and deported. What was the result? The result was that the trade union movement in England got stronger and stronger, until to-day it is the strongest organization in the whole of the British empire, and recognized by the laws of every Parliament in this commonwealth of free nations. The people who took the same view as hon. members on that side take said if these trade unions were allowed to go on, the Crown would fall, the country would fall. These speeches have been made before. Are we going to drive Kadalie and his men underground? Kadalie is a man to-day who has to be reckoned with. He is a man whose union belongs to the Amsterdam Internationale, and the Amsterdam Internationale is a strong body, and one that is not to be sneered at by anybody in any part of the world. That Internationale will not allow any government or anybody of men to pass laws which will hurt any of its members.

made an interjection.

It is not a question of dictating native policy. Nobody knows it better than the hon. member (Mr. Nicholls), who is an ex-member of the Labour party. If you are not going to allow these natives to agitate, I ask the members of the South African party how are they going to deal with the question of wages amongst the natives? How will they deal with native trade unions?

Leave it to Amsterdam.

How will they deal with it when they want shorter hours and better conditions of labour? Let them answer this question. Are they against natives belonging to trade unions? Are they against their having trade union leaders? Are they against their agitating for an eight-hour day and for a minimum wage? Let them answer these questions, so that the public can know where they stand.

What do you say?

We are in favour of it, and not only that, but a Bill was passed through, the Wages Act, under which these men can get their wage. It lays it down that a native can go before the Wage Board to-day and get his wage fixed. It is the law of the country. Surely Kadalie has every right to come along and say to his followers “You must take up this line, and by doing that, as, long as you keep within the law, you will get better wages and better conditions of labour.” The Wages Act was passed by the Pact Government. The Pact Government is proud of the Wages Act, and under that Act Kadalie is to-day functioning with his I.C.U. Are the members of the South African party in favour of the natives organizing themselves into trade unions? Let the country know. Are they in favour of the natives working an eight-hour day in industry? I ask the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). It is not a laughing matter. Are they in favour of the natives having a minimum rate of pay? Are they in favour of native trade unions and of the secretaries being allowed to agitate in the same way as white trade union secretaries do? I want the members for the Cape to answer these questions, and answer them for the public. I do not mean men from Albany and places like that—men who cut no ice—but men on the front bench—the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). I want these members to answer these questions, because it is important for South Africa to know where the South African party stands in these matters. I will ask these questions again.

Ask the Nationalists that.

The Nationalists have already answered that question by passing the Wages Act. The natives do not vote for the Nationalists; they vote for the S.A.P. I am asking these questions of the friends of the native, the so-called friends of the native, the men who get up and shout from the housetops that they are against the colour bar, men who shout it all over the world and write to England about it. The Pact is supposed to be anti-native.

Put the question to the Prime Minister.

It is no use putting it to the Prime Minister, because he is getting into his old age. I want to put these questions for the fourth time. These are the questions that will have to be answered. If the South African party do not answer them to-day they will have to answer them very soon, because the native is beginning to organize in the Cape. The old days when the native could be bluffed by the South African party are passing over. A new man is arising, and that man is Kadalie. There is one thing I will respect Kadalie for—the South African party cannot buy him. He is organizing the native workers, and when he has once organized them they will not vote for the South African party, because their policy is the direct opposite and antithesis of that of the men who are following Kadalie. Kadalie has every right to organize his people, and no one has any right to stop him, and no one dare stop him.

Whom will they vote for?

I do not know whom they will vote for. In the Cape I think they will vote for their own people in the provincial council, and I dare say you will find Kadalie in the provincial council before many years are over. In time they will vote for the workers. I do not know who they will vote for. I do not want to go into these hypothetical questions.

We are not discussing a Franchise Bill. I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the Bill before the House.

I was only replying to an interjection. Hon. members make it most difficult. I think there is hardly a member of the South African party who has not fired a question at me. I was almost going to say I am surrounded by a lot of gabbling geese.

I am afraid the hon. member has been travelling away from the subject of the Bill.

It is most difficult to keep within the subject of the Bill, when you have these questions shot at you. I have done one good thing—I have driven Natal out of this House. I want to say that we wish to thank the Prime Minister. We know the difficult position he has put himself in in regard to this Bill, and the Labour party wants to thank him for the manner in which he has eliminated these clauses, and not the Labour party here only, but the labour movement right throughout the British empire. We have been communicated with from all parts of the British empire with regard to this particular clause. We thank the Pact Government, and we thank the Nationalists particularly, for going out of their way. They have done more to bring good feeling from the working classes in Canada, Australia, England and everywhere else by doing this than by anything they could have done. The Prime Minister has taken the higher line. Some of the members behind him may not agree with him; the time will come when they will. He has listened to his friends, the men who will stand by him, and not to his enemies on the other side. We feel that fair play will be given. Let me say this. We are bitterly opposed to anyone in this country who is going to stir up black against white or white against black. The whole of the trade union movement and the whole of the labour movement will be just as much opposed to that as anyone else. We are bitterly opposed to that; we shall strengthen the hand of the Prime Minister in every way possible against natives who go into the country districts and Natal to make trouble between whites and blacks. He has the whole support of the Labour party behind him. He may rely entirely on us, and we will support any Bill which keeps one nation from fighting with another. Labour is against racialism. We will not allow the Dutch to fight the English and we will not allow the black man to fight the white man in this country. I want to thank the Prime Minister on behalf of the Labour party for what he has done to eliminate these clauses.

I do not attempt to follow the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in the high level to which he has attempted to bring this debate, but I would only say in reply to him that when he talks about “antis” there can be no better judge of “antis” in this House than the hon. member, because it is a well-known fact that he has been a member of every party that has been started in this country.

On a point of order I might say I have belonged to two parties less than the right hon. member.

Order!

And when those parties are not prepared, in the words of the historic letter which the hon. member wrote to, some people in Durban; to give him that promotion to which he considered he was entitled, he is prepared in the future as he was in the past to look out for another party which might give him more rapid advancement. It was only the other day that he gave me the impression he was thinking of leaving the Labour party, the Labour party not having made up their mind to give him that important position to which he thought he was entitled. I see to-day he has reconsidered the situation and now tries to ally himself with what we understand is the left wing of the Labour party, but whether the Prime Minister and my hon. friends on the other side have been extremely pleased by the speech he has made or not I will leave to the Prime Minister to express when he replies.

Answer my question.

The Speaker has already called you to order and I do not want Mr. Speaker to intervene again and put you in your place. There are some people who have political cuticles much of the character with which rhinoceri are covered, and my hon. friend belongs, I think, to that biological species. So I really do hope that during the course of these remarks you, sir, will kindly protect me from the interruptions of my hon. friend. This Bill has been so fully discussed that I do not desire, by repetition, to trespass unduly upon the time of the House; but the Bill appears to me of such importance, and I believe it appears to the Minister of Native Affairs also to be a Bill of considerable importance and far-reaching consequences, that there should be no attempt to force the Bill through the House, but after second reading it should be sent to a select committee, where it can be thoroughly examined in all its characteristics, and where, above everything else, the native people of this country, whose interests are so vitally associated with this Bill, can express their opinions and how a Bill of this charaster is going to affect their interests. I do not wish it to be understood, for a moment, that there are no points of interest to the native population in this Bill. It may be said that it has already been discussed by a joint council composed of natives and Europeans. That was, I believe, some two years ago at Johannesburg, but to my mind there is nothing of more importance, more likely to prevent misunderstanding, and which will give that cooperation which is so essential to the native mind when dealing with native questions, that the matter should be fully explored, and the natives given the fullest opportunity of expressing their opinions, and saying how they think measures of this particular character affect their interests. We cannot be unmindful of the unfortunate condition of suspicion which exists at the present time in the minds of many natives as to what their views of Europeans are with regard to native interests, and this suspicion has not been removed by the passage of the Colour Bar Bill last year, as the Minister will realize, without allowing the natives an opportunity of speaking in their own interests—a right which is given to the greatest criminal before passing judgment.

Whom will you consult to get native opinion?

I hope I am not annoying the hon. gentleman. I cannot for the life of me understand what I have said to cause this annoyance on the part of my hon. and gallant friend, save for the fact that he tries to put me off the thread of my discourse, which he shall not have the opportunity of doing this afternoon. The Bill deals with the adjustment and the constitution of tribes, the removal and division of tribes which, although it may be necessary, I think is a matter on which the natives should be heard—or on an important question of that character. It also deals with a very important matter, and on that I should like to congratulate the Minister, and that is his desire to place native land registration on a much sounder and clearer basis that it is at the present time. It deals with the alteration of judicial procedure in connection with native customs, native land, tribes, powers of the chiefs, marriage and succession, and things of that character. Though the changes proposed in the Bill may be very necessary, these are questions which certainly ought to have the fullest investigation, and the natives should have the fullest opportunity of expressing their opinions upon them. With regard to the power of the chiefs, it does strike me, in dealing with a population which unfortunately at the present time has become extremely impoverished, that a fine of £15 or five head of cattle is extremely large to empower native chiefs, especially in the Cape of Good Hope, to impose. I hope this matter will be more fully enquired into. Then there is another very important point—the extension of government by proclamation. I am one of those who realize the advantages pointed out by other speakers, that in certain cases you must deal by proclamation with native cases, but you have to deal very carefully where it is a clause whose powers are extremely large and where, by proclamation, you can alter existing Acts of Parliament. That seems to me to be an extremely drastic proposal, and certainly one that should receive the fullest consideration. The clauses have been dealt with fully by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) who, I hope, will allow me the opportunity of congratulating him on giving an admirable address. No hon. member has a better knowledge of native customs than he has.

What about the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls)?

I regret the strictures that have been passed on Senator Dr. Roberts and Dr. Loram as members of the Native Affairs Commission. I entirely disagree with these strictures, which I think are undeserved, and I do not think there is anybody who has given more careful study to the native question than these two gentlemen. Senator Dr. Roberts has been associated with the Lovedale Institution, which has done more for the advancement of natives throughout the Union and adjoining territories for nearly forty years than any other institution, and I do not think that anybody has given greater attention and study to the native interests and the difficulty of the native problem than he has, and in that connection I would like to associate the name of Dr. Loram.

No stricture was passed upon them.

No stricture was passed upon them, but the House was given to understand that these two gentlemen did not have the knowledge to deal with the native problem. These gentlemen have more knowledge than many hon. members. I say this as representing a constituency which has a large number of natives, and knowing that these two gentlemen are actuated by a firm desire to do justice, where justice can be done, to the claims of the natives. My hon. friend’s idea is that our Cape system is a faulty one. I hold a diametrically opposite opinion. By its liberty and its desire to improve the position of the native and the advancement in civilization of the native, the Cape system has set the tone to the whole of the native administration of the Union of South Africa, and I hope many of our adjoining territories as well. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the administration of natives in the Cape; the population of the native territories is held by posse of police, and lives in these territories are absolutely safe. Should the occasion arise to withdraw every armed man in the Transkei, the natives of these territories, appreciating the liberty they receive under that administration, would be lawful and peace-abiding under these conditions. As far as the Cape is concerned, we take the whole of our native administration from the experience we have had in the Transkei. It was the experiences of the Transkeian General Council which have largely influenced the Minister with regard to native councils, and that is the highest tribute you could give to the Transkeian code. To my mind, the greatest blot upon this Bill is Chapter 7, dealing with sedition. It is one that has caused the greatest possible resentment in the native mind. The natives are law-abiding people, and that everybody with experience in the Cape will acknowledge; and while I agree with a great deal that has been said and with the necessity for dealing with sedition in this country, I would appeal to my hon. friend to deal with it in the way the Minister of Justice considered he was compelled to deal with it last session—dealing with sedition, not in connection with the natives, but with Europeans and natives combined. I make bold to say that if you show you are not singling out any particular people, but make it applicable to all, the Minister will see, the natives fall in gladly with a measure of that character, because, although we have heard the statements quoted by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and we realize the seriousness of their character, in proposing to stop them you should deal with them in a Bill applying to both races, and not with the native people alone, because if justice is to be meted out and if any people are to be responsible, surely it is the people of higher civilization who have prostituted their intellects for the purpose of bringing these damnable doctrines amongst the native people, who have not thousands of years of civilization behind them and no opportunity of realizing what these doctrines mean. If the House considers it necessary to deal with affairs of this character, for Heaven’s sake let us deal with them honestly and fairly, and realize that the European is more responsible than the natives. I would like to ask the Prime Minster what were the reasons for his departing from the Bill introduced last year by the Minister of Justice. Surely, the Prime Minister is not going to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). That really would be a degradation too great to imagine. I hope that the reasons which actuated the Government to drop that measure and to introduce sedition clauses in the Native Bill many not be due to the action of certain members on that side of the House. I hope the Prime Minister has paid attention to the speeches of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) and the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen). The latter gave us that eloquent and dramatic passage in which he referred to the dragons of the Apocalypse whose tails swept three-quarters of the Heavens. While he was delivering that passage I saw tile hon. member for Pretoria (South) turn round and scan the cross benches on both sides as though to impress on the Prime Minister that that was the tail of the dragon which was preventing the passing of legislation which the Minister of Justice thought so necessary that year. It was a very dangerous dragon’s tail indeed if we may judge by the dragon’s teeth displayed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) this afternoon. I see in to-day’s paper the following telegram from Johannesburg—

I hope my hon. friend will take into consideration the question of removing the sedition clause from the Bill and introduce it this session in a measure for which I believe he will get strong support from both sides of the House, as many of us consider this is absolutely necessary, not only in the interests of the European, but in the interests of the native as well. There is one point which seems to have escaped general attention. Although the matter is not mentioned in the body of the Bill, I notice in the schedule that Act No. 39 of 1887 of the Cape of Good Hope—the Native Registered Voters’ Relief Act, 1887—is to be repealed in toto. I consider that it was the duty of the Prime Minister to have pointed out that it was proposed to make this sweeping change.

The Hofmeyr Act.

It must have been an oversight on the part of the Prime Minister that such an important proposal should not have been referred to in his speech. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) refers to the measure as the Hofmeyr Act. There were two things the late Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr was very proud of. He always stood for the most liberal treatment of natives who had raised themselves so much in the scale of civilization that they had become registered voters of the Cape Colony. Then no one in the Cape was a more ardent apostle of imperial preference than Mr. Hofmeyr, and he proposed that a duty of 2 percent, should be placed on all imported goods, the proceeds to be devoted to the upkeep of the British navy. Act 39 of 1887 says that the Cape native voter shall not be subjected to any disabilities a European is not subjected to. When various Acts were repealed it was distinctly laid down that they should not apply in any way to a registered native voter. That protection continued so long as the Cape of Good Hope had a separate Parliament, and it has been continued ever since. What are the laws to which the natives are not subjected under this Act of 1887? One is the pass law. If this Bill goes through, however, and Act 39 of 1887 is repealed, I believe you could bring a pass law into operation in connection with registered native voters. That would be a backward step, indeed. Then registered voters in the Cape are not subjected to the location law, nor are they subject to the liquor law. Act 39 of 1887 is really the Magna Charta of the registered native voter of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. By repealing that Act we are striking a blow at the encouragement which has been given to the natives to raise themselves in the scale of civilization. When they have done that, it would be unfair that they, in their ordinary daily avocations should be subject to restrictions which the less civilized of their race have to observe in their own interests as well as in the interests of the European. I hope the Prime Minister will send the Native Administration Bill to a select committee, and if he adopts the suggestion to introduce a separate Bill dealing with sedition there is no real necessity for hurry in connection with the present measure. Even if a certain amount of delay should result the mere fact of having the natives with us in this matter will be an enormous advantage. The native is well able to look after his own interest and to understand whether measures are to benefit him or not. The native, especially the native of the Cape, is a law-abiding individual, and if matters are explained to him fully and carefully, we shall have him with us in legislation for his interests. Let us rather do that, then make an enemy of him, as we have done with the colour bar Act, and do let us give him an opportunity of expressing his opinions on legislation vitally affecting his wellbeing.

Although this is not a party matter it is strange to see how some members of the Opposition are so concerned about the Minister of Native Affairs altering Clause 26 of the Bill, although the two leaders of the Opposition, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) appealed to the Minister to withdraw the clause. Will the Opposition be satisfied if the clause is withdrawn? The leaders say so, but what about the backbenchers who say that the Minister ought not to sacrifice one jot or title of the original clause? How can the Minister be informed by the speeches of the Opposition, and what assistance can he get from them? I want to confine myself to Clause 26, and I must honestly admit that I am sorry that this clause is necessary. I am sorry that we are inclined to-day to include such a clause in our legislation, and I am sorry that we run the danger that it may have the wrong effect of turning a certain type of native, of whom we ought rather to take no notice, into martyrs and heroes. I am strongly in favour of the clause, and believe that it is necessary, but am sorry about that necessity. We know that in our history and in the history of the whole world it has often happened that people are put on a pedestal and made martyrs of quite undeservedly. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has spoken here about the native leader. Kadalie. I personally have met all the so-called leaders of the natives and know Kadalie, Elias, Moti, Sol Plaatje, Masabalala and others. I have met them all, because I made it my business to find out what these people thought rather than to condemn them unheard. I agree that Kadalie is a clever man. That cannot be argued away, but I am sorry that so much fuss is being made about other so-called leaders who are worth nothing. Take Moti. Are we to make a martyr and a hero of a type like that? He does not deserve it. In my opinion he is a worthless young native who apes everything that Kadalie says. Kadalie has the brain, and this he apes without understanding what he is saying. He even says it upside down. He even challenges the Government to put him in gaol and to make a hero of him, and I should be sorry if this Bill led to his being made a hero of. He made a speech at Heilbron which has already been quoted by the member for that district. I consider the speech and the occurrences in connection therewith as of the very greatest value in regard to this matter. That type of native—Moti— has represented the Europeans as fools and swine, and he is the type that sweeps up the uneducated natives and occasions violence and bloodshed. At the time Moti made the speech at Heilbron there was a conference of the Dutch Reformed Church Mission. Moti said in his speech that he was the product of the mission. He was a teacher in the Bloemfontein school of the mission, but was dismissed on account of his attitude and views. This is an earnest warning to us that this product of the mission which is intended only for the good of the natives should preach such views. That product of the mission preached to the natives while the congress was sitting that they should not believe in God or the Bible. We must think about it, and also the churches, that are responsible for the mission, must think whether different lines cannot be pursued. And what happened afterwards at Heilbron? A week later the white population of Heilbron held a meeting where, according to the newspaper, feeling also ran very high on occasion, and where the farmers also spoke plainly. Commandant Els, the commandant of the district, used forcible words, and he said that the natives were told that he and others would be hanged on trees, but he assured the meeting that the agitators would first be hanged. These are important events of which notice should be taken. We have it that shortly after a meeting of a native agitator the white population replied to the challenging attitude, and took up the glove saying that if it occurred again they would take action, and blood would possibly flow. They say that the blood which flows will not be the blood of the Europeans, as the natives say, but the blood of the natives. These are threatening clouds which indicate a conflict approaching, and that occurrence must give us pause to think. The people are beginning to take up the attitude that if the Government takes no steps they will deal with things themselves, and I shall not dissuade them. If things are going to be allowed that that kind of native should prejudice the old reasonable class of native and raise bad blood between the Europeans and the natives, then I cannot take it amiss in them if the Europeans sjambok these people who exercise that pernicious influence. It is in the interests of the old uneducated natives who have always lived on good terms with the Europeans, and who are friendly disposed towards the Europeans, and who, according to their own statements, are very sorry that their children are misled by these agitators, and who, themselves, say that that kind of man needs the sjambok. I say that we cannot close our eyes to it.

What about the Europeans?

Yes, if Europeans do it they must also be punished. My point’ is that the old trusting natives who live at peace with the Europeans are being influenced. They possibly have their grievances, but on the whole they are satisfied. These irresponsible seditionists— some of whom come from outside the Union— however raise wilful artificial disputes between Europeans and the natives, and I say that an end should be put to that by legislation. If that is not done, then it is unavoidable that the white people will take the law into their own hands and prevent such meetings. I am well acquainted with the feeling in the Free State, because I travel a good deal in it, and I can tell the Minister that the Europeans feel that the meetings must be stopped. I fear that things will become worse, and that bloodshed will occur if such legislation is not passed. Everyone will acknowledge that the Europeans in the Free State have hitherto exhibited extraordinary patience, because the natives who listen to the speeches in the locations repeat the doctrine to the farm natives. I am surprised that there has not been a collision sooner. It also takes place when the agitators like Elias, Moti and Kadalie hold meetings that the young natives leave their work on the farm to attend the meetings. The farmers remain quiet but murmur inwardly, but it will not remain at murmuring long. Legislation is required to avoid a collision, and I think that such legislation is not only in the interests of the Europeans, but also in the interests of the natives, and this is admitted by the better kind of native. The unrest on the countryside is increasing, and we all feel that action is required. Some people object to Clause 26 in the Bill, because they say it is applied generally, and not only to native agitators, and white agitators among the natives. All of us, however, in this democratic age are in favour of every man being permitted to say what he likes within certain limits. The difference is that where one would permit someone to propagate something on an open platform to adults—whether it be anti-religious or immoral—you would not permit such doctrines to be preached to school children. The grown-up man will, in the first place, not bother himself about it because he has sufficient sense to take no notice of it. If, however, it is preached to children immediate steps would be taken because children cannot distinguish between dangerous and healthy doctrine. For the same reason the natives are protected, because the mentality and understanding of the ordinary South African native is not such that he can distinguish between sensible and silly doctrine. The ordinary natives on the countryside cannot listen to Kadalie, Moti and others and judge for themselves what is right. There is another point in connection with Clause 26 to which I want to refer, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to add something else, viz., to make offences under this clause come under the Immigration Act, so that anyone convicted of contravening them can be deported. In the Sedition Act of 1914 there is a section that any person convicted of sedition can be deported even one born in South Africa. Under the Insolvency Act of last year any person not born within the Union who is convicted of offences under the Act can be deported. I hope the Minister will accept an amendment of this Bill so that a person who is convicted Of offences under it can be deported. That is the only way in which we can prevent their being regarded as heroes. Kadalie, Wellington and others will, after an imprisonment of six months or a year, be greater heroes than ever before. The imported types who come here and stir up trouble ought especially to be deported, and I hope the Minister will accept an amendment giving the Government the power of deportation. I want to thank the Minister for making provision in the Bill for the better control of films shown to the natives. I myself went one day in Bloemfontein, with the permission of the superintendent, to a bioscope performance in the native location, and I must say that I felt hurt and small among the natives to see how pictures of Europeans were shown which could only have been calculated to bring the Europeans into contempt. There was, e.g., a picture I can remember in which a white woman very severely beat her husband, and it provoked uncontrolled laughter. Among natives the position of the woman is not such that she can beat her husband, rather the reverse. It is dangerous to show that kind of film to the natives, as also films in which crimes and theft are represented. The wonderful experiences of criminals have an injurious effect if shown to the natives on the screen. Recently I appeared for the defence of a case in Bloemfontein in which natives were charged with theft on the railway. While engaged in the case, I could not help thinking that that was the kind of theft they saw on the films. A band was formed, including women, and the modus operandi was that a native should get into a truck on a stationary train and then throw out articles all along the line. These were then collected by other natives. The whole system was clearly based on one of the films I had myself seen. I am glad that the Government is going into it, and I hope that strong action will be taken to prohibit the exhibition of undesirable films. In conclusion, I want to appeal to the Minister to retain Clause 26 (1) in the Bill. I admit that Clause 26 (2) is already included in the Bill, but I hope that sub-clause (1) will be passed, so that those who spread doctrines among the natives calculated to disturb peace and order among the natives shall be punishable. I repeat that it is a pity that it is necessary to-day to provide for this, but I can assure the House that the feeling in the country is strongly in favour of it. Both in the interests of the natives and of the Europeans it is necessary to have stronger legislation in this direction.

The Bill has already been fairly fully discussed, but there is another matter which in my opinion requires the attention of the Minister. In various places one finds that the native commissioners, or sub-native commissioners, are at the same time special justices of the peace. This means that cases of dispute between natives and Europeans are disposed of by such a commissioner or sub-commissioner. Experience has taught us that such a commissioner or sub-commissioner is mostly regarded as—and possibly actually is— favourably disposed towards the natives. One can understand this, because such a commissioner or sub-commissioner is more or less the father of the natives, so that it is reasonable to assume that in dealing with such a case he would have a tender feeling for the natives, and would possibly give a judgment which might rightly hurt Europeans. I think that some cases have been brought to the Minister’s notice where Europeans have felt themselves insulted by the judgment of such a commissioner acting as special justice of the peace. I want, with deference, to ask the Minister if it is not desirable, as we are dealing with the jurisprudence of the natives, to separate the position of native commissioner and sub-native commissioners from that of special justice of the peace. I know it will cost the country a little more, but we shall in that way get better justice, and the evil that to-day is in some cases being brought about will be obviated Judgments of this kind may create bad feeling between Europeans and natives, and the good understanding which ought to exist between natives and Europeans is in danger if cases of prejudiced justice occur. Although it is a matter of administration, I hope that in considering the Bill the Minister will give his attention to it.

The relationship between Europeans and natives is to us of transcendental importance, and one wonders that that relationship is not more often discussed in this House. Therefore, I personally, and I think other members, were particularly grateful to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) the other night for giving us an exposition in regard to the condition of natives in his territory, the working of the proclamation system, and other very interesting information. One of the great champions of the welfare of the natives in this House was the late Mr. Merriman, and we used at times to get very informative matter from him, but I venture to state that, as a whole, the House is uninstructed and ignorant in regard to native matters. The man in the Transvaal, for instance, knows very little about what is happening in the Transkei, and the man in the Transkei knows very little about what is happening in Natal, and, therefore, it is good that we discuss these matters calmly and coolly to see whether we can contribute anything towards a solution of this great and important question. In regard to our ignorance, we may derive some cold comfort from the fact that we are not singular in this respect. As hon. members know, the U.S.A. also has its native problem. The position there is by no means so acute and intense as it is in this country, but still it is a problem that is engaging and has engaged and will exercise the best brains of the country to try and find a solution. In looking for literature, for some information in regard to this subject, I had the great fortune to find in the library a book entitled “The Negro in American Life.” It is a work which has appeared this year, the author being Jerome Dowd, M.A., professor of sociology in the University of Oklahoma. He says this—

This quotation refers generally to the race problem in America, where many individuals of a large number of races live, but he emphasizes that the study of the racial problem so far as the American negro is concerned is the one of paramount importance to American people. I find in this country there is a similar demand on the part of students in regard to knowledge and information of native custom and native culture. In the last issue of the year book, 1910-1925, there is a matter of thirty pages devoted to the native question thirty out of 1,090. In this I find this pregnant sentence—

There is no doubt that in the past, and even now, the native has played a prominent part in the budding up of this country. He has supplied the great labour force, the brawn and sinew, and the railways, the irrigation works, roads and buildings, agriculture and the development and exploitation of the mines have been made possible through him. He has proved an invaluable asset, and a cessation of his work would paralyze the whole country. Remembering what he has done in the past, I think that undoubtedly we should encourage him in the future. The question at once presents itself: To what extent is the native capable of development? This valuable book of Professor Dowd’s goes somewhat fully into that question in regard to the American negro, and there is great conflict of opinion. He puts forward the views of men who have the right to speak with authority on this question; some go to the extent of saying that the negro is capable of very great development; others say that he is of low mentality, and “en masse” not capable of any large development. It would be idle to dogmatize in regard to our natives in this regard, but I think it would be safe to say that the development would proceed “pari passu” with that of the European, and the more humane and enlightened we become, the more valuable and useful would the native become in time. Our economic development is on the basis of native labour, and any disturbance of that factor is bound to have far-reaching effects. In the United States some negroes have shown a capacity for great development. Dowd states—

He gives a large number of such cases, and it would be a bold man who would say that similar latent talent does not exist among the natives in South Africa. One of the eminent anthropologists, writing on this subject, states that many of these natives who have shown an abnormal development have an infusion of white blood, but these cases mentioned are those of pure natives. Some of these natives in America are members of the State Legislature, and many are prosperous farmers. Sir Harry Johnston, speaking of the natives in the farming areas, makes use of these words—

There is ample evidence in America that the native is capable of great development, and that he has adopted European methods of living and European forms of recreation and enjoyment. What one likes to note is this, that the natives who thus make good in the United States receive great encouragement from the whites. The book states—

and he proceeds to give instances. There can be no doubt that the American negro is far ahead of the native of this country as regards his development, although they are from the same stock. Ours is a sparsely populated country, and the natives, as our own people, are suffering the penalty of isolation. I think our best policy and the one we should aim at is the education of the native. I use the word “education” in the broader sense. I do not mean he should be sent to school and only learn the three R’s, but the faculties and capabilities which he possesses should be brought out to the fullest extent. The more these people are taught to exercise their faculties and to make the best use of the gifts and capacity they possess, the better it will be for the State. To improve the native, to increase his wants and to stimulate his ambitions, will have the result that the European will also prosper, and the country at large will benefit. With regard to the education of the native in the United States, after all, they have had a larger experience, and one can learn a good deal—

I may point out that much of this money is not wholly spent on book learning, but on learning handicrafts and trades, and it is common knowledge what Booker Washington has done in this respect. Professor Dowd says—

The legislature will have to consider whether the expenditure on native education should not be on as liberal a scale as on the poor class of whites. Mr. Morris Evans recently visited the United States, and he has stated that in the Transvaal, whilst 1½ million dollars is obtained through native taxation, only 75,000 dollars is spent on native education. The contrast is very marked indeed. We cannot afford to neglect our natives. We have the poor white question, and the natives are in many cases on the borderland of starvation. In a short time we will be confronted with a poor native question. I know there are South Africans who are so bigoted and narrow-minded that they think they alone know what must be done for the native, but onlookers see most of the game. Professor Cannau, emeritus professor of political economy, London, says—

I think advice of that sort might well be taken to heart and seriously considered. We are apt to be too narrow-minded, but after all, the man who stands at a distance and looks at a thing dispassionately often sees more than one who is immediately in the arena. I now wish to address a few serious words to the Prime Minister, who is the guardian of native interests, and who is their great chief. He is the father of the native. Last year a Bill to prevent disorders was introduced in this House, and what was its history? The second reading was taken, the Bill was referred to a select committee, on which were representatives of the Labour party, and the measure came back from committee without any material amendment. It was a very necessary Bill, and a very urgent one, as white agitators are going round the country misleading the people.

Name one of them.

Mr. Andrews, Mr. Glass. The former told the natives to build up their organization irrespective of prejudice, so as to take possession of this country, as the Russians had done, and the Chinese were now doing. That simply means a bloody revolution. These ignorant natives are told that they must rise up and cut the throats of the white people. The native is like a child, and is easily influenced. I think one of the best summaries of the native mind is given in this book by a native himself, William H. Thomas, and he says—

Could there be more persuasive speeches than those in which he is advised to get hold of the country, rise up and repeat what happened in Russia, and exterminate the white man? The Prime Minister received his orders regarding the Bill referred to from the trade union congress. The good of the country demanded that the Bill of last year should be put on the statute book, but the trade union congress dictated to the Prime Minister, and he dropped the Bill. I think the position is very, very serious. We shall now be faced with secretaries of native trade unions going round the country from farm to farm advising the natives to strike for higher pay and improved conditions.

Don’t be a fool all your life.

In reply to the hon. member’s polite interjection, I would say that if the hon. member had listened to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow)—

I heard him. Trade union secretaries don’t go round like that.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) asked if we objected to native trade union secretaries going round the country advocating better wages. That means that he claims the right to do it, and that is the position we are being faced with. The trade union congress dictated to the Prime Minister in regard to his native policy. We have had it from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) that he was one of those who went to the Prime Minister. This is not a political or a party matter, but one affecting the welfare of the State. The natives are entitled to protection from the Prime Minister against these insidious forces which are seeking to work so much evil, to undo the good work of the past, and to lead the native into evil courses which will tend to his own undoing. These agitators should be sent out of the country, otherwise we shall have strife and bloodshed. If I were a member of the Nationalist party, I would hang my very head with shame at the fact that a Bill introduced by the Nationalist party Government and approved of by select committee is turned down at the behest of the Labour trades unions. I believe in the utmost liberty for all consistent with the safety of the State, but the State is not safe with these agitators travelling round the country endeavouring to create discord, and trying to foment trouble. Unfortunately, the white agitator is more responsible than the black for this state of affairs. I cannot conceive of the Prime Minister withdrawing Clause 26 of this Bill until the Bill of last year is re-introduced. Although I favour many of the provisions of the Bill, I have very great hesitation in voting for it unless an undertaking is given by the Government to deal with the prevention of disorders in the terms of the Bill of last session. A very serious responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister.

I do not propose to deal with the clauses of this Bill because they will be dealt with in committee where I hope we shall get some good amendments. I still hope the Prime Minister will see his way to send this Bill to a select committee. It will save time and we shall benefit by the discussions and the decisions of that select committee. I want briefly to refer to some of the principles involved in the Bill and enunciated by the Prime Minister in regard to his policy in native affairs. I also want to deal with some of the expressions that have been given voice to with regard to the ideas and principles which ought to guide us and govern the whole question of policy in the native problems. We need to do this with the greatest care and consideration because in these matters I feel we are dealing with a national question. I feel in regard to the native question the Prime Minister must realize that he ought to make haste slowly. That is the motto with regard to native policy and I feel in regard to this Bill, and other Bills the Prime Minister has been bringing forward, he has shown a disregard of the consequences arising from hasty action which after all will only create a great danger to the country. There is a ferment of apprehension amongst the native races at the present time in regard to the Bills before the House. There has been more unrest and uncertainty and anxiety amongst the natives than ever before and it is due to the policy of pin pricks in the various Bills. It is apparent to all of us that the solution of the problem to-day proposed by the Prime Minister and offered to this House, and which is to be carried out, will be out of date in 25 years’ time. The native is going through a process of evolution and what applies to-day will not apply in 25 or 30 years’ time. The Prime Minister has told us we are dealing with a child race and they must be treated accordingly. What is the right course to pursue in regard to children? What is our first duty? Surely, first of all it is to win confidence. Can anyone say the principles of this Bill, and the policy of the Government, is creating in the native mind a feeling of confidence and trust? Some of the clauses of this Bill as general principles are right, proper and needful, but what about when we come to Clause 26? The native will ask: “Why this clause?” Last year you rejected a sedition Bill which applied to natives and whites as well and they may tell us to attack the sedition mongers themselves and leave the native races alone. They ask what is the reason for this Bill which deals with them in particular and not with the people of the country as a whole. Naturally that will shake his confidence in the white man. The other day the Prime Minister made a statement which he said he had made at Smith-field. In that statement he declared our interests were at stake, the interests of the white man and his civilization. He feared that unless these measures were taken civilization would be sacrificed and would disappear and the white man would leave South Africa. Now this dream of white supremacy and western civilization we come across constantly in the discussions of native problems. Is our western civilization in danger? Is there need for it to be maintained? If so, can it be done by repression among the native races? Every reasonable man will realize that in these methods white civilization will certainly die and disappear. What we have to maintain is not western civilization alone and the supremacy of the white man which we idealize so much, but it is our duty to inculcate and to teach and to try and maintain among the native races the need to adopt the western civilization. If we do not follow this policy of trying to raise the native races to the white standard of civilization and of the western civilization of which we boast then there is a bad future for South Africa. The danger at the present moment in the policy and principles of the Prime Minister and many of those who follow him and support him is in sacrificing our western civilization for the object of maintaining white supremacy. It is impossible for us to expect white supremacy to be maintained unless we try to inculcate in the native races that western civilization is the best. It is the only course of safety with regard to the native races put in our charge. Repression will not save us, but will lead to our destruction in the future and people of European extraction will find that they have been destroyed by a power living amongst us. I wish to say a’ few words in regard to the whole problem and policy before us as a farmer, representing the farming interest, and the farming community. We, as farmers, have lived among the native races all our lives. We understand their character and we know them as well as any section of the community in this country. The farmer can hardly be accused of being a negropholist or an anti-negro because, as farmers, we know their faults and failings but we also realize that they have good qualities. We can recall many cases of good faith in the relation of the native with us and our property and how in the dark days the natives have shown their sympathy with the farmers. Surely, they have some good in them and are worthy of consideration by the white people of the country who should try to uplift them and do them good. We, as farmers, on our lonely farms know of the days when we leave our families on our farms with a sense of perfect safety and security, because we know the loyalty, the good faith, the decency and the good conduct of the natives in our employ. Surely, people who are of that type and of that character are deserving of some consideration from us as a white race in this country, therefore, I do appeal for toleration and freedom of opportunity to be given to the natives of this country to enter any sphere of work where their mental or physical capacities make them equal to doing it That is the only course of justice and right and it is the only course that will make us, the white people, the dominant race in South Africa. When I hear a man speaking in contemptuous terms of the native and look round his house or his farm, I see his children in the care of whom? In the care of a native girl, a young girl, who comes from the huts or the kaffir kraal on the farm. I say to myself that I wonder whether the mother of those little ones realizes from what scenes that kaffir girl from the native huts or kraal has come, scenes such as would horrify a white woman. Yet a mother will willingly leave her children to the care of a girl of that description to look after and be on the most intimate terms with them. A Romanist has said—and, they are the greatest of educationalists—

Meaning that in the earliest years of childhood impressions are made which last the lifetime of the child. Yet we hear people speak in contemptuous terms of the native and at the same time put their children under the care of these very natives. Have we any regard for our white supremacy, have we any regard for our western civilization, if we take our children and put them under the care of other children who are bound to affect the moral tone, the habits and ways of thinking of your own children? So I feel in this respect that we ought to realize that if we are to maintain the supremacy of the white man, we must not put our children in the charge and care of young girls of that type. If we do so we are laying up for ourselves a retribution which is bound to come upon us sooner or later. We have reached a critical stage in the development of the native races. Our policy seems in their minds to be tending in the direction of repression. They cannot come to any other conclusion. Take the Bills passed last year, take the Bills before the House to-day, repression is the note that runs through them and, surely, it is enough to shake their confidence. This feeling of insecurity and uncertainty in regard to the attitude of the white man towards the native is aggravated by another fact, by the conditions under which the natives are living at the present time. I am sure the Government do not realize this position. All these Bills that I have looked at ignore this factor. It is a very serious one. We talk of the poor white problem. We are going to have, very shortly, a poor black problem. Enormous numbers of natives to-day are sinking down and down on account of their poverty. We are on the verge of this black problem and this native policy and the Bills now before the House are like offering a stone instead of bread to the poor, starving people. The native is a stoic. He accepts the position, whatever it happens to be, but let me say in all seriousness that this is a matter we shall have to tackle one of these days and before very long, for it has been steadily increasing and it has been aggravated by the insufficiency of food in these locations and reserves, partly owing to droughts and partly for another reason. We have no poor law in this country. On our farms, in many cases, when a native gets old and inefficient he drifts away to the location and the location becomes a sort of workhouse for the native population of this country, a very convenient arrangement, no doubt, for some of us, but it has a bad effect on the poor people in the locations and in the reserves and is bound, in the end, to impoverish the whole location. To-day we have not the rich native in our locations that we used to have in former days. I remember 25 or 30 years ago natives who were well-to-do in these reserves, with their waggons and spans of oxen. To-day you see a very different scene. There is a direct impoverishment going on amongst the native people of this country, and it is bound to make for discontent and dissatisfaction. They are deteriorating physically as well on account of the lack of food. In their material wealth they are losing ground every day and becoming poorer and poorer. This condition makes them ask where is the justice of the white man, because they feel that under those conditions they are prevented from entering other fields of work where, perhaps, their physical powers would qualify them for work. So this sense of injustice is gradually filling the native mind. It is not only a question of justice or injustice to the native races; it is also a question of self-protection as far as we are concerned, because, as I emphasized before in regard to the children, the greatest factor at work at the present time is the influence of one race on the other. The effect of the white man on the black has, on the whole, been useful and beneficent in character. At times a certain amount of injustice and wrong may have occurred, but on the whole the influence of the white man on the black races has been of a beneficial character. What has been the influence of the black races on the white races of this country? That influence is there, however much we may ignore it, however much we may not realize it. Insidious influences are at work which are steadily pulling down the white race and that environment is bound to tell as the years go on, and we shall find that we are deteriorating in character because of the influence of the degraded and barbarous race amongst whom we live. May I remind the House of that famous phrase—

If We can raise the standard of these natives it means adding to the true strength of this country, and I do hope that when we discuss any Bill on the native question we shall discuss it with fair consideration and with the fact facing us that we must do our utmost to raise those races who are living amongst us and who are bound to have an influence for good or bad upon us.

I do not wish to go into details but merely to make a few remarks. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) astonished me by his speech. He spoke for half an hour and did not say whether he was for or against the Bill. He said that we ought to raise the natives more to the level of western civilization. I do not know what he means. If he means that we must educate the natives to occupy the same position as the Europeans and to be put on an equal footing I do not agree with him, but if he means that the native must be taught to work and to respect the European and to be obedient to the laws of the land, then I agree with him. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) said that the farmers on this side of the House were rather quiet about the views of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I want to say at once that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) does not speak for the Nationalist party, but for himself and possibly not even for the Labour party. He further made out that the Minister was acting at the dictation of the executive of the trade unions. That is very unfair and he knows that it is not so. The Minister has introduced a Bill which ought to have been passed at least five or ten years ago, but because some members opposite did not do their duty they want to make out that the Minister is getting his orders from another quarter. The Minister knows that the people trust him and stand at his back, and I also think that the natives are supporting him in this legislation. They know that he is a man who acts at the right time and is just. On behalf of the South African people I welcome the Bill, but I am only sorry to learn that the Minister intends to alter Clause 26. I hope he will amend it in the sense that the Bill shall provide that whatever occurs any person, whether black or white, who is guilty of stirring up the natives shall be severely punished. I almost go so far as to say that such a person should be hanged, because there is no greater crime in this country than to stir up black and white against each other. Such persons sweep up the feelings of the natives who know no better and we know what the consequences may be. In the old Republican days we never heard of such a thing. The natives trusted the Europeans and were justly treated by them and received everything that was their due. They always regarded the Europeans as their guardians. When a native required advice or assistance he went to his master for it. I myself had an experience once with a native in that way. He made me angry once and was dismissed but he said that he would not go and he did not go. They are regarded as a part of the people, but during the last 20 years a spirit has been created among the natives as if the Europeans wanted to treat them as slaves. All sorts of accusations are made against the Europeans in order to arouse the feelings of the natives against the Europeans, and the native who has come into the country—and who never ought to have been allowed in—viz., Kadalie, is one of the worst, and the sooner the Government deports him the better. He recommends the natives to organize and is cultivating an anti-European spirit. If the Bill had been passed 15 years ago we should not have had many of these difficulties to-day. It is always better to prevent than to cure, but if strong action is immediately taken everything will yet come right in all probability. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said that the Nationalist party was responsible for the Wages Act. That is so but he must not forget that it only applies to large industrial centres and not on the countryside. Perhaps he refers to the Industrial Conciliation Act which was passed by the S.A.P. He must not confuse the two Acts. The people know that their interests are safe in the hands of this Government.

I consider that the Bill now before the House is, on the whole, a good Bill. The reassuring speech of the Prime Minister emphasizes that, and it is further emphasized by the fact that the respective leaders have come so near to an agreement in regard to the principles laid down by the Bill. One of the problems that seems to me common to both sides of the House is that we have no definite clearly laid down policy in regard to the natives; we have no ideal which we can work up to. We have a variety of opinions expressed in regard to this matter. The essential difference is this: either we have to embark upon a policy of repression which, if successful, will mean the ultimate extinction of the native, or we have to accept the opposite, namely, that of elevating and educating the native. There are many signs which indicate that the former policy is being adopted; we find a disposition to repress the native. Take, for instance, the Mines and Works Act. There we find that no matter how competent or qualified a native may be to perform certain work, because of the colour of his skin he is denied the right to do that work. There may be something in extenuation of that, but we have gone a long way further than that of late. We have expelled the native to a very large extent from participation in the ordinary unskilled work of the country. Take the railways. We know that the natives are very largely responsible for such railways as this country has. We follow a policy of repression by disallowing natives from doing work which they are entitled to do and which the country would benefit by. At the same time we are increasing the taxation, so that, as far as the natives of the Cape Province are concerned at any rate, we have duplicated the measure of taxation they have hitherto paid, and, at the same time, we are closing avenues of work they have enjoyed in the past. That is calculated to sew distrust in the minds of the natives, it cannot do otherwise. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), in his speech the other evening, disapproved of the Cape policy with regard to the natives. If he had a better and clearer knowledge of the conditions of the natives of the Cape Province, the territories and the portion I represent, I do not think he would have expressed himself in the terms he used I hope the hon. member will realize that he is wrong. The hon. member claims that the natives should be developed along their own lines, and create their own ethics, as distinct from either Western or Eastern civilizations—a purely “South African civilization” Is that at all possible? The hon. member’s theory, to me, seems like a house built upon the sand. It cannot stand. In order to give effect to this policy, we would have to retrace our steps, and go in for a policy of segregation, or separate the natives entirely from the Europeans. We would have to take from them such measure of progress and advancement as they have made, and say to them: “Start anew.” The hon. member seems to forget the fact that the whole of the economic life of this country is based upon and interwoven with the native. The theory of segregation seems to me to be wholly impracticable. We have adopted and are committed to a policy of the enlightenment of the natives; all our churches have sent missionaries to preach the gospel to them; are we to go back on that? Our whole educational system is based upon the lines of western civilization. Are we going to take all that back? The native who works with a farmer in a short time learns a great deal, and acquaints himself with the machinery and the methods of farming. In our industrial concerns and in our homes it is the same, and when these people return to their own country they endeavour to reproduce arid to take advantage of what they have learnt from the Europeans. The policy enunciated by the hon. member for Zululand, and cheered by hon. members on both sides, is wholly impracticable, and means the negation of all we have striven for to uplift and educate the native. When the Minister suggests that whatever policy we adopt we should go slowly, I agree with him. I think the Minister has shown a very fair grasp of the subject with which he is dealing. I believe, to a certain extent, in giving back extended rights to the chiefs, and returning to a considerable extent to the native laws and customs, but I do say that an inflexible law for this country is not to be desired. In the Cape Province we are 100 years in advance of the natives in the northern provinces, and in Zululand the natives are many degrees behind what they are in the Cape Province. In the northern provinces, where the natives are just now beginning to emerge from barbarism, a useful purpose can be served by maintaining their chiefs and having communal government. They understand it, and are controlled and kept in order by it. To strip the chiefs of the authority they exercise on these unenlightened people is to cause chaos. These natives do not understand our civilized methods, and the only authority they understand, and to which they are used, is that of their chiefs. With regard to Clause 26, the sedition clause, I do not see any necessity for it. We have a general law which deals with that, and, if properly applied, should serve the purpose. The hon. member who spoke just before me was very strong on the question, and suggested that hanging was not too severe a penalty to anyone who spoke treasonably and inculcated sedition amongst the natives. If we had had a law as severe as that 15 years ago, I am afraid many hon. members on the other side would not now be sitting there. I think the expression of the hon. member was quite too drastic. There are many points of the Bill which need referring to at a later stage, and one is the appointment of headmen. The headmen should be carefully chosen, and should not be appointed unless they are acceptable to the natives, who should have some say in their choice. I will defer my further comments until we reach the committee stage. I hope that after the Bill has been read a second time it will be referred to a select committee, and then if one or two serious blemishes are expunged, we shall have a very useful measure.

In general I approve of the provisions of the Bill, with certain reservations which will be better stated when the Bill is considered in committee. I have been somewhat disturbed at the remarks of several speakers, who would lead us to believe that civilization has almost wasted itself on the natives. That is not so. It is not a fact that only a small proportion of the native people are influenced by our western civilization. There are many natives who are conforming to our standards as the result of the labours of men whose work does not receive the applause it ought to get. May I ask the House to consider what conformity to our western standards means in the mind of the native? He has inherited age-long traditions of savagery, the very antithesis of the civilization we stand for; and when such a man begins to conform to our standards of civilization, a marvellous change is wrought in him. Some of us saw in the Zulu rebellion of 20 years ago what heathen savagery means. This is not the time, nor the occasion, nor the place to give the details of things that some of us encountered in that struggle. We know the power of the witch doctor and the dominance he has even over the chief of the tribe. Unless something is brought to bear in opposition to the teaching and practices of the witch doctors, the outlook for this country is disastrous indeed. I want to speak in terms of unqualified approval of men whose work does not gain full approval everywhere—the missionaries of the various churches. I don’t forget that 40 years ago in the old Cape House, on the initiative of the Prime Minister of that day, the thanks of Parliament were proposed to a man I know intimately—a little heroic man from Yorkshire, whose presence in the Native Territories was said to be equal to that of a brigade of troops as a peace-preserving influence. That man is but typical of a very great number of men and women in the missionary field. I hope I shall not be accused of differential treatment when I say that the church I have had the honour of being associated with for more than 40 years has never had one of its natives mixed up in rebellion. We have taught them the duty of fearing God and honouring the king. We have seen to it that our native converts are trained up in the principles of undeviating loyalty. They have responded to us, and they no longer raise arms against the authority of the white man. One church in this Union has to-day as full communicants of the church of God 135,000 natives, with as many more in diligent training for that position and responsibility. In addition to that, you can multiply the numbers by about three to represent those directly under our influence and teaching. This means that one denomination is steadily influencing 750,000 of natives. If you add to the labours of that church the labours of other churches, you find that out of our native population of 6,000,000, at least 2,000,000 are under the direct and steady influence of Christian missionaries with their lofty efforts. These facts tend to the betterment of the native people. This House and country are under a tremendous obligation to two sets of men in the native territories—the magistrates and the missionaries, who almost invariably work together and who seek to break away the natives from the dark heathenism of their past and teach them to become true citizens. The missionaries have oft times been the victims of criticism and challenge. Again and again it has been said that they should not limit themselves to book teaching, but should teach the natives industrial pursuits and handicrafts. Now, however, they get the other sort of criticism—that they are training the natives to compete with the white workers. You cannot have it both ways. Those who work amongst the natives are trying, through the avenue of ethics, through the agency of spiritual force, and by teaching the native the dignity of labour, to make of him a most valuable asset to our communal life. The work which they have done should not be overlooked. There are three sorts of natives in the Union. First those in the tribal centres, who are mostly heathen, who are under the direct rule either of magistrates or chiefs; and then the natives whose presence in growing numbers makes a real menace to the progress of the native—the de-tribalized native adjacent to our urban areas; and the natives in the mission stations. You cannot expect men who have cut away from their tribes and are living adjacent to the urban areas to be amenable to any kind of tribal law. We have annexed them for our great industries, and have broken up their connection with the tribe, and we have not given them anything in return for what they have lost. We exploit them to the utmost, and to-day they are in an environment foreign to what they are used to and to their long traditions. We exploit their labour, but we do not develop them as a people. We herd them in unsuitable structures adjacent to our towns, and deny them what always made for their contentment—the right to keep livestock. The duty of the Government is not to repress the native people, but to minister to their advancement along quite safe lines, and lead them to the attainment of a true civilization, so that they may break for ever from their own black past.

The House generally agrees that it is necessary for a Bill of this nature to be put before the country and be passed. Some of the clauses make radical and important changes to the existing legislation in the various provinces. After carefully reading through the Bill, it seems to me in some respects it has been lather loosely drawn. I intend to go into some of the details and to point out to the Prime Minister various defects in the Bill which make it necessary for this Bill to be sent to a select committee. I do not know whether he will agree after having heard the various speeches from members on both sides of the House, but I urge upon him that the Bill should certainly be sent to a select committee. Let me take one point. In the Bill there is no definition of what a native is. I want to ask the Prime Minister as to whether this definition has been expressly left out. It is most important a definition should be given of a native. Furthermore, I notice there is no definition of what a coloured person is. Provision is made in subsection 4 of Clause 1 for a native commissioner to marry coloured persons. I take it these coloured persons would include the Indians, but it is necessary to define who these coloured people are whom the native commissioner will be entitled to marry. Then I notice in Clause 5 that provision is made for the commissioner to decide in whom the titles of certain properties will vest, and he will be entitled, after enquiry, to state to whom the transfer will be made, and who was the original owner. No provision is made to protect any mortgage bond on property. Furthermore, I notice no provision is made for the title deeds of those particular areas which will come under the operations of this clause, to be handed over by various registrars of deeds to the native commissioners, and unless the registrars of deeds have express authority under the Act authorizing them to hand over the deeds they will refuse to do so. I ask the Prime Minister what will be the position if an area is defined by proclamation under Clause 5, where there are European-owned properties in that area? Will their title deeds also have to be handed over to the native commissioner, or will they be dealt with separately? I should like the Prime Minister to explain the position of any European owners of property in areas proclaimed. Then Clause 8 is another clause of considerable importance. It provides that two courts are to be set up to deal with native cases. One will consist of a native commissioner who will deal only with cases which arise out of native law and custom. The magistrate’s court will deal with cases which arise out of the common law or the Roman-Dutch law. Now here is a serious omission. No provision is made for the control of many cases between natives which do not fall under native law and custom in Natal. If the Prime Minister will read Section 108 of Act 32 of 1917 he will find special provision made for native cases in Natal.

Surely they are being dealt with to-day. No law takes away these cases from where at present they are due to be heard—only native cases according to native customs.

If the Prime Minister gives that assurance I am satisfied. What is going to happen in the case where an exempted native and an unexempted native have a lawsuit which arises purely out of native law and custom?

He is not exempted from the jurisdiction, surely. Exemption only exempts from certain specific laws.

Under the Natal Act, I think I am right—under the Courts Act—an exempted native comes under colonial law. What would happen in a case where two natives have a claim against each other and one native cedes his claim to a European, who has to proceed against the other native? Will that go to the native commissioner?

Exactly. Certainly.

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

We had a few amendments last time. One was moved by myself and another by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He moved the insertion of the words—

I think the words—

should come out. It ought to be only— adjoining any existing native area.

We don’t want a native area to be proclaimed apart from and separate from existing native areas. I said then I was quite prepared to accept “adjoining any existing native area,” and later on I found he had added “additional to or” adjoining, and as far as I can see myself he was in doubt whether these words ought to remain. It seems to me clear they should not remain. Thinking over the question later, and, as I am advised, it was not necessary to have the other words. It is not a question of declaring native areas. It is only getting the existing native areas recognized as such by parliament, and bringing them under the law of 1920 in regard to councils. You do not establish a native area, you bring it under the law of 1920, but I am prepared to allow the words “adjoining any native area” to be left in. I move, therefore, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 1 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether after a long and hard day’s work the House may now be adjourned.

With pleasure.