as chairman, brought up the third (final) report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities [Votes and Proceedings, pages 832-837].

House to go into Committee on the report to-morrow.

I move:

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I would like to call the attention of the Minister to this particular clause. A rather difficult technical position may be created here. It says—

It does not give the Appellate Court power to change decisions given in the lower courts. An injustice may be done. What is the position of the parties if a wrong decision must stand? It means an injustice will be effected. Furthermore, who is to provide the costs? Are they going to be paid by the Government?

The costs, of course, in such proceedings would be paid by the Government. The reason why a particular judgment cannot be altered is because it is a question of laying down the law for the future. We are very careful not to give the Appellate Division jurisdiction to hear appeals in that case because it is better not to give that power. The moment you allow that judgment to be altered you are converting the whole idea into an idea of appeal. That is what we are trying to avoid. It is a question of straightening out the law for the future. It is merely to settle conflicting decisions. Instead of going further if this is not acceptable, it would be better to delete the provision, but we want to allow the Appellate Division to settle conflicting decisions in this way, but rather than convert it into a court of appellate jurisdiction over the appeal courts, it would be better to drop the section.

There is one point that I do not quite understand. Apparently the clause as it stood originally provided for the reference to the Appellate Division in the case of conflicting decisions of appeal courts and different jurisdiction, but the Select Committee have altered that and the section is now confined to conflicting decisions inside the same jurisdiction. Is it not necessary to provide for cases where native appeal courts will give different decisions?

That point was very carefully considered by the Select Committee. The difficulty is that you have different systems of native law applicable to different territories and therefore you will find conflicting decisions which would both be correct decisions. It is important that in a particular area of jurisdiction there should be no conflict of decision but there may be a conflict of decision in another area where there is a different system of native law or where custom has altered the native law. The Select Committee felt it would be very difficult to do that.

I might explain to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). You might have a decision in the native appeal court of the Transkei giving a perfectly correct decision on any point; say, on lobola. You might have another decision on lobola in another native appeal court, say, in Natal, entirely correct as to the custom of lobola there. But those two might be in conflict. We wish to give the Minister power to deal with that, and to state a case to the Appellate Division. The previous form of section 12 read as if the Appellate Division was to be asked to decide between these decisions—which is impossible, as each decision is correct in its own area. But what may happen is this: A Native Appeal Court of the Transkei sitting at, say, Umtata, may give one decision on a particular point. The same court sitting at, say, Butterworth with different assessors may give a different decision on the same point, and this can be dealt with in a special case stated by the Minister of Justice so as to lay down the correct rule for the particular area. We wanted to give the Minister power to deal with that by way of stating a case for the Appellate Division.

I can see this clause giving a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst litigants. You are going to have an unsuccessful litigant in the proposed appeal court when he learns that the Appellate Division has decided that the native appeal court’s judgment should have been in his favour wanting to take steps to reverse that decision, but he will be told he has no legal remedy because the Native Appeal Court is the final court of appeal for him.

Then it is better to leave out the clause altogether; there is not much value in it. It is the furthest we can go. If there is any trouble with it, I am willing to abandon the clause.

Would it not be possible after the Appellate Court has given a decision to send the record back to the Native Appeal Court? I would not like this clause withdrawn; the natives themselves have asked for this in the Transkei, and they value the power to go to the highest court in the land.

The trouble is, judgment has been given. This clause is not introduced for the benefit of the individual litigant, but for the benefit of the native people. The trouble my hon. friend over there has is a different one; he says that the Native Appeal Court may not administer that law in future after a decision has been given.

This clause must be read in connection with old Clause 16, which gives a litigant the right to apply to the Native Appeal Court for leave to appeal. If this is given the Native Appeal Court must state a case. The litigant appeals in that way as a party to the suit; whereas in Clause 12 it is an entirely independent action taken by the Minister purely in the interests of the natives at large, so that they may know what the law is, and the native parties to the suit are not parties to this action taken by the Minister. It is really like passing an Act of Parliament after the courts have given conflicting decisions. If the litigants do not choose to appeal under Clause 16, the Minister comes in.

The difficulty I see is that the right of appeal to the Appellate Division given to the natives is one which is very rarely exercised because few natives could afford to go to the Appellate Division. That is no safeguard at all. There is something radically wrong when a litigant is told by the highest court in the land that a judgment which was adverse to him in a lower court should have gone in his favour, and has no redress.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I have considerable difficulty with the proviso of this clause. [Proviso read.] Those words are much too strong indeed. They preclude any hope whatever of successful review proceedings. Take a gross irregularity committed by one of those commissioners; suppose, for instance, he has heard one side and not the other, and unless that side shows in fact it would have won its case, the court which hears the review proceedings is never to be able to set him aside. I may remind the Minister we had exactly the same problem in the Liquor Bill, and this is the wording we adopted in dealing with the same point—

I move as an amendment—

You cannot go further than ask the petitioner in matters of review to state that he has suffered substantial prejudice.

I do not think that there is any reason not to accept this amendment, because I think it really is the meaning of the legislation in the view of the Select Committee. I believe we do not want to make a review impossible, but we want to make it as difficult as possible, and prevent technicalities ruling in the court. “Substantial prejudice” I think would probably cover all the needs of the case. The intention is not that every small defect should be reviewable, but that where there are substantial defects there should be a right to review. I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Would it not be better to omit the words “to the petitioner”?

Yes.

I agree. I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

We have had law agents practising in my constituency for years, and their rights should be retained.

Our legislation has long been going on the basis of eliminating law agents so far as possible. There might be some protection for law agents who have been entitled to practise before the passing of the Act, if and so far as they have had the right to appear before a Native Appeal Court. Otherwise we are, however, going pretty far if we allow law agents to appear before a Native Appeal Court without being so entitled. I suggest that the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) should withdraw his amendment and that the Minister and he should agree on an amendment on these lines.

The right should be limited to those law agents now in actual practice.

It would be better to draft an amendment for submission at the report stage, but I would not go further than preserving the rights of those who already have the right to practise.

I agree that the right should be limited to agents now practising. I will withdraw the amendment and redraft it for the report stage.

With leave of Committee, amendments withdrawn.

Clause, as amended by Select Committee, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I would like the Minister to give some indication as to what is going to happen to the Natal Native High Court? Under this section its civil jurisdiction is being ousted, and under the Criminal Law Procedure Act passed last year its jurisdiction in criminal appeals was ousted. So that it has been shorn of all its powers except the trial of criminal cases, and there is not enough work of that kind to keep the court fully occupied. It will be a question whether the court will now be able to justify its existence.

The intention has been to keep the Natal Native High Court for hearing criminal matters. If that appears to afford too little work for the court I should imagine that it should be abolished and its powers transferred to the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. I will go into the matter with the Department of Native Affairs to find out whether the court is justified. If it is justified we would like to continue it, But if it is not justified we shall have to consider sending the work to the provincial division.

Why did you whittle away its powers last year?

They were comparatively small. There should be one court of appeal in regard to criminal jurisdiction. If the work is very small and if no injustice would result to the natives, it might be as well to transfer the powers to the Supreme Court. In that event you might have to strengthen the Natal court. It may be, however, that there is a sentimental affection for the Natal Native High Court, because of its name, and that we shall have to go into. At all events, the Natal Native High Court should not function when you have a native appeal court which is going to function all over the Union. It is impossible to maintain the court in this section.

The feeling in Natal is very much opposed to the ousting of the Native High Court’s jurisdiction in criminal matters as has been done, and I think the abolishment of that Court will be much resented in Natal.

I agree with hon. members and I deprecate native matters being slipped through the House in Bills which are not native Bills, without hon. members knowing anything about it. The Native Affairs Commission has expressed its opinion about this lessening of the powers of the Natal Native High Court, yet a Bill was passed last year to curtail its powers. We have had discussions on this subject for six or seven years, and it would appear that the department, over which the Minister presides, has a deep-rooted objection to the existence of native high courts. The abolition of the Natal Native High Court as far as criminal jurisdiction was concerned was brought in in a Bill which was not a native Bill at all, and consequently those interested in native matters allowed the Bill to pass through without discussion. The native would prefer, as the Native Affairs Commission has shown, that the native high court in Natal should remain intact.

In section 2 of section 16 I notice “appeals shall vest in the Eastern Districts local division of the Supreme Court In the Transkei we have had the privilege of choosing which division of the Supreme Court we should go to, and it seems to me wrong to introduce a principle of this kind. There has been a movement to confine all cases that arise in the eastern districts of the Cape to the Eastern Districts Court. We have always preferred the right to send to Capetown if we wish, and if there is no objection, I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment—

It is not your litigant who selects the forum for a case, but generally the attorney. The idea was to cause the least amount of cost to the native litigant, and I believe this is right, and it should be retained.

There is very little difference in costs in appeals from east Griqualand to the Eastern Districts Court at Grahamstown or to Capetown. The Minister mentioned this matter last session, and I found on going round my constituency that most people were strongly in favour of retaining the right of choice as at present. If this is taken away to-day from natives by this Bill it is the thin end of the wedge and later this restricted jurisdiction will apply in all appeals. I ask the Minister to leave us the same rights of choice which we have to-day.

I want to add my voice to those who have represented to the Minister to continue the jurisdiction of the native high court in Natal. Although the personnel in some instances may have been open to objection, there is no doubt that that court has a standing among the natives of a very valued kind. It has built up a system of case law in civil matters which is the most valuable of its kind as regards native law in the whole of South Africa. It is much to be preferred to the kind of court the Minister proposes to establish in place of it, that is a proposed court with one judge, assisted from time to time by two other men, possibly interchangeable, with the result that you will have a constantly changing personnel in the court, and you do not have the same fixity and independence that you have in the court as at present constituted. In the newspapers to-day we read remonstrance from Natal against what the Minister did last year in abolishing appeals formerly made to the native high court, but which have now to be made to the Supreme Court. There is a feeling in Natal that we ought to reverse that step.

It would make the position impossible, because under section 12 we have laid down—

These native appeal courts can be constituted for any area in the country, and if you have one constituted in Natal, you will have two courts in Natal doing the same work. If we do not want uniformity, let us leave things as they are and let them get into a greater mess. It is a sentimental feeling with regard to the native high court which has not justified itself to any great extent. I know as much as anybody does about the native high court, because I go through their proceedings in murder trials, and I do not think any one of us can say it is justified.

I am dealing with civil jurisdiction.

Criminal law is easier to deal with than civil law, and if a mess is made of criminal law, it will be worse in civil cases. I cannot understand this discussion.

There is no doubt the Minister is going to abolish the native high court in Natal.

If the criminal work is too small, that is the right procedure. If the people have a sentimental affection towards this high court, let it go on doing the criminal work, and carry on having a sentimental affection for something you can do without altogether.

You cannot dismiss a subject like that with a wave of the hand. Let me call attention to what the Native Affairs Commission say about it in their report—

The Minister may be a stickler for abstract justice, but even a little bit of injustice, if it is very popular and liked by the litigants, may be a good thing.

I like that.

There is another point. The Commission state—

After all, we are trying to set up courts of justice for the natives, and not for Europeans, and not for the practice of any particular profession. The commission in its report further states—

That reminds me of the glamour you spoke about last night.

This is the glamour of the natives, not the glamour of the Europeans. The Minister wants to endow this court with all the glamour of the Europeans, with the trade union of the Bar, instead of its being reserved for magistrates with wide native training.

I would like to support the point raised by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). I do not know whether he actually moved an amendment. I would like to move out the words in line 22 before “Supreme Court.” The Minister says that the option is really exercised by the attorney. After all, the man who pays the piper calls the tune. It would be much better to leave it to the particular litigant concerned—

I have got two amendments, one by the hon. member for Tembuland and the other by the hon. member for Hanover Street, which are very similar. I think one hon. member had better approach the other.

I would ask the Minister to leave us the privileges we have got now and if at any subsequent time it is felt that the jurisdiction should be changed, let Us do it then. Let the matter remain as it is to-day.

To clear the ground for all the other discussion on this clause, I will accept that amendment. As far as the other discussion is concerned, when your native appeal court has been appointed it will probably function in different parts of the country at the same time and it may be found in some parts that there is not much work for it to do. Apart from anything else, I think that the reference to that is perfectly right in the section and that the function of the Native High Court should be abolished so far as appeals are concerned.

I should like to remind the Minister that the Native High Court in Natal was abolished in the ‘90’s and there was so great an outcry on the part of the people, both European and native, for the restoration of the court that the Government found themselves obliged to give way and restored it. It certainly has not invariably been fortunate in its personnel and I think that the faults which the Minister has pointed out are faults which are curable if a better selection were made in regard to the appointments. But, notwithstanding that, on the side of native civil law a very useful body of case law has been built up and there is no doubt that as regards native law the work of the Native High Court is of more value than that of any body we have had serving in that particular line. In a letter which I have received from a correspondent he states that to his mind the Native High Court is the ideal court, but it has been unlucky in its personnel. He thinks it would be—

Who wrote that?

That letter has been written by an experienced magistrate in Natal. I hope the Minister will re-consider the matter and allow us to bring up a suitable amendment at the report stage, if he wishes to pass over this for the moment.

That would perhaps be the best course. I can then consider that matter, because I may say that the Select Committee were unanimously in favour of this provision which has been inserted in this clause. When the Select Committee is unanimous I do not expect a difference of opinion in the House. On the question of inserting the words “any competent”, as proposed by the hon. member for Tembuland, I am not certain whether that would be the right language to use.

That is why I moved it in a different form. My amendment was to leave out all those words, and then the clause will read—

I leave it to the Minister to take which amendment he likes.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Payn put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On amendment proposed by Select Committee in Clause 16,

I move—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I move—

and to add the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (9):

I would like to ask the Minister the reason for sub-section (c), Section 9, where the Governor-General may make regulations dealing with the disherison of natives. The natives have rules of their own which have to be carried out, and to give the Government power to change these rules or to make regulations seems to call for explanation.

This is to prevent natives from being too readily disinherited. It is not to allow it to take place more easily but to make it more difficult.

I presume that in making these regulations you will recognize the customs that already exist.

Oh, yes.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I see there is provision here for amendment of the Natal native code by proclamation. I should like the Minister to consider whether any alteration of the code should not be preceded by an enquiry by a board or commission. It seems to me we should have some safeguard against rash and ill-advised alteration of a code that has served the native people well for the best part of 30 years or more. I should like the Minister to consider whether he cannot agree to that.

That point was also considered by the Select Committee, and the department made it clear that such action is only taken solely on the report of the chief native official in the neighbourhood. For instance, in the case of a proclamation in Natal it would not be done before men of the experience of Mr. Wheelwright had given their opinion. We found that nothing of the kind has happened in the Transkei without experienced officials having first advised accordingly. It was therefore thought unnecessary to have any further safeguard. I rather imagine that it is a sufficient safeguard. We know that if we have other bodies appointed there is the difficulty of multiplying bodies, and there is also the question of delay where it would not be justified. My hon. friend can take the assurance that no steps would be taken prior to the advice of responsible officials in Natal.

I should like the Minister to consider this point. This code when originally framed took upwards of 15 years before it reached its final form. There was a statutory board in existence to straighten out difficulties and reach agreement, because on matters of custom and usage the authorities disagreed just as they do on other contentious subjects. We do not want to be in the position of having a new native commissioner come along and ill-advisedly introduce amendments to this code which would not accord with the popular native will at all and would be absolutely in conflict with the tradition of the people. I hope the Minister can agree to a board. I think it would be a safeguard which would be appreciated.

I would like to support what the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has said. I think there is a certain amount of fear that it is possible at some future date we might have a chief native commissioner appointed in Natal who does not come from Natal and who does not know all the customs and usages of the natives there. He might recommend alterations of the code which may be resented or detrimental to the interests of the natives. The point is a sound one that before any alteration of the code is made a special commission should sit and make recommendations to the Government. The code has stood the test of time since 1891 and has worked very satisfactorily. There may be a few minor points which require alteration. I hope the Minister will be agreeable that no alteration should be made until a commission has been appointed to inquire into such proposed alterations.

Could we not say “no alteration should be made until prior notice has been given in the press” or something of that sort? That would give opportunity to get the opinions of those versed in native law.

I think we might accept that —if the Minister will bring in the amendment and have it at the report stage.

Yes, I will do that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I move—

It is simply to give a bit wider powers.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I see that one of the objects for which the Governor-General is taking power to make regulations is to prevent the exhibition of pictures of an undesirable character in any native location or compound. I wonder if the Minister and the Select Committee considered the question of making it a more general restriction, and whether they found it was practical, because I am sure the Minister will agree with me that in our big towns pictures are often on exhibition, which may be perfectly harmless as far as the European population is concerned, but of a highly undesirable character for natives in various stages of civilisation to see. Is it not possible to widen the scope of that regulation?

That was considered at length. It was very difficult to know in what way we could insert a prohibition of that kind in legislation of this character, which would affect the population of the towns. It was felt it should be left to other legislation. We had a fairly long discussion on the point, and the committee came to the conclusion not to insert such a provision in this Bill.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On amendment proposed by Select Committee in Clause 25, lines 40 to 45.

I would be glad if the Minister would inform us why it is proposed to delete the proviso in line 40. As the Bill stood before it went to the Select Committee, the power of the Governor-General to define pass areas was limited. Now that is taken out, and so far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent the Government of the day making a pass area in any part of the Union. It is perfectly obvious that if you are going to do that in a district such as the Cape Peninsula, for example, there is going to be trouble. The Minister may say that it is not proposed to do such a thing; but if not, why do away with the limitation? We are going to cause an immense amount of suspicion amongst the educated natives—people who have never been accustomed to that sort of thing, and they are going to see in this further evidence of the desire, on the part of the Europeans, to limit their development and keep them in a state of subjection. It is highly undesirable that this safeguard should be removed from the Bill. I move, as an amendment—

I would like to support the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) in this, and I would ask the Minister to soften his heart. As I understand it, the Native Affairs Department themselves are in favour of the inclusion of this particular proviso, and it has been promised to the natives through the aegis of the Native Affairs Commission, and also publicly by the Prime Minister on his tour through the Transkei, if I remember correctly. This was put in to mollify native opinion. They recognize it is not necessary for a native to carry a pass in his own area—where the area is a purely native one. They feel it is a degradation to them. Where it is necessary, I have nothing to say against it. I submit it is not right for us to go back on the promise made by the Prime Minister.

I would like to support what has been said by my hon. friend there, because there is no doubt that the town-bred natives will feel this matter keenly. Is the Minister not overriding municipal authority in this matter? In many of the towns, Port Elizabeth for instance, there is a curfew regulation which applies after 10 p.m., but not to registered voters. This would give power to override the municipal authorities. Surely municipal authorities know what is best in their own areas. This would put a stigma on the town-bred natives, which is wholly uncalled for.

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). I would like to make a personal explanation. According to the record of the select committee, I find that I am shown there as having voted in favour of the omission of that proviso. But there appears to be some misunderstanding. If the committee looks at the minutes, they will find a little above that I moved to omit the whole of the clause. I am certainly under the impression that I was acting logically, and that if I could not get the whole of the clause left out, I wanted to retain the protection inserted in the clause, as it was originally before us as drafted and introduced by the Government. I do not wish to suggest that anybody is to blame—it may have been my misunderstanding. Whatever it was, I want to make it perfectly clear that I wanted to keep the proviso as it stands at present, and do so now.

I wish to say that I heartily support the amendment for a very definite reason. In a great many legislative proposals affecting natives, I see pin-pricks that will irritate. In this I see a spear which will deeply wound, and I deprecate it. Do not let us goad these people into resistance to the law. Let us treat them as men.

The more I see of this Bill as it goes through committee, the more I dislike it. My dislike is increased by this clause. Has the Minister studied Section 12 of the Native Urban Areas Act; if he has not, does he realize he is setting up overlapping machinery to deal with natives? In a sense it conflicts with Section 12 of that Act. [Section read.] Unless you except municipalities which have been proclaimed from the operation of this section, you will have two different sets of regulations dealing with the natives. I would suggest that this clause stand over.

This is largely a question of administration. We knew, of course, that there would be a certain amount of overlapping, but the select committee thought that parts of the country would not be provided for unless we took powers to proclaim pass areas all over the country. Municipalities and areas where natives do not carry passes would never be proclaimed. But whether you have the proviso or not, pass areas may be set up.

Why can’t we pass a law leaving everything to you and go home?

Will the hon. member move in that direction? We must be careful about these matters, because this has become a great problem. We must consider that any Government would carry out these powers carefully. It is most difficult to control the movements of natives. Only to-day I have had a report showing how serious the matter is in different parts of the Free State. The administration of this clause will not be affected one little bit, whether we have the proviso or not, but there may be some places which cannot be dealt with under other legislation which may be necessary to deal with under this Bill. All these things are matters of administration. All the powers taken are for exceptional contingencies, and not for the ordinary, everyday contingencies. Some hon. members seem to think that every section of the Bill is going to be put into effect to the fullest extent, but the large majority of these powers are for use in case of emergency, which may arise sooner than we think.

I am afraid that everybody will not think that these clauses will be administered in that philanthropic manner which the Minister’s manner suggests.

They ought to be.

The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) has referred to continuous pin-pricking of the natives. I go further and say that in some cases we have been using hobnailed boots.

If you knew the reports I get you would not make speeches of that kind.

The committee should delete the clause altogether. Some years ago the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) tried more than once or twice to introduce extremely restrictive native pass legislation, and this clause seems to be a revival of that policy. If the Minister allows the proviso to remain, will it not be competent for the administration to insist upon respectable registered native voters in the Cape carrying passes from which they are exempt to-day?

It is possible, but no administration would take that course.

I am not so certain of my hon. friend as he seems to be of himself.

I am not Minister of Native Affairs.

My hon. friend is deputy-Prime Minister and it is within the bounds of possibility that he will be Prime Minister.

I hope not.

And if he is Prime Minister, then he will become Minister of Native Affairs. In the Cape natives were encouraged to rise in the scale of civilization, and they were given privileges which they deserve. This, however, is a retrograde step, and natives are practically told that no matter how high they have raised themselves, they are going to have the same penalties imposed on them as are applied to the uncivilized native. Actions of this character will discourage natives trying to adapt themselves to civilized modes of life. What necessity is there for a clause of this character? I hope the committee will throw the clause out, because the worst day’s work we could do would be to make a Cape native, no matter how high his position—and some of them are professors and doctors—carry a pass. Surely the Minister should make some provision for cases of this description.

I move—

Under the present system before a proclamation becomes law it has to be advertised for 30 days, which is perfectly fair. After promulgation, it has to be laid on the Table of the House for 14 days. That is fair, too. My amendment asks that any pass proclamation shall be approved of by the House before promulgation. The trouble over the pass system has been in existence for a large number of years. We have different systems in the different provinces, and this is a matter which should be dealt with by us as a legislature rather than by the Minister of Native Affairs. In fact, we are shirking our responsibility in placing the burden on the shoulders of the Minister or of a department. When a draft copy of this Bill was placed two years ago before a conference of natives at Pretoria, no mention whatever was made of the fact that it was intended to create pass areas. If the Government wanted to do that, they should have been honest and should have told the natives then. Speaking in this House only two months ago, the Prime Minister admitted that the pass system was irritating the natives, and he promised to introduce another system which would not annoy them. It is the duty of the House to investigate the position, and to let the natives know what we are doing before we impose restrictions on them. I support the amendment of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). The pass system has been in force in the Transkei for 40 years, but it has now fallen into desuetude so far as inter-district communication is concerned. A native may travel anywhere in the Native Territories without any restrictions. The only time he carries a pass is when he goes to Johannesburg and other labour centres, and the natives take no exception to that. In 1887 the Cape Parliament passed the Hofmeyr Act which laid it down that the civilized native would not be required to carry a pass. It is necessary, perhaps, to have some system of controlling natives travelling all over the country, but let the House be responsible for that, and not one of the State departments.

It seems to me that the distinction between the Cane view and that of the northern provinces with regard to the carrying of passes comes out clearly here. Pass laws and the pass system are as old as the Transvaal and nobody in the Transvaal would like to abolish the pass system, and the pass regulations and pass laws make proper provision that certain natives shall be exempted from carrying passes, such as, e.g., natives who can prove that they have passed a certain standard at school, or can prove that they are teachers or ministers of religion among the natives. I do not think that anything can be said in the Transvaal against the pass system, and I think the Bill actually makes it easier for the Government to alleviate the pass laws and regulations. Where that is not considered necessary no pass area will be proclaimed, and in those areas, therefore, the natives will be exempted from carrying passes. I should like to add a few remarks about the proviso. It is provided in the clause that the Governor-General can proclaim pass areas but the proviso lays down that this shall not apply to native locations. Any place can be proclaimed a pass area except locations. I think that is wrong. As things are at present a native is at liberty to go within his location from one end to the other without requiring a pass. In my district, e.g., there is a location which consists of 30 adjoining farms, and more than 100,000 morgen of ground, but there is no pass system there. But if I want to send one of my natives with a message to the commissioner or the head of the location he must have a pass from me or from the police. And when a native leaves the location he gets a pass at the office before he goes into the European areas. Every native who carries on business within the location travels about or makes a visit there must have a pass. This, however, may prevent circumstances making it necessary to control the movements of natives inside the location by the pass system, such as, e.g., when there is infectious disease among the natives or in the case of cattle diseases, or in the case of unrest among the natives. In short various circumstances may present themselves so that temporarily or for a part of a location the pass system has to be introduced, but then the proviso to the clause would prevent that It is practically a restriction on the Government, and I therefore think the proviso should be deleted, and the Government should have a tree hand to introduce the pass system wherever it is necessary.

I think I must say a few words on this matter. I live close to a large native reserve and am well acquainted with the position. I must say that I am very pleased a out this clause in the Bill. It is necessary, and I am at once at issue with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who wants to scrap the whole clause. That cannot be done. At the second reading I called particular attention to the desirability of this clause. In the part where I live on the borders of Witzies Hoek, where natives are constantly coming and going, it will, for a long time yet, be necessary for natives to carry passes to maintain order and to prevent stock theft and other things. I think it would be entirely wrong to remove the proviso. I have been living for 40 years on the border in those parts. It has never yet been the case that the natives in their own areas had to carry passes, and I think it is undesirable. As soon as a native leaves his area he gets a pass so that he can go into the area of the white people. He must have a pass, but in his own area he does not need one, and I think it would be wrong to delete this proviso. It is quite unnecessary that in those parts which are set aside for the natives they should have to carry passes, but for the rest, I quite agree that the pass system should remain for other parts.

I want to support the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) in his request to have the proviso re-inserted, and that those people who come under the Urban Areas Act ought to be excluded from the operation of this clause. But I wish especially to urge that natives who are registered voters for members of Parliament should not be subjected to the terms of this clause. If you have a native who is considered to be qualified to exercise citizen rights and to be enfranchised it is anomalous to put him on the same level with a tribal native who has not got those rights. We won’t go into the question of whether it is right or wrong to have enfranchised natives. They have got the franchise. That is the point. These civilized natives are considered to be eligible for citizen rights and surely it is putting an indignity on such men to be treated as provided under this clause. I think the proviso should be inserted and move—

In doing that, I quite understand I shall be accused of vote-catching, but it is obviously ridiculous to have a man exercising certain rights on the one hand and imposing disabilities of this kind on the other.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has shown one side of the picture by saying that the clause was included to possibly compel natives who, to-day, do not need to carry passes, to do so. If we, however, look at the other side we shall see that the Government will have the power to repeal the existing regulations with reference to natives carrying passes. Under this clause the Government can simplify the pass laws in the country and the hon. member must not forget that. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has quoted what the Minister said in the earlier stage of this debate, viz., that the pass laws cause considerable trouble among the natives, and that the time would come that the laws would have to be softened. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will understand that if a motion were to be introduced taking away the pass laws in respect of a certain part of the country, it will lead to trouble. I do not think that the hon. member for Tembuland is showing a service to the natives by his amendment, because he says that the matter must first be submitted to Parliament before a change can be effected. It will cause much trouble if the Native Affairs Department has to come to Parliament to exempt a certain area from the pass law. There is no danger that the pass laws will be made stringent in the Cape Province, but the tendency would rather be for the Government to alleviate the existing pass regulation. I agree with the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) and other hon. members who take the same view that it is a little unfair to make the carrying of passes inside the native territories obligatory. The explanation of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) is not correct. If natives go from one area to another then they must carry passes, but it is undesirable that natives should need passes within their own territories, e.g., in the Transkei, to go from one place to another. We are in favour of giving natives an opportunity, in their own territories, to be as free as possible, and to develop along their own lines. It will be going too far if passes are to be demanded inside the native territories. The Department of Native Affairs thought fit to include the proviso, and I really do not know why the select committee took it out. I really cannot understand the object. Take, e.g., the case of the towns. In the Transvaal natives do not need to carry passes in the towns. They get service certificates that they are working with one person or another, and if a native does not possess such a certificate he can be put in gaol. When a native has a service certificate, then he can walk about in the towns up to a certain time at night. Why should we go further to say that the employer must give his native a pass when he sends him e.g., to a shop? The service certificate is his pass. I hope the Minister will agree to the proviso remaining in the clause.

There is a general feeling, I think, against the omission of that proviso, so I am prepared to accept the amendment to restore the proviso to this clause. With regard to the question of any pass area once proclaimed, that it should be placed before the Houses of Parliament, I think that is absolutely impossible. We know that if any pass area is proclaimed, and the matter has to come before this House, there would be a very long discussion here. Probably where an emergency arises it would be necessary to have your pass area very soon. I think it would be wrong to put in this section an exception that an enfranchised native, for instance, in a pass area should be exempt. You can equally say that you would exempt persons on the ground of education and civilization. It may be done by way of proclamation which will exempt certain classes and also people having certificates of exemption in accordance with new Section 30. They would also be exempted from the operation of these pass laws. I think that is the proper way of doing it. The point will be met entirely by your exemption clause and by exemptions made in your proclamation. I think it would be dangerous to amend this section further.

I am sure we are all glad that the Minister has agreed to the re-insertion of the proviso, but some of us would go much further than that proviso. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk), who, one would imagine, would speak with authority on questions of this sort, evidently did not follow what I said. I do not think he will deny that if this clause becomes law you may insist upon every native in the Cape Province, if the Administration desire it, carrying a pass. The hon. member for Waterberg is a member of the Native Affairs Commission. Ought I not to look to him, by every reasonable method, to assist and encourage the rising of the natives in the social scale? My contention is that if this clause becomes law every native in the Cape Province may be obliged to carry a pass. May I put it to the Minister of Justice that it is really a pity to depart from the principles laid down by the late Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr in 1887. If my hon. friend will look at Act No. 39 of 1887, he will see it there stated—

In other words, the late Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr, in dealing with the native voter in the Cape Colony pleaded and pleaded successfully, and had his opinions placed on the statute book of the colony, that any native holding these qualifications should have entirely the same privileges as any European. It is because this clause departs from that that I object to it. I hope the Minister will go further and accept the proposal of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) and then go further still and delete this whole clause which is a blot on the Bill.

I think the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) missed my point. My real objection is not so much against the Governor-General creating by proclamation pass areas. My objection is to this proclamation for the control and prohibition of the movements of natives becoming law without our having an opportunity to discuss it. When you prescribe regulations or make new laws, all I ask is that any new law which is created by proclamation should come before the House before it is actually law. The Prime Minister when he introduced this Bill said—

Let us know what this institution is before we actually give it life. The Minister knows that this system will take a long time to put into practice, that the Native Affairs Department will have to study the thing very carefully, and if in six months the Native Affairs Department are prepared to put that proclamation on the Table, it should not become law before that time. Surely that is a reasonable request and the Minister should grant that particular concession. Before that proclamation becomes law, let us criticize it on the floor of the House. I would like to know whether the Native Affairs Commission has recommended favourably in regard to that particular matter. On this point, I will again quote the Prime Minister who, when discussing the proclamation system at the second reading of this Bill, made the following statement—

Under the circumstances of to-day I claim that the argument has no ground in it, for this reason that you have got the Native Affairs Department and no Government will go and issue a proclamation, and in fact under the law may issue a proclamation before consulting the Native Affairs Commission.

I would like to thank the Minister for having been so reasonable as to accept the amendment of the hon. member for south Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and I think the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk), too, made a very helpful speech. I only hope he will accept the other two amendments proposed. I would like to suggest an improvement to the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) because as the hon. member for Waterberg has pointed out, there might be some difficulty having regard to congestion of work and so on. I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Payn—

Then you would not need the authority of Parliament to release an area, but it will be required to bring in new areas. I would like to draw attention to an interesting judgment on the native pass law, which took place last year. The convictions against 2 native women who refused to carry passes were reversed. I do not want to refer to that, but I want to quote one or two remarks of Chief Justice Rose-Innes, as he was then, to show the class of persons he thought were intended for the pass law. He says, on page 203 of the report—

On page 205 he deals with the matter again, and he points out that the mischief was in connection with persons of that kind. One sees, therefore, that originally the pass laws in their historical development were to deal with roaming natives. It was not intended to deal with the civilized native at all If you look through the republican legislation of both republics you will find that the whole legislation speaks of dealing with natives wandering about and stealing stock and so on, and to compel them to carry a pass in order that they might be identified. Then there is the judgment of Sir John Kotzé on page 226—

If we bear that in mind there is great force in the arguments adduced by hon. members in support of the amendments of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) and the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). I hope these amendments will be agreed to, because when you are creating new areas we know the pass laws are often the cause of great irritation and trouble. It is all right the Minister saying this is only going to be applied in cases of emergency, but the Act does not say so. The words “in case of emergency” do not appear in the clause, and if the Bill goes through in its present form it can be applied where there is no emergency at all. I would like to support these amendments, and to move the amendment I have read to that of the hon. member for Tembuland.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has referred to the possibility of the pass law being modified. He places that interpretation upon the remarks of the Prime Minister at an earlier stage of this Bill. I think we all agree that as time goes on the natives will, in the distant future, outgrow the necessity for carrying passes, and when that time arrives it will be in the direction of their conforming to the procedure to which we are obliged to conform, when we go abroad—that is, we carry a passport which bears a photograph and a description of ourselves on it. I proposed last year, in connection with the Native Taxation Act, that we should anticipate that time by allowing the tax receipt which the native is obliged to carry and to produce on demand to become an identification passport containing his photograph.

Who is going to pay for the photographs?

I presented to the Prime Minister an article which showed that the photograph and the height of the person photographed was done in one operation by a camera which can be obtained at a reasonable rate. The cost, I think it was shown, would not be more than fourpence per photograph. I want to come to the point of what is, in actual practice, followed by the natives in the scheduled areas. Although there is no need for a native to carry a pass in the scheduled areas, as a matter of practice nearly every adult native does, at some time or other, get a pass, and by long Usage carries that pass wherever he goes. So I do not think there is great point in saying he shall not be required to carry it in those areas. In dealing with this question of passes, I think those of us who have watched the development of the pass system over a long course of years will be satisfied that the pass is more needed at night than in the daytime. In the daytime it is largely is disuse, and nobody worries a native to produce his pass. That is proved by the fact that in the Cape Province the only pass that survives is the one that has to be carried after the curfew has rung. The curfew pass system in Durban and Pietermaritzburg has broken down. There, where it is most necessary for a native to carry a pass, after people have retired to bed, through a recent judgment the native is allowed to roam at will in the town, and may only be arrested if he is not able to give a good account of himself. Every native is possessed of a ready wit, so that he need never be arrested for not being able to give a good account of himself or for being out in the middle of the night. It becomes a serious problem if natives of criminal tendencies can roam about after people have gone to sleep. I move as an amendment—

I would like to support what the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) said. An undesirable state of affairs has arisen in Natal by the recent judgment of the supreme court, to the effect that where a native gives a good account of himself, the police may not demand a night pass from him. The House should do something to remedy that defect that exists in the Natal pass law. The Cape and the Transvaal have legislation which provides efficiently for carrying passes at night, but the Natal law has broken down by this judgment. It is to the interest of the public to clearly define that right and to provide efficiently for the carrying of night passes. The reason I am urging this is that the people who are roaming about at night are not the ordinary natives, but criminals. It is necessary that this proposed sub-section should be inserted.

I should have thought that anyone looking at these clauses as they stand now would imagine that they were so wide that they could cover anything conceivable about the carrying of passes. Why the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) wants to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s” I do not know. The great objection many of us have is that, under Clause (b) the Minister is practically taking a black cheque, to do anything he likes about passes. The principle we are accustomed to is, first of all, you have a statute which lays down the principles under which passes are to be granted. These principles are thrashed out in this House, and it is only when those laws are passed that the proclamations applying these principles to the Transkei come into force. Here we have absolutely no principle whatever. We have a very amiable assurance from the Minister that, as a matter of fact, this regulation will not be applied harshly. We have heard that sort of assurance so often from kindly Ministers. But how often has it not turned out that either the Minister has had a much more temporary occupation of his position than he anticipated at the time, or he had a successor who was in a different frame of mind about it. We cannot take the assurances of the Minister, no matter how well-meant, but we have to look at the actual wording of the section. The Minister knows, as a lawyer—none better—that when you come before a court of justice, the court, in its interpretation of the regulation, is not guided by the expression of intention by any individual member, or the Minister, but by the words themselves. There is a very strong ground indeed for accepting some such principle as moved by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben); if it is not accepted, some of us will be compelled to vote against the clause. I hope the Minister at the report stage will undertake to put in some amendment which will lay down some principles which have to be applicable to the granting of passes. We may have an officer of the department, who, as the section stands at present, may at any time with more zeal than discretion interpret the section strictly and may do something very detrimental indeed, with perfect legality. At any moment something may happen which may induce an official to put before the Minister—not the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Native Affairs, or an acting Minister—some regulation which, it may be thought by him, is justified by the need of that particular moment, and which falls within the section, and upon that some far-reaching regulation may be issued. The only check we have upon that is that the Minister should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). What reason is there for refusing to let hon. members have opportunities of seeing the regulations before they become law, so that discussion may, if necessary be raised upon such regulations.

I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). There is much that might be said for the pass system, but we should have a basic principle to work upon. When the present Government came into power the railways immediately stopped issuing tickets to natives who wished to travel in search of employment, and instructed the magistrates in the territories not to issue passes to natives seeking work in Cape Town, and the natives have reason to believe that Government may declare Cane Town an area to which they may not go. The Minister should give some assurance that there is no intention to diverge from the principles laid down in the old Cape Act.

I am totally opposed to this particular clause for the natives have grown beyond that primitive stage where pass laws are necessary. We wish to see the natives advance in civilization, but a pass law of this kind reduces their status and standard, and makes them feel that they are not subjects of the Union. As a result they will lose a certain amount of responsibility, and their attitude will not be conducive to good citizenship. Passes also create dissatisfaction among the natives. Are these passes official passes, or are private individuals to have the power to issue them? If only official passes are issued, Europeans and natives will be put to great trouble in order to secure them, and the use of night passes will aggravate the difficulty. My experience is that passes are a failure. Stock passes are an absolute farce. The Stock Removals Act is an absolute failure as the farmers issue passes in such a manner as to encourage natives to steal stock. Stock passes ought to contain a description of the stock covered by the pass, but in nine cases out of ten the passes simply say so many head of cattle. I feel the same thing will happen in regard to other passes, and if passes are to be issued by private individuals they might as well be done away with.

The natives attach a vast importance to the franchise and its privileges, and those who have it are very jealous of their rights. When it is considered that the people I am speaking for are enfranchised it should be recognized that a special exemption should be made in their case. We heard yesterday afternoon and evening what a model place Natal is for native administration, while the Cape treatment of natives was held up to contempt, but to-day the representatives of Natal want more drastic powers in order to control their natives. The less we do to irritate the native needlessly the better it will be for the whole of the country.

I hasten to prevent anymore internal combustion in that corner of the House. As far as night passes are concerned, I did think, especially after I had accepted the re-insertion of this proviso, that it would be passed by the committee. As to the question that has arisen in the Natal municipalities, that could be met by a Bill deleting these words about natives wandering about without giving a proper account of themselves. But I do not think this fits into the framework of this Bill. It makes it difficult for me to meet the position, because I find a proportion of the House wishing to whittle the Bill down and another portion wishing to carry it further than I want it to go. I am trying my best to meet every form of opinion on these benches, but I find it impossible unless I have three different Bills. I hope the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) will not press this. If he moves the amendment in the next session of Parliament. I will assist him to get it through. I think the towns will have to be dealt with by separate legislation. I do not see how it is possible to pass all these regulations and proclamations through the House before they become law.

In passing this clause you are taking from the natives in the Cape of Good Hope privileges they have held for 40 years.

They will only be taken away if the proclamation is used.

You can take them away if this clause is passed.

You may.

Although it is necessary and important that it should be done we shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment if the Minister next year will introduce a Bill to amend it. Every private member’s Bill this session has been slaughtered, and unless this comes from the Minister himself we can never get it through. That is a reasonable request to make.

I can promise to consider, but I cannot promise to do. It is native affairs.

I might ask for your ruling Mr. Chairman. If that clause is passed, will it be competent for a member, on dealing with the schedule of the Bill, to move to omit from that schedule the repeal of Act 39 of 1887? The schedule repeals that Act, so I want to know if it will be possible in the final stages for any hon. member to move the omission of the repeal in that section of the schedule. That Act, the Native Registered Voters Relief Act, raises an extremely important point. It means the whole of the provisions of the Hofmeyr Act are going to be repealed if this clause is passed.

The Chairman is not permitted to allow an amendment in conflict with any provision already passed.

If the Minister does not agree to this amendment moved now, then when we get to the schedule of the Act in which this 1887 Act is referred to, and which deals with a large number of privileges of native registered voters in the Cape of Good Hope, will it be competent for an hon. member to move the omission of that from the schedule?

The committee is entitled to move the deletion of the whole schedule. If it can do that, it can move the deletion of a part of it, notwithstanding anything which has been passed or deleted. I shall have to put the schedule to the committee to negative or accept; and, when I do so, any part may be deleted.

Amendments proposed by select committee in lines 40 to 45, and amendments proposed by Mr. Marwick, Mr. Struben and Mr. Alexander, put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Payn put and the committee divided:

Ayes—31.

Alexander, M.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Macintosh, W.

Moffat, L.

Papenfus, H. B.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Payn, A. O. B.

Noes—75.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers. W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler. P. G W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Miller, A. M.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reyburn, G.

Robinson, C. P.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Vermooten, O. S.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended by select committee, then put and Mr. Payn called for a division.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—73.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reyburn, G.

Robinson, C. P.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk. P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—31.

Alexander, M.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Macintosh, W.

Moffat, L.

Papenfus, H B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Blackwell, L.; de Jager, A. L.

Clause, as amended by the select committee, accordingly agreed to.

On amendments proposed by select committee in Clause 26,

I take it we have now reached the most critical clause in this Bill. The clause, as originally drafted, made it an offence, or rather, gave power by regulation to make it an offence—

Very few could have objected to that. Then it was also made criminal—

Few people could, I think, object to that. No one could object to prohibiting the inciting of any native to commit any crime in disturbance of the public peace. Then we come to “to promote feelings of hostility between different races in the Union”—I have doubt, when we come to that, whether there are any hon. members who at some time or other would not have been indicted for that. That has been scrapped, and this is what the select committee has put in its place. [Committee’s amendment read.] Then follows the deportation clause. I want to register my protest against this clause, and that in the most emphatic manner that I can; and I beg the Minister to go back to the first three sub-sections of the clause as originally presented by him to this House. If this clause becomes law and is administered in the same spirit that has been shown on occasions in this House by members of the Nationalist party and the Government when members on this side have attempted to protest against what they thought was unfair treatment of the native, I ask which of us will be free? The Minister of Justice this afternoon seemed to show something of the Prime Minister’s spirit in these matters. He said that native opinion was inflamed by speeches on this side.

At that time.

I have no doubt that the Minister quite genuinely thought that those speeches were wrong; and we thought, equally genuinely, that they were right. I notice, particularly in the Prime Minister, when an attitude is taken up on this side of the House in defence of what we think is something done or attempted to be done unfairly to the natives, he gets up and wags his finger and says, you are doing something “to stir up native feeling.” Let me quote the speech he made and that part which was directed against my right hon. leader in the joint session on the Colour Bar Bill, on the 11th of May, 1926—

Quite right.

In other words, the reasoned protest of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition against the Colour Bar Bill was described by his political opponent as stirring up the feelings of the natives against the white man.” If this Bill is passed into law one of the first persons brought up and indicated under this section may be the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

You are quite capable of doing it.

I will protect him.

When this little dialogue is finished I will get on. I am very much in earnest about this.

made an interjection.

I will say this to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), that if he makes speeches like this he will be deported. If I make speeches in which I say the natives have been unjustly and unfairly treated, I will be told I am stirring up the feelings of the natives against the white man, and I will be deported. We have been told all along by the Minister—

I am applying the test now. The Prime Minister went on to say in his speech—

This was directed against the churches, which were told they were stirring up native opinion and inflaming the natives against the whites because they had presented a remonstrance against the Colour Bar Bill to the Prime Minister. If the Act had been on the statute book a few years ago, in the mood the Prime Minister was in, he would have ordered the prosecution of every minister of religion who signed the protest against the colour bar. We cannot allow a section like this to go into the law. The one who orders the prosecutions is the Minister of Justice, sitting in the Cabinet of which the Prime Minister is the head. I was told that my recent criticism of the administration of the Native Urban Areas Act was stirring up native feeling against the white man. Every criticism of the Government’s native policy is construed as, and hurled back into our teeth, as stirring up the feelings of the natives against the white man. The “hear, hears” on the opposite benches a few moments ago show that I am right. If we protest against what is done to the natives and espouse the cause of the natives, we are liable to prosecution under this. The Minister may shake his head; he will not dare to disagree with me that the protests we have made have been construed as inciting the feelings of the natives against the white man, and that therefore this comes within this clause. The fact that the Minister “does not do it” does not affect my argument; the language, “intended to promote” is exactly the language used by the Prime Minister to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition on the Colour Bar Bill.

I want to submit that there is another point of view in addition to that put forward by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). In the first place, I would like to thank the Government for the change they have made in so far as the alteration of this clause is concerned. It might be said that the first three sections are already covered by the existing law—to incite natives or anyone to commit any unlawful act, is covered by the existing law. To incite, to procure by unlawful methods the alteration of any matter, and to incite to disturb the public peace, are already covered by the present law. It was felt by many that the introduction of this Bill in this manner was arousing hostile feeling, instead of allaying it. I admit that it was done to meet the point of view of some of us who protested against it. This clause, however, does not meet us at all.

Who is “us”?

The members of the Labour party who protested against this particular clause. The protest was shared by many members of the South African party who did not run away during the last division. The creation of hostility between Europeans and natives is made a crime under the Bill. I submit that that is not a crime under any circumstances—it is only when that leads to a breach of the peace that a crime is created. The creation of feelings of hostility is done every day; probably some of the speeches delivered here to-day have done that. I know that stupid speeches are made by natives and that perfectly truthful things are being said by them in a crude manner. But if every speaker who delivered a stupid speech was put in gaol very few members of this House would be safe. I want to move a few amendments. There may be a necessity for some restrictive power over agitation intended to create a breach of the peace between Europeans and natives. And racial agitation should be put down. That, however, was not the intention of the original clause or of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice. I move, as an amendment to these amendments—

You can’t do that—all the Nationalists will be in gaol.

Who is going to put us there?

If trade union agitation is being aimed at the clause should not be there. Is it to be used in case of an agitation for increasing the wages of native mine labourers? I can find no reason for giving the authorities the right to search premises. Under this clause a magistrate may enter the offices of any trade union, may take away any papers and may have them destroyed without delay, so that the trade union would have no opportunity of putting forward its case. I move further—

This amendment will give the right of appeal. I do not know who the deportation clause aims at, but I have a shrewd suspicion that it is aimed at two Europeans and one native. It has been stated that the Europeans aimed at are Mr. Andrews, who was once a member of this House and is Secretary of the Trades Union, and Mr. Glass, while it is said that the native is Kadalie. I submit that it is wrong in principle to take advantage of the fact that Mr. Andrews was born overseas to deport him, and to leave here a man who may have an infinitely worse record but who had the good fortune to be born here. Mr. Andrews is as good a citizen as any member of this House. He may hold entirely different views from hon. members or myself, but that is no reason for deporting him. He has lived here for 33 years. Is he to be deported because he happens to express different economic views from those generally held? No man at present in the Union should come within the scope of the clause. I move further—

It is proposed in the Nationalist Bill to allow any British subject who has been resident here for three years to acquire South African nationality. But under this clause a man could be deported even although he had obtained South African nationality. Although these amendments will not remove the basic wrongness of the clause they will at leat modify it.

I want to make it clear that there is nothing novel about the clause. It is part of the ordinary law of sedition in England, and all these objections could have been raised against it. It could have been said that your Conservatives and Liberals promote feelings of hostility. The word used in the English law is “classes.” In one sense it is so. The intention in this case is where feelings are roused with seditious intent. That is the mischief which we aim at. I know of no case where in England, under this old law, any wrong has been done in its administration. In any case the courts of the country will be a protection against any wrong. With regard to the deportation clause, I disagree that it is meant to deal with men who are in South Africa at present. I do not see much that could be achieved by deporting two or three persons at present in South Africa, but in future there might me a class introduced in this country with regard to whom it might be desirable to have such a clause. I don’t see how any Government would do it in regard to men who have been in the country for thirty years.

But it can be done under the Bill.

No hon. member would want to deport Mr. Andrews after being here for thirty years.

But when the support of your friends over there is of no further use to you, you might have a different opinion.

I hope the friendships made might last a lifetime. I am not talking of personal friendships. I don’t put much on this deportation clause. If I might be allowed to say so I should miss every one of them if, in course of time, legislation was necessary to get rid of them.

Why not wait until they come, and then introduce the Bill?

I have an open mind on that, and if the suggestion is made and meets with the support of all hon. members on that side of the House I will accept it, but when one portion is against me and another is supporting me, it is difficult to do anything. As far as the stalwarts on this side are concerned, they are in favour of this deportation clause, but they are anxious to meet hon. gentlemen if we knew what they wished us to meet them upon.

On the motion of the Minister of Justice it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported: House to resume in committee to-morrow.

Before we read the next order perhaps the Minister will move the adjournment of the House so that we can have a chance of getting a ticket and going to the meeting to-night.

I am afraid I cannot do that, although I feel it would do the hon. member good to be at the meeting.

When we reported progress we were discussing an amendment suggested by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). The Minister of Finance expressed himself in sympathy with the amendment, but said that he could not accept it in the form in which it was drafted. Since the matter was last discussed, I have seen the Minister and submitted a suggestion for a compromise. All members feel that the position of affairs whereby the provincial councils charge 10 per cent. per month on poll tax and income tax, which is unpaid, is an impossible position, and we want to arrive at some means to stop that intolerable state of affairs. My suggestion to the Minister is that we take as a basis of the limit of power to be placed on the provincial council with regard to overdue payment, the rates of pay allowed under the Usury Act last year. We laid down there a sliding scale, whereby up to £10, 30 per cent. per annum could be charged and between £10 and £25 we allowed 20 per cent. interest to be charged.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.4 p.m.

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock I was trying to put the case for the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). He wants in his amendment to make impossible in the future the present state of affairs by which poll taxpayers and income taxpayers in the Transvaal province are liable to a penalty of 10 per cent. per month. I think I am right in saying that generally the feeling in regard to such a penalty is that it is iniquitous. It is usury, and it is absolutely indefensible. My hon. friend proposes to meet that by limiting the penalty to 1 per cent. per month, which is a perfectly reasonable proposition, but, for reasons which the Minister has given, he finds it impossible to accept that. He says that 1 per cent. per month is adequate in the case of the income tax, but a penalty of 1 per cent. per month on a poll tax of £1 or 30s. is no deterrent. Therefore, I want to suggest that we take as the limit of penalty to which the provincial councils may go the rates laid down in the Usury Act which we passed last year. I have seen the Minister about this, and I have seen some of my friends on the cross-benches, and I think the Minister will accept my amendment to the hon. member’s proposal. The hon. member is prepared to accept this as a fair compromise, and I, therefore, move, as an amendment to the new clause proposed by Mr. Stuttaford—

Then it may be necessary for the Minister to move in words which would make this operate in future and not in regard to existing provincial legislation.

As I pointed out to the House on a previous occasion, I consulted the Transvaal provincial administration in regard to this proposed amendment when my hon. friend the member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) raised the point. As I also told the House, we had, up to the present, only agreed to interfere with the constitutional powers of the provincial councils with their consent. Now the position taken up by the Transvaal Provincial Administration in regard to the proposed amendment is this, that this very heavy penalty in the case of persons liable to income tax in the Transvaal province should be insisted upon. That is a matter in which, not only hon. members who have raised the point, but members on all sides of the House, have come to me and said that we should, as a Parliament, be prepared to take the responsibility of curtailing the rights of the provincial council to impose such a penalty in these circumstances. I may say that it would be invidious to have this distinction between the penalty in regard to the poll tax and the case of the income tax. In the one case, the taxation is paid by the poorer classes of the community, and in the other by the wealthier classes, but it has been pointed out to me that, in point of fact, there is no distinction at all, because every person who pays income tax is also liable under the existing legislation to pay poll tax. In any case, we are not interfering with the rights of the council to exact whatever penalty they like in regard to the poll tax which they may think necessary to ensure the proper collection of that tax. I think this is quite a reasonable request, and I have no doubt that the House will agree to accept that there should be some limitation of the penalty in regard to the taxation of incomes. We, of course, do not want to interfere with the collection of the tax which falls due on the 30th of this month, because, if we did so, it would entail the passing of new ordinances by these councils, which would be very inconvenient for most of them. We shall, therefore, have to move some words into this amendment so that it shall only apply to income tax after the 30th June next, thus enabling the councils to pass the necessary ordinances to bring this question of penalty within the legislation which we are passing. I am, therefore, prepared to accept this solution as a compromise, and I am sure the Transvaal provincial authorities will see the reasonableness of the action which Parliament is taking. I would suggest, as a further amendment to the proposed new clause—

I move accordingly.

I must thank the Minister for meeting this case so satisfactorily. There are just two verbal suggestions I would make. One is that I think the proviso just moved by the Minister should precede the whole amendment. I think it would make it more clear to put this qualification in the beginning. The other point, for clarity’s sake is that when you take the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) you are talking here in this amendment of penalties and the clause in the Usury. Act is dealing with interest on money lent.

We merely accept the rates.

Well, the Minister, when he sees it in cold print, will satisfy himself whether it is clear.

I hope the Minister now realizes where he has pushed the Transvaal Province to in taking £180,000 a year from them. I admit he found £112,000 to partly make it up to them but he left them short, and the consequence is to further interfere now with their collection of necessary revenue and drive them to devious ways of having to make good the deficiency. He has had to find about £300,000 in all owing to the attitude he has taken up in regard to provincial taxation, and the remission of £180,000 a year to the mines, which are more profitable than ever and ungrateful. A loss of £300,000 may be nothing to the Minister but I certainly cannot compliment him on his method of finance. We are now fiddling about with the rights of provinces to put on their own taxation, and interfering with them in regard to raising their revenue. This clause shows the warning we gave, and the attitude we took up last year was a correct one.

I must just correct the hon. member. I do not think he has put the position quite fairly. In the settlement we made I informed the provincial authorities at the time that this is a tax which should disappear. If they wanted to retain it their subsidy would be reduced pro rata and if they were agreeable that the tax should go I would pay them their subsidy. That is what happened. The arrangement has been with their consent. The alteration in their powers so far as the incidence is concerned is not a curtailment. It is done at their request.

I am sorry the Minister cannot extend this relief to the poll tax itself. He quite rightly says that the people who pay income tax also pay the poll tax but there is also the consideration that the person who only pays poll tax is in a much worse position than a man who pays income tax. I had a very hard case brought to my notice a few months ago, where a very poor person had to pay a very substantial amount. These people feel very bitter about this and feel they are being treated unjustly. As far as the poll tax itself is concerned we know there are many people who look upon it as an unfair tax. A woman came to my office and cried about this position. There was no relief for her, she has got to pay. Her husband is getting something like 9s. 6d. or 10s. a day and as the result of this tremendous interest she is actually robbing the home to pay these arrears. It is a most iniquitous thing. The Minister is giving relief to people who pay income tax but that is not relief in these other cases at all. What does appeal to me is the fact that these people deny their children certain things and deny their homes certain things to pay this iniquitous usurious interest that the provincial council demands. I have always taken up the attitude that we should not interfere with the provincial council as far as their methods are concerned, but in this matter there is no principle involved as far as the provincial councils are concerned. This House the year before last passed a law dealing with usury, there we laid by the heels certain people who had been taking advantage of poor people. If we could pass such a law as that we should not tolerate the provincial councils doing what they are doing to-day.

Of course, this is not a question of exacting usurious interest at all. This is a case of a sufficiently heavy penalty to ensure prompt payment of the tax. Of course, the authorities concerned do not want the penalty at all.

But they take it.

I know. But it is really a means of getting the people to pay the tax. In the case of the poll tax I admit it is a heavy penalty but unfortunately what is the alternative? In the law at present provision is made for criminal prosecution but one does not want to resort to that. If you allow this penalty to disappear in the case of the poll tax you will have to resort to criminal prosecution and that we do not want to do. It is merely a question of seeing that the penalty is sufficient to get payment of the tax. I dare say if there is real hardship sufficient pressure could be brought to bear on the councils by the electors in the Transvaal to alter the state of affairs. The reply I got from the Administrator was to the effect that although from time to time objection has been taken they have not found it possible to abandon the penalty altogether and there have not been many of the kind of hard cases cited by my hon. friend. If we were to make any alteration it would be altogether impossible from the point of view of collecting the tax to extend this to the poll tax, and consequently I cannot agree to accept the appeal of my hon. friend.

I am very thankful that the Minister has accepted it, but I should think that the fine should be reduced in both cases, including the case of the poll tax which presses so heavily on poor people. The poll tax is considered a most unjust tax but in addition the heavy fine presses on the poor people. We have double taxation. We have to pay 15 per cent. of what we pay to the Union to the provincial council. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) passed a remark, but he was one of those who put that tax on the people. I should be glad if the Minister would go still further and remove the fine on the poll tax.

Amendments put and agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I would ask the committee to negative this clause. The object of inserting this was because we were requested by the Orange Free State, and later on by the Transvaal also, to preserve their existing ordinances for the present tax year, because it was impossible, or rather, inconvenient, for them to pass new ordinances to put them into conformity with our legislation here. Then we were faced with this difficulty to draft something which would not have the effect of validating ordinances which would be ultra vires. I have been advised by the law advisers that there is no necessity for making provision of this kind.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 3,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

This Bill has to be reserved for the King’s assent because it affects the powers of these councils, and will not in the ordinary way be passed before the 30th of June, and therefore we desire to make this insertion, that this limitation will take effect in the present tax year.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I move—

This Bill of 25 clauses deals with a number of financial matters and certain amendments of the Public Service and Pensions Act. Perhaps it hon. members will follow me, I will shortly explain the object of the various clauses. Clause 1 deals with a certain increased subsidy which is payable to the Cape Provincial Administration in regard to certain schools which were transferred to the province in terms of legislation we passed in 1926. Under that Act the wording did not go so far as was intended —that the province would be entitled to the full subsidy in respect of the pupils attending these schools, because it could not be said that these schools were established and maintained by the province as laid down by the Provincial Subsidies Act of 1925. The first part of the clause entitles the province to subsidy in respect of the pupils in these schools with effect from 1st April, 1926. The second part of the clause implements the agreement made by the Minister of Education and the province to bear half the difference between the expenditure of these schools and the subsidy received from the Union Government for the half year prior to the University Transfer Act coming into operation. The amount in question has already been paid out to the province, and requires validation.

made an interjection.

The full amount will be about £15,000 to which they will become entitled, and this is only the difference between the amount paid by them and the Central Government undertook to pay. There was some delay in passing the Act, and we undertook to pay these subsidies. Clause 2 is proposed for the purpose of deleting the special powers and statutory position conferred on the assistant auditor and controller-general by the principal Act of 1911, making him also responsible to Parliament and appointing him “during good behaviour.” This matter was dealt with by the Select Committee on Public Accounts in 1919, and recommended accordingly. Subsequently the present Controller and Auditor-General also suggested, when the present incumbent of office retired, the matter should be reviewed. This matter has again been dealt with by the present Select Committee on Public Accounts which definitely recommended that the future assistant auditor and controller-general should become an officer of the public service. I think the reason which actuated the committee and also the Auditor-General was that the time may come when you will have a clash between those two officers, and it was not advisable and desirable that that state of affairs should arise, and consequently with the retirement of the present incumbent the new position would be created. Clause 3 deals with the validation of certain investments made contrary to the provision of Section 53 of the present Exchequer and Audit Act, in connection with the investments of the Railways and Harbours. This is also an amendment suggested by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. They suggest the amendment of the section in question, but the Treasury’s view is that the whole section should be deleted, and that the section in the Public Debt Commissioners Act should operate.

Not this year, last year.

It is the Railways and Harbours Select Committee. The position here is that the provisions of the two Acts are inconsistent. The Public Debt Commissioners Act lays down that these investments shall be made by the Public Debt Commissioners, and the Exchequer and Audit Act lays down that they shall be made by the Treasury. For 15 years this has been inoperative, and the Public Debt Commissioners have dealt with the investments. Section 4 extends the period laid down in the Electricity Act during which advances may be made to the Electricity Commission by the Treasury. The four years’ period expired last March, and it is proposed to extend the period for a further three years, by which time we hope the Commission will have their various schemes in operation and be in a more favourable position to go to the money market themselves to obtain funds. Excluding the Colenso power station, the amount which has been advanced to the commission up to the present totals £2,870,000. These advances are repayable in 1950, together with interest at a rate which will recoup the Treasury. The £1,700,000 we are voting this year will be repayable after five years, when it is contemplated that the works will be sufficiently advanced to enable the Commission to obtain funds to repay the Treasury. The railway department is the biggest customer of the Commission, and it is in the interests of not only of outside consumers but of the Government that electric power should be supplied by the commission at as cheap a rate as possible. Clause 5 deals with writing off the repatriation loan, full details of which will be found in the Public Debt Commissioner’s report. Under Clause 6 a further amount is written off in connection with Victoria West municipality. We are writing off £80,000, and the balance we hope it will be within the capacity of the municipality to pay. Clause 7 deals with the disposal of the balance by the Union Government of reparation payments. Up to the present we have received £425,000. We appointed a commission to investigate all claims, and up to the present we have paid out about £51,000, but further payments will have to be made. It is probable that £10,000 more will have to be paid out. This will leave about £364,000, and any further payments which we may receive— we are receiving about £13,000 per quarter— will be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and subsequently will be appropriated to the remission of debt. I think the House will agree that this is the proper method of dealing with the money.

You seem to have made money out of it.

We have a fairly big war expenditure, a portion of which we hope to be able to liquidate in this way. Clause 8 deals with the pensions of members of the Maritzburg police force taken over by the Union Government. The contributions payable by the members of the force will be paid into revenue, which will become responsible for the proportionate share of the pensions payable to these officers. Section 9 has reference to the pensions of certain officers on the staff of the High Commissioner in London on retirement on grounds of age, ill-health and re-organization. We propose to give them the same terms as we accord to temporary officials and non-pensionable officers in the public service. The matter has been a burning one for some time, and we have come to this settlement. The annual cost will be insignificant. Clause 10 concerns the exemption from language requirements of a limited number of officers who have exemption certificates. These officers went on active service. Difficulties have arisen in connection with the promotion of some of these officers, particularly in the Mines Department, and it was felt that it would be reasonable to make provision that these certificates should also entitle them to receive the benefits of officers who have full certificates. The other clauses deal with the pension rights of certain teachers who eventually are transferred to the public service. Section 13 has reference to the pension rights of officers in the prisons and police departments, to make it clear that they will be entitled, as far as pension rights are concerned, to come under the Acts of the provinces under which they were enrolled. It was found that it paid some of these officers to refuse promotion so as to retain their pension rights. It was promised in 1914 to introduce an amendment dealing with the situation, but the promise was never carried out, and we now propose to give effect to it. Clause 14 deals with the award of pensions to coloured and native employees for whom provision is not otherwise made. Under the existing regulations we have to trace the periods during which these people have served, and in many cases the records have been lost, and it is proposed to overcome the difficulty by taking the last ten years of service as the basis for the pension. In Clause 16 we deal with the payment of bonus to members of the Land Bank staff, and restore the pensions rights of the general manager, which were inadvertently taken away. The Board of the Land Bank have the right to fix the salary of its own officers, and the board added a bonus for good service. The Auditor-General raised the question whether the board had the right to give a bonus, and the law advisers held that it was illegal, but the bank took private legal advice, which was to the effect that the payment of the bonus was quite legal. Clause 17 deals with the remuneration of the directors of the Land Bank, and enables them to receive a subsistence allowance when they are travelling. Unless this were done we would be limited in our choice of directors to residents of Pretoria. If the directors live in Pretoria we do not pay them subsistence allowance, but if they live more than twenty miles from Pretoria they will be entitled to it. Section 18 enables the bank to pay preliminary costs in connection with the establishment or proposed establishment of loan companies, and Section 19 makes retrospective certain revaluations of holdings by the Land Department. There are cases where revaluations were taken, but it could only take effect from the time it was done. As a matter of fact, the property was, so far as value was concerned, low at the time of revaluation. It is intended to make it extend from the time of the original allotment. Section 20 deals with the question of the sale of any townships established by the Land Department. It arises in the case of the Umlazi township which was acquired by the Land Department for a considerable sum, to be let out in sites and sell them to recoup ourselves for the money expended. The unsold lots come to the provincial council, but we want to establish that the proceeds of lands acquired by the State for a township will not go to the provincial council, but shall continue to come to the consolidated revenue fund. Clause 21 is to carry out an undertaking given by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs when the Radio Act was introduced. It requires validation for the purpose of auditing. Clause 23 deals with certain endowmentproperties, and the last section extends the period connected with the irrigation loans from six to nine years. This is necessary so that people can get time until we can deal with the whole irrigation problem when legislation is introduced.

I do not want to criticize the various clauses, but I do want to point out the inconvenience to which this method of legislation must put the lawyers. This Bill amends Acts in 1911, 1912, 1922 and 1926. How a lawyer is going to know the law on a given case beats me. This Bill deals with 18 different subjects in its 25 clauses.

What is the remedy?

Keep it down. I do not remember this in the old Cape Colony days. There are five or six clauses, eight, nine, eleven, twelve, fourteen, all of which deal with matters of pension. Why is it not put in a separate Bill, and passed as an amending Act? Never mind the lawyers. What ordinary individual can know to what he must refer in this omnibus Act of 1927 to find out the position. Take the last clause, “rebate of wireless licence fees.” We must not go through at such express speed. I think it is an unsatisfactory way of legislating to bring in a Bill at the end of the session which covers 18 different subjects.

They are all financial matters.

What ordinary individual looking to the law dealing with, say, the Electricity Commission, would know there was an important clause extending their time from four to seven years. We amend in this Bill in two clauses previous financial adjustments. I can imagine the difficulties there must be unless a lawyer takes the Bill and schedules it; unless he takes out the various clauses and attaches them to the Acts affecting them. I do want to urge on the Minister and the treasury this sort of thing should be restricted as much as possible, and I hope the Minister will give instructions accordingly. Take the Land Bank Act; it raises the time for the redemption of certain loans for irrigation purposes, from six years to nine years. Take the Land Bank Act of 1912. It was amended in 1924 and 1925, and now the Act of 1925 is amended, and so it goes on. Take Clause 16. It was amended in 1922, and now it is amended in a clause in this Bill. Where does the law get to? Thank goodness I am not a lawyer myself.

Never mind, they will make you pay for it.

I have no doubt.

I agree we should keep this Bill down as much as we can, and I have done so. We used to get all sorts of things in this omnibus Bill, but I am limiting it to financial matters. It is difficult for lawyers, I know, because it applies to all sorts of things. The parliamentary machine moves so slowly that if you bring in a separate Bill for all these matters, you will not have time to deal with the measures. I would like to bring in a consolidating Land Bank Act. We have amendments spread over a number of Bills, but we do not get the time to attend to these matters. If it were possible to bring in these amending Bills, Parliament could not spend the time to deal with them. This Bill is only to deal with officials and the Auditor-General who are concerned. They are all financial adjustments, and this is a convenient way— in fact, it is the only way.

It is very convenient to the treasury.

And very convenient to Parliament.

And not to the public.

Take the Public Service Pensions Act. It is a very difficult subject, and will never get finality. This is one of the Acts we should like to consolidate, and in a few years time it will be necessary to consolidate this Act. That would be most convenient for the department and for other people, but this is the only practical way to deal with the matters under the existing circumstances in which Parliament finds itself.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

On Clause 3,

Is it clear that the Railway Administration is not going to start investing moneys on its own?

No. The existing Act makes it necessary that should be done by the Public Debt Commissioners. Under the Act we are repealing, it is laid down it shall be dealt with by the treasury.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I suppose the Electricity Commission are paying interest on the money advanced.

We are debiting them now. We shall be getting the first payment of interest, I think, in a few months time. Up to the present we have not been receiving interest.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I do not quite follow this clause. [Clause read.] It would appear from this that the Borough of Maritzburg has made no adequate provision in any case for some of these police, and now it is coming out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

No, they will be liable for the period during which these men served them, but now we are taking them over, the contributions will in future be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and ultimately we shall pay only our share of the pensions. The balance will be paid by the Corporation. These payments are not sufficiently large to warrant the establishment of a new fund.

Perhaps the Minister will tell the committee that it is in the conditions of the agreement under which the police were taken over?

Yes, we are carrying out the agreement.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

According to this clause it looks as if both official languages are not taken into account. According to Act No. 29 of 1912 a person must have matriculated to be admitted to the public service, but subsequently owing to the war, exemptions were granted to people who were fighting and who had been in the matriculation class. According to the 1912 Act, a person was exempted from further language examination if he had passed in Dutch and English as matriculation subjects, but this clause further provides—[para. (a) read]. Therefore, such a person must merely have studied the language as a subject, even if he has only done so for two days. The clause further provides—[par. (b) read], I think this is a little too drastic, and a great injustice towards officials who were in the old republican service and had passed an equivalent examination to the matriculation, but did not have the privilege to be admitted in the same way. I hope the Minister will drop the clause.

I would ask the House to negative this clause, which is the only clause in the Bill that does not deal with a purely financial matter. Representations were made to me when I finished the Bill at the last moment that there were a few young fellows in the service under these conditions, and they are unable to proceed further because it is held by the Public Service Commission that, as the law stands, they are not entitled to promotion. The department concerned, the Mines Department, would like to put the matter right, but, according to existing legislation, they are not entitled to proceed further. I thought the matter was quite in order, but I understood subsequently that it has not had quite sufficient consideration by the Public Service Commission itself, and it may affect other people, which, of course, we do not want to do.

I am sorry the Minister is taking this line. I can understand that there may be difficulties in passing the clause as it stands in view of the fact that other officials may be entitled to similar treatment, but I understand that in some cases, at any rate, promotion was allowed to these young men who came in under the exemption certificate and that, when the Public Service Commission found out that their promotion was not in accordance with the law, these men are now being made to repay the difference between the salaries which have been paid to them for some time and the salaries which ought to have been paid to them if they had rot got promotion. I think that that is a very hard measure to take, and if the Minister cannot see his way to go on with the clause then, of course, it will have to drop, but I think something should be done for these men who have been promoted, and who have now been made to refund the difference between the salaries which they have been receiving and the salaries which they would have received if they had not been promoted.

On the correspondence that I saw I came to the conclusion that it was a hard case. Subsequently, I heard that the matter had not received sufficient consideration. It is not really a financial matter. I am not acquainted with the merits of the whole case, and I am not prepared to ask the House now to agree to this clause. We do not know how it may affect other people who may be similarly situated.

*I may tell the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) that I thought the clause was quite in order, but I now understand that that is not so. The clause will, therefore, be deleted.

Will the Minister consider the point I raised as to the position of these men?

The hon. member will understand that this is not a question with which I am concerned. It does not affect my department really, but I certainly think the Public Service Commission ought to go into the matter and see whether it is possible to come to the assistance of these people and make this amendment. With regard to the case mentioned to me, there is no doubt about the fact that this official is bilingual and he is being asked to refund and the department represented that they would like to put the matter right. Of course, we cannot make laws for individuals. We have to consider the effect perhaps on other people who are also concerned. No doubt the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) will represent the matter to the Public Service Commission.

Perhaps it would be interesting to know how the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) has been so familiar with this particular case and how he has been used as the instrument to try and see that the Minister of Finance—

He was vigilant.

Yes, very vigilant. But perhaps the hon. member will explain to the committee the inspiration that brought forth that vigilance we have heard about.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) made that remark. Nobody has inspired me. I noticed and found the matter out myself. I am glad the Minister is willing to delete the clause because it is an absolutely unfair thing. We ought to maintain bilingualism because it is properly laid down in Act No. 12 of 1916 that anyone who does not know both official languages cannot be admitted to the public service.

I have never denied that the hon. gentleman found it out. I only asked if he would explain to the committee how he found it out.

I happen to know about this case. As members of the service who write to their own members when they have a grievance generally write to me as well. I would like to tell the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) that he is on the wrong track when he thinks that this amendment is trying to do something for a man who is not bilingual. There are very few men more bilingual than this particular man at Pietersburg. The trouble came about this way. He got his matriculation exemption certificate as a man who had been on active service, but when he applied in 1919 to come into the service he was told the certificate was not a sufficient qualification. After the Act of 1920 he was told he was eligible and he was appointed to the permanent staff and got increments year by year in the ordinary way. In 1926 he was advanced to the second grade, the increment being from £235 to £270. When he was due to an increase on the 1st April this year to the £290 scale he was informed that the increments paid to him in the past had been paid by an oversight. The technical point was taken that the Act of 1920 only secured him in his appointment and he could not be promoted until he had passed an examination again. He was surcharged for the sum of £34 15s. and this is being deducted from his salary at the rate of £3 per month. He has to remain on this salary until he has passed in English and Dutch in the matriculation. The hardship is this, that he was deemed to have been sufficiently advanced to have passed all the necessary examination papers in the matriculation which would include the official languages. This man is absolutely bilingual and knows both languages perfectly well, yet because of the technical view taken of the law he has to go through the examination in the subjects in which he is quite proficient before he can get his promotion. The money granted to him in the ordinary way is being taken back from him at the rate of £3 per month. I hope the Minister will keep an entirely open mind in the matter. I must say this man has a perfectly sound case.

I hope the House will not pursue this matter further. It will have to be properly considered as to what the effects will be.

The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) has been burrowing under the wrong tree.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 11,

May I ask for some information from the Minister in regard to the proviso in sub-section (2) of this clause. The teachers in the Maritzburg Technical College have been taken over under the Higher Education Act for the last nine or ten months, and I am concerned as to whether this proviso will interfere with these teachers being permitted to contribute.

Is the hon. member’s point that these people have already been there for some time, and that the three months have already expired? I take it these three months date from the time that this Act comes into operation. Of course, this section is really to give the pension benefits to these particular teachers amongst others and I hope we are achieving that by the section as drafted. Of course, the intention is from the time the Act comes into operation. If that does not come out clearly we may deal with it at a subsequent stage. I will go into that matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I would like the Minister to explain what the effect of this alteration will be in regard to native and coloured employees gratuities and annuities which under Section 67 of the Public Service and Pensions Act (27 of 1923) have been hitherto calculated on “salary over the whole service.”

This will be to the benefit of the men. Under existing legislation the pension is based on the average pay over the whole period of the service. So you have to go right back, but we have not got the records of these coloured people, so for audit purposes we are taking the last ten years and it really is to the benefit of the pensioner when he retires eventually.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I notice in line 10, “a member whose residence is”; would it not be clearer if we say “who habitually resides” more than twenty miles away? A man may have two residences. I think the words “whose residence is” should be deleted, and the words “who habitually resides” substituted therefor—

This entitles us to pay, and we will see he is paid. I do not think it makes much difference.

It does.

There is something in what the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) says. If a member of the board has a house in Pretoria and a farm in Pietersburg, where is his residence?

I have no objection; that was the intention.

I move, as an amendment—

Suppose a man has up to now resided in Johannesburg, and attends the meetings of the bank, which are held very frequently, but comes to live in Pretoria, what does it mean to say that he remains at such place in order to attend such meetings?

During the time the meeting is on. When the meeting is finished he has to go back to his residence.

Those words the hon. member has referred to are governed by the previous words—the time actually and necessarily occupied.

What was the position before 1925, before the salary of £750 was granted? In that year the salary was fixed at £750. Previously the allowance was £3 3s. per day, but as soon as the £750 was granted the travelling expenses lapsed.

The point was never raised.

But the Minister now wants to reinstate it?

Yes, because it was subsequently raised. It was always done in practice.

Does not the Minister think that that is a little unfair as the salary is now fixed at £750? Ought not the persons to live at Pretoria? A comparison with public servants is not quite in point because they are appointed permanently, and the members of the Land Bank Board merely for a number of years, but it is a partly analogous case, and I think the Minister would never think of giving a public servant who lived 20 miles outside of Pretoria, and had to come in by motor every day to his office and return at night, an allowance for travelling and detention expenses. To a certain extent the members of the Land Bank Board are in the same position. I want to ask the Minister whether the position of the members of the Railway Board and of the Native Affairs Board are identical. If the member for Waterberg (Mr. le Roux) is the member of the Native Affairs Commission and lives in Nylstroom does he then get an allowance for travelling expenses for attending meetings in Pretoria? If it refers to inspections of farms that have to be made outside of Pretoria I can understand travelling expenses being refunded, but what is the position with regard to the cases mentioned?

The position of a member of the Central Land Bank Board cannot be compared with that of a member of the Railway Board or the Native Affairs Board. I do not know precisely what is done in their cases but we have here to do with a practice which has always been followed in the past with regard to the members of the Land Bank Board who live out of Pretoria and come in to attend meetings there. They always got an allowance for travelling expenses. The work of the Land Bank has always increased and the salary has from time to time been increased, but that has nothing to do with the principle of the allowance. If we laid down that the people must live in Pretoria then we shall probably not get suitable people for the work.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I want to provide for the case of the lessee who has paid up in full.

Oh, no, we are not going back; we are not going to give any refunds.

The man who has played the game, worked hard, been thrifty and paid his instalments is going then to be penalised for the benefit of those who have not paid?

The Treasury has certainly no intention of making them a refund.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

My views on the subject are well-known to the House, and I do not think it necessary for me to repeat what I said when the matter was last discussed. However, because the Bill gives effect to the Asiatic agreement, I am bound to oppose the measure on principle. That agreement was entered into by the Government without consultation with the people who were vitally interested. The latter have cause to complain of the action of the Minister in entering into that agreement without giving Natal, at all events—and I think the Transvaal is in the same position—an opportunity of discussing the agreement with the Minister. It is true that Natal apparently had one representative who attended tne negotiations—the Minister of Labour—but the question is whether he really does represent Natal. I do not think he does. At the last election promises were made that if the Nationalists were returned to power they would deal effectively with the Asiatic question, particularly as regards land and licences. Those promises have not been fulfilled. I am glad to see the Minister of Lands now present, for I should have thought he would have been particularly interested in the subject. I remind the Minister of the speeches he made in Pretoria when the anti-Asiatic congress was held there. I do not know why he is not interested to-day. Is the Minister satisfied with the agreement on behalf of the people of the Transvaal? I put the question to the Minister the other day and I asked him to tell us what his views were but he has remained silent.

I told you to read my speech in the House of 1923.

I ask him whether he considers the agreement gives effect to the feelings and wishes of the people of the Transvaal. So far as the people of Natal are concerned, it does not give effect to their wishes and feelings. But perhaps the Minister is satisfied with the agreement. In 1924, shortly after the Pact was returned to power, the Natal provincial administration passed certain resolutions which were sent to the House. They did it hoping the Nationalists would carry out the promises made during the election to deal effectively with the Asiatic problem. After the resolutions were filed the Minister of the Interior introduced a class areas Bill on the lines of the previous Bill introduced by Mr. Duncan, the then Minister of Interior, which to some extent gave effect to promises made during the election. Where is that Bill to-day? The Minister saw fit to withdraw the Bill, and he gave us in its place an agreement which is worthless. The people who put faith in the promises were sold a pup. I want to refer to the resolutions of the Natal Provincial Council, which were sent to the House. [Resolution read.] There you have a definite statement by the people of Natal who know the problem. The provincial council complained that Natal was never consulted by this Government who promised them all sorts of things in the election. We have reason to complain of the action of the government in entering into an agreement and in now seeking to legislate on that agreement without consulting those vitally interested. The title of this Bill, “Emigration and Indian Relief Further Amendment Bill,” I think might be described as a true designation of what the Bill is. It is certainly aimed at further relief for the Asiatics but where is the relief for the Europeans? There is not one iota of relief accorded to the Europeans who are gradually but surely being suppressed by this pernicious Asiatic penetration which is going on. If hon. members opposite realized what the position is they would not be so jocular on this question. I want to know from the Transvaal members, who keep interrupting me, if they are satisfied with the agreement so far as their constituencies are concerned. It is strange that not one Transvaal member on the Government benches has spoken on this agreement. I invite some of them to get up now and give us their views. The two main points on which this question should have been dealt with are the question of land so far as Natal is concerned and the question of licences both in Natal and the Transvaal. Promises were made by the party opposite during elections that these two vital matters would be effectively dealt with. People in Natal placed their faith in those promises and hoped that some relief would be granted to stem the gradual Asiatic penetration which is going on. In regard to the purchase of land in Natal, I asked the Minister some time ago for some figures showing the value of property purchased in Natal since the Bill, known as the Class Areas Bill, was first introduced by him. In his reply the Minister gave returns which showed that for approximately a period of 18 months about £250,000 worth of property was purchased by Asiatics from Europeans, the total area being 10,048 acres. The value of property purchased by Europeans from Asiatics was £74,500. These figures are certainly very alarming. There is a gradual encroachment going on so far as the purchase of property by Asiatics is concerned. It seems to be that eventually the whole of our property in Natal will have come into the hands of Asiatics. They are gradually acquiring wealth and that wealth they are using for the purchase of property. So far as licences are concerned, I may tell the hon. member from the Transvaal who is so constantly interrupting (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) that in the Transvaal since 1920 the licences increased from 3,331 to 5.975 in 1925. In Natal the number of licences held by Asiatics increased from 3,621 in 1920 to 5.921 in 1926. Let me say that the licences were increased in 1926 owing to the Consolidated Licences Act passed last year, but in 1925 the number had increased to 4,983. I think the year 1925 is the fairer basis to take. I say that to some extent the increases that we see here in the licences are due to a certain amount of bribery and corruption.

Corruption in Natal!

Yes, bribery and corruption, so far as Asiatics are concerned, and those who know the Asiatic realize that there is a marked tendency on his part to bribery and corruption. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour here now. I should have thought he would have taken a greater interest in this subject. I want to know whether he is perfectly satisfied with this agreement which has been entered into, whether he thinks we are going to get rid of the Asiatics in Natal, when, under this agreement, the Asiatics have got the right to go on a joy ride to India and come back to the Union at any time within three years on repaying the money which they have received. The agreement provides that they shall receive the bonus money on leaving South Africa, but no provision is made should any of them decide to return to South Africa to pay interest on the bonus which they have to refund. I wish to tell the Minister that there are a great number of Asiatics who will take advantage of that, who will go to India on a joy ride and, when they come back here, will repay the money which they have received. In the meantime their own money will be earning interest in this country and they will have had the use of the State’s money for anything up to three years free of interest. I know of cases where they have purchased goods from merchants in Durban, and they have sold them again at once at less than the actual amount they paid for them in order to get ready money with which to speculate. Those who run businesses do not pay their employees wages every month.

You have a bee in your bonnet.

They credit the amount of such wages in their books and at the end of a certain time they are paid the wages in a lump sum, without interest. That is a commonmethod of carrying on their business. It is necessary to have some protection against the economic pressure which is brought to bear upon the Europeans who are trying to compete against the Asiatics. It is impossible to compete against Asiatics in business, and it is also impossible for Europeans to compete against them in the purchase of land. I know of a case where an old voortrekker’s farm was put up for sale. The executors tried to impose the condition that it was not to be sold to any Asiatic, but they were advised they could not legally do that, and it was purchased by Asiatics who paid far more than any European could pay, and more than the heirs could pay. The time has come when we absolutely must call a halt to this kind of thing. I hope the Minister will tighten up the clause which is imported into the Bill dealing with Asiatics who have been brought in illicitly. There are numbers of them who have come in illicitly. The Asiatic Commission report in 1920 showed that numbers were being brought into the country illicitly through Portuguese territory. [Quotation read.] Is it realized that, under existing legislation, the children numbering 600, coming in every year, are practically all boys? There is a tremendous lot of evasion of the immigration laws by Asiatics. They are coming into this country illegally far more rapidly than we realize. I welcome the clause where the Minister has made provision that no child shall come in unless accompanied by his mother.

But you oppose it.

I oppose it on principle, because I am against the agreement. I say there are clauses which are beneficial, but on principle I oppose the agreement, because it does not give effect to what we require to meet what, to some of us, appears a great menace, and which will be a far greater menace in the future.

Won’t you give it a trial?

I feel it is going to be a hopeless failure from the word “go.” There are Asiatics to-day in India who left this country voluntarily, who gave up their domicile, who left the country for good, and who would give anything to come back to this country. I think the Minister will agree with me that that is correct That is why the Asiatic delegation made provision that they should be allowed to go there for three years to see what it is like. People who have been to India all say that the condition of the Asiatics of the class we have here is far better in South Africa than it is in India. If they go to India they will return to this country, and we will not get rid of them. The system will be a hopeless failure.

Evidently you do not want to get rid of them.

I do. You have made the position of the Asiatic in this country far better and easier than it was before.

Easier to go out, and harder to come back.

The Asiatic will stay here and hold on. He has become a menace. He is taking away the rights of our children.

The Wage Act is fixing that up.

But what is going to stop the Asiatic running his own business? In Australia they passed a law that they had to put a brand on the furniture if it was made by coloured labour. That is how they managed to overcome it. In Natal we are faced with a very grave menace, and the only way of effectively dealing with it, to my mind, is to have proceeded on the lines of the previous Bill which was introduced by the Minister. We would then have been on a sound basis. The Asiatic is now purchasing land and extending his tentacles. Asiatics purchased a quarter of a million of property last year. The Minister of Labour does not mind. If life in Natal became unbearable owing to further inroads by the Asiatic into our economic life he would pack up his bag and leave.

The hon. member is not entitled to say that.

At all events, I blame the Minister for not looking after the interests of Natal. We did look upon him as our representative in the Cabinet, to see that our interests were safeguarded. He should have seen that the people or Natal were consulted before this agreement was finally settled. The agreement was made, and the people of Natal are not prepared to accept it. To bear that out, I may say that the provincial council passed the resolution previously referred to unanimously.

This is the best agreement that has ever been made.

I notice here that under the domicile clause, if I happened to leave the country of my birth, without a certificate of identity, and remained away for more than three years, I lose my domicile, and I will not be entitled to enter the country again except as a stranger. The Minister gives himself the power to allow Asiatics who fail to register in the Transvaal to register now if they give good reason for their previous non-compliance with the law. Does he think there are Asiatics in Transvaal who did not know what the law was? The people who will register will be those who enter the country illegally, and I warn the Minister to be very careful for the majority of the Asiatics will have come in through evasions of the registration law. People who evade the law in this way should be severely punished. I am very sorry that the Minister departed from the original law he introduced which would have given us some relief. It is absolutely necessary there should be segregation in towns, but, unfortunately, the Minister has come to an agreement which none of us believe will be effective. For how long are we to give the agreement a chance?

For two or three years.

This legislation is not going to help us. It would have been better for us if no agreement at all had been entered into, and the matter had been left as it was. We have been hopelessly prejudiced under the agreement and it will be very difficult to overcome the effect of the agreement in the future and to stop the acquisition of land by Asiatics and to deal with the question of Asiatic licences. The Minister says he is going to deal with the matter by means of the Wage Board. Does he think every Asiatic will pay the standard wages?

He must or he will be prosecuted.

It is the easiest thing in the world to evade the payment of those wages, particularly by Asiatics. You know how they overcame the Shop Closing Act—they made all their employees partners.

They had no Wage Act then.

We shall have more unfair competition, for while Europeans will pay high wages the Asiatics will pay low. I am very disappointed in the whole of the agreement. I am confident had the Minister consulted some of the Natal members, this agreement would never have been concluded in the form it is. We should have been consulted and asked what our opinion was before the agreement was settled, and if that had been done we should not have had the dissatisfaction we have to-day.

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) says that the Nationalists made all these promises to the people. I should just like to remind him that the Nationalist party congresses have passed resolutions year after year for the repatriation of the Asiatics with compensation, and that is all. The Minister has made it clear, and laid down as to licences, that the matter shall be left in the hands of the Licensing Boards in each province. The hon. member had a long list of complaints and is dissatisfied, but now I want to ask him whether this Government is responsible for the presence of the Indians in Natal and also the Transvaal?

Who says that?

Everyone in this House knows the history of the Indians in our country and how they came here. The hon. member should just remember that Natal had self-government before the Union. Why did they not then take the coolies by the neck and put them out of the country? The leader of the Opposition himself when he was in power had trouble in connection with the matter and entered into an agreement with Ghandi. The hon. member must also remember that there are 100,000 Indians in our country who were born here, and no Government has the right to take them by the neck and to throw them out of the country. Therefore I am so surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Newcastle. The Minister has settled the matter by negotiation, and I believe the Government have done the best they possibly could do in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member talks here about the coolies coming back after they have received the compensation. The Minister has already said that when once the coolies have once been back in India for a year or two they will not have the money to come back again and, in addition, to refund the amount of the compensation. After that they will no longer be permitted to come back. And the Indian Government itself has promised to receive the coolies and to make arrangements for settlements and to assist them. What does the hon. member want then? Does he wish an Act passed to deport the Indians if India will not receive them? It is easy to criticize and to talk big, but I should like to ask what the hon. member would do if he were in the position of the Minister. The matter was settled after negotiations. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) tried to make arrangements to get the Indians out of the country, but he could get no further. What the Minister of the Interior has done is still the best that could have been done to get the coolies out of the country. The hon. member makes no suggestion but merely criticizes. The Bill introduced by the previous Government was impracticable. The matter cannot be settled by force. The compromise of the Minister is the best that was possible.

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has repeatedly attacked me about a speech I made in 1919 in which I said that the coolies should be kicked out and sent back, cost what it might. I asked the hon. member repeatedly to read the speech which I made in 1923 as one of the responsible leaders of the Nationalist party when we were in opposition, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), then Minister of the Interior, introduced the Class Areas Bill.

What did you say in Pretoria?

I was not even a member of Parliament, and the hon. member may safely read out what I said because it is not so bad as he makes out. What the hon. member for Durban (Central) at that time said in the debate on the Class Areas Bill is precisely what the Minister of the Interior has now done here, and he is one of the people from Natal, one of the fire-eaters. In my speech I said, inter alia—

That is precisely what the Minister is now doing and proposing in the Bill. The hon. member for Newcastle now states that we Transvaalers were such fire-eaters that we wanted to take the Indians by the neck and throw them out of the country. If the hon. member reads my speech further on he will see that I said that thousands of Indians were born in the country and that we could not do such a thing. I made that speech while I was in opposition, but it was not the kind of speech which the hon. member for Newcastle has just made. I tried to assist the Minister of the day by saying what ought to be done if we wanted to settle the question. It is no use passing a Bill if it cannot be carried out, and that would undoubtedly have been the case with the Class Areas Bill I am glad that the present Minister of the Interior succeeded at the conference in arriving at a solution. I will not say that it is the ideal solution and that it is what I should do if I had the power. Where, however, you have to do with another nation and where persons have acquired domicilium then you must be satisfied with the best solution obtainable. It is not an ideal solution, but it is the best solution obtainable, and I think it is better than leaving the position as it was. I suspect that more Indians will now return to India than was the case before, and when the representatives of the Government of India arrives here shortly and gives us his assistance and co-operation I think the repatriation will take place much quicker. If the agreement does not have a satisfactory result then we have at any time the right to take a different course.

You have to wait three years.

No, if we are convinced that the agreement is not working then we can abandon it at any time. The position is that if you want to do such a thing then you must do something that is useful. It is no use passing a Bill that is going to be a dead letter. As the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) said, our party has repeatedly passed resolutions that a proper agreement should be come to and the Indians be bought out. They are not being bought out now, but we are giving a grant and other facilities for repatriation, and this will result in more Indians leaving the country.

They now have the chance to go to the universities.

The hon. member always sees a ghost where there is none.

Our objections are, however, greater than the Minister of Lands has just said. He must remember what attitude the two parties took up during the past ten or fifteen years—on this question. I think it is fair to say that the S.A. party took up the attitude that it was a difficult question and that we must go slowly. The Minister will remember that when the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) as Minister of the Interior introduced the Class Areas Bill in 1924, the greatest criticism by the Nationalist party was that the Bill did not go far enough, and that it was not stringent enough. The Minister of Lands even said that one reason why he would support the Bill was because segregation was proposed.

I said that it would not have the expected result.

The Minister undertook in any case to support the Bill. The view of the S.A. party at that time was that one should go slowly, but the Nationalist party then said to the S.A.P. Government: “You are not doing your duty. The Indians should be taken by the neck and thrown out of the country.”

Read my speech of 1924.

That was the speech in the House of Assembly. In his resolution at the Pretoria congress the Minister proposed that strong representations should be made to Parliament to pass legislation, to appoint a special board of arbitration to expropriate and compensate all the Indians’ interests and to repatriate them to India, and at the end the resolution said that they ought to have no civil rights whatsoever.

Are we now giving them civil rights?

It is a proposal which the Minister made, but what do we find to-day in the agreement with India? Inter alia, there is a promise by the Minister of the Interior to the Indian deputation that we would try to influence the provincial councils to alleviate the licensing laws.

You know it is not so.

The agreement says that when the time comes for revising the existing Trading Licences Ordinances the Union Government will give due consideration to the suggestion of the deputation that the discretionary powers of the local bodies should be curtailed.

The word “consideration” is used.

Am I to understand that the Minister had his tongue in his cheek when he said that? When I negotiate with a man and ask him to help me and that. I would try to get one thing or another alleviated and that I would consider the inducing of other people to do so then I ask if that is not a promise.

No.

Then I do not know what a promise is. The “Afrikander,” a newspaper supporting the Government, says that the Minister does not appreciate that the future is not safe in his hands. The paper states that there is nothing in the whole agreement which can be placed to the credit of the Europeans. My great objection to the Bill is that an agreement is made with the Indian deputation and although it is a matter of great importance to our country it was never submitted by the Government for the approval of Parliament. The Minister did not dare to do so, because the hon. members for Losberg (Mr. Brits), Ventersburg (Mr. Boshoff), Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) and for Rustenburg would not have dared to vote in this House for such an agreement. They would never again have held their seals if they had voted for the agreement. My objection to the second reading is that the Minister is submitting the agreement to the country by means of the second reading of this Bill.

You could surely have moved to reject the agreement.

It is not our responsibility. The Government entered into the agreement and had to lay it on the Table. The Minister, however, would not even have the agreement printed, and we had to read it in the newspapers. I say that it was the duty of the Government to bring the agreement before the House and to have it approved. I only hope that hon. members opposite appreciate that by adopting the second reading they are giving their approval to the agreement entered into between the Minister of the Interior and the Government of India.

We are surely submitting it to Parliament now?

You can vote against it.

The chief principles of the agreement are not in the Bill, but by putting the Bill on the statute book we are tacitly approving the agreement.

Ask for a division.

We know what the steam roller will do. I think that the whole of the public in the Transvaal and Natal are of opinion that this Bill is not what is being striven for. The Bill is entitled. “Bill for the emigration and relief of Indians.” We want relief for white people from the Indian, not vice versa. We know what promises the Nationalist party made with reference to the Indian question.

Read out some of the promises.

I read half a dozen on a former occasion. The Minister of Justice said on two or three occasions that the Indians would be taken by the neck and they would see that there was compulsory repatriation. It is unnecessary for me to give all the references. Last year at Lydenburg he again said that he would see that the Indians in the Union would be rendered innocuous, that South Africa would remain a white country.

We are now doing that.

The attempt is equivalent to putting your hand into a lion’s cage to stroke him down in order to tame him. There is no doubt that we in the Transvaal, including the Transvaal members opposite, do not believe that 100 Indians will leave the Transvaal. If hon. members will ask the Indians, they will see. The Indians say that, however difficult they find it in the Transvaal, they still make more here than in India. Some of them will take the money and go to India and return. They will pay back the money and, according to the agreement, they can return within the three years. We shall see that after three years of this agreement many of them will have returned.

Is that a prediction?

The Minister of Labour said by way of interjection to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) that the Wages Act would assist in making the Indians in Natal innocuous, or, at any rate, that they would have no chance as against the Europeans. But the principle of the agreement is that in so far as the application of similar legislation is concerned, the Indians are put on an equal footing. My great objection, however, is that by means of this law we shall have to approve of the agreement, and I cannot approve it in that way.

It is quite refreshing to see the enthusiasm on the other side for this agreement, the enthusiasm of those members who had been thundering through the country for years before they came into office telling us what they would do with the Asiatics, that they would shoot them into the sea. That is all changed now. They coo like turtle doves. There is, however, a general consensus of opinion in the country to-day that this agreement should be given a fair trial, because it is supported both by the Union and the Indian Governments, and it is our duty to try and make it a success. It has behind it the goodwill of the people of the two largest provinces in the Union, the Cape and the Transvaal. That does not apply to the Free State nor to Natal. Public opinion is notably of a shifty character, and changes like the wind, but in the Free State and Natal it is as steady as a rock on this question. Allowing that to be the case it must be admitted that any Parliamentary or public condemnation of the agreement entered into between the two Governments would actually leave us worse off than before. We could not convene another round table conference, and any further expression of South African opinion would be discountenanced by the fact that the Union was divided in opinion. I supported the Government proposals last year in their legislation because it went some distance at least and was described by the Minister of the Interior as a safe and sound middle course. I believe when two races meet which are so different as European and Asiatic civilizations in language, habits and traditions, it is better they should occupy separate and distinct areas. There is not necessarily any imputation of inferiority on either side in the social separation of the two races. The Asiatic Commission of 1920-’21 reported that segregation of some kind was the panacea recommended by all the witnesses who appeared before them. This was adopted in the Class Areas Bill, which was decreed by the then Opposition as entirely too mild and limited in its nature, but the present Government last year initiated a Bill on similar lines, indeed it was taken almost line for line from that introduced by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) when Minister of the Interior, and was accepted generally by the House. The Government has now abandoned the 1926 proposal in favour of the Bill which is before us to-day, and is based on the agreement entered into with the Indian Government as the result of the round table conference held in Cape Town. The Minister of the Interior now pronounces his new proposals as practical and peaceful. Let us hope that they will prove prudent and profitable as well as practical and peaceful for the well-being of this country. It is, therefore, right for us to endeavour by our support to make them as successful as we can. The agreement has two main objects first, a scheme of assisted emigration of Indians on more favourable terms than have hitherto been placed before the country, and, second, the upliftment of the Indian community in South Africa. Well, the latter is a decided leap in the dark which it is to be hoped will not bring about a lowering of the vitality and influence of the white population of this country. There is a further agreement by the Union Government to give consideration to suggestions by the Government of India delegation in regard to the powers of local licensing authorities. That is rather a far-reaching proposal. There are also new provisions in regard to the entry of wives and children of Indians who are domiciled in the Union. The question of new licences is not an immediate question before us. I have two proposals in connection with the agreement which, I believe, will supplement and help the better working of that agreement. The first is that the Government appoint an emigration agent in India who would see to the welfare of Indians who go there from this country.

The Indian Government is doing that.

I am aware that the Indian Government is providing an agent in this country, but I believe it would be very useful indeed if the Government should provide a representative in India. It may be said, of course, that it is almost unnecessary to have an agent in India in so far as the scheme which is now before us will probably not take so many Indians back to India, in view of the fact that so many Indians have been repatriated during recent years, but the Minister, on the second reading of the Bill, said that a large number of South African-born Indians who had never been to India would take advantage of that new emigration scheme, and I am sure that the Minister is in the best position to know whether a large number will take advantage of such a scheme. The repatriation scheme has been seriously handicapped through being discountenanced by the Indian congress in the past, and also by the remarks of that lady who visited this country a few years ago, Mrs. Naidoo, who termed it “a menace to all Indians.” This, despite the fact that the voluntary repatriation scheme was the suggestion of Sir Benjamin Robertson, who was associated with the Indian Commission presided over by the late Judge Lange and sat in 1921, as the representative of the Indian Government. He made representations at that time that it would be a useful thing to set up an emigration scheme, and he proposed, the substitution of the word “emigration” instead of the word “repatriation.” The presence of a Union representative in India would also be useful in many other ways. He would look after Indians as they arrive and prevent such trouble as arose last year when about 2,000 Indians who came from Trinidad, Fiji, Surinam and British Guiana were stranded in Calcutta and were reduced to a state of abject misery. I think the Government should take into consideration the advisability of appointing an agent in India to look after the interests of these people and also to see that people taking advantage of this scheme do not do so just for a holiday trip or joy ride to India and then come back to South Africa again. The second proposal I have to make is the removal of provincial barriers in this connection. This is a very large question and there is no doubt this should have been done at Union. Then Natal would not have had this menace and much of the trouble that has taken place. After all what is Union? Why are we in union? And if we are in Union why should we not have equal status? This matter has been referred to from time to time in this House and in 1911 the suggestion was made by the Imperial Government whether the Union Government would be prepared to break down the barriers between the various provinces. The reply was “not at present.” Sixteen years have since elapsed, and I think the time has arrived when this matter should be reconsidered. We have had various representatives of the Union Government from other provinces at the round table conference but our only representative was that flower of democracy, the Minister of Labour, who represented Natal. I hope he forwards the request for removal of the barriers between the provinces. There are as many Indians as there are Europeans in Natal, and it is becoming a menace to white civilization not only in Natal but throughout the whole country. In the Union we have a white population of over a million and a half, and if the barriers were broken down the absorption by the other provinces would be such that it would not be the menace it is to-day. It is a proposal that should receive the serious consideration of the Government. This refusal to allow the breaking down of the provincial barriers is largely due to the fact that Natal is held responsible for the Asiatics being in this country. It cannot be repeated too often that when Indians were introduced into Natal in 1860 as agricultural labourers it was against the will and the wish of the colonists of that day. As agricultural labourers they were never a menace, and it was not until 1880 that we found traders arriving in Natal. They were so called Arabs, and these are the people who have become a menace in this country. They came from various places such as Somaliland, the shores of the Persian Gulf, and in many cases were not even British subjects. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) when introducing his Bill a few years ago, the son of the agricultural labourer of to-day becomes a competitor of the artizan, and of the professional man to-morrow. Besides these people who came in from the places I have mentioned, there are many who came in from East Coast ports through Delagoa Bay; they went into the Transvaal, and filtered through into Natal. We have a good right to ask the Government to take action in this particular matter; it is not fair that one province of the four should be saddled with a population equal to its white population. The taunt against the people of Natal is unworthy of the people of the country and of the Government. We have recently had announced that an agent general is to be appointed to the Union in the person of the hon. Mr. Sastri, who is an extraordinarily able man, but who in his speeches since he has been appointed has not been quite tactful, as he talks of the uplifting of the Indians in this country, and that they mean to push on to the ultimate goal when they shall obtain the franchise in South Africa. That is a dangerous phase we are entering on. Those who knew Mr. Sastri in years gone by know he is a very able, astute and capable man. He states that he is going to spend half his time in Cape Town and the other half in Pretoria. This is a matter about which we have nothing much to say, but I hope he does not propose to come lobbying while parliament is dealing with this and cognate questions. Quite apart from the question of the franchise, there is the matter of the education of the Asiatics. The Minister of the Interior has recently given authority for the beginning of the uplifting of the Indian in Natal by a course of technical and higher education. That will quickly put the Indian on a footing of equality with the European in the professions and the higher walks of business. What about the matter of defence? Are these men to become members of our citizen defence force, and if not, are the Europeans of Natal, to protect their wives, families and property while the Indians pursue their own avocations of life? These are all questions that need very grave consideration, and we hone they will receive that particular attention they deserve. There is no doubt that this agreement has brought about a somersault in the Government’s policy. The endeavour to bring about the uplift of the Indian community so as to form an accepted portion of the population would be very interesting if it embraced the whole of the Union and was not confined to the province of Natal. If, however, it is to be confined to Natal where seven-eighths of the Indian population of the Union live, it is fraught with dangerous possibilities for the future. However, I have every desire to see the agreement become a success, and for that reason I shall support the Bill.

The Indian question in Natal has been a very important one indeed and has caused a great deal of feeling. I remember a good many years ago when the working classes of Natal were very strongly handicapped by Asiatics taking their positions, many trades in Natal being almost entirely held by Indians There was an agitation at that time to get rid of the Indians, and when the agitation spread from the working classes to the shop-keeping community it grew in volumes. We have to view this problem from more than one aspect, and from more than the aspect of Natal. We have to view it from a Union aspect, and from the aspect of the British Empire. Do hon. members opposite now want to set up a colour bar in trade against certain subjects of the British Empire? Do they want to shut out one section of the community because they happen to be coloured, and say they shall not trade, and thus create another colour bar? When their shop-keeping friends are affected by this particular menace then they demand a colour bar all the time. After the attitude he has taken up on this Bill the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) cannot conscientiously refuse to vote for a colour bar.

Don’t talk nonsense.

The problem is not one of a colour bar at all, but we have too many races to enable us to assimilate them rapidly and thus make a distinct civilization. The civilization of the Indian is different from the European, and one of the greatest reasons why we have not been able to assimilate them up to date, is because there are too many of them. In Australia there are only 2,000 Indians spread over the whole of the European population, and they can assimilate them and never know they are there. In Natal, we have something like one to one, and we cannot assimilate them, and that is why we find the problem so difficult to deal with. It is not a problem of segregating the Indians, but of reducing their number. There are two possibilities before us, one is the scheme of repatriation, a scheme of constitutional terrorism to drive them out, but that would be impossible, for there is no better example of passive resistance than the Indian. That policy always fails with the Asiatic. We had another policy, the policy of negotiation, conciliation and agreement, and that is the policy followed by this Government. If we had put into force the Class Areas Bill, voluntary repatriation would have dropped to nothing. I know from experience that any Indians going back to their own country under such a scheme would have been regarded as traitors to their fellow-citizens, and in India would have been treated as outcasts. No Indians would have left this country. In any race ghetto they thrive, they do not diminish and the Indians would have increased instead of decreasing, and that is one of the reasons to congratulate the Government on its policy. We must aim at reducing the Asiatics, and the Government are doing the right thing in that direction. We have an agreement in which the Indian Government is taking a definite part to encourage voluntary repatriation from this country. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) said opinion in Natal and the Free State is against this. I submit it is not. A good deal of uninstructed opinion like that of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) is against this, but all reasonable-minded men are in favour of it, and even some of the important papers have come out on the side of the Government. I submit that a great deal of the information that is conveyed to the people in this regard is inaccurate. There is a tremendous amount of prejudice and inaccuracy shown in connection with this matter. We had an instance of the wild and rash statements which are made in connection with evidence which was given before the select committee by a gentleman from Krugersdorp. In Natal we find that the population, although it is increasing in regard to Asiatics, is not increasing at such a percentage rate as the white population is.