HL Deb 03 August 1909 vol 2 cc855-70

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH had an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 26. The clause ran— The qualifications of a senator shall be as follow:— He must—

  1. (a) be not less than thirty years of age;
  2. (b) be qualified to be registered as a voter for the election of members of the House of Assembly in one of the provinces;
  3. (c) have resided for five years within the limits of the Union as existing at the time when he is elected or nominated, as the case may be;
  4. (d) be a British subject of European descent;
  5. (e) in the case of an elected senator, be the registered owner of immovable property within the Union of the value of not less than five hundred pounds over and above any special mortgages thereon.
For the purposes of this section, residence in, and property situated within, a colony before its incorporation in the Union, shall be treated as residence in and property situated within the Union. He moved to insert after "British subject," in paragraph (d), the words "and if representing the Province of Transvaal or Orange Free State." He had a similar Amendment to the clause relating to the qualifications of Members of the House of Assembly. The object of the Amendment was to qualify natives for election to the Union Parliament as representatives of the Cape or Natal. In these colonies no bar of race or colour existed to election to the local assemblies, so that his Amendment, if carried, would maintain the existing law with respect to natives in the Cape and Natal. Since he spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill he had received a copy of a petition of a simple but touching character from the assembled chiefs in these colonies pleading with great earnestness for the retention of the privileges they now enjoyed in the Cape and Natal, and which, they said, and said truly, they had never abused. This petition had been addressed to the Governor-General at the Cape to be forwarded to the King. Had he known of its existence before, he would have moved that the petition be printed and circulated among their Lordships. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill there was an extraordinary concurrence of opinion as to the impolicy, if not something worse, of making the natives ineligible for election to the Union Parliament. The one exception was Lord Northcote, who referred to the strength of the popular feeling in Australia in favour of maintaining that Commonwealth as a white country. But there was a wide difference between Australia and South Africa. In Australia the demand was not that coloured inhabitants should be disqualified for all time from taking any part in the government of the country, but that the immigration of coloured people should not be permitted. In South Africa there was no such absence of coloured population as there was in Australia. The blacks were there; they could not be excluded or got rid of, and they multiplied more quickly than the whites. In these circumstances was it good policy that they should be excluded from the sphere of government? In Cape Colony there were over 22,000 natives on the register. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, had spoken of the Cape as a halting place to which people did not go to settle. That might be said of many places. But the pathetic fact was that the Cape had become a halting place because it was not a good place for the settlement of whites in consequence of the dissociation of sentiment between the blacks and the whites. Since the blacks were there he maintained that it was a matter of policy and of good government to provide that they should be duly qualified, without any bar on account of race or colour, to enter the sphere of legislative government. He had been speaking hitherto of the natives of South Africa alone, but there were many other persons of colour there. Among them were University men, medical practitioners, men in considerable positions who had earned the respect of their white fellow subjects; and if the Bill were passed in its present form these men would be disqualified for election to the Union Parliament. It was said that if any change were made in the Bill it might endanger the scheme of the Union. As to that, he had heard that if a sincere and clear issue had been raised at the Conference by the representatives of the Cape and Natal in favour of making the coloured races in these colonies eligible for election the disqualification would not have been inserted in the Bill; but no such proposal had been made. He was surprised at the degree of tolerance and, indeed, of agreement expressed by certain members of the delegation now in London in regard to what he had said in favour of the coloured races in the debate on the Second Reading. He admitted the difficulty of pressing his Amendment to a Division. If it were inserted the delegates here had no authority to accept it, and it would probably have to go back for consideration by a new Convention. Their Lordships might therefore hesitate to take such a step. He himself would hesitate to press the Amendment to a Division; but he submitted it for the purpose of eliciting, if possible, another chorus of agreement as to the painful character of this disqualification, being persuaded that an expression of opinion on this subject on the part of their Lordships would have the greatest influence for good in South Africa—influence which might prevent further steps being taken in an injurious direction and which might freely be taken if it were not apprehended that the feeling here was strongly against such a course.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 15, after the word 'subject,' to insert the words 'and if representing the Province of Transvaal or Orange Free State.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

*THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM, in supporting the Amendment, said he did not yield to any one in his enthusiasm for the South African Union. That satisfaction was, however, tempered by alloy of the most serious kind if the Amendment was not inserted. Their Lordships ought to object to disqualification which was purely and simply that of race. Lord Courtney's Amendment merely allowed them to retain the status quo. He did not say that the great measure of Union must not take place if accompanied by this disqualification, but he urged their Lordships to emphasise the displeasure with which the insertion of the disqualification was regarded. Their Lordships would be in a far better position if they passed the Amendment even if afterwards it had to be withdrawn at the request of the South African delegates. Then at any rate there would be on record an expression of their Lordships' feeling on the matter in which they would he ventured to say be representative of the higher feeling in this country. If it was merely allowed to rest on sentiments expressed in speeches he was afraid it would rest on something which would be easily forgotten; but if it rested on an Amendment carried in their Lordships' House even though afterwards withdrawn he ventured to say that it would rest on a far more solid basis.


My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will all agree that my noble friend behind me has brought forward his Amendment, and the parallel Amendment to Clause 44, in the most moderate and least aggressive form which he could devise, and that he has set it before the Committee in a speech of equal moderation. My noble friend said that to pass this Amendment would, after all, only be to maintain the status quo. In a sense that may be accurate, but I think the statement does not represent the real position. The creation of the Union Parliament so completely alters the whole position that the status quo cannot be said in any real sense to exist any longer. The mere fact that natives could be elected to the Cape Parliament does not make it a retention of the status quo to declare that they should be capable of being elected to the Union Parliament.

My noble friend said very truly that there was something like a general concurrence of opinion that in itself this provision is an undesirable one. There was, as he truly said, scarcely a dissentient voice, if any, raised to that proposition; but there was an equally marked and declared concurrence that it would not be wise for your Lordships to attempt to amend that provision. That concurrence was at least as strongly marked as the other. I confess that I am not able to fall in with the proposition suggested by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Birmingham, that it would be a wise or a dignified thing to insert an Amendment of this kind in the Bill on the understanding that it would be immediately withdrawn if the delegates, as they undoubtedly would, objected to its insertion. The process of marching up a hill and then marching down again is not one which I think would commend itself to your Lordships' House, and I confess I do not see that anything whatever would be gained by following the course which the right reverend Prelate has suggested.

My noble friend behind me misunderstood, I think, one observation which I made when moving the Second Reading, when I spoke of South Africa having been in past history a halting place on the road of travellers and, of adventurers into other parts of the world. That was so, but it has altogether ceased to be the case. It is in no way true now to speak of South Africa as being a halting place. It is the home—the permanent home, as I hope—of a great white race, and although my noble friend was right in describing the complications which exist there from the presence of a coloured population, that does not alter the fact that as much as any part of His Majesty's Dominions South Africa is now a permanent white settlement. I do not think that my noble friend is really doing a good turn to the native population, whose interests he has at heart, by moving this Amendment, and I do not believe that we should be doing them a good turn by inserting it in the Bill. It has often been said, and I believe with truth, that if after the great Civil War in the United States the conquering North had not been quite so urgent in declaring the equality of the two races in the Southern States, real equality, which, after all, does not exist there now after the lapse of more than forty years, would have been sooner approached than by the strong and overwhelming assertion of equality which at that time they thought it right to make. Similarly, I believe that if we were to attempt to force upon white opinion in South Africa to-day provisions of this kind which conflict, if you like, with the prejudices, but also with the views which are most strongly held, we should be deferring rather than accelerating progress in the direction of equality between the white and the native races. The opinion even of the native population is not entirely unanimous on this point. This very fear has occurred to some of them. Some of them are actually afraid that any demonstration of this kind might serve to influence white opinion against them rather than in their favour, and so operate prejudicially to them. I share the belief which my noble friend at that time on the Woolsack expressed, that as years go on there may be, as we hope there will be, a change of opinion in South Africa in this respect. We must look forward to that future, but I do believe that that future would be made more remote if the Amendment of my noble friend were adopted, and for that reason, as indeed he has clearly foreseen and most fairly stated, the Government cannot agree to the insertion of this Amendment or the one to Clause 44.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH said that the precedent of the United States which the noble Earl had quoted was not applicable. He was not inclined to force on the South African colonies something entirely repugnant to their views—the establishment of perfect equality between black and white; he was trying simply to maintain that which existed. He put it to his noble friend whether he thought that the eligibility of the native to sit in the Cape Parliament ever since that Parliament was established had retarded the advancement of the natives of the Cape. Compared with the native in the Transvaal the native of the Cape was much more advanced. He was more educated and was admitted to functions of a highly useful and public character. Was he, therefore, in seeking to maintain the privileges now enjoyed by natives in the Cape, doing something which would retard their advancement? He could not but think that the experience of the last fifty years falsified the suggestion which the noble Earl had made. He would not withdraw his Amendment although he did not intend to press it to a Division.


My noble friend has put a question to me, and I will answer it. I think he misunderstood the drift of my argument. I was far indeed from saying that the fact that the native was eligible, or might be eligible, to Parliament would do anything to retard the progress of the race. On the contrary, I go farther and say that if there was a general native vote all over South Africa, I think it would do something in all probability to raise the status of the native in the other provinces to something approaching that which he holds in the Cape Colony. The conclusion which I asked your Lordships to draw from the American analogy was not that the suggestion was bad in itself, but that because it was forced upon an unwilling population that fact of itself had had the effect of retarding the progress of the negro.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

*LORD STANMORE desired, before Clause 26 was added to the Bill, to put a question to His Majesty's Government. He wanted to know what was meant exactly by the expression "European descent," and whether it included or excluded half-castes. He would be inclined to contend that a half-caste was on one side at least of European descent.


I am happy to reply so far as I can to the question of my noble friend on the Cross Benches, although it is one which, I think, should have been addressed not so much to me as to the legal authorities in your Lordships' House. As a matter of fact, I believe no legal decision exists as to what "European descent" really means, and I have no doubt that after the Act has come into operation the phrase will be decided in the ordinary way before a Court of law. If it bears the construction, as to which I express no opinion, which my noble friend on the Cross Benches thinks it does, I can only say that the grievance will be considerably minimised in a great number of individual cases. We have been so far taking it in debate as excluding all persons who could be said to be coloured, but if not, there is no doubt the less objection to passing it in its present form.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 33:

*LORD HAVERSHAM pointed out that this clause provided that the number of members to be elected in the original provinces at the first election should be as follows:—Cape of Good Hope, fifty-one; Natal, seventeen; Transvaal, thirty-six; Orange Free State, seventeen. He presumed that the difference in the number of representatives was due to population, wealth, and other reasons. But with regard to the Senate there was absolute equality, Clause 24 providing that eight Senators should be nominated by the Governor-General in Council, and that for each original province eight Senators should be elected. He asked how it was that one principle had been applied to the number of Senators to represent each State and a different principle in regard to the House of Representatives.


I have not discussed this point with the delegates because it was never raised in the course of the communications which I had with them. The noble Lord will notice that in the allocation of numbers for the House of Assembly some advantage is given to the smaller provinces in the numbers there put down. They get a somewhat larger share than their population warrants. I think it is safe to state that the provision of giving an equal number of Senators to each province represents a feeling of the same kind—namely, that the case of the smaller States demands some special consideration. As the noble Lord knows very well, in many constitutions of a Federal Government—for instance, in the United States—the States are all treated alike for the purpose of the Senate, although they are not so treated for the House of Representatives; and it does not seem to me, therefore, especially strange that in a unifying constitution such as this a similar plan should be adopted.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34:

*LORD STANMORE called attention to the provision that— The quota of the Union shall be obtained by dividing the total number of European male adults in the Union, as ascertained at the census of nineteen hundred and four, by the total number of members of the House of Assembly as constituted at the establishment of the Union. He asked whether the words "European male" excluded an American male who had been settled in the country for a long period and become part of the recognised community there. If so, it would lead to very odd results. On the other hand, he could not construe the words "European male" to include an American male. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill had stated that these points were subject to legal interpretation afterwards, but he did not think their Lordships should be asked to pass dubious phrases to be hereafter interpreted in a way of which some noble Lords might approve and others highly disapprove.


The noble Lord has raised another new point. An American male settled in South Africa would, I suppose, be of European descent unless he was of Red Indian extraction, while a negro who had come from America I have no doubt would not be treated as being a European. The general sense of the provision, of course, is that the natives are excluded in the calculation of the quota.


Is not this verbiage employed merely to avoid the use of the word you mean—namely, the word "white"? The phrase here used is not "of European descent" but "an European male." How can that include an American?

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35:

LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD moved to amend this clause— 35.—(1) Parliament may by law prescribe the qualifications which shall be necessary to entitle persons to vote at the election of Members of the House of Assembly, but no such law shall disqualify any person in the province of the Cape of Good Hope who under the laws existing in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope at the establishment of the Union is or may become capable of being registered as a voter from being so registered in the province of the Cape of Good Hope by reason of his race or colour only, unless the Bill be passed by both Houses of Parliament sitting together and at the third reading be agreed to by not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of both Houses. A Bill so passed at such joint sitting shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of Parliament. (2) No person who at the passing of any such law is registered as a voter in any province shall be removed from the register by reason only of any disqualification based on race or colour, by inserting the following new subsection— (3) No such Bill shall be introduced into Parliament until ten years, counting from the date of the establishment of the Union, shall have elapsed. He said that if their Lordships regretted the necessity of having to place on the Statute Book a law of civic disqualification on the ground of race or colour, and also to pass the Bill without any material alteration, he thought that it was the more incumbent upon them to allow no opportunity to slip or anything to escape by which they might reduce as far as might be the prejudicial effect of the Bill. He was aware that the Leader of the House stated in his opening speech that it would be possible always to deny the King's approval to any particular Act promoted by the Union Parliament. He was also aware, according to the terms of the Bill, that if the members from Cape Colony were solid, it would not be possible for a long time, or, at all events, so long as the proportions of the population remained what they were now, to obtain a two-thirds majority for an alteration of the law. But he thought it was very uncertain that the Cape representatives would be able to maintain that solidarity in respect of the native vote, and he said that if the Union Parliament were unanimous in pressing on His Majesty such an alteration in the law as this clause contemplated it would be impossible to deny assent. They were not asking too much, therefore, or imposing on the Union Parliament too great an obligation, when they said that it should not proceed to touch the question of the franchise until such a period had elapsed—he suggested ten years in his Amendment—within which it might be hoped that the feelings which the present proposals called into existence had subsided, and when the Union Parliament might be disposed to come to the assistance of the Empire and relieve it from a difficulty which was, he believed, being generally recognised throughout the country.

Amendment moved— In page 9,line 13, after subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection: '(3) No such Bill shall be introduced into Parliament until ten years, counting from the date of the establishment of the Union, shall have elapsed.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)


I had occasion, when I spoke on the Second Reading, to deal somewhat fully with this Clause read in connection with Clause 152, which provides for the necessity of the two-thirds majority of both Houses sitting together before any change can be made. I certainly do not desire to qualify anything which I said on that occasion in disapproval of the provision as it stands. I frankly confess that the provision for a possible change in this respect is the provision which I like least in the whole of this Bill. But for reasons which I then stated I do not myself think that the danger of a change being made is a great one, and I was glad to see that I was confirmed in that opinion by the speech of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. The noble Lord who has just sat down spoke of the possibility of a unanimous opinion of the Union Parliament for a change of this kind, and the difficulty there would be in disallowing a Bill so presented here for His Majesty's assent. I admit that. If opinion in South Africa should be so hardened that there was practically only one opinion in the country that no native ought to have a vote in the Cape Colony, it would no doubt be a serious matter to disallow such a Bill, although I will not go so far as to say it might not be done; but that, I confess, is a state of things which I cannot conceive. I greatly doubt, as I said before, whether it would be possible to obtain under any circumstances a two-thirds majority, but that there should be anything like practical unanimity is a consideration which I must decline to admit. The noble Lord, actuated, I am sure, by the very best intentions towards this native franchise, desires to insure it for ten years. Although I hope there may be a general improvement of feeling in this respect, in one way I am less afraid of this ten years than I should be of a sudden wave of feeling arising at some future and remote time. During the next ten years the passing of this Act of Union will be fresh in the minds of all the South African statesmen who have been here, and they will, I am sure, be unwilling to think of disturbing so important a provision as this; and my main objection to the noble Lord's Amendment is that it almost seems to invite reconsideration of the matter at the end of ten years. I should be so afraid of its being possibly taken in that sense that, even if I were asked to put it in by the South African delegates themselves, I confess I should have great hesitation in doing so. In those circumstances I must appeal to the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 150 agreed to.

Clause 151:

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH moved to amend this clause, which ran— The King, with the advice of the Privy Council, may, on addresses from the Houses of Parliament of the Union, transfer to the Union the government of any territories, other than the territories administered by the British South Africa Company, belonging to or under the protection of His Majesty, and inhabited wholly or in part by natives, and upon such transfer the Governor-General in Council may undertake the government of such territory upon the terms and conditions embodied in the Schedule to this Act, by inserting, after the words "The King, with the advice of the Privy Council, may," the words "at the expiration of ten years from the establishment of the Union." He understood that the delegates laid no great stress on this clause or on the schedule, and that they would even be content to see both clause and schedule struck out of the Bill. If he was not misinformed, certain questions did, arise on this subject between His Majesty's Government and the delegates. The Colonial Secretary desired to stiffen some provisions and the delegates replied that rather than consent to that they would like to see the clause dropped altogether. The delegates were not in a hurry to take over the Protectorates and were willing to come to the Parliament of the United Kingdom again for authority to have them transferred, when they wished the transfer to take place. If that was the situation, their Lordships were quite free to deal with the two Amendments that he had placed on the Paper. The first Amendment was that application for the transfer of any Protectorate should not be made until the expiration of ten years from the establishment of the Union, and this Amendment would be apparently quite acceptable on the part of the representatives of South Africa. His second Amendment was to add a proviso to the effect that no such transfer should be made until the terms and conditions of the transfer were made know to the chiefs and inhabitants of such territory and opportunity given them to express their desires with respect to such transfer, or in support of any modification in its terms and conditions. Their Lordships would observe that the proviso did not make their consent a necessary condition of the transfer; it only required that they should be informed of what was proposed and should be allowed to make ally suggestions they might desire. As to his first Amendment, the one he was now moving, there was a real danger with respect to the transfer of the Protectorates. Two questions would probably occupy the Union Parliament in the future—first, the question of the relations between the coloured residents and the white; and, secondly, there would be a demand for the transfer of the Protectorates. Although the delegates were not eager to have these provisions inserted now, there was no doubt that on the part of a considerable number of inhabitants in South Africa there was a strong desire to get one or other or all three of the Protectorates transferred. The inhabitants of one province had already set longing eyes on Bechuanaland. Basutoland had been very much desired by another province, and Swaziland by another province. The thing to be apprehended was that at no distant time application would be made for the transfer to the Government of the Cape of one of these Protectorates. There was considerable objection on the part of the inhabitants of the Protectorates to being transferred. An interesting communication appeared in The Times three weeks ago giving an account of an interview between the Acting Administrator of Bechuanaland and the chiefs of that country. The Acting Administrator told them that there was no intention at present to hand over Bechuanaland to any local government, but the thing might happen at no distant time and he thought it well to submit it to them to be thought over; and they one and all replied that they did not desire the change, but wished to remain as they were. That was the unanimous opinion of the people of Bechuanaland; and representatives had come over from Basutoland to beg that no change should be made in their position. Not one of these steps should be taken in a hurry, and he heard, with satisfaction the remarks made by Lord Curzon in his speech on the Second Reading in which he pleaded for deliberation before any transfer took place. There was no fear in regard to the adoption of his Amendment from the point of view of wrecking the Union. The Amendment might be adopted and the Union would proceed as smoothly and efficiently as without the Amendment. His Amendment would give ample time to the Union Government to look about them, to organise their Parliament and their government, to realise their situation, and to provide for the precautions that should be taken. This was a matter which should not be dealt with in a hurry. The whole question was whether it was a judicious step to require that there should be a term of years in which the new Government and the new Parliament should be able to look about them and realise where they were. There was one other consideration which ought to be impressed upon their Lordships. These Protectorates existed under the most solemn assurances which had been communicated to the inhabitants by different Colonial Secretaries. He admitted that all such declarations must be construed with reference to the conditions in which they were made and the conditions in which it was sought to apply them, and he did not think a declaration made in the past could be admitted to be an eternal bar against any transfer in the future; but it should not be done without much deliberation and ample time for the whole consideration of the problem. He therefore hoped their Lordships would see their way to enact that this period of ten years should elapse before any step was taken.

Amendment moved— In page 38, line 29, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'at the expiration of ten years from the establishment of the Union.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)


My noble friend has stated his case with his usual lucidity, and if I may I will follow his example and deal with the various Amendments together. My noble friend is not perfectly informed, I think, as to the views of the South African Governments and their delegates on this question. He told us that, so far as he knew, the South African Governments would agree either to the total omission of Clause 151 and the Schedule, or, as he thought, to the insertion of this time limit of ten years. I have no reason whatever to believe that such is the case. It is quite true that the South African Governments expressed themselves, speaking generally, willing to agree to the omission of the Schedule if Clause 151 was so altered as to make the transfer take place upon such terms as might be agreed upon at the time. I dwelt at some length, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, on what appeared to me to be the overwhelming reasons in favour of adding this Schedule and of not leaving the whole matter to be casually dealt with at such time as negotiations might be entered into between the African Union Government and His Majesty's Government here. Nor have I any reason to suppose—indeed, quite the contrary—that the existing South African Governments would agree to the ten years limit proposed by the noble Lord. I think that they would raise the strongest objection to the insertion of any such provision.

From our own point of view we also object to it. If you say that no handing over shall take place for ten years, there is some case against the insertion of the Schedule at all. It might be argued, and would, I think, be argued, that if at any rate for ten years, and possibly longer, no transfer could take place, it is somewhat premature to enter into the terms of transfer as we have done in the Schedule—a Schedule to which, as I have said, we attach the highest importance. The general effect, I think, of the Amendment would appear to be that, having safeguarded the Protectorates for the next ten years, we afterwards wash our hands of them. That is the effect which would be produced on the ordinary mind; and the South African Governments might then come and say, "Our time limit is up and we must now be allowed to take over the Protectorates on our own terms," and it is to prevent the possibility of that arising that we have asked to have the clause put in this form and to have the Schedule attached to it. I cannot say that as regards, at any rate, one of the Protectorates there will not be a request to take it over in less than ten years; nor am I in a position to say that such a request could be refused. As regards the others, I altogether decline to make any forecast as to if or when they might be or ought to be transferred to the South African Government. But so far as Swaziland is concerned, I think it is extremely probable that within a period of ten years a request will be made to add Swaziland to the Union of South Africa.

As regards the noble Lord's further Amendment, it really only represents what is practically certain to occur if and when any transfer is proposed. My noble friend very rightly does not attempt to give the local chiefs an absolute veto on transfer; he merely desires that they should be consulted and their wishes should be considered. Of course, they will be consulted. I cannot imagine any High Commissioner or any Government in this country who would not consider most carefully the wishes of the chiefs and the natives in such a case as that; but I should not be prepared to say that the mere expression of a preference for remaining under the direct government of this country could be taken as an absolute bar to a transfer at some future time. That preference might be very complimentary to us and might be an index to the good administration under which the particular Protectorate had been governed, but it could not of itself be taken as anything equivalent to a veto, and with that I am sure my noble friend would agree. I wish to repeat that my noble friend has been really very greatly misinformed as to the attitude of the South African Government on this question. With that fact I venture to think a very large part of his argument falls to the ground, and I must ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH then moved his second Amendment, the object of which he had already explained.

Amendment moved— In page 38, line 37, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'provided always that no such transfer shall be made until the terms and conditions of the transfer are made known to the Chiefs and inhabitants of such territory, and opportunity is given them to express their desires with respect to such transfer, or in support of any modification in its terms and conditions.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 151 agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a, To-morrow.