brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, as follows—

stated that unless notice of objection was given on or before the 27th instant, the report would be considered as adopted.

laid upon the Table—

He said: I wish to lay upon the Table Report No. 30 dealing with the dumping of cement. I wish to explain that this report was handed in at Pretoria in November, and in the ordinary course, should have been laid upon the Table during the first month of this session. It was sent down to Parliament, but the translation has taken some time, and I am only able to lay it upon the Table now.

With leave, I beg to ask the Prime Minister with reference to the Third Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the matter referred to it, and in view of the fact that this is a matter concerning the business of the House, and also in view of the fact that there was a sharp conflict of opinion in the Committee, and that it is a matter essentially for the House to determine, when he is going to give us an opportunity of discussing the report of the Standing Orders Committee.

As a matter of fact, I had no intention of giving facilities for the discussion of this matter. The matter was discussed at some length, at some considerable length, in this House.

No, no.

Well, we spent some hours over it. I think the memory of the hon. member must be at fault, for that is my recollection, and we spent the better part of an afternoon over it and finally mixed it up with something else, until finally on a motion of mine, it was referred to the Standing Orders Committee. The Standing Orders Committee, as the hon. member knows, spent quite a considerable time over this and—

Three hours.

I should say three days, as a great deal of concentrated wisdom was spent in that Committee. We spent three days over this and we gave the matter very searching consideration. We explored all sorts of amendments and ways of overcoming difficulties and in the end we had to admit that it was not possible to find a way out. That was the feeling, after having gone to that Committee with the intention of having something done, which was borne in upon me, and as a result of the difficulty which emerged, nothing could be done to make our rule of procedure more stringent. Our Parliamentary time is very limited. We seem to have got in a Siberian bog in this House. We are nearing the end of the financial year and there are a number of measures which must be got to, or we may be in the same trouble as people are getting themselves into elsewhere. We must get through our necessary work. Whatever happens elsewhere let us keep the flag flying in this House. I cannot promise any time for the consideration of this matter in the immediate future. And I doubt whether we shall get any further after the concentrated wisdom brought to bear in the Committee in order to find some solution. I am sorry I cannot grant facilities for further discussion on this.

I would like to point out to the right hon. the Prime Minister that the question that we discussed in the Select Committee had never been discussed in the House. That Committee never made a recommendation to the House as a whole and as it is a matter so purely concerning this House it is only right that the House should have before it all the arguments to decide on the subject. I hope the right hon. the Prime Minister will change his position, otherwise we shall be compelled to bring the matter up in another form, a form we do not desire. When the Prime Minister moved that the matter be referred to the Committee as a result of the promise given the previous day, I, speaking personally, for myself and the other members on this side of the House, did not debate the motion because we were satisfied that when the Committee’s report came before the House we would have an opportunity of expressing our opinion on the finding of the Committee.

Arising out of the question, am I in order—

There is nothing before the House.

I merely want to enquire what has been the outcome of the sitting of the Committee on Miners’ Phthisis. Is the Committee defunct or is it still sitting? I may say that in any report it may bring forward, this side of the House will not take any responsibility.

I think that matter is quite simple and has been disposed of. The Committee brings its proposition before Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker gives a ruling, there is an appeal to the House on the ruling, the ruling is confirmed and Order No. 119, apart from this matter and on the merits, is referred to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration, and the matter is in order. I take it that the Committee on Miners’ Phthisis now goes on with the consideration of its business.

moved—

Met die oog op die noodlottige gevolge wat myns insiens duidelik sal voortspruit uit die aanname en die passering van die Wetsontwerp, beide wat betref ons opvoeding en die voortbestaan van die Prowinsiale Rade, voel ek, dat dit onmoontlik vir my is om stil te sit en die derde lesing te laat plaas vind, sonder nogmaals ’n beroep te maak op lede van die Huis om te belet, dat die Wetsontwerp aangeneem word. Ek wens hier in die eerste plaas ’n beroep te maak op die lede uit Natal. Daar is nie een van die vier provinsies nie wat daar meer op aangedring het, dat die Prowinsiale Rade sal bly voort bestaan, as Natal. Hier in die Huis het elk lid, sover as ek kan herinner, van daardie provinsie sig ook verklaar ten gunste van die voortbestaan van die Prowinsiale Rade met uitsondering van die edele lid vir Natal Kust (de hr. Saunders), en hy het homself nie gereed gevoel nie om voor hierdie Wetsontwerp te stem nie, alhoewel hy persoonlik voor die afskaffing van die Prowinsiale Rade was. Die andere lede word nou geroep om te verklaar of hulle ten faveure van die afskaffing van die Prowinsiale Rade is deur die stem wat hulle gaan uitbring. Dat dit so is, wil ek aantoon in versterking van wat reeds gesê is by die twede lesing, deur te verwys na sekere opmerkings deur die koerante gemaak sedert die twede lesing. By die twede lesing het ons daarop gewys—ek het so gedoen en ander lede aan hierdie kant van die Huis het ook so gedoen—dat as hierdie Wetsontwerp aangeneem sou word, dat dit niks anders kon beteken nie as die ondergang van die Prowinsiale Rade.

En dis een van die beste dinge wat kon gebeur.

En dis my duidelik van wat ons reeds gesien het as die gevolge van— ek sal nie sê nie die aanname, van die navolging deur die Kaapse Prowinsiale Raad van wat in die Wetsontwerp neergelê is—dit is duidelik dat die Prowinsiale Rade, wanneer dit eenmaal aangeneem is, nie langer sal kan voortbestaan nie. In die Cape Times van ’n paar daë gelede, word dit in ’n hoofartiekel gesê, en dit wel na verwysing na en met die oog op hierdie Wetsontwerp en die publikasie van die voorstelle van die Administrateur. Daar word gesê—

Ja, die “collapse” wat direk toe te skrywe is aan die aanname deur die Administrateur van die Kaap Provinsie van wat in die Wetsontwerp vervat is. Die Argus, aanhalende die mening van die Kaapse Kamer van Koophandel, sê—

Dit is waar dat dit in direkt verband is met die publikasie van die planne van die Administrateur, maar dis ’n publikasie wat gepasseer is en veroorsaak is deur hierdie Wetsontwerp wat men verwag dat binne ’n paar daë Wet sal wees. Een ding is duidelik, dat as hierdie Wetsontwerp aangeneem word met Klausule 2 soos dit nou staan, dan kan die Prowinsiale Rade nie voortbestaan nie. En men mag nou miskien sê, dat Natal in ’n betere posiesie is as die andere provinsies wat dit betref, maar ek sê, dat gegewe die ondergang van een Prowinsiale Raad in die Unie, die ander Prowinsiale Rade noodsakelikerwyse ook moet ophou te bestaan. Natal kan maak wat hy wil, maar hy kan die noodlot nie ontsnap nie. Onder die omstandighede is dit die plig van die lede vir Natal as hulle uitdrukking wens te gee aan die wense van Natal, wat betref die voortbestaan van die Prowinsiale Raad, om hulle stem teen die aanname van hierdie Wetsontwerp te werp. En nou, Mr. Speaker, wens ek hier vanmiddag ’n bietjie na te gaan wat die redenerings en die standpunt van die Regering is. Ons is hier by die derde lesing in die gelukkige posiesie dat ons beter ingelig is en nie langer in onkunde is nie wat betref die redene wat die Regering gelei het en nog lei op hierdie Wetsontwerp en ook miskien wat betref die motiewe wat agter die Regering sit om te volhard in iets wat hulle moet weet dat noodlottige gevolge sal hê vir die Prowinsiale Rade. In sy repliek op die twede lesing het die Minister van Finansies hom onthou op die bewering, deur hierdie kant van die Huis geopper, te antwoord, namelik dat geen uniformiteit deur hierdie Wetsontwerp verkry word nie. Die Regering het aan die Huis gesê, dat die rede waarom hulle daartoe oorgegaan het om Klousule 2 in die Wetsontwerp in te set, was omdat die Prowinsiale Rade, of liewer die Uitvoerende Bestuur van die Prowinsiale Rade hulle versoek, het om uniformiteit in die salarisse van die onderwysers vas te stel. Dit was die enig versoek waarvan ons afweet dat deur die Prowinsiale Rade aan die Regering gemaak was. Indien die Regering hom dus wens te regvaardig om enige wetgewing soos deur Klousule 2 neergelê deur die Huis te kry en om die posiesie op te neem van die verkorting van die magte van die Prowinsiale Rade, dan kan hulle dit allenig doen omdat dit noodsakelik is teneinde uniformiteit te verkry in die salarisse van die onderwysers van die provinsies. Maar ons het hier oorvloedig bewys, en dit is duidelik uit die Wetsontwerp en dit word prakties erkend deur die Regering dat ons nie uniformiteit gaan kry nie. Ek het die vraag pertinent gestel: “Maar waarom as u vra om uniformiteit te verkry, en as u ’n Wetsontwerp met die doel inbring, en u weet dat u onder die Wetsontwerp nie uniformiteilt sal kry nie— wat duidelik bewys word uit die stap deur die Administrateur van die Kaap Provinsie geneem —waarom gaan u dan met die wetgewing aan?” Die Regering en die Minister het doodstil daaroor geswyg. Ek wens hierop te wys, dat die Minister in sy repliek uit sy pad gegaan het, nie om te sê wat hulle onder die Ontwerp sal verkry nie of om te sê wat in die Wetsontwerp is nie, maar wel om te verklaar dat daar nergens in die Wetsontwerp iets is wat die skaal van salarisse vir die onderwysers vasstel. Dis opmerkelik, dat die Minister so veel gewig daaraan heg dat daar geen skaal van salarisse in die Wetsontwerp vasgestel is nie. Edele lede sal onthou hoe ons daar by die twede lesing op aangedring het, dat dit gedaan moes word, maar die Minister het, sonder daarom te dink dat hy uniformiteit moes verkry, daarin volhard dat hy dit nie sal doen nie. Ons is nou in ’n posiesie, dat die Ministers en die Regering sê, dat hulle ’n stap doen om ’n seker ding te verkry, namelik uniformiteit, maar dat hulle weet, dat hulle dit nie sal verkry nie, en dat hulle tog nog volhard in wat hulle voorgestel het. Wel, as dit so is, dan weet ons, dat daar ’n ander rede, ’n ander oogmerk moet wees in wat die Regering voorstel. Die Regering het stilswygend gebly oor die oogmerk en oor die rede waarom hulle volhard dat Klousule 2 opgeneem sal word in die Wetsontwerp, en aangesien hulle stilswygend bly is dit ons plig, is dit die plig van die Huis, om te sien wat die oogmerk mag wees. En nou sê ek dit, dat dit vir my glad nie onduidelik is nie wat die oogmerk is. Ons moet onthou, dat die Regering geweier het ’n skaal van salarisse te bepaal wat toegepas sal word wanneer die Wetsontwerp van krag word, dat hul geweier het die skaal op die Tafel van die Huis te plaas. Hul het ook geweier ’n skaal van salarisse vas te stel onder die Wetsontwerp. Maar tegelykertyd het hul ’n skaal ván salarisse wat die Prowinsiale Rade dadelik kan toepas en wat hul uitgawe so sal inkort, dat dit nie nodig sal wees om hul toevlug te neem tot verdere belastings van hierdie jaar nie. En nou het ek nie die minste twyfel nie, dat waar hierdie Wetsontwerp op doel in Klousule 2, is dat die Regering die Prowinsiale Rade kan belet, altans vir hierdie jaar, om tot verdere belasting oor te gaan teneinde aan hulle onkoste te voldoen. Dit is vir my baie duidelik. En geen wonder. Geen wonder dat dit die bedoeling van die Regering is wanneer ons vind dat die kamers van koophandel feitelik by die Regering is gekom met die pistool teen hul hoofd en dat hul die Regering bedreig het en teen hul gesê het: “Julle moet die Baxter Rapport aanvaard, en julle moet dit nou doen.” En waarom? Sodat die Prowinsiale Raad belet sal word voort te gaan enige belasting in die hand te neem waardeur die stedeling verder beswaar sal word; en die Regering, met die oog op die toekoms—en dis jammerlik maar hul doen dit nog steeds, en daar word maar min hier in die Huis gedoen waar men nie die oog vas gerig hou op die stemme van die volgende verkiesing nie en ek moet sê, dat in daardie opsig die Regering goed geslaag is—of ten minste hul sal slaag, want hul sal nie alleen die aanname van die Baxter Rapport verkry nie of tenminste die toepassing daarvan, maar hulle sal die einde van die Prowinsiale Rade kry. Ja, ek sê, hul sal die einde van die Prowinsiale Rade kry, en ek het nie die minste twyfel daaroor nie, tenminste as ek oordeel volgens die handelwyse van die Regering, dat die Prowinsiale Rade nie lang sal bly voortbestaan. Ek sê, dat dit die oogmerk van die Regering is en niks anders nie en die vra vir ons is of ons dit gaan toelaat, dat die Regering in sy vermoë sal hê om te belet dat verdere belasting desnoods deur die Prowinsiale Rade opgeset sal word. Ons kan dit nie toelaat nie. Dit sal die dood van die Prowinsiale Rade beteken; en wat vir my so treurig is, dit sal die dood van die Prowinsiale Rade beteken deur die dood van onderwys. Deur onderwys, oor die lyk van onderwys soekt men die dood van die Prowinsiale Rade te verkry.

Maar so onkundig is ons nie.

Want dis alleen om die magte te kry om die salarisse van onderwysers op so’n peil te plaas dat dit onmoontlik sal wees vir honderde indien nie vir duisende plattelandse skole om voort te bestaan, dat die Regering sy oogmerk wens te behaal. Ek behoef hier nie nogmaals daar op te wys nie, dat as die Ontwerp aangeneem word die Regering net die salarisse van sekere onderwysers, virnamelik in skole van minder as 20 kinders behoef vas te stel op ’n sekere graad om te verkry dat in die Kaap oor 1,500 plattelandse skole en in die Vrystaat oor 300 plattelandse skole dadelik sal sluit, of waar hul nie sluit in so’n posiesie van kwyning geplaas word, dat dit in baie weinig tyd hul dood tengevolge sal hê. Ek sê, dat ons dit nie kan toelaat nie, en dis met die oog hierop dat ek hoop, dat daar ’n finale poging deur die Huis gemaak sal word om te belet dat dit sal gebeur, en dis om die rede, dat ek my stem hier nogmaals verhef teen die derde lesing. Die Minister van Finansies het in sy repliek groot eksepsie geneem teen seker beskuldiginge wat van hierdie kant van die Huis teen die Regering ingebring is. Hy het hom ergens in sy toespraak, by voorbeeld, baie sterk uitgelaat en toe die verwyt gemaak werd, dat die Wetsontwerp feitelik niks anders is nie as ’n konsessie aan die kamers van koophandel en ook ingedien is met die oog op die kamer van mynwese, toe het die edelagbare die Minister gesê: “Ja, maar waar is ons—die ene beskuldig die Regering van magteloosheid en die ander beskuldig ons weer van weg hardloop, waar is ons?” En toe het hy gesê, dat om te bewys, dat geen een van die beskuldiginge waarheid bevat, dit net maar nodig is om te kyk na die manier waarop die Regering aangeval word deur die kamers van koophandel en deur die kamer van mynwese. Hulle is ontevrede met wat die Regering doen. Natuurlik; ek sal dit nie ontken nie. Die Regering word aangeval deur die kamers van koophandel en hul word aangeval deur die kamer van mynwese, nie omdat die kamers sê, dat die Regering nie gereed is om hul verlangens uit te voer, maar wel omdat die Regering dit nie snel genoeg doen nie. Dit was ’n kwessie van die snelheid waarmee die Regering hul versoeke uitvoer. En in ’n brief aan die kamers van koophandel lewer die Regering die bewys. Die brief sê feitelik: “Sh, sh, julle moet nou stil bly; julle siet mos wat ons doen; maar die bevolking is nog nie ryp nie, die land is nog nie ryp nie.” Dit was hulle antwoord. Maar wat sê die Minister hier? Hy sê: “Wat is die waarheid, is ons ’n bende lafhartiges of is ons ’n bende van intrigante?” Ek wens die edelagbare die Minister net hierop te wys, dat dit nie nodig vir die Regering is nie om of die een of die ander te wees nie—hul kan die twee tesame wees, en ek moet hier sê, dat onteenseggelik, die manier waarop die Regering te werk gaan om die Prowinsiale Rade om die lewe te bring nie bewys nie dat hul baie moedig is, want in plaas van rond daarvoor uit te kom en aan die hele land te sê “die Prowinsiale Rade moet nou ophou te bestaan,” maak hul ’n draai en ontroof hulle die Prowinsiale Rade van hulle lewe deur middel van onderwys. Maar een ding is baie karakteristiek in die optree van die edelagbare die Minister, en dis baie merkwaardig wat hy sê. Hy het gesê, dat die Regering ’n groot geleentheid het laat verby gaan om ’n groot nasionale diens te bewys deur die Baxter Rapport nie aan te neem nie. Ek sou graag wil weet waarom die Regering, wetende dat hul die groot nasionale diens kon bewys, deur die aanname van die Baxter Rapport, waarom hulle dit nie gedoen het nie? Is dit omdat hulle so bewus is van hul kragte en sterkte, dat hul die sterkte nie op hul teenstanders wil af dwing nie? Of is dit miskien getuienis van hulle swakte? Die Regering het gevra of hulle beskou word as vlugtelinge. Die Eerste Minister het die Minister van Finansies verdedig en hy het probeer te bewys, dat hulle nie vlugtelinge was nie, en om to bewys, dat hulle nie vlugtelinge was nie het hy gesê: “Ek het daar op die slagvelde van Duits-oos Afrika gewees en op die slagvelde van Europa en kyk wat roem ek daar verwerf het en kyk wat ek daar gedoen het.”

Ja, waar was die edele lid gewees; was hy bang om sy invloed te verloor?

Is dit nie jammerlik nie, dat ’n man soos die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, op ’n beskuldiging, dat hy sy pligte nie gedaan het, dat hy as Minister sy werk nie behoorlik gedaan het nie, is dit nie jammerlik dat hy hier sal kom en ons sal vertel wat hy op die slagvelde van Europa gedaan het? Hy het gesê: “Nee, ek het nooit weggeloop van enig ding; kyk wat ’n held ek in Europa gewees het.” [Gelach.] Ja, die edelagbare die Eerste Minister mag lag, maar is dit nie te bespotlik nie? En so bespotlik, dat ons kan hoop, dat in die toekoms die edelagbare die Eerste Minister altans ’n andere houding sal aanneem en sal weet sig op ’n ander manier te verdedig, as op die persoonlike soas tans. En dan, was dit ’n uitvlug of nie? Dit was gewis niks anders nie as ’n argument om dese saak te bedek. Ek denk die edelagbare die Minister van Justisie het werkelik die toppunt van belaglikheid bereik, toe hy by die beskuldiging van ons kom, dat die Regering net wagtende is op die tydstip, dat die eleksie sal afgeloop wees, om hulle toevlug te neem tot grondbelasting op die boer se grond. Toe die edelagbare die Minister sig moes verdedig teen die beskuldiging, het hy werkelik die toppunt van belaglikheid bereik.

Maar ek het nog nie gepraat nie.

O, pardon, ek bedoel die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies. Die edelagbare die Minister van Justisie het ’n baie wyse diskresie betrag. Laat ons by die argumente van die Minister van Finansies bly. Hy staat op en seg, dat die Baxter-rapport vir grondbelasting is, maar dat die Regering sig nog nooit gekompromitteer het nie en hy het nog nooit soiets gesê nie. Dit is duidelik dat die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister nie strook met andere verklarings, in hierdie en die vorige sitting deur die edelagbare die Minister afgelê. Hy voel dat hy is op eiers en ons van hierdie kant kon nie help om te begin lag nie, toe ons sien hoe hy kleitrap. Wat vermakelik was, is dat hy het uitgelê en uitgelê en die gevolg was, dat hy verklaar, dat dit sy opinie is en die van die Minister van Binnelandse Sake en ook van die Minister van Spoorwege al drie, dat grondbelasting moet opgelê word. Toe gaan hy oor in groter verlegenheid, nog altoos kleitrappende, en sê die Regering beskou, dat die land nog nie ryp is vir so’n belasting nie. Ek het hier gesit en kon nie help nie om te denk aan die verse van Russell Lowel in The Lover. Die uitkoms is: ek is nie daarvoor nie; ek is daarvoor; die Minister van Binnelandse Sake en Spoorwege is daarvoor; die Regering is wel daarvoor, maar die land is nie ryp daarvoor nie; nou sal ons dit laat staan. Ons het die volste reg en die Huis het die volste reg aan te neem, dat die posiesie van die Regering vandag is, dat hulle almaal oortuigd is, dat die Baxter Rapport met sy grondbelasting behoort aangeneem te word, maar met die oog daarop, dat as ons daarmee vandag voor die Huis kom, dan sal ons nie ons setels behou nie, en die eleksie nie daarop uitloop, dat ons as Ministers hier terugkeer nie, stel ons dit nie voor nie. Hulle denk ook “discretion is the better part of valour.” Ons sal niks doen nie, ons sal die “undersized infant” van ’n Wetsontwerp voor die Huis breng; ons sal bereid wees die Baxter Rapport en grondbelasting, as die algemene eleksie virby is en die geluk het ons weer ’n meerderheid besorg voor te stel. Om die woorde van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, so dikwels gebruik, te herhaal, ons weet “under which thimble lies the pea.” Vir die Regering om te kom sê, dat hij nie vir die Baxter-rapport en dus vir grondbelasting is nie, is in stryd met wat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies in die laaste sitting en selfs in hierdie gesê het in die toespraak, waarin hy wou ontken, dat dit die bedoeling van die Regering is. ’n Ander ding, waarop ek wens te wys is, wat ek reeds by die begin aangeroer het, n.l., die woorde van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies: “Are we a set of cowards or a gang of wily conspirators?” Ek moet dadelik sê, dat dit is natuurlik die woorde van die edelagbare die Minister, dus ek beskuldig hom nie, want as ek hom beskuldig, moet hy dit woordelik kan vat. Is dit die handelwyse van ’n moedige stel manne? As ek ’n militêre term kon gebruik, sou ek seg: is dit ’n dappere optrede, waar hulle ’n sekere politiek toegedaan is, die nie gedeel word deur die opposisie nie? Maar nie dit alleenlik nie, waar dat hulle ’n politiek toegedaan is, wat nie goedgekeur word deur die volk daarbuit; en terwyl hulle die politiek toegedaan is, erken hulle, dat as hulle daarin sou volhard, hulle sonder sitplase op die regeringsbanke sou geraak. “We allowed a great opportunity to pass.” Hulle is gereed die gelegenherd die daar was, om hervorming in die finansiële toestand van die land te bewerkstellig, te laat virbygaan, net om hulle setels te behou. Ek wens die Huis daarop te wys, wat gaan van onse parlementêre sisteem word, as so iets gebruik word? Dit is duidelik, dat die Ministers baseer hulle reg om aan die bewind te wees nie op die vertrouwe van die volk nie, maar op die reg die hulle sigself aanmatig om dit te doen. Die volk is by hulle niks, want ’n kwessie, wat van die grootste gewig is, daar laat hulle die kans virbygaan om dit aan te pak. Inteendeel seg hulle: “ons is onveilig as ons dit voorbreng, dat ons daaruit sal raak en so nie, dan bly ons.” Dit is seker nie berekend om aan onse politieke gedrag in Suidafrika in die toekoms grote waarde te laat heg nie. Die prestige van die Parlement, van die Regering, van die hele sisteem is daarby gemoeid. Die Regering het sig magteloos betoon, toe hulle ’n groot gelegenheid laat virbygaan het. Dit was hulle plig om te sê: “dit is wat ons denk, dat gedaan moes word.” Hulle moes die leiding geneem het by die volk, onverskillig wat die gevolge mag wees, maar vas vertrouwende, dat hulle so korrek is in wat hulle gedaan het, dat die geleentheid sou kom om te doen, wat hulle reken, dat reg is. Dan kon hulle op agting aanspraak maak. Dit kan hulle nou nie doen nie; wat meer is, dit is duidelik, dat wat nou gaan gedoen word tot nadeel van die land sal wees iets wat ons in jare nie weer sal kan herstel nie. Ek maak nogeens ’n beroep op die edele lede om kalm en objektief die saak te beoordeel en te vraag of ons kan toelaat, dat wetgewing, waarby ons onderwyswese soseer gemoeid is, of ons durf toelaat, dat dit aangeneem word.

I have listened with surprise to-day, I may say with amazement, to the speech which the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), has just delivered, and when I listened to him my mind went back to that great oration of his on the second reading. The speech on the second reading, which was of the most violent nature, was to the effect that the Government had run away from the Baxter Report; that the Government having had the great opportunity of putting the provincial system on a right footing, had acted in a cowardly and pusillanimous spirit, had run away, and had produced this little Bill, this worthless little Bill, not worth the attention of this House. That was what the hon. member said on the second reading. On the third reading, we listen to an entirely different speech here, we are confronted with a Bill not insignificant, worthless, and not worth the attention of the House, but a measure of most far reaching importance—a measure which means the destruction of the provincial system, and education in the Union. This is a great conversion, and I should like to know what has led to this complete change, in the views of the hon. member. A few days ago this Bill was absolutely worthless, and charges made that the Government had run away; to-day it is a most dangerous and potent measure, and so far from being insignificant and worthless, it is going to ruin the Provincial Council, and the educational system. What has happened in the last few days, to bring about this great change in the views of the hon. member? I must say that I am extremely puzzled. The hon. member says it means the destruction of the provincial system, the educational system, and he appeals to Natal. There again I remember something he said on the second reading—the hon. member said it was a concession to Natal—it was a concession to Natal, as the Government was afraid of Natal, and for that reason had not the courage to pass the Baxter Report. I will ask the hon. member what has occurred since the second reading, that has caused him to change his views to this extent? Let us hear what Natal says. My right hon. friend the Minister of Finance, had the conference with the authorities, and explained to them his views, and, after explaining their views, they agreed to the principle of uniformity, subject to the maintenance of the safeguard of provincial rights. The right hon. the Minister drafted his Bill and sent it to Natal, and this was the answer—this is a letter signed by the Administrator, who says—

That is the Bill now before the House.

Will the letter be laid upon the Table?

I will lay it upon the Table. I think the hon. member, who represents a Natal constitutency, will be satisfied that Natal did not lead us to be frightened. This Bill, on the second reading, was a concession to Natal according to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), and now on the third reading he says it is a tremendous bogey. Here is the real answer, not an answer from the political wire-pullers, the people who are pulling this province to pieces. No, sir, Natal has given the matter every consideration. Natal says that this Bill carries out the agreement arrived at, at the conference.

Natal says nothing of the sort. The members of the Executive say that.

The constitutional authority is speaking for Natal! Wait until the hon. member and his friends are the contitutional authority to speak for Natal. Meanwhile I am quite satisfied with what the Natal teachers say. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) goes on. His next point was that the ostensible object of Clause 2 was the introduction of uniformity. He sees a sinister intention in the clause. What is that sinister intention? He supplies the answer. He is prolific in the production of explanations; he is ready with one, and his explanation is that Clause 2 with its salary scale, as framed by the Public Service Commission, was intended to save the provinces from the burden of taxation, that the scale would effect sufficient economy, to save the provinces the trouble and responsibility of fresh taxation. That is the answer of the hon. member. What are the facts? The bare simple facts of the situation are, that the scale laid down by—

The right hon. the Minister had no scale laid down.

The hon. member is too previous. Just listen to me. I say this scale, as recommended by the Public Service Commission, if it was accented in toto immediately in the Cape Province would, so far from affecting any saving in the province, mean, the first year, an additional expenditure of £50,000. The hon. member said that these scales were intended as a form of taxation, but just before that he said—

If they were put into force.

The hon. gentleman may be reminded that he said that these were initiated as a matter of taxation, and to get money from the provinces. The real effect would be, that if these were put into force immediately, as suggested by the Public Service Commission, it would mean an immediate expenditure to the Cape Province of £50,000. Now the position is perfectly clear. If the scale was put into force, there would be an enormous increase in expenditure. These scales are prospective; the whole system intended by the clause, is meant for the future. They are intended to apply to the present teachers on future promotion, and future teachers on appointment. The present men are not affected. The whole scheme, as laid down by the Public Service Commission, was to apply a system of economy to the future, as in the case of other public servants, and to future promotion. In so far as this was the object, the scale cannot be applied immediately, but the object of the reduction would arise in the future. So far as that is the object, we are going to achieve the object of uniformity. We cannot have immediate uniformity, because we are not going to apply the scale to everybody, but the scale will apply generally. The only deviation from the principle of uniformity will arise, in the case of general percentage reductions in the provinces, if the financial exigencies demand it. That is the only deduction from the principle of uniformity, as it will exist in future. We cannot have immediate uniformity, any more than we can have it in the public service. The whole scheme for teachers, as for public servants, is meant to come into operation in future over a period of years; it will therefore come into force when this Bill becomes law, and the result will then be that over a period of years we will have absolute uniformity, with this reservation, that if in any particular year the provincial finances are such that the province is forced to apply an all-round percentage reduction, it has the power to do so for that year.

Where is the uniformity?

That is what I call uniformity.

There is no uniformity there.

It is uniformity subject to that particular provision. The hon. member, in all the arguments that he has used here this afternoon, has simply shown that he has not given any thought to anything in this Bill, that he has been taking diametrically opposed grounds on various provisions of the Bill, within a couple of days. He took an entirely different view on important points on the second reading to what he takes today, and I think his views have never been thought out. He need not be afraid. This Bill does not mean the destruction, either of the provincial system, or of education, in the province. I will tell the hon. member what will mean the destruction of the provincial system—the provincial system can be self-destroyed, the provinces can commit suicide. A province through its attitude, or by its own action in declining to perform its constitutional functions, may commit suicide and end its own life. It may leave the country and Parliament no option and, of course, whatever a province does, it does with that clear constitutional position before it. A duty is placed on it in the constitution, if it does not fulfil that duty, if it abdicates its functions, it jeopardises its future position, and this or any other province has to keep that clearly in view, because that is the real danger that lies across its future. What is the position in this province? Take the case of the Transvaal Province, which has been up against the same problem that people are in in this province. It is trying to pay its way, I admit, in a way which is not approved of by many of the people of the Transvaal. I admit there has been a great difference of opinion, as to the financial methods and measures of the Transvaal Provincial Council, but, even so, that province and the other provinces have consistently made an effort, rightly or wrongly, to discharge their functions, to make ends meet, and to carry on the services entrusted to them under the constitution. The trouble has arisen in this province where for years there has been a deficit.

Under a South African Party majority.

Do not let us argue the party point of view. The hon. member has, through his party system, done the maximum amount of mischief to the provincial system.

Talk about a province where the majority is Nationalist.

The province for years now has not made ends meet, with the result that for years there has been a deficit which we are dealing with now under this Bill, and the deficit has to be met. It cannot go on as it has been doing; this Parliament is not going to finance the Cape Province out of the money of the Union tax-payer, and if the province refuses to carry out its obligations, the provincial system will be in danger. I do not think the hon. member is justified in saying that under this Bill we are trying to kill the Provincial Council system. It is a reminder to this and every other province, that it has to discharge its constitutional functions, and as long as it does that, it is safe; if it does not do so, it will be a case of self-destruction, and not of destruction through this Bill. The hon. member goes on to another point and says that under this Bill, if it becomes law, it will conceivably be in the power of the Government to cut out rural education, in this and other provinces. I should like to know why the Government should do that; what object would it have in doing that? After all, for years the whole effort of the Government, both here in this House—

But the Baxter Report practically advises it.

And in the provincial administration, has been to bring education to the homes of the people. Vast sums have been spent to do it, and for years past it has been our great effort. Why does the hon. member think we have suddenly changed, and that rural education is going to be scrapped, and under the powers which the Government gets under this Bill to settle teachers’ salaries, it is going to ruthlessly cut down rural education? It is an absurd contention, and an absurd fear, which the hon. member holds before the people of this country.

But it was the principal recommendation of the Baxter Report.

The hon. member in this regard is as wrong as he is in most other regards in reference to this education report. I sometimes really wonder whether the hon. member has read the Baxter Report, because he conjures up such a disaster to this country as a result of this Baxter Report, that I have come to the conclusion that he has probably not read it at all.

Probably the hon. member does not understand it.

The Government gets the power, and conceivably may exercise it, of destroying education in this country. I do not believe there is one single person who believes that, especially with our record of what we have done for rural education. I do not think the hon. member can argue that for a moment. Now the old bogey of land tax is trotted out. I will tell the hon. member when a land tax will come into force in this country—when the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) is in charge of the Natal Province. [Laughter.] Yes, that is the time when the tax will come into force in this country. What happened a couple of days ago in the Wakkerstroom district? The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Roos), who is in charge of the Transvaal, not in charge here, not discharging his Parliamentary functions here, but running elections in the Transvaal, sent to Wakkerstroom an emmisary to represent the Nationalist Party there. This emissary, Mr. Schmolke, had been listening to the speeches made by comrade Heinrich and comrade Gen. Pienaar. These two eminent comrades of the pact, were cross-examined at Wakkerstroom as to land tax, socialism, and eight hour day on the farms, and all these other matters, and answers were given by these two eminent representatives of the Nationalist Party, which certainly had such an effect on Mr. Schmolke that, instead of discharging his duties as the emissary of the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Roos), he promptly resigned from the Nationalist Party. The land tax will come when the pact comes. I do not think there is any serious danger of the land tax even so, because I do not think that the time is very near when the pact will rule this country, but it shows that people do not realize what the dangers are, and it is futile for the hon. member to go and rouse the fears of the public in this country, as to what we are going to do in future.

Is grondbelasting nie in die Baxter-rapport nie?

Very conceivably.

En wil die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sê dat dit nie as hoofbeginsel aangeneem is nie?

Very conceivably. The position taken up by this Government has always been clear on this question.

Well, let us hear what it is.

We have never declared ourselves against a land tax.

Oh!

But what we say is a land tax is impracticable.

At the present time.

But when this country—

I thought the country was not ripe.

But when this country can swallow the pact it can also swallow the land tax, the universal eight hours, socialism, and everything else.

What does the Prime Minister’s socialism say?

Nothing has been said here by the hon. member, and nothing has happened during the last few days to change our opinion at the present moment that, although this is a small Bill and does not provide a comprehensive solution of all our provincial difficulties, it is a good Bill, and it provides, so far as the teachers are concerned, a good basis for the future education of this country. Nothing has been said here to change our view on that point, and nothing will be served by all this agitation, which is overdoing itself, passing all limits, and which in the end, I am afraid, will do the teachers and the teaching profession much more harm than this Bill could ever have done. Nothing that has fallen from the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), or any hon. member on that side of the House, whether he hails from Natal or not, will change our opinion on this Bill.

The speech we have just heard from the right hon. the Prime Minister appears to be one of great panic.

What?

It is the most panicky speech we have heard in this House for a long while, and the reasons are not far to seek. These words have to go to Wakkerstroom because the South African Party seat is in very great danger. I am very surprised about the Labour Party going into Wakkerstroom and preaching about socialism—

They have the hon. member’s party there.

Because the shadow of the hon. the Minister of Lands said that no Labour man would dare to go on the veld and preach socialism.

The Nationalists have got the hon. member’s party there.

The hon. the Minister of Lands in cross-examination at Wellington said—

I said what would happen. See what has happened.

What has happened is, that a socialist has gone to Wakkerstroom and has made a socialist speech to the voters who dwell on the veld. The result is going to be that Mr. Schmolke may have left, but Mr. Naude is coming in. The Prime Minister says Natal is absolutely in favour of uniformity. The fact is that Natal at the present moment, is the only Provincial Council in the whole of South Africa where the South African Party is in the majority, and of the executive three South African Party members voted for uniformity and the other, the only Labour man, voted against it., and, as far as the teachers of Natal are concerned, we have seen by the speeches they have made here that they are right against it. Then the right hon. the Prime Minister goes on to issue a word of warning to the Cape that it might be committing suicide. But who is to blame for the Provincial Council being prorogued? The South African Party Administrator.

That is not committing suicide.

He heard they were going to pass a resolution protesting against the action of the Government on this Bill. What did they do? They at once prorogued the Council and threw the Cape into the state it is to-day. They must not come and tell this House what has been done by the Provincial Council of the Cape, because up to a few days ago that Provincial Council possessed a South African. Party majority. But now to get on with this Bill. This crazy little Bill of the right hon. the Minister of Finance has caused agitation not only amongst the teachers, but right through South Africa. Right through South Africa the people are asking what is the Government going to do about Provincial Councils? There is no doubt that the South African Party has run away from the Baxter Report. If your Natal members sitting there in caucus had not said that they were against the Baxter Report, you would have brought up that Report. But the Natal members would not stand for the Baxter Report, and Natal will yet break the South African Party. The right hon. the Prime Minister knows I am right, and that Natal will yet break the South African Party. As far as the teachers are concerned, there has not only been a breach of faith on the part of the right hon. the Minister of Finance, who is not in his place, but there is a breach of faith on the part of the Public Service Commission who definitely assured the Federal Council of Teachers that they were not going to reduce the scale, but now they have brought in a scale which is the lowest of the lot, i.e., that of the Cape. The Administrators not very long ago said, that uniformity on the highest scale of existence was what they wanted. The Federal Council of Teachers proposed a via media at the time, which made a saving of £20,000. We have said it in this corner of the House that the Public Service Commission is incompetent to deal with this question, and we adhere to that. The right hon. the Prime Minister says the Bill will not mean the ruining of rural education, but he does not know the Bill. If this Bill passes it will mean the closing down of 264 schools in the Free State, and salaries will be so low that the teachers of the Free State will not take them, but will go into other classes which are now held by uncertificated teachers. Under this classification the uncertificated teachers will get a bigger salary than the certificated. In Winburg, if this Bill comes into law, the secondary school there will have to close down. Under this classification of schools there will be such a large number of children in one school, that the teachers will not be able to deal with them. So far as the Free State is concerned it will do us an enormous amount of harm. It has been said on that side of the House that everyone wants uniformity. The Federation of Teachers met together and they passed this resolution in regard to uniformity—

So far as the Free State is concerned, it is taking a large sum of money away. The teachers have not been fairly treated by the Government. If they had, do you think that a body of sensible men would have passed such a resolution as this? When the teachers of the Cape Province met on Saturday the following resolution was passed—

That meeting was presided over by Capt. Graham, a strong member of the South African Party, with an excellent record in the war. That is what was passed by 1,400 people on Saturday, and still the right hon. the Prime Minister comes here, wants to wipe it away, and says we will get uniformity. All that the teachers wanted was a Government guarantee of stability and the removal or the salary question from the arena of strife. They say uniformity will be a sham, as the various Provincial Councils will try to alter it. The hon. the Minister of the Interior went into the countryside the other day and made a speech, but prior to that in the House, he compared expenditure on education in this country with that in Australia. He spoke of the little amount of money which he said was spent in Australia. But there are no bilingual teachers in Australia, neither are there any natives. Again the population of South Africa is far more scattered than that of Australia, and the population of Australia is for the most part on the sea-board in five big cities. It costs the Central Government £62 to educate a child at Roodepoort, a Government school in the Free State.

The hon. member is including maintenance.

No, I am not. Look what the hon. Minister has taken in with the other figures. He has taken in the cost of transport to schools. In the agricultural colleges, it costs £130 per pupil, and still this Government is asking us to hand education over to the Central Government. The Provincial Councils have done particularly well. The teachers in the Free State have cut their salaries down 5 percent., and everybody there has carried the weight with the result that the Administration has saved £25,000. I want, here, to refer to an article which appeared in the Cape Times, accusing the members of the Free State of being a lot of pickpockets. They forget that the Free State came into Union, and handed over to Union all its assets. It did not put up a Union Building which cost a million and a half; it did not come into the Union broken and bleeding like the Cape. It had just sold its National Bank before it came in, and handed over all its assets to the Union. It did not plan out the construction of railways on its death-bed, and leave the carrying out of them to the Union. No, it is a wrong thing for a South African Party paper like the Cape Times to say that we in the Free State picked the pockets of the other provinces. We came in with full pockets; the pockets may have been small, but we could not help that. We put all our cards on the counter, but did the right hon. the Prime Minister do that? No, he kept an ace under the candlestick. There was no political chicanery done by the Free State, and it does not lie in the mouth of any paper to say that the Free State did not play the game. It is all very well for hon. members who live in towns to speak about rural education, but I have found that there is extreme difficulty in getting schools for the rural districts. When I think that 264 schools will he closed, I ask are you dealing fairly with the men on the veld, whose children, after all is said and done, are white? For everyone of them that falls by the wayside it means that more black people will come in and take the place of the white man. I say that no children in the whole of the Empire should be better educated than the white children of the South African farmers. Our racial problems are so great that I say it is our duty to see that every white child is properly educated and until that has been done you will not be able to say that you have made Union a success. Not until the white children of this country are properly educated, can we stand with a united front against the coloured. What is going to happen is that we are going to make more poor whites. We are going to close 264 schools in the Free State for the sake of economy. Under this Bill certain classifications of schools take place by the Public Service Commission. They will consist of 400 pupils, of 200, of 60, of 25 and of 20. In the Free State to-day we can establish schools with a minimum of 10 children. The attitude of the Public Service Commission is that schools with under 20 children will be closed. These facts were given to me by the secretary of the Federation of Teachers. I say we have no right to trifle with the education of our children. If there is one job in South Africa which should be well paid, that is the job of teachers. I think that a teacher should get more money than any other person in South Africa. We hand over to teachers our most cherished possessions—our children. What is the most cherished possession we have? Of course our children. We hand over our greatest asset to the teachers and ask them to educate them at a miserable pittance. I am not afraid to tax the country for education. We are not afraid of a land tax for education. Who carried on their banner the motto that they advocated the taxation of improved land values? The Unionist Party. The last time they met at Bloemfontein they bore a banner “This Party stands for the taxation of unimproved land.” And the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture used to shout it. I helped him to shout it, and I am shouting it still. Where are my comrades? We all know the wagon only goes as fast as the slowest oxen. My hon. friend used to say there was only one thing that could save South Africa and that was the taxation of land. But now—never, never, never.

What about the fiery cross?

What about the fiery cross? I am still carrying the fiery cross. What are the people to do?

Keep quiet.

My hon. friend did not keep quiet when he advocated in the Transvaal, after having their wages cut, that the advocates should go on strike, and I remember him wearing the red flag. What are the teachers to do? The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), I think a year ago, said that civil servants should not be allowed to strike if they did not agree with the Government, but they could express their opinions through the ballot boxes. This year he says: “What right have the teachers to make this a political question, through their votes in the ballot boxes?” On one hand he says they should not strike, and on another, that they should not exercise their right to the ballot box. The right hon. the Prime Minister said the agitation had gone too far. Too far for whom? Too far for a dying party.

Don’t let the hon. member deceive himself.

The hon. member should be careful, the Licensed Victuallers are on the track of the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon). We say that we, the Labour Party, are always prepared to find money for education, and if we were in power we would have a tax on land, and get the money for education. I remember in the Free State we had a provincial bank. We made money out of it. If we started it again the Government would kill it as they are protecting the big banks. We had a diamond mine in the Free State,—

The hon. member must not go too far away from the subject.

I want to point out this; this Bill is reducing teachers’ salaries, and this is a way we could raise money. In the Free State we had a diamond mine which produced millions that went out of the Free State and was never taxed by the Free State. Why should not the Provincial Council have the right to take £50,000 out of that mine every year? Why not? Because the central Government has stopped it. It is the central Government and not the Provincial Councils which has caused the present chaos. When all the Provincial Councils were South African Party, things were all right, but now when the Provincial Councils, with one exception, are not South African Party the Government are trying to kill the provincial system. I think the time has come for us to sit down and reason together. I quite agree with the hon. the Minister of the Interior, that the time has come when we should have another National Convention, but that would have come much better if he had said so at the beginning of the debate. You can pass this Bill—you can put young men in as Administrators, as happened in the Transvaal, or old men as in the Free State—you can do anything you like, but this trouble about provincial system is not going to be settled that way. What we want is a Provincial Council Bill which will settle the question as it was Settled m Australia last year. At present an attempt is made to put the system right at the expense of teachers, but we are not going to stand for that. The teachers will have the support of the Labour Party, and we are not canvassing for their votes, as they always vote South African Party, but we will stand by the weak and oppressed. That is the principle of the Labour Party—they always stand by the weak and the oppressed. I beg to move—

Ek sekondeer. Ek wil graag oor ’n paar punte waarin ek belang stel in verband met hierdie Wetsontwerp spreek, maar voordat ek by daardie punte kom, dink ek eers ’n paar woorde te wy aan die toespraak van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, vanmiddag hier gehou. Ek moet sê, dat ek altoos met die grootste genoeë luister na toesprake van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister en ook vanmiddag het ek dit weer gedaan. En waarom? Omdat veral as die edelagbare die Eerste Minister ’n swak saak het, hy hom altoos betoon ’n meester te wees om vuurwerk te maak. Sy toespraak vanmiddag het ook niks anders gewees as eenvoudig vuurwerk te maak en vuurwerk interesseer en amuseer altoos, maar in werkelikheid is dit onskadelik en as dit verby is, dan laat dit ’n duisternis, die groter is, dan die tevore was. Dis nou nie nodig vir my om die argumente van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister een vir een te neem nie, maar ek wil maar net twee dinge wat hy genoem het neem en aan die Huis toon, hoe weinig waarde aan sy argumente geheg kan word. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het gesê, dat die Kaap Provinsie sy plig nie doet nie en dan die Kaap Provinsie vergelyk met die Transvaal en gesê, dat Transvaal in dieselfde posiesie gewees het as die Kaap en dat daar ontevredenheid gewees het, dat hulle in die posiesie gebring is deur die Unie Regering, soos hulle dit opvat, maar dat die provinsie eenvoudig sy plig gedoen het deur taksasies te hef en dat die Kaap Provinsie weier om dit te doen. Hy gooi daarom die skuld op die Prowinsiale Raad van die Kaap Prowinsie. Maar weet die edelagbare die Eerste Minister nie, dat presies dieselfde wat die Transvaalse Prowinsiale Raad verlede jaar gedoen het, namelik om belastinge te gaan hef, die Kaap Provinsie op dieselfde tyd verlede jaar ook besluit het om te doen? Het dit die edelagbare die Eerste Minister ontgaan, dat die Uitvoerende Komitee van die Prowinsiale Raad of selfs die Prowinsiale Raad self sy vinger gelê het op ’n belasting wat hulle graag wou hef, namelik op die verkoopbelasting en dat hulle sover gegaan het, om die edelagbare die Ministers te raadpleeg en dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister en die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies plegtig belowe het om aan die Parlement magtiging te vra vir die oplê van die belasting deur die Prowinsiale Raad? Toe die tyd gekom het, toe was dit nie die Prowinsiale Raad wat sy plig nie wou doen nie, maar dit was die edelagbare die Eerste Minister wat ’n stok in die wiel ingesteek het. Kan onder die omstandighede die edelagbare die Eerste Minister vir die Huis sê, dat die Prowinsiale Raad van die Kaap sy plig nie doen om belastinge op te lê nie en dat as hulle darem sterwe, dit hulle eie skuld is?

Die belasting was buite hulle bevoegdheid.

Laat ons kom tot ’n ander bewering van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, ’n bewering wat natuurlikerwys gemaak is met die oog op die tussenverkiesing wat in Wakkerstroom gaat plaas vind, dit is die bewering, dat die Nasionale Party as die aan die bewind sal kom, heel gou ’n grondbelasting gaat oplê. Dan is sy grond die hy daarvoor noem, die feit dat edele lede wat daar op die dwarsbanke sit in saamwerking sou wees met lede van die Nasionale Party. Die eerste antwoord daarop is reeds gegee deur die edele lid vir Bloemfontein (Noord) (de hr. Barlow) en dit is, dat daar edele lede aan hierdie kant van die Huis is, namelik lede van die Arbeids Party, wat vir grondbelasting is. Maar op dieselfde ministeriële banke sit edelagbare Ministers, om van baie ander lede van die Suid-Afrikaanse Party nie eens te spreek nie, wat hulleself definitief gekompromitteer het wat grondbelasting betref.

Wat van die edele lid vir Vrededorp (Dr. Visser)?

Nou laat ons dan die edele lid vir Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) as ’n uitsondering neem, laat ons dit toegewe.

Ja, die edele lid gee dit toe.

Maar die edele lid vir Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) beklee darem nog nie die betrekking in die Nasionale Party, wat die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou of die edelagbare die Minister van Binnenlandse Sake beklee aan die ander kant nie. Ons het die opienie daarteenoor keer op keer gehad van verantwoordelike Ministers, dat hulle ten gunste is van grondbelasting en ek is bly, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister vanmiddag so ver gegaan het, dat hy gesê het, dat die Regering hom nie teen die grondbelasting verklaar het nie, maar dat verantwoordelike edelagbare Ministers hulle ten gunste daarvan verklaar het. Hulle het hulle nie alleenlik nie daarteen verklaar as Ministerie nie, maar as verantwoordelike manne sig daarvoor verklaar, die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies ingeslote. Laat ons verder gaan; vandag het ons die proef op die som; ons het nie nodig om bespiegelinge te hou oor wat kan of nie kan gebeur nie. Daar is twee provinsies, waar die Nasionale Party alles te seg het. Vireers die Vrystaat. En is daar grondbelasting? Verder is daar die Transvaal. In daardie provinsie bestaan daar al ettelike jare ’n politieke toestand, soos die Eerste Minister in gedagte gehad het as ’n moontlikheid ook in hierdie Huis. Die Nasionale en Arbeiders Partye het daar al geruime tyd werkelik ’n meerderheid. Aan die ander kant is daar een provinsie, waar die Sappe al sedert jare kan doen wat hulle wil, die Kaap Provinsie, en daar is grondbelasting. As ons na die feite kyk, hoef ons nie te argumenteer oor die korrektheid van die argumente van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister nie; ons het die proef daarvan dat dit waar is. Nog ’n paar woorde in verband met die Wetsontwerp. Ek wil seg dat hierdie Wetsontwerp aanleiding gee tot veel diskussie, somtyds tot harde en bittere woorde, en ek is nie so hoopvol om te denk, dat na die beroep van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) die derde lesing nie sal geneem word nie. Maar ek verbly my tog oor een saak, dat by die diskussie ’n slag gelewer is, wat sy uitwerking sal hê ten bate van ons onderwys; ten gunste van die beginsel dat onderwysers in Suidafrika goed betaal behoort te word, en net so goed as ander siviele ambtenare. Ek sal nie verder op die kwessie ingaan nie, maar net seg dat mens nie veel kan gaan op die lede nie, wat toe die oorlog aan die gang was, keer op keer verklaar het, en van die platforms die leer verkondig het, dat in hierdie groot wereldoorlog is die belang van onderwys, van opvoeding, bewese; dat die nasies, wat die beste opgevoed is die beste kans had om te oorwin. Dit word gewin deur opvoeding en ’n land as Engeland het die bewys gelewer; dat selfs toe die sware laste opgeleg moes word, hulle nooit wou toelaat, dat die kinders se opvoeding daaronder ly nie en onlangs is aangekondig dat daar ’n grote sprong vooruit gemaak is. As Suidafrika een ding nodig het, dan is dit onderwys, nie om sigself en wat dit vir die kind beteken slegs nie, maar ook omdat ons as blanke ras in ’n biesondere posisie verkeer, soas in byna geen ander land nie en omdat ons die draërs en waarborg van die beskawing is. As enige deel van die wereld mag ly op die stuk van onderwys dan nie Suid Afrika nie. Hier is ’n slag gelewer ten bate van onderwys, dat dit nie sal ly nie. Ek verwag nie veel van die Regering en hul gevolg in hierdie Huis nie, maar wel dat die volk die voet sal neerset en seg: onderwys sal nie op enige wys ly nie. Hier is geseg deur die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, dat hier die laaste dage ’n konferensie gehou is in verband met die ontwikkelinge in verband met die Prowinsiale Raad en wel tussen die voormannen van die Nasionale Party in die Huis en die in die Prowinsiale Raad; dat daar ’n soort koukus gehou is, waar sekere lede van die Nasionale Party raad gehou het met lede van die Prowinsiale Raad en dat hulle aan dese advies gegee het en wat uitgevoer is. Welke kwaad siet die edelagbare die Eerste Minister dan daarin as lede van dieselfde party oor sake wat sowel hierdie Huis as die Prowinsiale Raad aangaan, mekaar raadpleeg? Ek verheel my dat ek in die toon van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister, ek wil nie sê jaloesie nie, maar ten minste spyt gelees het, dat hy nie met dieselfde vertrouwe na ’n koukus van sy partygenote sou kan gaan en raad gee wat gevolg sal word nie. Maar die edelagbare die Eerste Minister wil dit so voorstel asof die advies hierop neerkom, dat ’n houding in die Prowinsiale Raad aangeneem sal word van obstruksie. Ons, die Nasionale Party, wil niks doen om obstruksie te voer nie. Ek denk die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het nie behoorlike aandag gegee aan die resolusie van die Prowinsiale Raad nie; as hy dit gelees had, kon hy nie geseg ’t wat hy geseg het nie. Wat aangeneem is deur die Prowinsiale Raad is eenvoudig, dat voordat die beginsel van sekere belasting-voorstelle goedgekeur word, die lede eers die gelegenheid sal kry om heen te gaan en hulle kiesers te raadpleeg. Is die raad so verkeerd? So ja, dan was die Administrateur ook verkeerd, want ’n week tevore het hy in ’n proklamasie geseg, dat die Prowinsiale Raad byeen moet kom om sekere belasting-voorstelle te oorweeg en lede moet eers heengaan en hulle kiesers raadpleeg. Nee, raadpleging van die volk is nie verkeerd nie, maar die manier waarop die Administrateur dit nou doen, namelik nadat die Prowinsiale Raadslede hulself eers gekompromitteer het, is verkeerd. En inplaas van die verkeerde manier van raadpleging het. Nasionale Party lede van hierdie Huis geadvrseer dat die regte sal gestel word. Maar daar was ’n ander koukus en ’n ander advies van eweveel belang, waarvan die Eerste Minister geen melding gemaak het nie. Dit was die van die Minister van Finansies met die Kaapse Administrateur. En wat was die gegewe advies? Net die teenoorgestelde van wat lede van hierdie Huis aan die Prowinsiale Raadslede gegee het. Hulle raad was: gaat en raadpleeg die volk en voer hulle wil uit. Sy raad was: moet die besuinigings en belasting voorstelle nie publiseer, solank as die Prowinsiale Raadslede nog by hulle kiesers kan kom nie en solank as hierdie Wetsontwerp nog nie aangeneem is nie. Dit is advies, waarop die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies en die Regering seker nie trots kan wees nie. Ek wil terugkom tot die bespreking wat plaasgevind het oor die Wetsontwerp en meer bepaald tot wat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies geseg het in sy repliek op die twede lesing. Soas die edele lede sig sal herinner, het ek die standpunt ingeneem, dat voordat oorgegaan word tot maatregels, die hard en drukkend is op sekere seksies van die bevolking en wat in hierdie geval griewend en onregvaardig sou wees teenoor die onderwysers, moet eers ondersoek word of al die seksies van die bevolking hulle regmatige deel bydraag tot die Staatskas. En ek het meer bepaald hierop gewys, dat terwyl aan die ene kant die effekt van hierdie voorstel voor die Huis die onderwys skade gaan aandoen en die onderwysers van hulle loon beroof, dat aan die andere kant die mynindustrie, wat uit die aard van die saak, swaarder belas behoor te word dan die res van die volk, dat hulle £300,000 verligting gekry het van hierdie Regering deur ’n Wet wat hierdie Raad aangeneem het en dat die mynindustrie besonder welvarend is. Dit was die lyne wat ek in my argumente by die twede lesing gevolg het.

Het die edele lid die lyne ook aan die Prowinsiale Rade gegee?

Ek het dit gedoen, maar voor ek dit gedaan het, het hulle ditself al uitgevind deur dure ondervinding. Nou kom die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies en in sy antwoord wys hy daarop, dat ek nou net die vernaamste en rykste myne geneem het en hulle diwidende vir die Huis aangehaal het en die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het daarop gewys, dat ek maar net 13 of 14 van die 39 myne wat daar is, aangehaal het. Hy vra, hoe dan nou met die 25 of 26 andere myne, waarom nie die aangehaal nie? Wat omtrent hulle diwidende? En die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het verder gegaan en aan die Huis vertel dat die goudmynindustrie in sy geheel geneem op die kapitaal wat daarin belê is, maar aan diwidende ’n elf persent betaal. Ek wil graag hieroor ’n paar woorde sê. Die eerste punt wat die edelagbare die Minister aangeroer het is, dat ek maar net die rykste myne aangehaal het. Maar die vraag is tog nie, hoeveel myne ek hier noem nie, wat so welvarend is, maar die vraag is hoe groot die myne is en watter gedeelte die myne wat ek hier genoem het verteenwoordig van die mynindustrie. Dit kom nie aan op die getal van die myne nie wat ek genoem het, maar hoe groot gedeelte van die mynindustrie hulle verteenwoordig. Ek het nie in staat gewees om volledige opgawes te kry nie. Dit lyk vir my, dat die dinge taamlik geheim gehou word deur die Kamer van Mynwese, maar tog het ek aan die hand van die jaarrapport van die Departement van Mynwese ’n paar syfers gekry. Ek het o.a. genoem die “Government Areas” wat laaste jaar 60 persent diwidend betaal het en ek vind dat in 1921, die laaste normale jaar, waaroor ons opgawes het, dat die totaal opbrengs van alle myne was £34,500,000, terwyl daardie ene myn wat ek net opgenoem het verantwoordelik was vir nie minder nie as £3,520,000. As ek drie van die veertien myne neem, wat ek genoem het en waaromtrent ek die offisiële opgawe het, namelik die “Government Areas,” die “Brakpan” en die “Springs,” dan vind ek, dat die same £6,150,000 verteenwoordig, dus omtrent een sesde van die hele goudopbrengs van die Witwatersrand. Nou sê ek, dat dit nie net ’n kwessie is van hoeveel myne nie, maar van hoe groot die gedeelte is wat die 13 of 14 myne wat ek genoem het van die hele mynindustrie verteenwoordig, en ek sê dat die 13 of 14 myne ’n baie belangrike deel van die mynindustrie verteenwoordig. Die diwidende wat ek genoem het varieer tussen 27½ en 140 persent. My verdere antwoord is dit, wat vir saak maak dit in my argument hoeveel myne daar is wat floreer en hoeveel daar is wat nie floreer nie, as ek in verband met inkomstebelasting die argument sou gebruik het? Dat die edele lid vir Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) oor die een of twee miljoen pond besit en daar is in die land ’n miljoen ander mense wat net so’n plaas het as hy, en wat minder as £300 inkomste het, dit daarom onredelik sou wees om die edele lid vir Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) vir sy rykdom te belas, wat vir soort van argument sou dit wees? Maar dit is presies die soort van argument wat die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies gebruik het met betrekking tot die myne. Omdat daar 39 myne is en 25 produseer nie, of is nie ryk myne nie, daarom mag op die 13 of 14 myne wat skatryk is, geen belasting gelê word nie. Ek sê, dat die argument geen steek hou nie. Nou kom ek tot die 11 persent.

Will the hon. member apply that principle to farmers?

Ryk boere word wel degelik belas. Nou laat ons kom op die 11 persent. Toe die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies dit genoem het, toe het ek my verbaas, want ek het tamelik naukeurig die rapport deurgelees van die Departement van Mynwese en het niks daarin gevind wat reg gee vir die bewering nie. Die syfer van 11 persent die wat die edelagbare die Minister noem, verskyn wel in die jaarrapport as die diwidend wat uitgekeer is op belegde kapitaal, maar dit is die diwidend uitgekeer op belegde kapitaal in non-produserende, net sowel as in produserende myne. Onder die non-produserende myne is daar myne wat al— veronderstel ek—hulle tyd uitgedien het, wat uitgeput is. Die amortisasie waarvoor daar voorsiening gemaak word, wat die belastinggaarder elke jaar in rekening neem tot ’n bedrag van £4,000,000, die het voorsiening gemaak, dat hulle kapital kan afbetaal word en die myne is as proposiesie klaar en gesluit. Maar daar is ook andere myne wat nog nie waarin kapitaal belê is en die 11 persent slaan ook op daardie kapitaal en ons vind, dat van die belegde kapitaal, daar nie minder as 12½ miljoen verteenwoordig word deur non-produserende myne, en; alleen 46 persent miljoen is belê in produserende myne. Dis nie reg om daardie non-produserende myne ook in die totaal te neem nie, maar as ons die non-produserende myne nie neem nie, dan vind ons volgens die rapport, dat in die jaar 1921 die diwidend 15½ persent was en die jaar tevore selfs 17 persent. Nou, ek sê, as jy ryk en arm myne deurmekaar neem en hulle produseer op die belegde kapitaal 15½ of 17 persent, dat daar geen rede vir kla is nie en dat alle reden bestaan om op die myne groter belasting te lê sodat die myne meer sal bydra tot die laste van die land. Nou nog net een laaste punt en dit is die punt wat al aangeraak is deur die edele lid vir Bloemfontein (Noord) (de hr. Barlow) wat soëwe gepraat het en wat gerefereer het na ’n toespraak gehou ’n paar dae gelede deur die edelagbare die Minister van Binnelandse Sake, toe hy na aanleiding van die posiesie, met betrekking tot die relasies van die Unie en die provinsies, waarin die land nou gekom het, aan die hand gegee het dat daar ’n Nasionale Konvensie gehou sou word oor hierdie kwessie, om opnuut die verhouding te bepaal. Laat ek hier daadlik sê, dat ek met die sienswyse van die edele lid vir Bloemfontein (Noord) (de hr. Barlow) my nie kan verenig nie. As daar kwessie is van enige verandering, wat in die gedagte is met betrekking tot die verhouding tussen die provinsies en die Unie en as die kwessie die Konstitusie sou raak, dan gaan ek met horn saam, en dan gaan ek saam met die edelagbare die Minister van Binnelandse Sake en dan sê ek dat oor die verandering in die Konstitusie ’n Nasionale Konvensie gehou moet word. Toe ons gedink het aan die verandering van die Konstitusie van die Senaat, was dit die weg wat ingeslaan werd en die deur ons almaal goedgekeur werd en toe verlede jaar, of die jaar daarvoor die gedagte was, om ’n nuwe provinsie by die Unie te voeg, toe Rhodesië sou inkom, toe sou die tyd vir die edelagbare die Minister van Onderwys gewees het om te praat van ’n Nasionale Konvensie, sodat die beslissing daaroor nie net deur een party wat die meerderheid in die Huis het, deurgedrywe sou word nie, en ek sê, dat as daar nou sprake sou wees van die afskaffing van die Prowinsiale Rade, dan sou dit ook heeltemaal reg wees, dat daar ’n Nasionale Konvensie gehou sou word, en dat dit nie sal uitgemaak word deur die meerderheid van die Huis of by wyse van ’n algemene verkiesing nie. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het in ’n vroeëre toespraak gesê, dat die Prowinsiale Rade ingestel is spesiaal op aandrang van die twee klein provinsies en dat die klein provinsies onder die uitdrukkelike voorwaarde ingekom het in die Unie en dat die afskaffing van die Prowinsiale Rade dus ook moet geskied met instemming van die twee provinsies en nie kan geskied deur ’n meerderheid in die Huis nie. Die afskaffing kan alleen geskied met hulle toestemming en met die toestemming van alle partye, net soos die Prowinsiale Rade, nie deur een party, maar deur alle partye in die lewe geroep is nie. My kontensie is dus dat as die Konstitusie geraak word, en die kwessie van afskaffing van Prowinsiale Rade aan die orde gestel is, daar grond vir die byeenroep van ’n algemene konvensie sou wees, maar as die kwessie die Konstitusie nie raak nie, dan rus die beslissing by die Huis en dan is die enige houding wat ’n Regering behoort aan te neem, om by die Konstitusie te staan en op die grondslag te bly van die Suid-Afrika Akte en van die Finansiële Verhoudings Wet van 1913. Veranderinge kan daarin aangebring word van subsidiêre aard, maar dit mag nie die bestaan van die Prowinsiale Rade raak nie. Is ons vandag sover, dat afgesien van indiwiduë, enige party die afskaffing van Prowinsiale Rade aan die orde wil stel? Is die Regering, wat die voortou daarin moet neem, as enigeen dit behoort te doen, daartoe bereid? Indien wel, dan kan die kwessie langs die regte manier van ’n Nasionale Konvensie besproke en uitgewerk word met medewerking van alle provinsies en alle partye. Ek weet die edelagbare die Minister van Binnenlandse Sake het die houding aangeneem in sy toespraak op Burghersdorp. Hy het reguit gesê, dat die Prowinsiale Raad weg moet. Ek dink, dat daar meer edelagbare Ministers is wat ook in hulle hart dink, dat die Prowinsiale Rade weg moet, want dit het duidelik geblyk uit die houding, uit hulle optrede, teenoor die Prowinsiale Rade, maar die Regering as Regering het nog nooit die moed gehad om die standpunt in te neem nie, en voordat ons ’n Nasionale Konvensie kan kry, moet die Regering eers die standpunt inneem. Wat hierdie kant van die Huis betref, ons het nog nooit gevra vir die afskaffing nie, en as daardie kant van die Huis nie die standpunt openlik en main lik wil inneem nie dat die Prowinsiale Rade moet afgeskaf word nie, dan is daar ook geen saak uitgemaak vir een Nasionale Konvensie nie. Dit lyk my asof die voorstel om ’n Nasionale Konvensie te hou ’n nuwe openbaring is van dieselfde gees wat ons in verband met hierdie selfde kwessie gehad het, en dit is, dat die Regering iets wens te doen, maar omdat hulle die moed nie het nie om by hulle oortuigings te staan en om die volk in die gesig te sien nie. Hulle wil, soos gewoonlik die verantwoordelikheid op iemand anders gooi, en waar hulle dit nie op die Opposiesie Party kan werp nie, deur te vra: “Wat stel julle voor?” daar wil hulle nou uiteindelik kom en wil hulle dit op die Nasionale Konvensie en op die volk werp.

I am sorry that my little suggestion the other day should have stirred up so much suspicion in the heart of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). I did not expect that a suggestion of that kind would receive any sympathy or support from the hon. members opposite. The Provincial Councils are too valuable an armoury for political ammunition—they have not yet sucked all the honey from the flower, but I suppose they expect to suck it in the future. Until then whatever trouble may happen to the country they will make all the political capital they can. What was said about a National Convention was, I should think, quite clear, and that was that if things were to go on as they are, the Provincial Councils will come to a deadlock and the country will be face to face with a crisis which will not be overcome by ordinary means. The whole gist of the argument which the hon. member put to me was: “Why did I not demand a National Convention when the question of the inclusion of Rhodesia was discussed?” I did not ask for it, because the actual machinery was provided by the Act of Union. Provision was made for it in the Act of Union.

And the terms?

I do not think that the hon. member is aware that terms are not mentioned in the Act of Union.

Were they settled at the Convention?

No.

Not even the number of members to come to Parliament?

I knew quite well what would follow my making the suggestion as to the establishment of a new Convention. The opposition is not really interested in the working of the country, but are simply out to gain political capital. [An Hon. Member: “That is not very terrible”]. Not for the hon. member’s party as it is what one could expect. If anyone had strolled into the House during the course of this discussion, and not knowing what was under discussion, he would be pardoned for wanting to know what the discussion had to do with the Bill. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) said that this Bill meant the deathblow of the Provincial Councils, that they would not be able to carry on if Clause 2 was agreed to. What did the hon. member mean? The smaller provinces do not seem to be scared by Clause 2. The right hon. the Prime Minister read a telegram from Natal, giving Natal’s point of view. What does the Free State say? I am going to read what the Free State says. I have a telegram from the Administrator of the Free State. [An Hon. Member: “Oh!”] The Administrator telegraphs in the name of the Executive, as you will see from the telegram. The telegram is from the acting Administrator, but in any case it eminates from the Executive Committee, and the Administrator has expressed the views of that Committee. It reads—

What we stated all along is that the provinces and the teachers would be fully consulted by the Public Service Commission before the scale fixed in Clause 2 was adopted. What is the death-blow given by Clause 2? The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) only discovered that Clause 2 was the death-blow to Provincial Councils after the second reading was passed. The burden of his song on the second reading was that it only affected the salaries of teachers.

It was one of the hon. the Minister’s colleagues who made that remark.

What is contained in Clause 2? It only enables the Government to recommend to the Public Service Commission the scale of salaries to be paid to teachers. What hon. members are really concerned in, is the reduction to the scale in the Cape Province. What is there in this scale which enables the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) to announce it as the death-blow of the Provincial Councils? They are using the difficulties of the Provincial Councils for political purposes. The only criticism against the Bill which is germane to the matter is, that it does not bring about complete uniformity. If the scale in the report of the Public Service Commission was put into force at once, in as far as it affected the Cape Province, there would be an increase of £50,000—that would be the effect of it. There is nothing in the Bill that will place the teachers at a disadvantage. On the contrary, I think their position will be better in view of the financial position of the provinces. What is there in the Bill which enables hon. members opposite to be convinced that it will be the death-blow of Provincial Councils? I say that they are going out simply to make political capital out of the difficulties of the Cape Province. As I have said, the only criticism against the Bill germane to the matter is that it does not bring about uniformity. Because it gives the councils power to bring about a temporary over-all reduction in a time of financial stringency. That is an argument against the principle of uniformity, but it is not an argument to prove the supersession of Provincial Councils, because it is there, simply and solely, to safeguard the powers of Provincial Councils, to enable them to have the maximum amount of control over their finances, with the maximum amount of uniformity. The matter of an increase will be decided by the Public Service Commission recommending to the Governor-General if such an increase shall be warranted. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has got hold of another scarecrow. He says if this Bill is passed, I forget how many schools—

Two hundred and sixty-four.

Two hundred and sixty-four schools in the Free State will be closed. I looked at the Bill again, but I could not find a word about that. There is the thimble under the other pea. They tell us it is in the Bill. How many thimbles have we got and how many peas? The hon. member purported to read something which is not a full statement of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. He read it from some typewritten bit of paper he got from somewhere. If the hon. member would read the thing as it is printed in the report of the Public Service Commission he would find that when he comes to Group 6, which he quoted, under primary schools, schools of twenty, he will find a little asterisk there, and that refers to Note 6 on the previous page. I know the hon. member has not read that. He got that from someone on the platform. Note 6 says—

The hon. member tells us that as nothing less than 20 pupils is recognized for a school, therefore 264 have to be closed. We are told from the Nationalist side that this scale is not in the Bill, and that the Government has some dark scheme to produce another scale and the profession is to be killed. It only shows how far we have got away from the real facts and how little they have really been considered. It also shows the extent to which this Bill is being used for political purposes. I do not think there is anything more really to be said that has not been said over and over again, ad nauseam, in this debate. The Bill is perfectly clear and simple as it stands for the principle of uniformity.

Does it?

It allows a departure from it.

Does it allow for uniformity?

Yes. It provides for the principle of uniformity; it provides for a temporary departure in the case of financial emergency by whatever authority is authorized to bring about a percentage reduction from teachers’ salaries, but apart from that, it is a necessary part of the situation which is inserted to preserve the rightful power of Provincial Councils over their finances. Apart from that, I say, it puts the teachers in a strong position on the same footing as the other public servants of the Union, and to say as the hon. members here have done, and as other people outside have said, that the passage of this Bill will be the deathblow to the teaching profession is, in my opinion, so remote from the real facts, that I cannot find any real reason for its being put forward except in order to make political capital.

Why are the teachers so upset?

I cannot understand why they are so upset. It is impossible to understand so much outcry being made against a measure such as this, with so little foundation. I will tell the House why they are so upset. What the teachers are fighting is not this Bill, but the reduction in their salaries threatened by the Cape Provincial Council, and in order to fight that they and their friends here are using this Bill as a stalking-horse in order to attack, not the Provincial Council, which is bringing about this reduction, but this Government which has nothing whatever to do with it.

Why are the Free State teachers fighting it?

Why are the Transvaal teachers fighting it?

Comradeship!

I repeat again I cannot understand any reason for the great agitation which has been raised against this Bill, as far as the teachers are concerned, unless it is the better to fight the reduction threatened to their salaries by the Cape Provincial Council. They are using this Bill as a stalking-horse, in order to bring discussions into this House to make political capital, and I think this House will stultify itself if it plays that game any longer.

One of the most extraordinary speeches given to-day has been that very blatant effort of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who, I understand now in his own words, would not have said such a thing. He, of course, made a speech which has nothing to do with Wakkerstroom, just as last year about this time he made a speech which had nothing to do with Uitenhage. On both occasions he treated us to that tremendously egotistical statement: “I will go down to Wakkerstroom, and I will win the seat for the pact.” On the previous occasion: “I will go down to Uitenhage, and I will tell them how you are taxing the butter of the poor”—the butter of the poor!

Is there no rule to stop children speaking in this House?

There is apparently no rule to stop stupid interruptions. On both these occasions the hon. member made the same statement, and the reason is that the hon. member is not quite as clever in unctuous hypocrisy as some of the others who have spoken on his side. They spoke as if there was no bye-election; he let the cat out of the bag. He gets up and starts by saying—it is really rather sporting of him, rather candid, and it is a pleasant piece of honesty compared with his other rather painful performances—he gets up and asks: “Why was there any debate to-day?” We know that whatever debate there has been has been initiated by that side, and so we can remember that as we go along. He then proceeds to try and answer the question why there is any debate to-day by saying: “because Wakkerstroom is in danger.” Surely a bare-faced confession: the only truth you can get from them—candid to the extreme, and with that bare-faced hypocrisy which has carried him through three or four parties in the course of his existence, and he comes back at the end of his speech to rock bottom and says he will go down to Wakkerstroom: “I will tell the electorate what is being done in this abominable Bill; I will bring in the spoils.” Personally, I wish he would go down to Wakkerstroom, but I would remind the House that he is not going there. He never came near Uitenhage, where we won a seat. I do not think the Nationalist portion of the workers voted for the South African Party, but I feel sure the others did. We have another interesting point which has not been put as strongly in these debates as it might have been. That is the question of cowardice. I have made certain statements in this House in regard to Mr. Vaughan, and I then made an explanation, whereupon the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) got up and asked would I state what I had said outside the House. Let me say at once that I personally deprecate enormously the practice in this House for anybody outside to question hon. members on matters of Parliamentary privilege. But I am going to accept that challenge on this occasion, although it is not fair for anybody who is not a wealthy man in this House to be asked by anyone outside to repeat a statement, because it is an attempt to abuse the privilege of Parliament. On this occasion, however, I am going to fall to it. I see in the Cape, that—

It is not a fair proposition! That publication in that paper is a breach of privilege. It might have been all right if one member had said to another that he challenged him to repeat a statement outside, but for a paper like that to do it, I say it is a breach of privilege. I do not mind if there is a libel action. My statement is in Hansard, and I promise that I will not raise, as a defence, that it was a privilege of Parliament, even if proceedings are instituted. Mr. Vaughan is at liberty now to take any action he pleases. But I should like to come round to the question of cowardice as we get it on this side. We have, for instance, continual accusations here that we are out for votes. The sheer fatuity of that is shown by the fact that everyone of us knows, that as a result of our attitude on this Bill, everyone of us who stood by the Bill knows, he is bound to lose a certain number of the teachers’ votes. We are prepared to face that, because we knew we were right and honest. It is a matter of regret that the politician is what the politician so often is. In common with others I confess that I have very often kept my eye on the voter, but when we are attacked and told we are blatant cowards, because we have not stood by the Baxter Report, all I say is, have we ever made the Baxter Report one of the fundamental principles of the South African Party? Surely not. The one fundamental principle of the South African Party is the retention of the Act of Union, and we shall stand firmly by that solemn pact. The undertaking of the non-abolition of Provincial Councils with Natal and the Free State, more especially with Natal, was a portion of that pact. Therefore, it is entirely irrelevent if it is said to-day that the South African Party did not stand by the Baxter Report, because as men of honour we would have to wait for Natal. It is said that we have failed to face the Baxter Report, and that we are out to catch votes, but, good heavens, what are we to think of the pact? What about those two poor little infants, republicanism and socialism, lying out on the back-doorstep, discarded by their parents?

When is the hon. member going to withdraw his allegations against Mr. Vaughan?

I said I would never withdraw the allegations. [An Hon. Member: “Leave him alone”]. Yes, I think I had better leave him alone.

Give us something more about the unborn child.

In some respects the hon. member is an unborn child. I want to ask those people who are charging the Government with dishonesty if they have really put their own house into order? Secondly, I ask these hon. members what are they really going to do with white labour?

The hon. member must now really come to the point. I have given him full opportunity. I thought he was coming to the Bill, and the hon. member must now come to the Bill.

I am coming to the Bill, to quote the phraseology used by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan). As far as the Bill is concerned attempts have been made to discredit the contention put forward by the hon. the Minister of Education, that the whole object was to dodge certain taxation and to get the maximum amount of capital for political purposes. That being the position one must look with eyes of suspicion at the uncalled for length of time this matter has been discussed. That fact has been emphasized when we have listened to that extraordinary intellectual acrobat from Bloemfontein, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who introduced an amendment that the Bill be read this day six months. He knows perfectly well if the Bill is not introduced before the 31st March there will be serious trouble, as the teachers will not be able to get their salaries. When he proposed his amendment he knew he was talking through his hat.

The hon. member is out of order. He must address himself to the matter under consideration.

I simply wanted to point out that no importance should be attached to his motion. If it had been suggested that the Bill should be read sixty years hence we would not get a better speech, and to suggest the adjournment would be a waste of time. We have had a long statement by the leader of the Opposition as if a land tax was really behind the Bill, but he cannot have it both ways. He says that the Minister of the Interior has fallen from grace, well then he cannot charge him with being in favour of a land tax. Our position is perfectly clear. We are not prepared to say in this country that a land tax is practicable. There is not a single man on this side of the House who would allow a cent reduction in the salary of teachers if it could be avoided in any way, but if we were not to pass this Bill we would adopt a method of criminal folly, and we would find ourselves, the teachers, and the country, heading straight for disaster.

I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) for the following reasons. I believe that the Bill has been brought in not to do away with the Provincial Councils, but gradually to smother them out of existence, and I believe that this amendment should be carried so that the Government should be able to bring in a proper Bill to build up the Provincial Councils or else bring in the Baxter Report to kill them. This Bill before the House does nothing except gradually to withhold from the Provincial Councils their true functions. I believe that the National Convention agreed to the different Provincial Councils raising their taxes by direct taxation. If it had been the wish of the National Convention to prohibit the Provincial Councils from taxing the mineral wealth of this country it would have been embodied in the Report of the Convention. I hold that education should be the first duty of the State, and I believe that the National Convention, if it thought fit to do so, would have curtailed the powers, but I object to this Government trying to smother the development in education which the different provinces have entered upon, and each year nibbling away a little bit. We have had arguments in this House to show that, if it were left to the Public Service Commission to regulate the wages or the salaries of the teachers, they would suffer very little. But I believe it is not so much the reduction of salaries. I believe from reports, that the Public Service Commission would reclassify the schools, and from the different Ordinances which were passed in the Provincial Council when I was a member, I realize that the salaries are bound up to a great extent with the classification of the different schools. On the one hand, therefore, you have suggested reduction of the salaries of the teachers; you have also reduction on account of the percentage reduction, and, I believe, it is also proposed in the Cape to increase that saving by £25,000 in other matters. But I would like to draw the attention of the House to this, is it, or is it not, a fact, that the Public Service Commission can reduce further the teachers’ salaries by re-classifying the schools? In the Cape Province we find in class one schools, we will say secondary schools, 150 and over, there is a certain salary. In class two is a salary fixed not only for the numbers but for the teachers. Then we have intermediate and primary schools. Each classification of these schools carries with a certain definite salary. If the Public Service Commission are entitled to reduce further the salaries by a re-classification, then I believe that the teachers have a further legitimate grievance to press, not only for the Government to repeal, but to prevent the Bill becoming law. Now in the Argus of March 22nd, we had the report of a speech by Dr. Viljoen, at Rondebosch, where he clearly emphasized that point. In the report of his speech we realize that the Public Service Commission can not only re-classify schools, but also close the schools, in conjunction with the Administrator, where pupils are less than twenty. We also find that this Bill will not only be the means of reducing the salary of the teachers, but that it will have a tendency to reduce expenditure on education. Last year we found when this Parliament stated it was going to increase the grant for education to the natives, that there were nearly 8,000 more pupils this year. Last year it was stated in this House that we were going to reduce teachers’ salaries and that there was going to be a lower grant on education. The result has been that instead of the ordinary 5,000 increase in the pupils attending schools of the Cape Province there is an increase of 142, showing clearly that any policy or principle adopted by this House is going to affect education as well as teachers’ salaries. At the same time that the Government laid before this House a policy for the reduction of teachers’ salaries, we find them saying only as recently as last Wednesday, in the Cost of Living Reports, from which I would like to quote, that in Cape Town there has been an increase.. Taking the point of 1,000 in 1914, it was 1,226. Now you have an increase on that of 36.7 per cent. in the cost of living, showing clearly at the same time that they are reducing, or endeavouring to reduce, the salaries of teachers, though they acknowledge there has been an increase in the cost of living. We have had quotations made by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) during the second reading on the increased expenditure on education in the Provincial Councils. We find that the Act of Union put it in the hands of Parliament to control higher education. There are four colleges now for training teachers, and also that there is an increase of 380 per cent. in higher education, and yet an argument is used that primary education has been increased a matter of 133 per cent. While there has been an increase only in the primary education of 133 per cent., and an increase in higher education of 380 per cent., we find that if we analyse that, the amounts spent on primary scholars comes to £12 or £14 per scholar. Some authorities take £12 and some £14; in the secondary pupils £31, and for pupils attending universities £87 19s. That is what the State contributes towards them. We find further in the idea of the Government that they are only willing to spend a very small amount on primary education, that they are, on the other hand, willing to spend a large amount on scholastic education for training in universities, but if there is anything which should damn this Bill it is that it excludes the real functions of the State to create within this country an efficient population. What do we find? We find that the Government takes away from the Provincial Councils not only the power to tax the mineral wealth of the country, but the power to educate the children of this country in technical education. The result is that there is no country in the world that is so backward in secondary education as South Africa is at the present time. Proportionately, the boys who are educated in crafts, trades and sciences are less than in any other country. We find that 95 percent. of the workers have been educated technically outside this country. We find if we go in the railway workshops that over 70 per cent. of the workers there are men and boys who have received their technical education outside this country. When I come to think that this Government takes away the powers of the Provincial Council to tax, I hold that we in this corner must fight it to the bitter end. The Government should awaken to the fact that it should educate the boys and girls who are willing to be educated at the technical colleges throughout the country. When we see such a paltry sum on the Estimates, which is roughly speaking, £20.000 for the technical institutes, and when we see the vast sums on the Estimates for higher education, then I think we are justified in voicing the protest that we do. I am very pleased to see that the Government realize that we must educate the coming farmers in the agricultural colleges, but I do say that it is a crying shame in this country that we should spend £100 per pupil for them to become farmers, and neglect to vote the necessary money to make our boys efficient tradesmen in the towns. We find that the Government is doing absolutely nothing for secondary education, and they refuse to grant money to the Provincial Councils for this purpose, or grant them permission to tax. I know it is a big question, but why does not the Government take their courage in their hands and say: “Let us adopt a forward policy.” I am here to say that you are not playing the game towards our boys and girls, and either you have got to give the Provincial Councils extended powers or vote money for the training of our boys and girls in the trades, crafts and sciences. I am not going to deprecate or criticize scholastic education, but I might say that in proportion to the population of this country we have got more B.A.’s and M.A.’s than any other country in the world, and we have less mechanics than any other country in the world. The Government have been abused for attacking the Cape Provincial Council for its increased expenditure on education, but the number of pupils in the schools in 1910 were only 83,000, whereas in 1920 there were 134,000. so, roughly speaking, there has been an increase of 60 per cent. You cannot expect to increase the number of your pupils without increasing the expenditure. If it was not such a serious matter, it is quite possible I should be jovial on this subject, like a large number of other hon. members, but I have realized what it is to be without education, and I have a right to stand up here and state that any member of this hon. House, who does anything to retard education, is not only doing an injury to the present generation, but is inflicting a curse on South Africa, which will never be eradicated. This matter of education is a very solemn one, and this House has no right to reduce its expenditure on education. The Government has decided to curtail the taxing powers of Provincial Councils, but they are not only curtailing the powers of the Provincial Councils, but if we pass this Bill, we are infringing upon the policy of the Councils by reducing salaries and expenditure. We have no right to do it. If the Government had the courage of its convictions, it would bring forward a definite policy and state quite clearly that the Provincial Councils are wasting money, and cannot conduct their business satisfactorily, and are an extravagance we cannot maintain, then there would be some justice to vindicate the policy they have brought forward. But for them to keep on curtailing the powers of the Provincial Councils, then I say you are insulting the people of this country, and by reducing the salaries of the teachers you are marring the future of the children who are to follow. I hope and trust this House will do its best for education, and not only try to produce men of the ability of the right hon. the Prime Minister, but to produce men who can take their place in the mechanical workshops, and in the building trade, and be able to compete with boys and men produced in other countries in art, craft and sciences. This is the only way we can build up South Africa.

I must say it is becoming increasingly difficult to know exactly what amount of credence is to be given to statements made by hon. Ministers in this House. This afternoon the right hon. the Prime Minister said if the report of this Commission was carried out in the case of the Cape Province, it would mean an additional expenditure of £50,000. I have in my hand the actual report of the Public Service Commission, and on page 9 of the report we find how this uniform scale of salaries will effect each province, and here it is distinctly stated that in the case of the Cape Province the application of this uniform scale of salary will mean an annual reduction of £52,000. Who is correct? The right hon. the Prime Minister said that it would mean an increase of £50,000, and the Public Service Commission, who has gone carefully into the matter, said it would effect a saving of £52,000. I think the House has a right to know where the right hon. the Prime Minister gets that statement from. Must we accept his statement? Because, if we do, the conclusion is, that the report of the Public Service Commission is not worth the paper it is written on. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister of Education has corrected another statement previously made by the right hon. the Minister of Finance. On last Wednesday afternoon, I proposed an amendment in this House, to the Bill before Parliament, namely, that the work of this Commission should be subject to the approval of Parliament, and the right hon. the Minister of Finance refused to accept it, because, he said, the provinces had agreed to the Bill. These were the words he used—

He said that the Provincial Executive have not asked for this. He said that the Free State Province expressed itself as being satisfied with the Bill, and the hon. the Minister of Education told us this afternoon that the Free State Province said—

I have gone to the trouble of sending a wire to the members of the Provincial Executive—

I will read my wire again—

not “approved.” Is there not a difference between the two words? The condition was that the Free State Provincial Executive should be consulted before any new scale was brought into force, or the regulations brought into effect.

That, of course, will be done.

It all depends what meaning the hon. the Minister attaches to these words “fully consulted.” It means that the scale of uniform salary shall be submitted for full consultation, for their advice in the matter which should be followed. That was meant by it, otherwise what is the use of consulting them? It is very evident in this matter that the statement of the right hon. the Prime Minister has been whittled down.

No.

I think the right hon. the Prime Minister realizes that when he said there would be an increase of £50,000 in the Cape Province—

That was correct.

We got the statement from the Administration.

Here we have the report of the Public Service Commission, and it distinctly states that there will be a saving of over £52,000.

Ultimately, after some years.

Then, of course, the hon. the Minister of Education tried in his usual way to obscure the issue. He said that the teachers’ agitation at the present moment was due to the fact that they did not want to have their salaries cut down. I have already described that as a mean travesty of the truth. At the conference in Pretoria they consented to a reduction in their salaries to an amount which meant the saving of £450,000, and in the Free State last year the teachers, in agreement with the Provincial Council Administration, agreed to the reduction of 5 to 6 per cent. in their salaries. Does the hon. the Minister say this is against economy?

I never said anything of the kind. I said that the Cape teachers were afraid of a further reduction in the Cape Province.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

When the House rose at 6 o’clock I was busy explaining that the teachers are not opposed to any kind of economy, for at the Conference in Pretoria they were prepared to accept economies more than their educational convictions allowed, but they object to the economies proposed in this measure, because they feel that the economies are not equally distributed, and this is one of their chief grievances—they feel that they are being made the scape-goat of the muddle Parliament has made in Union finance. In the Provincial Administration teachers are not the only servants, but the Government only applies this drastic cut to the teachers. There are other officials in the service, and their salaries are being left entirely alone, and the teachers feel on no ground of equity or justice can this be defended. They protest against the uniformity proposed in this Bill on the same score. At the second reading I described uniformity as a mockery, and I now feel justified in describing it as a fraud. During the committee stage we had an opportunity of testing the sincerity of the Government. We proposed an amendment for uniformity of service in the four provinces, so that if a teacher went from one province to another he should not fall under the operation of this Bill. In that way provincial land-marks would be removed and we would have a uniform condition of work. That tested the sincerity of the hon. the Minister, but he turned it down, and the teachers feel that uniformity—the uniformity as proposed in this measure—is simply being used as a big stick to beat the teachers with. The teachers are getting under this measure only the poison extracted by uniformity and not the sweetness. They feel that the Government by using this uniformity is extracting every ounce of blood out of them. That grievance is fully justified by the attitude of the right hon. the Minister of Finance in the committee stage. All these are however merely side issues. The most important point is this; the chief objection of the people is that there has been a breach of faith. They feel that their understanding, an honourable understanding, between the Government and themselves has not been kept by the Government. This is a very important point, and that accounts for the feeling which exists between the hon. the Minister and the people. Last year on the Budget speech—I do not think we should mince matters on this point— Last year on the Budget the right hon. the Minister made a distinct announcement in this House in which he said he was not going to touch the existing salaries of civil servants, and then he said it would be unfair to treat the teachers in any other way. The teachers read that, and they believed it, and they regarded that as a pledge of good faith on the part of the Government. Five months later they were called to a conference in Pretoria, and there, entirely unasked for and unsolicited, the Government renewed this understanding between themselves and the teachers. There you have a renewal of the pledge, and then, only six months later, that pledge was violated by the Government. That is the gravamen of the charge of the teachers against the Government. An honourable understanding was arranged by the Minister between the Government and the teachers and that understanding has been violated. That is not the way in which the Government can hope to retain the confidence of the teachers, and I say that is not just government. In the course of the second reading debate, the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) accused me of being a sobbing sentimentalist. If by that the hon. member meant that my whole soul rises in revolt against this violation of an honourable understanding, against this act of betrayal, this using of the big stick upon the teachers, then I plead guilty, I am a sobbing sentimentalist. I agree to that rather than to the attitude of the hon. member himself in his intellectual snobbery which tries to reduce the whole of life to a legal quibble. Now let us do away with another false issue which has been created by the hon. the Minister of Education. He persists that the constitutional powers of the Provincial Councils are left intact. I think nobody ought to know better that that is not the case than the hon. the Minister of Education. The hon. the Minister ought to realize that under this Act there is set up dual control over education. At the present time all the power for education is in the hands of the Provincial Council. Now under this innocent little Clause 2 of the Bill you have laid down here in this measure the principle of dual control, and the power in the future does not rest entirely with the Provincial Councils, it is divided between the Provincial Councils and the Public Service Commission. The position created by this Bill is just this.: That your Public Service Commission creates the whole framework of education by classifying schools, by providing for the salaries of teachers; they are creating the whole framework of our educational structure in South Africa, and the only power remaining with the Provincial Councils is to provide a little bit of stuffing within that framework. The principle of dual control is bad. The principle of dual control can never be a success, because you are establishing two masters for education. With the permission of the hon. member for Border (Gen. Byron) I would like to give an example of dual control out of history. We have a complete parallel between what the Government is now proposing and what happened in India during that acute period of transition when power passed from the East India Company to the British Crown. The Crown thought that the company’s rule was a failure in India, and they wanted to transfer that power from the company to the Crown, but they were reluctant to take a bold step, and they passed a similar measure to what the Government is doing here, and the result was absolutely disastrous to India. The same will be in this case, and the results to education will be equally disastrous. I should like to say a few words with regard to the report of the Public Service Commission. I wonder whether hon. members realize that in certain respects teachers are placed in a worse position than they were in 1914, ten years ago. In one or two instances salaries are reduced below what they were in 1914. In the case of the Tree state, a qualified lady teacher in 1914. a teacher with a T.3 certificate, was paid £150. to-day the salary proposed under this scale is £140. It is £10 less than what it was in 1914. I do not think it can be maintained that the cost of living is lower to-day than in 1914. I do not think it can be maintained that the burden of taxation was too great for the country in 1914 so that there must be something else wrong with the finances of the country, and I think Parliament will find the correct culprit when it applies to the Treasury Bench in the House. That is one point. Another point is this: at the present moment the salary of a certificated teacher in the Free State is £200 per annum. We thought that by making the salary £200 we would attract to the profession enough certificated teachers for the rural schools, but let me tell the House that with that salary we could not get sufficient teachers for the rural schools. The last report of the Inspector of Education states—

Now we propose to reduce the salary of that class of teacher from £200 to £165. I ask the House in doing this, are you inducing more teachers to qualify and so get a better class of teacher for the rural schools?

Is that for uncertificated teachers?

No, for certificated teachers. Now, ever with a salary of £200 we have over 50 per cent. of the rural teachers unqualified, but what will be the position if you reduce £200 to £165. It will mean that your rural schools will have to be content with unqualified teachers. Another aspect is this: The great trouble in your schools is that you cannot get men teachers for your primary schools. In the Free State we have very large primary schools of 500 children and more, and I can name you scores of schools where they have not got a man teacher on the whole staff, except the head. They are all lady teachers. What is to become of the sport of those schools? Who is to look after the cadet system of those schools? If you cannot get men teachers at primary schools for £200 what will you do when you reduce it to £165? At last Saturday’s meeting of teachers in Cape Town I heard Miss Coates say—

And that tragedy we are perpetrating. I think we are committing the very same mistake here to-day as the Merriman Ministry made in 1909-’10 when, in order to save a few pounds, the Merriman Government deprived 11,000 children of the benefit of education. They reduced expenditure by £125.000. and the result was that the number of children on the roll fell by 11,000.

That was the Bond Ministry.

The hon. member joined hands with them.

That mistake was made, and you are going to make it again, and then hon. Ministers over there say we are unkind, when we say they are not true friends of education. We have often heard that the burden of education is too heavy, but I maintain that the burden of education in South Africa, is the burden of civilization. If we cannot bear the one, we cannot bear the other, and I have got sufficient faith in European ideals, and in the moral fibre of South Africa, to know that we can bear the burden of South Africa, if only it is equally and evenly distributed. I am against this Bill, as I have said from the start, because it is an act of bad faith towards the teachers and I challenge the hon. the Minister, in view of his definite pronouncement last year, and the pledge of the Public Service Commission, to deny it. It is a violation of an honourable understanding, a pledge given in this House and later by a Government Commission to the teachers. I am opposed to this Bill in the second place, because the uniformity which is being established, is being used as a big stick to prod the teachers. They are being denied any little benefit which may accrue to them, and I am against this Bill because it establishes the principle of dual control in education, and in no department of State could that be more fatal than in this case. It means simply that Government is afraid to tackle this, and that seems to me to afflict every phase of Government policy. They are a little bit of everything; they are a little bit of economy only at the expense of the teachers; they are a little bit of protection of industry; a little bit of segregation also; only, if it is convenient, a little bit of truth, and in the case of the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) even a little bit of love. The flag of this Government is always flying at half-mast.

For the Nationalist Party!

And I am sure of it, if this Bill is passed, its flag will be flying half-mast over the dead body of education in South Africa.

This afternoon the right hon. the Prime Minister made the statement that he believed that instead of this Bill destroying Provincial Councils, they would be more likely to destroy themselves. He followed that up by very kindly suggesting that the whole matter had already gone too far, the agitations had gone too far. It was practically a gentle hint to the teachers that they have got to keep quiet. It seems to me that there was an element of threat in the remarks he made. And it was ill-becoming on the part of the right hon. the Prime Minister at this stage to have used these words. He further told this House that, of course, the Provincial Councils would have to function in a constitutional manner, but all along these Provincial Councils have been prevented from doing the proper thing, by having their rights whittled away from them. They have been whittled away ever since the South African Party lost control of the Transvaal Provincial Council, and we can trace all these troubles in regard to the Provincial Council system from the day that the Nationalist and Labour Parties got the control of the Transvaal. So now they have the same position to-day in the Cape, and there is this effort being made by the Government to put the screw on the teachers. It is done, we can see perfectly clearly, with the same object, and the South African Party will attempt to change the cry to that of the uselessness of the Provincial Council system. It will not be so much concerned in defending themselves with regard to the injustice they are perpetrating on the teachers, but they will switch it round and try to justify all their misgovernment by saying: “All our troubles and heavy taxation is entirely due to this iniquitous Provincial Council system.” I can see that that is coming, and that that party and their friends will develop that cry in the same way as they have developed it in the Transvaal. I submit that that cry will be another false issue. The real position is, that these Provincial Councils have not had the opportunity. In the Transvaal, the first thing that happened was the taking away of certain powers, some three years ago, to tax the profits on the gold mines, not the output, but the profit. There was a very small percentage to be put on these profits; as far as low-grade mines were concerned, they were unaffected, because, if they did not make a profit, and obviously there was no tax by the Provincial Council. Apart from that, the South African Party Government took away very valuable means of taxation, and that commenced the difficulties of the Transvaal. As the result of this Bill in the Free State, we have heard that there is a likelihood of some 264 schools being closed, which, on the basis of 15 to a school, is something in the vicinity of 4,000 children. I put it, that when you do two things, first close down a certain number of schools and keep a number of children from getting into school on account of their being closed, and the reduction of teachers’ salary, whereby you will stop the admission of efficient and ambitious men and women into the profession, you will, on account of the price you pay, get an indifferent article. Not only if you do that, but if you perpetrate this injustice on your teachers, these men and women in the profession will also look for something better, and I am afraid education and the teaching profession will come to a very sorry pass. I appeal to the country, that if there is one thing you have to desire, if you wish to remain a democratic country, and wish to secure at least some show of getting the Government we want it is essential we should have a nation of fairly well educated people, because it is only by such that you can secure to the people an understanding of the position of the day, and make it more impossible for any particular party to drift towards autocratic government. Autocratic government can very easily develop in the so-called democratic system, where you keep the great mass of the people in semi-ignorance, therefore it is only right and just that we who have the care of our constitution and our democratic ideals and institutions at heart, should see that the children of the nation are educated without exception, that they have an equal opportunity, and that they are brought up to appreciate the institutions of to-day. I submit that, if by means of this Bill, we make it possible to do these two things, that is to reduce the wages of the teachers, thereby driving out many good men from the profession, and also keeping out the good men, who would otherwise come in, and on top of that, close down a number of schools and turn out children half-educated, I submit we have no right to risk such a position, and no Government can justify it. The great difficulty I can see in this House is that while one attempts to approach a subject from a fair and proper point of view, we will always find that we are treated by the Government benches, and particularly by some hon. Ministers, with certain insinuations as to our bona fides, that we are opposing this Bill only for propaganda purposes. I think that that could very easily be set aside, because I do not think that any of us in this corner place very much reliance on the political support of the teachers. And I can assure hon. members that I agree with the speaker who spoke on Saturday morning at a teachers’ meeting when he said they were not going to sell their votes. I consider that it ill becomes the right hon. the Prime Minister to give the turn to this debate which has already been given to it when he suggested that something else might happen to those teachers if they did not keep quiet. I do not think it is fair to these teachers. They are citizens, and are entitled to state their case; they are entitled to protest and to object against anything they consider wrong. I submit with regard to the position which will arise, that it is well the Government should bear in mind that they are now heaping up something which is bound to recoil against them. It is not a question entirely in a political sense, but in the moral sense, in the sense of fair play and in the sense of justice, and it is always a truism that where an injustice has been done in such a flagrant manner by a responsible body, it is destined to come back against the perpetrator with double force; and I can see in the matter of the teachers in particular that this will bring the whole matter to a head. It brings up the whole question of Provincial Councils, and it brings up even the question of a National Convention, which I first heard raised in this corner of the House, and such a Convention as will go into the whole question of our Constitution, and the question of putting State Parliaments in place of the present Provincial Councils system, and of having State Governments and a Central Federal Government on the same lines as they have in Canada and Australia, and will probably clear up what has been misrepresented and misunderstood, misrepresented particularly by the Government Party, and very often misunderstood by the people, that is when they are dealing with the present Provincial Councils and their taxations. I submit that this injustice to education may recoil in such a way that it will ultimately be for the good of this country, and I sincerely hope it will be the final knell of a Government that handles its facts carelessly.

I think that those hon. members, who take any interest in this question at all, must be very disappointed, bitterly so indeed, at the attitude of indifference which is assumed by the Government side of the House on the important matter which we are discussing, and I must say that one cannot admire the tactics which the Government has employed on this subject. Here you find a measure of first class importance, and one finds important arguments raised against the Government’s proposal, but a state of absolute silence prevails on the Government benches—I refer particularly to the rank and file of the Government benches. It may be, of course, that it is considered ill advised on the part of these members to tackle a question of this kind, it may be that they find it impossible to cope with the sleight of hand oratory required, and the discussion is therefore handed over to such arch-conjurors, to those who are past masters in the art, to the right hon. the Prime Minister and the right hon. the Minister of Finance, and last but not least in this respect, to the hon. the Minister of Education himself. And one feels the matter more keenly because we hear that, as a result of either their non-interest, or their fear, to participate in the question, we hear rumours that the closure is to be applied. It is just as well for the House to realize this in anticipation that they are contemplating, so far as we can hear, the imposition once more of that very useful measure in the hands of an autocratic Government in, what is supposed to be, a democratic Parliament.

What a nice peg to hang one’s hat on.

Yes, sometimes one has to hang—

The hon. member is quite mistaken if he says that the closure is in the hands of the Government. The presiding officer has to judge whether the closure shall be applied or not, and not the Government.

I do not for a moment suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you will fail in your duty, and therefore you will no doubt rule against the Government when they suggest it. So I shall put it in this way, that they desire to gain your approval to the shortening of a debate on a matter so important as this one. Now what did the right hon. the Prime Minister, that arch-conjuror, say? He accused members on this side of the House, and not for the first time, and it comes sweetly from the right hon. the Prime Minister, he accused us of having worked up the agitation, first of all he accused us of having worked up the agitation among the teachers, and then he accused that section of the pact on this side of the House, and no doubt us on the Labour Benches too, of having been caucusing with our colleagues in the Provincial Council to render the Government’s proposals abortive, in so far as that would be possible to do so in the Provincial Council. Does not that sound like chickens coming home to roost? If we had caucused with our colleagues of the Provincial Council we would only be following an excellent example. The only thing is that the Government did its caucusing beforehand, and absolutely in secrecy, with the result that they were able to persuade what should be an independent Administrator, and once more proved to be a tool of the Government, they induced him to hold back his financial proposals, which were in the light of a battle axe so far as the teachers were concerned, until this Bill was through the House, in order that this House and the country should not know the full extent that was going to result from the passage of this legislation, which we are now considering. Now, is it a fact that we worked up this agitation? I had the impression, I may be wrong, that it was a purely spontaneous outbreak on the part of the teachers themselves. I may be wrong, the papers may be wrong for once, but that is all the information which we have been able to get and, as a matter of fact, I think it was brought home more clearly and conclusively than ever to us on this side of the House, how reprehensible was the legislation which the right hon. the Minister of Finance introduced, by the teachers themselves in telegrams, letters, and statements, which were followed by meetings, mass meetings—mass in matter of numbers, and more so in matter of intellect, not called by members of this side of the House, but called by the teachers. We were able to go there as ordinary members of the public, and some of us were present, much to our advantage, and to the disadvantage of the Government. And at some of these meetings we did find that some politicians were present. There was a mass meeting of teachers at Pretoria, where they passed a very strong resolution condemning the action of the Government, and who addressed that meeting? The only politician who addressed that meeting was a South African Party representative in the Provincial Council, by the name of Davis. Then, I am credibly informed, that another meeting of teachers was held in Bloemfontein which was also addressed by a politician, the only elected representative in the Free State who is of South African Party proclivities, a gentleman named Fourie. Yes, I am going to quote the words which that gentleman spoke: “I believe in being fair and this Bill is not fair.” And he was there addressing a meeting of teachers, who were protesting on their own behalf and on behalf of the children of this country. He was speaking as a public representative, and presumably as a representative of the South African Party which is in power on those benches—I wonder if he is going to resign now. A propos of this, it would be interesting, in view of the silence, the culpable silence of members on that side of the House, if we could hear an expression of the views held by the hon. member for Natal Coast (Mr. Saunders), who showed such marked disgust when he heard of that ill-fated telegram, so much so that he would not vote with his colleagues on that side of the House. And last, but not least, another mass meeting of teachers was held, this time in the Selborne Hall in Johannesburg, on Saturday afternoon, and, according to the Sunday Times, and this we have been able to obtain as a result of the enterprise of the hon. the Minister of Railways who, no doubt, will now get a rap over the knuckles, and we shall get slower trains in future, that meeting was organized by the Transvaal Teachers’ Association, representative of the profession, the hall being crowded. We find that the resolution was moved strongly protesting against Clause 2 of the Financial Relations Adjustment Bill, and the introducer of the motion said the Government took away from the Provincial Councils the right to increase the teachers’ salaries, but left the Councils with the right to reduce them. Then there followed another gentleman who supported that resolution, mark you, protesting against the clause, the criminal clause in this Bill protesting against that in these pregnant words, he said—

The highest in the world.

I want hon. members to remember that interjection of the hon. member. I shall come to that later. I am going to continue quoting what that gentleman said at the meeting: “Economies must be made, but there was no necessity—and he was prepared to show it—to touch the salaries.” Now, who was this hon. gentleman who addressed these strong remarks to that public meeting, and through that meeting to this House? It was Mr. H. J. Lamb, M.P.C.. for the South African Party on the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, at one time member of the Executive representing them there.

Not Smolensky?

No, it was not Smolensky, it was a case of Molestky, it was a case of the little lamb. But here we have it on record, and it only shows how unwise it is for this House hastily to pass legislation thrown before us, how necessary it is for the public of the country to have every opportunity of considering these matters, so that they can advise and, if necessary, instruct their members before they vote on the question. Because we have, in three different centres of the Union, three supporters, of that party in power behind the Government deliberately stating that, in their opinion, this legislation was iniquitous, dangerous to the teachers, and therefore, as a natural corollary, highly dangerous to the future of education, and therefore highly dangerous to the future of the State. Three members belonging to that, side, and not unknown members have said that, members who have already been elected to Provincial Councils and to various bodies. The Provincial Councils under the Act of Union expected to have complete control of the education of the children of the country. Now let us come to the interjection of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He said that we had the highest-paid teachers in the world. I am going to quote something from the Commission’s report on this matter, on the matter of teachers’ salaries, which, I believe, will prove two or three things. The first thing that it will prove is, that the teachers’ salaries in this country are not the highest in the world, and certainly will not be if the Government has its way in the matter; and the second point which it will prove will be a complete condemnation of the Government’s proposals. I will read only one paragraph, but it is a very pregnant one. It is this—it is paragraph 32—

Just precisely what we have been stating from this side of the House on the consideration of this Bill; we have been protesting against this very thing.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with salaries.

There goes the lawyer.

The lawyer?

I beg the hon. member’s pardon—the barrister.

The question is, what does it mean according to the English language? It has nothing to do with salaries.

I read into this a statement on the part of the Commission that under the new conditions they will find it difficult to attract teachers from other parts of the world.

But not because of the salaries—other conditions.

What other conditions?

Qualifications.

As the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) pointed out, the whole thing hangs together. The one affects the other, and the qualifications naturally have an effect on the salaries, and the salary means that in future there will be no attraction for teachers not only outside the Union, but there will be no attraction within the Union for people to put their children to be trained, and m consequence there will be a dearth.

What paragraph is the hon. member reading from?

Paragraph 32, page 6. I am coming back to that in a moment. I want to say that on this question of uniformity, the teachers are asked to sacrifice themselves on the altar of uniformity, and this House is requested to officiate at the execution, but do we obtain uniformity? My hon. friend, the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) has pointed out one or two directions in which you do not, by the institution of these new scales of pay, get anywhere near uniformity, because of the conditions and circumstances that are hedging them round. Uniformity of scale, yes. But when you see Provincial Councils, each of them in a different degree of financial embarrassment, and that they can reduce the scale of salaries laid down by the Public Service Commission, it must result in non-uniformity at once. Uniformity implies that it should apply to all teachers. Let us see what is stated about uniformity in paragraph 34—

The Commission was consequently confronted with the difficulty that the standard pay in the Cape Province, would involve the cutting down of teachers’ salaries at present. It was not found possible to find any fixed relations between the two scales. What is that but non-uniformity? Again, it is found that the number of women teachers to men teachers throughout the service in South Africa, is, roughly, three to two—personally, I think it is more—but when you realize the fact, there are more women than men teachers, I ask you how far uniformity of salary applies when the Commission admits that they cannot apply uniformity to women and men equally? Bang goes the whole question of uniformity. I am going to read from a document which represents the best information possible, even not excepting the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), from the second report of the Federated Council of Teachers, page 13—

That is information not based on representation made to these people, but the result of their own personal knowledge and practical observation, and that is the result of the present state of salaries throughout the Union. There is no attraction for suitable male teachers. That is the disastrous state of affairs today, but if we continue as proposed, matters will become more disastrous. If this Bill is passed there will be infinitely more disaster. May I be permitted to touch for a moment on a matter outside the scope of this Bill, but which was referred to by the right hon. the Prime Minister. It is well that one should take up challenges from the right hon. the Prime Minister whenever they are issued, because they have the habit of appearing in the press, magnified by the press, and distributed all over the country, while the atmosphere and expression of opinion of this House are misrepresented right throughout the country. The right hon. the Prime Minister stated that Comrades Kentridge and Kinnard were cross-examined on the land tax, eight hours a day on farms, in the Wakkerstroom district, and in consequence of what they said Mr. Schmolke, who was carrying the high sounding title of organizing secretary for the Nationalist Party, promptly resigned. I congratulate the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and his friends for having got rid of old Schmolke. I should like the South African Party cross-examined on their land confiscation proposals. There was the proposal of the hon. the Minister of Lands to confiscate the land of farmers without compensation. It is a curious state of affairs when we have constitutionalists going to rob the country. A party that had been in the majority for 14 years, who would not introduce a land tax into the country, and were throwing dust into the eyes of the ignorant “backvelders,” would prefer to rob a man of his land and not pay a right price. Like other hon. members of the House I have been infinitely interested within the past few days in what the hon. the Minister of Education has been saying, and it seems to me that what the hon. the Minister states in this House has not the remotest connection with what he says outside. As the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said, he seems to be elevated by the ozone of Sea Point when he talked of the necessity of a National Convention. I hope that he was serious, and that coming events cast their shadows before. I hope he has not been speaking without his book. This is a question in which I took the keenest interest well back in the ages before Union, when the Unionist Party and the present South African Party were making it their business to go around the country and, as usual, pulling the wool over the eyes of the country —urging the Union of South Africa. I had certain interesting experiences in that matter, but I was hindered from taking more interest in it because I was then in employment, but I invariably followed up their efforts by endeavouring to convert the public into having a state of federation in the country. My arguments were prophetic. I said that once they had a central Government, the Parliament would employ one part of the country against the other, always with the idea of reducing salaries and wages. We do not oppose uniformity, but we object to uniformity which we know we will always get from that side—uniformity downwards, not upwards. I repeat that the greatest mistake the teachers ever made was to acquiesce in uniformity, knowing as they did, the sort of people they had in the Government—a Government which does not hesitate to tell people one thing one moment, and another thing the next. That has been proved over and over again, and that the Government are constantly using one body against the other, in order to decrease wages and the conditions of their service. How can you expect teachers with their present salaries to live in anything like decency? Would you believe it when we, another friend and myself, were deliberately moving a direct amendment to a motion before the meeting, their motion being that the meeting resolved in favour of unification, my amendment being in favour of federation, the chairman, a South African Party man, deliberately moved me out of order. We had not on that occasion, sir, the advantage of having a gentleman of your own calibre to preside over that meeting. Another aspect of this question is that already as a result of the introduction of this measure you have this position reached. I am informed, I do not know whether it has been concluded yet, I have been informed that they contemplate the discharge of teachers, who are charged with the responsibility of teaching domestic science and music, in the Cape Province. Not only are you whittling away educational facilities from the children, but you are taking away any hope of any artistic bent being given to their little souls. Music, which is one of the most elevating influences we have, is going to be cut out from the education of our children. That ought to appeal to hon. members who sing so well in chorus and harmony on that side of the House. My hon. friend reminds me that there is only one strain that they can sing and that is: “Rule Britannia.” Not content with starving the children intellectually, you are going to bring up a class of women in this country who are going to ruin the stomachs of family life. I have heard from that side of the House that we should not merely teach our kiddies book learning, but teach them something that is worth having, teach them domestic science. How often when hon. members were in opposition, we were urged that we should go through the country, and teach the women to bake bread. Teach the “ou vrouw” how to make bread; teach them how to keep house and do this and that which would be useful in the life of the country. Now what a change there is. The right hon. the Prime Minister lent his powerful aid to ruining the digestion of the people of the country.

It is very amusing.

What, is the right hon. gentleman getting fed up? As my friend the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) pointed out, the question of our failure to educate in a technical direction the youth of this country was due to what he endeavoured to prove, and, I think very conclusively indeed, that bad as has been our education in that direction, it is going to be infinitely worse in the future, now that we are going to make the teaching profession less attractive. There is also going to be a reduction of the subsidy, and so the game goes on until ultimately you will not be providing sufficient finance to cope with the educational demands of the country, particularly in a technical direction. He pointed out that our best mechanics have to go overseas for their training. When we consider how this applies to those who are seeking to enter our railway service as apprentices, I would ask if hon. members have seen the papers set for those boys. You are deliberately curtailing secondary education so far as the youth of this country is concerned, and you are going to make that worse with this legislation which is now before the House. Yet the only State department of the country which has got anything to offer in regard to technical training for the youth of the country, deliberately shuts its doors against those who have not matriculated. If hon. members had seen the papers that are set, they would agree with me that a lad who has not passed matriculation, could not pass one of those examinations successfully. You have hunderds of applications, and only three or four pass. It is true that several silly questions are put, such as: “Who is the Minister of Railways?” “What is the name of the General Manager?” “How many miles from Cape Town to Johannesburg, via the Garden route?” Or something like that. This, sir, to teach a fellow how to push a file. Or “What is the use of the Senate?” Lord, sir, it would take any of us all our time to answer that. My time is nearly up and in concluding I do urge upon the Government even now to do the right thing. If they had listened with attention and not antagonism, if they had listened with a desire to understand and really co-operate with the opposition, if they had listened to the speech of the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth)—I do not see how any honest man could help but agree with the views put forward by him—they would realize that this legislation is going to be to the absolute detriment and damnation of education in this country. The right hon. the Prime Minister said what can be their object in smashing rural education. I will tell the right hon. the Prime Minister what is their object; they realize that the boys of this country are becoming educated, and that the future citizens of this country are going to be men and women who will be able to think for themselves, and act for themselves, and that is causing the Government grave alarm. Well, they use a no less effective method by attacking the children through the teachers, by which they are perpetrating a double injustice.

Die wetjie wat nou op die Tafel lê en waar die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies die derde lesing van voorstel het al baie tyd in die Huis geneem en ek wil net ’n paar minute van die Huis vra om nog ’n paar aanmerkinge te maak, wat ek nie onopgemerk kan laat nie. Ek het nie deel geneem aan die debat van die twede lesing nie en ek wil weer so kort moontlik wees, want dit lyk vir my, dat die edelagbare die Minister baie ongeduldig is om die bespreking tot ’n end te kry. Maar ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister my nog ’n paar minute sal toehoor. Wat die Wet betref, so wil ek sê, dat elkeen foute kan maak, ek glo nie dat daar iemand in die Huis is, wat nie foute maak nie. Dit verstaan ek baie goed, maar wat ek nie verstaan nie is, dat na al wat gebeur het, na al die proteste teen die Wet, die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies sover kan gaan, om nou te kom en die derde lesing van die Wet voor te stel nie. Na die verhouding wat daar bestaan tussen die Prowinsiale Rade, tussen andere liggame en ons en na al wat gebeur het, kan ek nie begryp, dat die edelagbare die Minister aandring op die derde lesing, om die te forseer nie. Wil die edelagbare die Minister my sê wat vir goed dit kan wees vir die land en vir die volk? Ek het aandagtig geluister toe die edelagbare die Minister die Wet voorgebring het en hy het dit op so ’n manier voorgebring, asof die ’n lee trommel was, maar na die oop gemaak is, het ek ondervind, dat die heeltemaal gevul is met ontplofbare goed en dit is die Klausule 2. Daaroor loop die hele kwessie en dis vir my onmoontlik om te verstaan, dat Klousule 2 nie kan uitgelaat word nie en die geldkwessies wat die Wet verder bevat, deur kan gaan nie. Waarom nou Klousule 2 forseer onder groot ontevredenheid in die land, onder groot ontevredenheid van ons onderwysers, wat in hulle hande het een van die teerste en dierbaarste dinge wat ons het? Waarom die deel van die volk, waarvan soveel verwag word, groot rede tot ontevredenheid gee deur so ’n wet op so’n manier te forseer wat absoluut vir die toekoms die onderwys sal agteruit set en wat ons onderwysers op onbillike wyse tref? Ek kan dit moeilik verstaan en ek wil graag dat die edelagbare die Minister in sy repliek dit vir my duidelik sal maak wat nou eientlik die noodsaaklikheid vir so’n wet is, wat hom gedryf het om hierdie Wet voor die Huis te bring en deur te forseer. Is dit die Prowinsiale Administrasie? Wat word beoog? Is dit alleen besuiniging? Ek is vir besuiniging op alle gebied, maar ek is daarteen om op die onderwys so te besuinig, dat die onderwysers daar onregverdig onder moet ly. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het gesê, dat die doel alleen is besuiniging, maar in hierdie geval word alleen kwaad bloed gesê en die onderwysers ly onregverdig daaronder. Ek dink as die edelagbare die Minister verstandig wou handel, dan het hy nooit die derde lesing moet voorstel nie. Elkeen kan ’n fout maak en die edelagbare die Minister het die lout gemaak om die Wet op die Tafel te lê en hy gaan verder die fout maak om die Wet deur te forseer in die Huis met die meerderheid wat hy het. Ek dink die onderwys is saamgeknoop met ons godsdiens en ek sê, dat ons nie so’n saak deur die Huis mag dryf op die manier wat die Regering nou besig is om te doen nie. Ek wil nie verder daarop ingaan nie, maar die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het ’n paar aanmerkinge gemaak, wat ek nie so kan laat verby gaan nie en as my ou leier, voel ek dat ek hom ’n bietjie moet vermaan. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het ’n paar aannaerkings gemaak, wat my bepaald getref het en wat ek nie verwag had nie by so’n saak, dat namelik die party aan hierdie kant van die Huis en die Arbeidersparty, die kaffers en die myneigenare gestraf het met ’n belasting in Transvaal. Ek weet nie of die edelagbare die Eerste Minister korrek is nie. Hulle het die myne belasting opgeleg, maar nie om hulle te straf nie, dog om die ander bevolking minder te kan belas. Met die naturelle het hy dit bepaald mis, want dit was ’n hoofbelasting, 10s. op die naturelle en £2 10s. op die witmense en dit is deur die Nasionale en Suidafrikaanse Partye opgeleg, want die Arbeidersparty het daarteen gestem. As die edelagbare die Eerste Minister ’n aanval maak, dan moet dit regvaardig wees. Wat die naturelle betref dit was nie ’n strafbelasting nie—belasting is altoos ’n straf—maar as dit vir onderwys is, dan is dit ’n erestraf en dit was dit ook vir die naturelle en myneigenare, die myneigenare van wie ons honderde mense aan die lewe moet hou, omdat hulle tengevolge van die werk in die myne, nie vir hulleself kan sorg nie. Dit is vir hulle ook ’n erestraf in die provinsie, waar tot die wege, wat die naturelle gebruik, deur die blanke moet reggehou word. Ek wil verder gaan en die edelagbare die Eerste Minister vraag of hy denk, dat dit reg is, dat hy in verband met die myneigenare en naturelle hom uitlaat asof hulle gestraf word met die belasting, maar van die ander seksies van die bevolking se belasting seg hy geen woord nie. Deur hierdie Huis is ’n Wet aangeneem, dat die naturelle nie mag belas word nie en in Transvaal kry mens kaffers wat plase het en ander besit troppe beeste, maar die witman moet betaal om hulle kinders te laat leer. Hulle betaal wel £800,000 belasting, maar daarvan word £300,000 gebruik vir hulle administrasie. Laaste jaar het ons nog £60,000 ekstra uitgetrek vir hulle. Die Wet bepaal, dat die Goeverneur-generaal kan bepaal wat belas mag word en ek vraag of die edelagbare die Eerste Minister so goed wil wees om, waar die toestand so sleg is, die Goeverneur-generaal te adviseer om die kaffers vir hulle onderwys te belas. Ek sou baie bly wees. Daar is ’n grote deel kaffers, van wie ek niks wil hê nie, want ek wil nie onregverdig wees nie, maar daar is ander op wie se vee en ander besitting belasting behoort geleg te word. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister moet reg doen en as hy ’n aanval maak moet die regvaardig en geregvaardig wees; dan sal ons ’n voorspoedige volk hê, as die leiers regvaardig is. Dit spyt my om hom aan te val, maar ek kan nie anders nie; die onreg is te groot in verband met die verdeling van die belasting tussen die blanke en die kaffers.

One does not care to keep this debate going at such a late hour, but the question is very important, and I know that many hon. members are not, on that side of the House, honestly of opinion that the teaching profession in this country is very well paid. Now I have the figures of 1919 up to to-day. In 1919 the salary which was paid was as follows: Under £100 per year, 134 women. and 14 men; that was a time when it was very difficult to get fully qualified teachers to enter the profession in the Transvaal, with which I am dealing now.

Native teachers?

No.

How does the hon. member know?

If the hon. member wishes to make a speech he is at liberty to stand up and state what he knows about it. I have only forty minutes at my disposal. From £100 to £199 per year, 991 women and 257 men. Will any hon. member on that side of the House say that this is an extravagant salary? £200 to £299, 450 women and 716 men. £300 to £399, 17 women and 336 men. £400 and over, 5 women and 116 men. Taking the high schools, that is normal colleges, etc., under £100 per annum, 14 women and 9 men; £100 to £199, 98 women and 33 men; £300 to £399, 21 women and 95 men; £400 and upwards, 14 women and 96 men. I want to put it to some of the hon. members over there that when they compare the salaries of the teaching profession with people in clerical professions, they want to realize that we give a teacher great responsibilities right from the very start. They have far more responsibility to the State than any person in a clerical position, and it is unfair for anyone to compare them. The total number of teachers in the Transvaal service at the end of 1918 was 3,666, and I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will just listen to this, because he has repeatedly in this House, year by year, attacked the teaching profession as being overpaid. He has been one of the greatest opponents of the teaching profession in this House ever since I have been here. I have not been here for many years, but I have always found him to stand out as one of the great opponents of the salaries paid to teachers. At the end of 1918 we had 3,666 teachers in the Transvaal, 80 per cent. of whom were receiving less than £25 per month. I want to draw his attention to that fact, and he might consider that we, in the Benoni Municipality, when Labour was in control, were paying a minimum wage of £32 10s. per month to ’bus drivers in the municipality for a 44-hour week. Under those circumstances we are not giving much encouragement to intellectual people by paying them such a small salary in the teaching profession. After the 1919 salaries were raised by the Provincial Council in the Transvaal, they were still not extravagant, they were an improvement; and whereas in 1919 and previously they had to go and search in the highways and byeways for teachers, and had to take people with sixth standard certificates, after that increase they were able to lay down professional qualifications and get a better class of teacher. These are facts which no hon. member can deny. I will just quote one or two higher classes of salaries which they enjoy to-day. From £170 to £199, 117 women and 101 men; and I want to draw the attention of hon. members that in the low scale of salaries laid down for the women teachers, we are practically excluding the men from entering the teaching profession, so far as the lower grades are concerned, and I am sorry that is one thing the House would not agree to—equal pay for equal work irrespective of sex. £200 to £299, 1,099 women and 442 men; and so you go on until you get to the higher grades, where men predominate, and are receiving salaries on which a man can live and maintain himself and his family, according to the status of life he ought to enjoy as a member of the teaching profession. And there is no justification for any differentiation or for laying down lower scales of salaries, even to the entrants in the teaching profession. We ought to lay down a scale of salaries on which men and women entering that profession can feel that they are maintaining their dignity as citizens, and receiving adequate remuneration in an honourable profession. Let us take the position to-day. We have a total number of teachers in the Transvaal of 5,064 to-day, 1,901 receive under £25 per month, that is previous to the fresh scales coming into operation as laid down by the Public Service Commission. 1,802 receive under £33 6s. 8d. and 767 receive under £4113s. 4d per month, that is 4,470 approximately 90 per cent. of the total number of teachers under the so-called extravagant scales of salaries, are receiving less than £41 odd per month. It is all very well for hon. members on that side of the House to stand up and talk about extravagant salaries for people who are carrying on this very important task, when hon. members themselves are receiving about £1,000 per annum as an income, except perhaps the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), and I want to ask if the hon. members on that side of the House are really of the opinion that when they were born into the world they were born with riding-breeches, leggings and spurs on, and a riding whip in their hand, and that the teaching profession, or the wage-earners, were born into the world with saddles on their backs to be ridden by the hon. members over there who are in a privileged position? Hon. members, the great majority of whom are receiving not less than £1,000 per annum in their particular profession, stand up here and talk hour by hour about the iniquity of these people drawing this extravagant salary of £41 per month. Now we come to the argument brought forward that there are the plums. They say that every person has an opportunity of getting to the top if they so desire. If we were to start a race of the hon. members in this House from the top of Adderley Street would they all get to the pier first?

The hon. member wants to give them all first prizes.

I want to give them as much of the goods of this life as they can enjoy.

Get down to tin tacks. Where will we find the money?

We will find the money all right. If hon. members on that side of the House will only give up their ideas of the rights of big financial concerns of this country to exploit it to the benefit of the few. It is all very well hon. members talking, but whenever the Labour or Nationalist Parties have been in control of Town or Provincial Councils, they have conducted agitations to do away with those Town or Provincial Councils. We do not hear anything about it now, but there was a big agitation in the Transvaal to do away with the town councils. We have not heard anything of that since the South African Party came into control of the Johannsburg Council. The same thing applies to the Provincial Council, and when we set about transferring the burdens of taxation from the shoulders of those who were least able to bear it, we found the Government interfering and making it impossible for us to levy that taxation, and forcing us to levy it on the same old donkey, the working classes. The hon. members ask who is going to find the money. There is no doubt about it that if the country went to war there would be money enough found. And if this country were ever attacked by external or internal forces there would be no question of finding the money to be able to deal with that foreign or internal enemy. It is only when it comes to a question of paying wages or salaries to the worker, that we find this old parrot cry of “Where do you find the money?” If we were in power, we would act as policemen, and we would stop the big fellow from robbing the little one. But now we come to the other question, my hon. friend agrees with me that it is impossible for everybody to be at the top. Of course, we cannot all be at the top. For instance, we can only have one Prime Minister. All these hon. gentlemen, no matter how capable, no matter how able they are, they cannot all be Prime Ministers, they cannot all be Ministers. If the Prime Minister were to disappear from public life, only one man could take his place. I am not in love with the right hon. the Prime Minister, but I doubt if he has any member there on his side of the House who is capable of filling his shoes. Now, let us deal with this question of the plums. We have 314 at under £50 per month. 140 under £58 6s. 8d. per month, and 75 at £700 per year or over. That is out of a total of 5,064 we have these 529 at those amounts which I have mentioned—like the Johnny in the picture book who was sitting on the back of his donkey keeping a bunch of carrots in front of his nose and making him run. You do the same with your teachers, and keep them running by holding these inducements in front of them. Now I will come to something which will be received with open ears by hon. members on the Government benches. They always like something in the nature of a quotation from people in positions of authority. But let us hear what the Director of Education has to say. He said—

and here they get it as a first resort.

that was after the scales were increased in the Transvaal—

And that is why the scales were raised. They were not raised simply because of any increase in the cost of living. They were not dealt with in the same circumstances as the workers’ wages in the war, they were raised because it was recognized that they were scandalously low, and that one could not get efficiency under them. That was Dr. Adamson’s opinion, the Director of Education in the Transvaal. Then we come to the case of the teachers. So far as teachers are concerned, I contend that they have not asked for uniformity. In the first instance they did not ask for uniformity. They say that this matter was first of all brought forward by the right hon. the Minister of Finance, and only when the matter was brought before them, and after considerable discussion, and after they had expressed a desire that they should be removed from the hurly burly of party politics in the Transvaal and elsewhere, and in order to get some security and to know exactly where they were, the teachers agreed to uniformity. Many members on this side of the House, and the teachers themselves, hold that there has been a breach of faith. The teachers themselves distinctly state that were it not for the statement of the Public Service Commission, in which they said that existing salaries would not be touched, and were it not for the statement of the right hon. the Minister of Finance, and were it not for all these statements made by responsible people by which they were led to believe that their salaries would not be touched—and they accepted these statements as they accepted the word of people who said that their word was their bond—the teachers themselves would not have asked for anything in the nature of uniformity. Let us face the facts. You cannot one moment say that you are going to have something with a semblance of uniformity when you have a position under which any province has the right immediately to reduce the scales laid down. The Baxter Report states distinctly that one of the main reasons in favour of uniformity is to do away with this feeling that one province can take away the teachers from another province. But that will still exist under the present Bill. If, for instance, the Transvaal were to decide to accept the maximum laid down by the Public Service Commission, and the Cape were to decide to reduce the salaries, you would still have the same old position that the Transvaal would be in the position of attracting the best teachers from the Cape, and you have the same old trouble all over again. No man can possibly stand up and justify the statements made by the right hon. the Minister of Finance. You cannot say that the main object of this Bill is to bring about uniformity. We know the story of Joseph—was not that his name? Joseph had a coat of many colours. It was a coat, that was true, and if he had a uniform of the same colours of the coat, it would have been a uniform, but it was like this uniformity, which is no uniformity at all.

I do not follow that.

Was Joseph a civil servant?

Well, the hon. member will probably know more about that than I do, and if the hon. member has finished his interruption I shall proceed with my argument. Now, when we come to the question of the scales, when we come to judge these scales, they should be judged not from the point of view of the few who get the plums, but they should, be judged as they apply to the average body of teachers, the backbone of the profession; that is the great mass of the teachers who are receiving these small salaries per month and who in the past were receiving less. I want to give an example here in connection with the case put forward for the teachers. We take a male teacher, a man with a second-class certificate for which he has had to undergo a great deal of training. I am referring to the man with a second-class certificate which enables him to occupy the highest grade of principalship in a primary school. He must have had three years at a training college, post-matriculation. He starts at £225 per year, say, at the age of 23. After nine years he gets £360. He is then 32 years of age. After four years more he gets £440. He is then 36 years of age. And £440 is the only goal the majority of the men can reach because principalships are so few and far between. A teacher at the age of 36 is probably married and his children’s expenses figure largely in the family budget. Would hon. members call his pay of £36 13s. 4d. per month extravagant? That man has to possess considerable qualifications, he has to go through a great deal of training. Surely his salary after all these years is not extravagant and surely no one can justify a further reduction in that man’s scales. An hon. member on the other side of the House —I do not think he spoke in confidence, but in any circumstances I will not mention his name —told me that many teachers drew salaries which enabled them to go to the Continent for a holiday every two years. I should like to see these wonderful teachers who can save so much in two years as to have a trip to the Continent. I may also add that there are many hon. members in this House who never work at all, but who can go to the Continent every year If I had time I could quote pages and pages from the Baxter Report which would convince the House that the report is not worth the paper it is written on, as in one place they state one thing and in another give a direct contradiction. They compare the salaries between here and Canada and Australia, and later on they tell you it is impossible to make a comparison owing to the different systems in the different countries, and it would be practically impossible to make a comparison between the cost of education in the past and the cost of education at present. In addition it is pointed out how difficult it is for the Commission to report on this country as our statistical department has not been long enough in existence to prepare proper statistics. I have information that a man who was an assistant in a board school in London receives £400 per year, while a similar teacher in South Africa receives £385, yet an hon. member tells us that the teachers’ profession in South Africa was the highest paid profession in the Empire.

Founded on the Baxter Report.

If the hon. member was appearing in a court of law for anyone charged with an offence under the Baxter Report he would be able to pick many holes in it. If the hon. member reads the report—

Does the hon. member infer that I did not read the report?

If the hon. member reads it again with the object of getting contradictions he will find any number of them there. Hon. members in this House have heard the teachers’ case, but of course if not, and if desired I will quote it in extenso. It would be no harm when dealing with the South African Party to deal with it in extenso so that the seed may bring forth some fruit. What is their case? Number one that uniformity is not secured save only in the maxima. When the teachers read the newspapers to-day and see the wild whirling statements and the extravagant statements made about them they will know what reliance they can place on the newspaper reports when the Rand strike was on; number two: that the Public Service Commission has demonstrated its unfitness to judge teachers’ salaries, and when one looks at the miserable scales laid down one agrees with that contention, the Public Service Commission has dealt with teachers as if they were filling ordinary clerical positions in the Public Service. The Government do not agree that the Public Service Commission are a fit and proper body to lay down a scale for its own civil service staff, because in many cases the Government is paying higher salaries. And number three: they say that the scale need not be authorized by Parliament or controlled by the Provincial Council. Every democratic principle is to be ignored. Can anybody deny that that is undemocratic? During the Provincial Council elections we find the hon. members opposite conducted the whole campaign in the Transvaal against the education of the working class in South Africa, and they failed to win a majority because of that. They now attack the teaching profession in this Bill, and are accomplishing by a back-door method what they failed to accomplish during the elections in the Transvaal. You cannot go on misgoverning the country for ever, and although you may attempt to kill education, you will never be abel to crush the spirit of the people. I would like to say a word or two to the hon. the Minister of the Interior, because the hon. the Minister has the reputation of being one of the most fair-minded members of that Cabinet. He has a reputation at all times in this House of being fair to his opponents, yet the hon. the Minister stood up this afternoon and made a violent attack against the Opposition. He charged them with hypocrisy, with deliberate lying, and he charged them with being men absolutely devoid of all sense of all public decency.

Nonsense!

The hon. the Minister accused members on these benches of exploiting this question for party purposes.

That is the only possible explanation.

I am just going to read the hon. the Minister’s statement out. He stated that whatever the troubles are these troubles can go on so far as the hon. members on this side are concerned. The hon. the Minister says that the Opposition value these troubles, and would not eliminate them if they get the opportunity, because they are out to use them for political purposes, and they are too anxious to use these troubles for political purposes to wish anything done. Is that not charging the Opposition with all I have said when the hon. the Minister says that we are standing here and putting up a fight merely for political purposes?

It is fighting it on things which are not in this Bill.

The hon. Ministers say we are always throwing mud—they themselves never do it. If that is their estimate of the Opposition in connection with this case, I say they have a very sorry opinion of the public life of this country and a very poor opinion of themselves. The hon. the Minister stated that we were using the difficulty of the Cape Provincial Council as a political cat’s paw. When we made that statement, he charged us with all the things I have said. Of course it is quite right, according to the hon. gentleman who has just interjected. The hon. the Minister also stated—[Interruption.] If these hon. gentlemen, who occupy a high sphere in the life of this country, will only just behave themselves we will be able to get on. The hon. the Minister went on to say that the teachers had not made any fuss until the proposals of the Cape Provincial Council had been published, and that they were creating a fuss because of the present reduction of salaries in the Cape. That is not so. I was up in the Transvaal some weeks ago, and the teachers were very indignant then, at which time there was no word of what Sir Frederic would do. They opposed it because they realized what Clause 2 meant to the teaching profession in South Africa. The hon. the Minister admitted he had a very poor case, and could not justify the attack on the teaching profession. He should not accuse the Opposition of trying to make party capital out of it. The hon. the Minister of the Interior during the Provincial Council elections, unless he has been misreported, attacked the Nationalist-Labour majority in the Provincial Council in the Transvaal, and stated that the Government taxed the citizens until they practically took their coats and jackets, and the Provincial Council came along and took their shirts as well. Shortly afterwards I said the hon. the Minister of the Interior had clearly and correctly defined the position. If the people of South Africa only knew what the Government were taking out of their pockets, in comparison with the Provincial Council, it would not last six months. Later on, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who was interviewing a deputation from the public servants, told them, as a justification for reducing their status of life, that unless the public servants were prepared to work for lower salaries, they would not be able to compete and hold their own against the encroachment of cheap coloured and native labour.

The time of the hon. member is up.

I move—

seconded.

Is the motion being taken?

The fact that I asked for a seconder is sufficient indication that I have taken it.

Toe ons laas byeen was, het ek gevraag aan die edelagbare die Eerste Minister—hy sal sig dit nog herinner—omtrent, die kontrak in verband met die koelkamerondememing in Suidwes-Afrika; of daardie kontrak nie behoort gekonfirmeer te word deur die Parlement nie, om geldig te wees. Ek het daarop gewys wat die toestand sal wees, indien die kontrak, soas voorgegee word geldig is net vir Walvisbaai, dus grondgebied wat buitekant Suidwes-Afrika gelege is; of dit dan aangeneem kan word, dat die Parlement b.v. aan ’n derde party ’n konsessie kan verleen om teenoor Walvisbaai op gebied van Suidwes-Afrika ook ’n dergelike koelkamer-inrigting op te rig. Kan dit geskiede, dan moet ons aanneem, dat die reeds verleende kontrak enkel te doen het die Walvisbaai; kan dit nie, dan moet ons tot die gevolgtrekking kom, dat nie volgehou kan word dat die kontrak net oor Walvisbaai loop nie.

Dit is seker ’n ingewikkelde regskwessie maar ek verstaan dat die regsgeleerde adviseurs daarop ingegaan het en gesê het, dat wat betref Walvisbaai is die konsessie geldig onder die Kaapse wette, wat ook vir Walvisbaai geld. Wat betreft die geldigheid vir Suidwes-Afrika word geadviseer, dat dit daar ook geldig is. Die edele lid sal ewewel sien, dat daar geen uitsluitlike reg verleen is wat betref Suidwes-Afrika nie. Daar is ’n aantal bestaande koelkamerregte in Suidwes-Afrika, en die regte word staande gehou, sodat dit geen uitsluitlike reg is, welke ten aansien van Suidwes verleend is nie en op grond daarvan verklaar die regsgeleerde adviseurs, dat die konsessie geldig is in so verre dit betrekking het op Walvisbaai.

Waarop baseer die regsgeleerde adviseurs hulle bevinding?

Ek het die stukke nie voor my nie, en wil nie in die breë tans daarop ingaan nie, en ek het persoonlik nog nie die regskwessie nagegaan nie; ek laat dit daarom daar. Maar die edele lid het ’n andere vraag gestel nl. wat kan die Parlement doen in so’n geval? Natuurlik die Parlement kan enige ding doen, sonder om onderhewig te wees aan regsvervolging; die vraag is veeleer andersom, namelik, welke situasie sou ontstaan, as die Administrateur nog so’n kontrak sou uitgee betreffende Suidwes-Afrika? Volgens die regsgeleerde adviseurs sou die eienaar van die bestaande konsessie reg van aksie hê.

Sal dit nie inbreuk maak op daardie konsessie nie?

Die Parlement kan natuurlik enigiets in die rigting van wetgewing doen sonder reg van verhaal aan die kant van ’n privaat burger. As dit geen konsessie is nie, meen ek dat die Administrateur ander as die bestaande kontrakte kan uitgee, sonder sig bloot te stel aan aksie.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) has been asking me about the legality of the concession to this cold storage so far as it applies not to Walvis Bay but to South-West, and I have been answering him on that point. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) put to me another question bearing on this matter of legality, and he asked me whether those leases were in order. There are several leases, the Omatako leases were granted under the Crown Land Disposal Ordinance, which is one of the ordinances especially mentioned under this Act. There are other leases in the Outie areas given under the Land Settlement Act for settlement purposes. They are both about the same size. The first three leases were meant for fattening cattle, about 1,000 square miles, then you have the other leases which fall in the Outje area, which were advertised as ranches under the Settlement Act. You can do that, the Settlement Acts of the Transvaal and the Union which were applied to South-West Africa, allowed the Government to give large areas as ranches, and we have also given a large number of these ranches in the Union. Both these sets of leases were legally given. One set was under the Crown Lands Disposal Law and the other under the Land Settlement Law. There is no question about the legality of these leases. I may just say in a word that it was very difficult for me last week when this matter was under discussion to reply fully to the debate which was taking place. Unfortunately, under our rules a debate in the Committee of the whole House takes place in instalments, and where a regular onslaught is made by any member or members in driblets, it is very difficult to know at what stage you have to reply, and in consequence I was very much reduced to silence. I had to wait for these driblets, and before the debate was over the House had adjourned. Let me say, in a few words, something in reply to the charge that has been made by the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt), who was the principal attacking party in this matter, speaking from the point of view of the Union farmer and the farmer in South-West. It is quite clear from these points of view, that of the Union farmer and the farmer in South-West, that there is not the shadow of a doubt that the Government has done the wisest thing in giving this concession. Take the simple point as regards the interest of the Union, and look at the figures. Last year, as I think the hon. member knows, there was an importation of cattle from South-West into the Union to the tune of over 53,000 head, and of sheep to over 200,000 head, and hon. members can see, as already importation into the Union has taken place on that vast scale, what is going to happen to the Union producer in future if the Union is the only outlet for the cattle and sheep which are being bred in South-West. From the point of view of the Union producer, we were bound to do everything possible to provide another outlet. From the point of view of South-West, the position was difficult, and something had to be done in the interest of the people to find an outlet for the stock and meat of these producers. We had tried everything. At the instigation of the Government, the Administrator there had gone the length of trying to finance a shipment of cattle. On one occasion, under very strong inducement, the Administrator was prepared to advance something like £40,000 for one shipment of frozen meat, if the farmers could be got to operate and send out a shipment. That was the case. The managing director of the F.C.M.I. was prepared to organize this great effort, but the farmers of South-West were so much at sixes and sevens, that the thing had to be dropped.

I am sorry to interrupt, but the time is up.

That is most unfortunate.

Ek wil net korteliks die saak behandel. Die groot kwessie hier is en waarom ek die vraag stel en reken, dat die Regering hierdie kontrak voor die Parlement moet breng vir konfirmasie, en laat my meteen sê, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het my nog nie geantwoord op my vraag nie—die vraag is, as die Parlement sou heengaan en ’n dergelike kontrak toestaan aan ’n derde party, of dit inbreuk sal maak op die regte van hierdie kontrak. Dat die Parlement die reg het weet ek, maar as hulle my huis weggee, dan maak dit inbreuk op my regte, maar as hulle hulle eige grond weggee, dan nie. Die vraag is daarom, maak dit inbreuk of nie op reeds bestaande regte? Ek begryp, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister ’n bietjie huiwerig is om op die saak in te gaan; as hij sou sê, dit maak geen inbreuk hierop nie, dan moet ons aanneem, dat die konsessie beperk is tot Walvisbaai, maar wat sou die regte beteken vir die verkryger daarvan, as die Parlement te enige tyd kan sê: “Ons verleen nog ’n kontrak vir die oprigting van koelkamers”? Dit is tog duidelik, dat hy regte het, anders sou dit nie nodig wees die wat daar is te beskerm nie. Dit is duidelik vir my dat dit wel degelik moet beskou word as inbreuk hierop te maak, maar dan vraag ek, met welke reg het die Regering die kontrak verleen in die aangesp van Artiekel 4, sub-seksie (2), van die Vredesverdrag en Suid-Wes Mandaat? Daardie artikel lui—

Ek bly daarby, dat die kontrak is vals onder daardie artiekel. Maar wat ek behalwe dit wil nadruk op leg, dat die Regering ’n kontrak sluit sonder om dit voor die Parlement te breng, is dat die Huis die reg het om te verwag om volle informasie te kry. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sê op die vraag aan my, dat hy dit nie kan verklaar nie. Hy weet nie, maar daar is ’n advies deur een of ander kroon adviseur, van ’n advokaat, maar hyself probeer nie om dit te verdedig nie. Is dit reg teenoor die Huis? Hier is ’n kontrak, wat die Regering teen die Wet in aangegaan het. Nou ek hoop dat die Regering, die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sien sal, dat dit nie reg is nie, en as die Huis behoorlik behandel moet word, dan moet die Regering gereed wees om self die verdediging op hom te neem of as hy beroep doen op die een of andere adviseur, dan moet hy die advies goedkeur of afkeur. Een ding kan ek sê, dat as daar morre of oormorre ’n andere Regering aan die bewind is en iemand anders kom om ook konsessies te kry, dan wil ek wel weet wat dan gedoen moet word. En wat betref die verlening van die regte, het die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gesê, dat dit in die beste belang van Suid-Afrika is, maar ons mag nie vergeet dat die verlening van regte feitelik beteken die weggee van ’n monopolie en die verlening van monopolies het al baie bloed gekos in Suid Afrika. Was die nie een van die hoofgronde wat aanleiding gegee het tot die oorlog van 1899, die verlening van konsessies nie? En dis eienaardig, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister vandag hier weer kom met sy konsessies, wat m.i. nog nie bewese is, dat die in die belang van die land is nie, want die konsessies is bedoeld as ’n monopolie, nietteenstaande daardie artikel.

Die konsessies vir Walvisbaai.

En is hierdie konsessie nie ’n monopolie nie?

Nee, dis nie ’n monopolie nie, nee seker nie.

Nou goed, dan moet ek aanneem, dat te enige tyd kan ’n konsessie verleen word aan iemand anders sonder enige inbreuk op die Imperiale Koelkamer Maatskappy. Ek wil dit te boek stel en dan het ek niks meer te sê nie. Ek wou maar net gesê het, dat ons kan nie so Iigverdig maar se: “Kyk dis in die belang van die land,” sonder om verder iets te sê tot regverdiging nie.

Dit spyt my dat ek die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) nie kan tevrede stel nie. Hy wil ’n regs opienie van my hê. Ek dink ek moet nou baie versigtig wees voordat ek ’n regs-opienie gee. Ek het die kwessie—ek moet dit erken—nie in sy fyne regs-puntjies nagegaan nie. As jy ’n regsopienie wil gee, dan moet jy die ou Kaapse Wette in verband met Walvisbaai ook nagaan, en ek het dit nie gedoen nie. Die edele lid sê dat hier nou ’n monopolie gegee word. Daar is ’n monopolie gegee vir koelkamers in Walvisbaai, dit erken ek, maar die uitvoer van vee uit Suidwes dit bly oop. Enige man kan hierna vir die aanstaande 15 jaar nog sy vee uitvoer van die Unie. Nee, daar is wat dit betref geen monopolie gegee nie, al die uitsluitelike reg wat gegee is aan die koelkamers in Walvisbaai, maar die Duitse boer, die in Suidwest boer is nie verhinder om sy beeste in die toekoms uit te voer na Europa of die Unie nie.