I move—

seconded.

I am surprised that the Prime Minister does not even condescend to say a word in explanation or justification of this far-reaching motion. At the beginning of an ordinary session the Government takes practically all the time of the House, deprives private members, ordinary members of this House on both sides, of an opportunity of initiating business here or of criticism, and this is done without a single word of explanation or of justification to this House. I do not think we have ever seen a state of affairs like this. We have learned in recent weeks that the right of free speech is being curtailed outside of this House. This House is also now to become a purely Government machine, and nobody has to express his opinion, nobody is to have the right to initiate any business or to represent his constituents properly, because the Government is practically taking command of all the time of the House. I feel this is a state of affairs such as we cannot allow without the strongest protest. A very evil precedent is being laid down here. We have been accustomed for the Government hitherto to take command of the major portion of the time of the House, at a late stage of the session, but here we are in the very first days of the session. This is an ordinary session; it is not a special session. It seems to me the Government want to have it both ways. They want to have a special session, but they are going to do it under the form of an ordinary session. They do not want to get to loggerheads with the Constitution. Instead of calling Parliament together at the ordinary time in January, as they should have done, they have called us together a few months after the prorogation, but not in the form of a special session, because then they might have been in trouble with the Constitution. They do it in an ordinary session, and they want to deal with the House and with the rights of the House as if it were a special session, and the result is we shall have no rights here whatever. Take the statement which was made just now here by the Minister of Agriculture. That statement discloses one of the most serious states of affairs we have ever seen in South Africa. In spite of the ludicrous optimism of the speech which was read here a few days ago, we know that agriculture is in a parlous condition in a large portion of South Africa, and within a few days of the statement which was read, the Minister has to come by way of excuse and paint this dark picture of the few districts he has seen. We shall have no right to discuss these matters, and we shall have no opportunity. Hon. members who represent these constituencies will have no right of initiating anything, and will scarcely have the right of asking questions. They are not representing their constituencies any more, and they are simply voting machines carrying on the behests of the Government. I see that in some other countries, governments—revolutionary governments—are abolishing the rights of Parliament; Parliament has no right of legislating any more; but here even the right of discussion is being taken from us, and we are asked to pass only those bills the Government has placed before us. Any discussion of our own, as representing the country and our constituents, is taken away from us. I consider this is a bad day’s work, and it is not in the interests of the country. We are here as members of Parliament in order to represent the interests we were sent here to represent, and all opportunity is taken away from us; a precedent is laid down which we will regret. If this happens in October, it may happen in January. The docile, obedient majority of Parliament will pass these measures, and the result will be there will be no representation of the people in Parliament at all. I hear very little protest from hon. members on the other side. My hon. friend has had to resort to a subterfuge to make his statement here. Having accompanied the Minister on his tour and seen the terrible plight in which our farmers are, he could not sit still, and he has had to say something here. He has had to resort to this subterfuge. Next Friday is being taken by the Government, and from the 8th of November Tuesdays; and there will be nothing left. I do not know whether the hon. member will want us to sit on Saturdays and Sundays. I can only enter the very strongest protest against the procedure the Government has adopted. It is a violation of the rights of Parliament, and is against the interests of the country. It means that the interests of the country are side-tracked in order that the Government may pass the three precious Bills which have been mentioned in the Governor-General’s speech, and for this everything is being put aside, which is not in the interests of the country. [Interruption.] The Labour party will be the most docile of all. In years gone by we have heard the rafters ring by these hon. members. Now we see a very different state of affairs, and they are not only reduced to silence, but to imbecility. On behalf of hon. members on this side I can only say that we feel an outrage is being committed, and that this is not a parliamentary government. This is dealing with Parliament in a say which is not in the interests of the country, and it will be a very bad precedent in the future.

I cannot refrain from congratulating the right hon. gentleman on his new role, and I cannot refrain from congratulating Parliament upon the fact that whichever party is in power the party in Opposition is a very sturdy protestant for the rights of the House. It was a very different attitude the right hon. gentleman took when he sat on this side; certainly my hon. friends acquiesced in this procedure. There are Governments and Governments. When the right hon. gentleman sat over here he was frequently over-riding the rights of Parliament. This is an ordinary session, it is true, but it has been called specially early for the special purpose of passing Bills, approved by this House, which the right hon. gentleman’s docile friends in another place have insisted on our doing over again.

You must not reflect on them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask your ruling whether it is in order to refer to hon. members of another place in language which is not in terms of the rules of order.

I do not think it is necessary for me to interfere. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) used exactly the same expression with reference to members of this House.

I do not know the precise words to which the right hon. member objected. Whether he considers it a slight that I should call hon. members of another place the right hon. gentleman’s friends.

According to the rules of this hon. House, under which we have worked for many years, and under which the Cape House worked for many years, I would like to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister of Defence is in order in referring to hon. members of another place as docile members or docile friends.

It all depends on the manner in which the expression is used and also on the manner in which it is applied; and if it was passed in the case of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) with regard to members of this House, I do not see how I can prevent it now being used with regard to Senators.

May I point out, with all due respect, that it is entirely different in referring to hon. members of this House in an expression you may not consider unparliamentary; but what I ask for your ruling upon is with regard to an expression referring to hon. member of another place who have no opportunity of defending themselves. I consider the point one of extreme constitutional importance, which demands the earnest and serious consideration of Mr. Speaker.

It is not in order for an hon. member to reflect on hon. members of another place, but I do not think the expression is one which reflects on hon. members of the other House.

I do not want to offend the right hon. member, but I was pointing out that we have called this session specially early to do over again work we had to do last session; owing to the action of the political allies of hon. members on the other side of the House. This is not the first time that a Government has called Parliament together for a special reason, nor is it the first time that a Government has taken up the whole of the time for Government business. It was done by the right hon. gentleman opposite in the special sessions of 1914 and 1919. We called this session specially early in order to do the work which was made void by the action of the hon. members who represent the party opposite. Under those circumstances, there is no intention on the part of the Government to continue this appropriation of private members’ business after that business has been despatched, and if hon. members opposite are so anxious to discuss the drought in the central areas or to discuss any other matter, let them not repeat over and over again the same arguments they made use of last session.

No wonder the Minister of Defence defends the Government because the motion emanates for the most part from himself. He reminds me very much of the Old Testament saying—

In this instance the voice is the voice of the Prime Minister but the motion is that of the Minister of Defence, who is the martinet of the Government. The Government proposes to take away the most valued rights possessed by hon. members. If the Minister of Defence had been sitting on the Opposition benches he would have made the rafters ring with his denunciation of such a proposal—in fact he would have raised chain. Now, however, because he happens to be in the Government he treats the matter quite calmly. This shows how Labour is avoiding free discussion. If he had been in the Opposition he would have urged for time for ample discussion, but now he is drawing quite a fair salary—

Come, come.

I withdraw that. This is a fair sample of the aversion of the Labour people to free discussion when it suits their interests.

A Russian example.

If we go on in this way we shall arrive at a similar position to that occupied by Spain or Italy, and people will not have the right to elect members of Parliament, but will have to be content with nominated members.

It would be an awfully good thing.

There the martinet speaks, his real soul—he would like to nominate all the members and he would do it if he had the chance. I don’t blame the Prime Minister at all for this. The most autocratic member of the Government is the Minister of Defence and I blame him as being the source of this proposal. What is the real opinion of the rank and file of hon. members on the Government benches on the action of the Government? We can form some idea from the views expressed by the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) in an interview published in the “Pretoria News.” The hon. member, who is a Nationalist, stated to a representative of the “Pretoria News” on his return to the Transvaal at the conclusion of the last parliamentary session—

Yet hon. members opposite had not the pluck to stand up and say what they thought. The Senate did a public service in throwing out the Bill. In submitting the motion now before the House, I believe the Government is taking a step which, as far as my knowledge goes, has not been taken by any Parliament in the British commonwealth of nations. My hon. friend has not really thought it over. Supposing anything occurs in the country, to which we think attention of Parliament should be called, we cannot do it. We should have to come, cap in hand, for leave to introduce it.

What about moving the adjournment of the House?

You can any day move the adjournment.

Oh yes, I know. Take the question of drought. I do not think we have properly dealt with it, I am sorry to say, and now we will have to give notice of motion to get the whole thing discussed. That is the position. I am sorry my hon. friend should have given way on this point to his colleagues.

It is amusing to see that it is chiefly members who live in Cape Town who object, and at the same time are the chief offenders in taking up the time of the House. We are sorry that Parliament has been summoned now because it is the most inconvenient time for us farmers to come. The Opposition, however, is not the cause of that. We have come now to do the work of the country and not to talk gossip. We welcome it, and we support the Prime Minister, but he wants us to get to work at once. If the Opposition sympathise so much with the farmers, as the hon. member for Standerton says, then they can show no greater favour to the farmers than by talking less and doing more work.

The most curious thing about this motion is that the Prime Minister, in introducing it, did not vouchsafe a single word of explanation. One would have thought, seeing that the House has sat five months this year, and that during the last month we were called upon to sit until one and two o’clock in the morning, and that we went away jaded and overtired, that in re assembling this House in October, after a recess of only three months, and on the first day of the new session an attempt is made on the time of private members and the curtailing of their rights, at least the Prime Minister would have given some word of explanation of the reason for this motion. As this motion stands, coupled with the motion which is to follow, for the whole of this session which will probably go on till March or April of next year—

No, May or June.

Yes, probably longer; we are told that private members’ rights are to be entirely abolished. They are merely to sit here as voting machines, to vote yes or no on the Government’s proposals. That is what it comes to. Up to now private members have had a definite function in the House. They have had the right of bringing forward motions on current questions as well as private Bills, and some of the most useful legislation on the statute book has been put there by private members. Now, at the beginning of an ordinary session, not a special session, the Prime Minister comes without a word of explanation and takes away those rights. That is not treating the House with the courtesy due to it. It is the attitude of a Mussolini. I object to him moving it in these terms and leaving the Minister of Defence to get up and tell us we have been naughty boys and we have to take our medicine. The precedent advanced by the Minister of Defence was an absurd one. If this was a special session called for a few days only to put through measures the Government say must go through, then members on this side of the House would not object. But we are told we are at the beginning of an ordinary session. Why, then, should the rules of this House be broken this way. Why should we be compelled to sit three times a week in the evening right away and private members be deprived of their rights? The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was good enough to suggest, when the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was speaking: “W’e’ll take it off after Christinas.” In other words, if we are good boys and allow the Government to pass through their measures, we may hope for some relaxation of this restriction. The Prime Minister has not said that. This motion as drafted, if passed by the obedient majority behind the Prime Minister, is unlimited in time. It operates from the beginning and will go on till the end of the session. Supposing that the Prime Minister said that after Christmas this motion is withdrawn. What is the legal effect? We shall then have sat for thirty days, so that the rights of private members would become limited in the terms of standing orders. Therefore, if this motion is withdrawn or abolished, 25 or 30 days from to-day it will not be much use. The ordinary rules will go on and private members will be left defenceless. We are told because in another place three Bills were not agreed to, private members in this House are to be gagged and their work stultified for the whole of the session.

Two points emerge from this motion. The first is the ominous silence of the Prime Minister in moving it, and secondly, it is that a great democrat, the Minister of Defence, dared get up and adduce the only defence for this motion, that because another place has dared to exercise its constitutional authority and power. This comes from an hon. member who poses throughout the country as a great democrat and supporter of a democratic Parliament.

Never mind. We are going to have a special caucus to deal with him.

Certain allegations have been made against the other House with which I do not agree. I say it is the last reason which a Minister sitting on those benches should advance for the introduction of this motion, that it was because another place has duly exercised its authority under the constitution. I doubt whether, in the history of any free Parliament, a motion of this sort has been introduced containing an attempt to dragoon members, free representatives of the people in Parliament. I say deliberately, in my experience over a considerable number of years in this and the Cape Parliament, nothing of this nature has ever been attempted by any responsible Minister, least of all by the Prime Minister, the leader of the House. Constitutionally, this is not a special session. The Prime Minister may reply and say: “What do you mean by a special session?” I admit that a special session is not defined constitutionally, that this Parliament has defined an ordinary session. An ordinary session means a session in which the ordinary estimates of expenditure for the year will be considered, and, by inference, we can define ourselves what a special session means. This is an ordinary session, and members are called together, according to the Standing Rules and Orders of this House, to attend to the business of the country and the business of Parliament. The business of the country does not only consist constitutionally of such business as Ministers may choose to put before Parliament, but a very important phase of parliamentary procedure is that private members have a grave duty to discharge, not only to their constituents, but to the country generally. By this drastic motion proposed by the Prime Minister, all the powers and privileges of private members of this House are being taken away.

All the powers and privileges?

I am speaking of a private member in regard to bringing forward business. I shall come later to the actual contents of the motion. The Standing Orders of Parliament clearly contemplate that private members in their individual capacity shall have certain rights in Parliament. At the very commencement of this session, if this motion passes, members will be debarred from exercising those rights and privileges conferred upon them by the Standing Orders, which will thus be rendered nugatory. That is the logical effect of the Prime Minister’s motion as it stands on the Order Paper. Let us, for a moment, look at the proposal. Under that proposal three Tuesdays are allotted for matters to be brought forward in the form of a motion by private members, matters which members may consider of general importance to the country and of importance to their constituents. Under the Standing Orders, all Tuesdays right through the session are reserved for private members, and practically for the first three months of the session Fridays are also reserved for private members in the form of private members’ order days. The private members’ order days in the form of Fridays are now swept away by this motion, and the effect of its adoption will be that members will be allowed three Tuesdays at the hands of this magnanimous Pact, which, I believe, always tell us that they are imbued with a great love of freedom of speech. I consider this a tremendous inroad upon the rights of Parliament and, especially, upon the rights of private members. I put this to the Prime Minister: “What is the good of any member now proposing any motion dealing with an important subject?” It will be no use to him, because if it is a motion of great importance no finality can be arrived at on such a motion for the simple reason that the private members’ order day is taken away. I consider it is a most unhealthy parliamentary procedure to deal fast and loose with the Standing Orders of Parliament in the way that the Prime Minister proposes here. Let the Prime Minister consider for a moment. If the session goes on, as far as we are informed it will go on in the ordinary course, the programme will be filled up during the next two or three months, as long as Parliament is going to sit, by work introduced by the Government. The Prime Minister, later on, will have no opportunity of retracing his steps, and of affording members greater liberty once his programme is filled up by Government work which may, from time to time, be brought forward. That is altogether apart from the important point in regard to the automatic lapsing of private members’ day on Fridays, according to the Standing Orders. This is not a matter of party; it is a matter which concerns the rights and privileges of Parliament. It is a matter of principle. It should be the duty of every member of this House to protect the rights of Parliament, as safeguarded by its own rules and standing orders. Why is this an ordinary session? The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has referred to the question. The Government is trying to cure by calling this an ordinary session what was constitutionally an illegality which might have arisen if they had called it a special session. In order to assist the Government in disregarding the clear intention of the constitution, we are asked now to forego our privileges in Parliament. I say it is an attempt by the Government to circumvent the constitution so as to cure an illegality which might have taken place had they called Parliament together in a special session.

You, Mr. Speaker, as the natural guardian of our liberties, must welcome the speeches from this side of the House as supporting you in preserving our traditions from being taken away as is attempted to be done in this motion. It is necessary in dealing with this motion to reflect for just a moment on the principal functions of Parliament, and if anyone has the idea that the principal functions of Parliament are to make laws, I certainly say that person is wrong. That is not the only function of Parliament. A great function is that every member who sits in this House should have full freedom of speech and full right of criticism of the Government of the day. I am reminded by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that certain important measures introduced, or about to be introduced by private members, will have no chance of going through this Parliament, if this motion is carried. I wonder if the Prime Minister has thought of the position of the members of the Labour party, and how they will explain to their constituents if they vote for this motion, as no doubt they will do, the effect on the fate of the Bill for women’s suffrage. I think there is very little doubt that the public at large will be able to form a very shrewd idea of the value of their sincerity and their protestations in dealing with these matters. The object of this motion apparently is to expedite certain measures for which this ordinary session is called, but I doubt very much if the Prime Minister, has been well-advised in his methods of dealing with these measures. Surely it is not wise if the Government hope to introduce these measures again to start the session by taking away many of the privileges to which we have become accustomed. I wonder if the Prime Minister agrees with what the Minister of Justice told us a few months ago in this House, that parliamentary institutions were the greatest gift that the English people had conferred upon civilization, and if we find the Minister of Justice speaking in those eulogistic terms on the one hand, and the Prime Minister, on the other, seeking to deprive us of most of the valuable portions of parliamentary institutions, namely, the opportunity of free speech and criticism, it does not say much for the consistency of thought that actuates the Government. It has always been the tradition that when alterations are made in the practice or in the rules of the House, it is done by the House as a whole, and not by the Government or by any one particular party. Why has that not been done in this case? Why does the Government find it necessary only to introduce this motion without a word of explanation, trusting to the obedient majority behind them to see them through? They should have taken the House into their confidence. When the Prime Minister simply formally moves this motion and thinks that no necessity for an explanation arises, is it any wonder that we, on this side of the House, resent that? We rely upon the fact that an alteration of the rules should not be a party matter, but that it should be submitted to the sense of the House, after due discussion and due consideration from all sides. What is a member of this House after all? A member of a House like this is like the member of a body, a limb, and you cannot curtail the functions of a portion of a body without damaging the whole, and similarly we are striking at the efficiency of Parliament and worse still, at the confidence of the public. I hope this matter will not be pushed to its conclusion by the Prime Minister but that he will agree to some modification. I do not think the Prime Minister can ever complain that he has not had the generous assistance of this House in any matters of pressing importance. Again, this is striking at what I may call the historical sense of fair play that should actuate this House. If members get the idea that they are not being treated fairly, naturally it arouses resentment and provokes a good deal of opposition. I have yet to hear from any member on the Government side of the House any valid reason for bringing this motion forward.

It is somewhat surprising that those who claim to be the champions of democracy should now come forward with a motion so autocratic. It reminds me of a sentiment expressed I think by Richard King to the effect that one while being impressed with the goodness of heart of democracy mistrusts its head. We have many important matters to discuss and I think even members of the Cabinet must have known that members on this side intended bringing forward matters of extreme importance to the country.

You can give notice on Friday.

I will deal with the Minister. The Minister has been chosen as the spokesman of the Government in this matter but it is about the worst choice possible. The Minister has shown ever since he got into the Government that he is the absolute autocrat. He has proved the real danger of putting into the hands of an autocrat powers such as he has at present. He is the true autocrat of the present Government. As lately as 1914 when opposing a similar motion he said he did not ask for favours from the Government—

and he goes on to say that now it would be impossible; if the Government wanted to carry through such an iniquitous measure let them do it in their own time.

That was on the Indemnity Bill, was it not?

Never mind what Bill it was. His complaint was that his rights were being taken away from him and that is our complaint at present. He went on—

One feels the only way to deal with the Minister is to remind him of something written about a great potentate and it is very applicable to the Minister. He may have written it himself—

In the few remarks I have to make I shall draw a parallel between the attitude of the Prime Minister to-day and his attitude a very short time ago on a precisely similar matter. His attitude to-day as embodied in the motion we are considering, is nothing but top-doggism enthroned. The Prime Minister, intoxicated with power, is here to-day, without vouchsafing a word as to his real reasons for introducing this motion, to take away the rights of private members, on the wording of this resolution, for the whole of this session. The Standing Rules and Orders which he brushes aside were framed as a result of parliamentary experience going back in this country to 1854, and the framers of these rules and orders laid down what should be done to give private members a reasonable amount of opportunity for ventilating matters which were not brought before this House in the ordinary course by Ministers of the Crown. The Prime Minister proposes to abrogate the whole of this by his motion and I venture to say that the framers of these safeguards would probably turn in their graves if they were able to know the cavalier manner in which the Prime Minister has brought this motion before the House. It has been said by that great protagonist of democracy, the Minister of Defence, that there are ample precedents for this sort of thing from the regime of our party. We are accustomed to his loose method of arguing and I only propose to devote a very few minutes to showing that his claim is one that has no foundation. The first extraordinary session, held after Union, was called to consider if we are to be guided by the Governor-General’s speech the measures rendered necessary owing to the declaration of war in 1914. There was certain extraordinary expenditure needed and private members’ privileges were abrogated in order that the work of the session should be confined to the express purpose for which it was called. The second case in which a special session was called was in 1919 when the treaty of peace was entered into and Parliament was summoned expressly for the purpose of ratifying the treaty and passing the measures which arose out of the treaty. There again the Governor-General’s speech was clear and the Government in pursuance of the sole object of the session abrogated private members’ privileges so that the work of the session could be devoted to the purpose for which it was called. The first session was one which only lasted from the 9th to the 14th of September and there night sittings were provided for in the first two or three days of the session and the ordinary privileges of private members were abrogated because there was a state of war and it was necessary to press on with the measures rendered imperative by that state. There is no parallel whatever between the circumstances of to-day and the circumstances of those two special sessions. If we come to any other curtailment of the privileges of private members that has taken place since Union we find that the accusation of the Minister of Defence again falls to the ground. In the 1914 ordinary session the question of indemnity for the actions taken during the strike and the deportation of certain people described as undesirable, was before the House. Although that important matter was before the House for indemnity and the abolition of martial law at the beginning of an ordinary session there was only a partial curtailment of private members’ rights. Tuesdays were not taken away until the 85th day of the session. It was not until the 98th day of the session that Saturdays were appropriated to Government business. Night sittings were not instituted until the 12th day. The same holds good of the ordinary session of 1915 when the Indemnity Acts in connection with the rebellion were passed through this House. Here I may quote what the Prime Minister had to say in regard to the curtailment of private members’ privileges. There was a very limited curtailment again. It consisted of taking away merely the Wednesday which, in those days, was the order day, but the Tuesdays, as motion days, were not taken away until the session was very far advanced indeed. The partial curtailment of private members’ privileges was resented very strongly by the present Prime Minister, then the hon. member for Smithfield, who said—

Under the Prime Minister’s proposal private members are not to be allowed to have even one day in the week. The hon. member for Smithfield also said—

I might mention what was said by the then Minister of Defence, as a matter of considerable interest, and indicate by way of contrast, the different manner in which the motion was introduced in 1914, to the way in which today’s motion has been introduced. The then Minister of Defence said—

And in speaking in 1915 on a similar occasion he said—

That was to take away martial law and restore the civil law of the country. Is the present mad venture of the Cabinet likely to tranquilize the country? Quite the reverse I should imagine. The then Minister of Defence agreed to amend his motion so that the suspension of members’ facilities applied only to the time needed for passing the Indemnity Bill, and as soon as that Bill was passed, private members were reinstated to the possession of the privileges they previously enjoyed. Has the Prime Minister suggested any such modification of that drastic motion of his to-day? On the contrary, he has not even condescended to tell us why it is necessary for private members to surrender their rights, and he has given us no hope whatever of reinstatement. I wish to support the hon. member for East London (North (Brig.-Gen. Byron) in what he said with regard to the attitude of Labour members towards the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill. We have on the Order Paper a notice of motion to reintroduce the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill, and if the Prime Minister’s motion is passed. I want to indicate what the effect will be. If the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) is successful in getting leave to introduce that Bill, it will be quite impossible to put it down for second reading.

No, it won’t.

It certainly will, as the days already open to private members are taken with other business. It can, as a matter of form, be put down for second reading; but the Minister is trifling with the facts, an exercise at which he is expert. The hon. member for Three Rivers may very well put that Bill down for second reading knowing it will never be reached. There are three open days yet allowed to private members, and the business of the House will be fully occupied with matters of some interest to hon. members on the other side. There is the question of the Court Messenger’s Office in Durban, and the somewhat disagreeable connection that has with some members of this House.

Delicate.

Delicate connection, as the right hon. member suggests. Owing to the Prime Minister’s motion the hon. member for Three Rivers will be unable to reach the second reading of his Bill, and if by the withdrawal of every motion that already stands ahead of the measure, he succeeds in getting the second reading passed, the curtailment of the facilities of private members will prevent him from proceeding any further with the Bill. The Labour party will be to blame for supporting the Government in this motion. If we assume, as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs suggests, that after the passing of these three Bills, private members may expect reinstatement of their privileges, we may find that after the fiftieth day of the session, under the standing rules and orders, Friday, as order day, would automatically go to Government business and thus again the measure would be blocked. There are other matters of considerable importance which it is the privilege and right of private members to bring forward, and I should like to point out that the curtailment of private members’ privileges will make it impossible for any hon. member on this side to bring forward a substantive motion indicting a Minister or a member of Parliament for any action which, in our opinion, may, under such a course imperative. There are some of us aware of facts which may make it necessary for a motion of that character to be introduced into the House. If this motion is allowed to pass it means that our rights in any such grave and serious matter are to be curtailed. These are matters of very serious concern which we are entitled to protest against in the strongest manner possible. There is the pitiable state of the agricultural industry in this country. We have heard from the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon something of the result of his tour through the drought-stricken districts, but I am sorry to notice his autocratic attitude in declining to read that statement in English for the benefit of those who were not able to follow his somewhat hurried reading of the statement in Afrikaans The Minister merely laid that statement on the table of the House; he did not say whether it was typed in English. It is the view of many of us that the Government have lamentably failed to respond to the despairing appeal of the farmers for relief from the dire straits into which the agricultural industry has been reduced to-day, and there are many of us identified with that industry who feel that the time has arrived when we should bring forward alternative proposals, of dealing with the condition of affairs in the country; and to do so it is necessary that private members should have the facilities which the standing rules and orders have provided for them. It is nothing but an outrage that private members’ facilities should be taken away, and taken away in order that this country shall be plunged into strife and turmoil, the end of which none of us can foresee. There is not a soul in the Union who does not apprehend with a certain amount of alarm the inevitable result of the mad adventure which the Government has embarked upon, and in pursuance of which it is seeking to trample underfoot the rights of private members. Yet the Prime Minister has not thought it necessary to say a single word to allay that natural feeling of anxiety which is felt by every thoughtful man in this country. I protest on behalf of the community, which has been very long suffering under the autocracy of the Government. The Prime Minister has singled out the province which I represent for references which have caused a great deal of ill-feeling and resentment. We had hoped that in the calm atmosphere of the House the Prime Minister would have indicated something of reasonableness in his attitude towards the Bill. Had he approached us in that frame of mind, I think an entirely different spirit would have prevailed, not only in this House, but in the mind of the people at large. By his proposal the Prime Minister is going to make it impossible for private members to bring forward any alternative proposals, although the country is in the grip of a drought the parallel of which is not known in the memory of any living man. Yet the Government is engrossed on a Bill which so far from granting relief, is going to lead to exasperation and to the unfruitful expenditure of money and to the antagonism of the two great races in this country—an antagonism which we all dread and none of us can see the end of. In addition to the parlous state of the agricultural industry, we have a very grievous state of affairs in connection with the native question. I was privileged to be a member of the select committee which dealt with this tremendously important subject last session. We found that the Prime Minister was so engrossed with this eternal flag question that it was impossible for him to attend more than about 40 per cent. of the sittings of that select committee. This session we are to be plunged into the same kind of work, and I believe it will be done in the same inefficient manner. Under previous Governments even when the Deportation and Rebellion Indemnity Bills were passed, curtailment of the rights of ordinary members was limited to the period during which those measures were under consideration. Why should not the Prime Minister give further consideration to this subject—let him realize that he is establishing a precedent which will recoil on the House in years to come, and will defeat the very legislation we are about to consider. What is to be said of legislation, the passing of which is dependent on such methods as the Prime Minister proposes to adopt? Is it right that legislation which the whole world considers a mistake—legislation that should be brought about by agreement only—should be enacted by an infringement of the rights of members? I appeal to the Prime Minister to withdraw the motion. We are not at all opposed to working fully whilst we are in Cape Town, but it is the antithesis of efficiency to proceed on the lines desired by the Prime Minister. We have no wish to shirk night sittings, and there will be a cheerful response to the Government’s demands that the House should work longer hours. We are on the threshold of a new season at a time when every primary producer is anxiously contemplating the task of sowing his crops, and there are many difficulties we should like to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister with a view to facilitating that task. We shall, however, be muzzled completely if the Prime Minister’s motion is carried. That motion is the very negation of parliamentary representation. Have we been sent here like so many marionettes to dance to the tune of the Government, and to bow to the overwhelming will of the Cabinet on whatever matter they put before us? The Government must realize that it is only right that members lawfully elected should be given every facility to represent their constituents, especially in the earlier part of the session. During the recess we have heard the views of our constituents, who, owing to the depression in the farming industry, desire that their grievances should be submitted to the House. The Prime Minister proposes to take away from private members the very first Friday of this week. Under Standing Rules and Orders, motions may be introduced on a Tuesday, and Friday is the recognized order day for a continuance of the business introduced on a Tuesday. There are already three important motions of which this side has given notice, but the result of the curtailment of our privileges will mean that not a single one of these motions can be debated on a Friday, because that day will have been taken away for the discussion of Government business. On the order paper already there is an important motion for the relief of the farmers by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins); then we have the question of women’s franchise, which is very contentious, but which, because of this motion, cannot reach a second reading, and can be discussed for two or three hours only, and then there is a very important matter of the appointment of a select committee to consider the scandals in the Court Messenger’s office at Durban. All these will be set aside and lost sight of after a few hours’ debate. This shows that Government has it in its power to defeat the object of Parliament—I had almost said to defeat the ends of justice, for in one of these matters justice looms very largely. Unless ample opportunity is given for the discussion of the matter, the public will feel that the Government is burking debate, because it fears the light of day being thrown on the subject. I had not intended when I stood up to occupy the time of the House for any great length, but it is an engrossing subject, and one of considerable importance to the rights of members, and for that reason I have dealt with it somewhat fully in its various ramifications. I hope the Prime Minister will be reasonable. We know he is naturally a man of innate courtesy. We, who have met him in private life, know his disposition to be courteous and affable, and I hope he will be true to these admirable virtues, and that he will accede to the appeal I have made at some considerable length.

On behalf of the only free Labour party, I make an appeal to the Government for a more business-like arrangement of the proceedings of this House. I have been much struck by the deterioration in the conduct of its business; the deplorable waste of time. Here are 135 men from all parts of the country who have their own interests to look after, who are not idlers, and yet the whole arrangement of the business would disgrace the meanest municipality in this country. I have wondered how business men can waste their time in the way it is squandered here. Business is directed through the legal ministerial section of the Government, and legal men do not mind how long a case lasts, or what it may cost. The reason is perfectly plain. Every succeeding day they get a “refresher.” As far as this House is concerned, members get no “refresher.” I suggest to the Government that it would be wiser to put direction of procedure in the hands of one of its members not of the legal fraternity. If the Minister of Labour could be seconded from his work as minister for advertising and became business manager of the Assembly, it would, perhaps, be very much better. There is no necessity for going into night sittings in most cases, and certainly not in this instance. The House of Commons has a wise arrangement where the entire business is mutually arranged by the party whips. It would be better here if we had our whips meeting together and suggesting and arranging the procedure. Seeing that all are interested in going through with the business and getting away, surely it is not asking too much of the Government to set an example and show us what can be done in this direction by an energetic man like the Minister of Defence just returned from a long holiday. It is said that a cursed ministry cannot last long, and if so Ministers may look for a permanency in view of the muttered imprecations regarding the calling of this session. Every man on their own side objects to being called away from home to a broken-up session like this. It has not given satisfaction, however amenable the party may be to it, and I must say they are amenable, so far as the party I have the honour to belong to is concerned. Recently the Minister of Finance said that ever since they had been “called in” they had “given no trouble.” Can one imagine a better character being given to Labour legislators than that? I ask them for once to give a little trouble and insist upon the business arrangements of the House being better conducted, that we may get through it in quicker time, and more to the satisfaction of the public. So far as parliamentary institutions are concerned, and this Parliament in particular (I hope I will not be called to order for saying so) it is incurring the contempt—

The hon. member must not use language which will reflect on Parliament.

Then might I say, Mr. Speaker, it may get so far as to incur the contempt of those who sent us here?

The hon. member must not try to get round the ruling I have given.

I am entitled to say parliamentary institutions everywhere are being considerably criticized, and this one particularly, is coming under severe public criticism. We have a serious duty to perform to those who sent us, and I can only say we are not doing it as it might be done in a businesslike way. I hope Ministers will give attention to the suggestions made with the best of goodwill, and arrange business right through the session between the Whips, and that we shall have no further waste of time.

I am surprised at the manner in which the rank and file on the opposite benches are accepting this motion. You would think, instead of being members of Parliament, they are a lot of tame cats—

Hon. members must cease making personal reflections in respect of other members. The hon. member must withdraw.

I withdraw. Here we have a motion intending to take away these rights, the rights of private members. Comment has been made this afternoon in regard to the Prime Minister supporting his motion with a speech. One has only to look at the Prime Minister’s face to realize why. He is ashamed of it. We are in South Africa, and not in Russia, and we are not going to submit into being dragooned into matters of this kind. We are free men, and we are going to exercise our rights. We ask why they are taking this privilege away. Do they fear the exposure private members can bring about? Why show this spirit of funk? No previous Government has done it. This is not a special session. When I hear the hollow and horrible laugh of hon. members opposite, I feel sorry. We had this afternoon an example which is painful. The Minister of Agriculture was reading his experiences and contact with the drought-stricken districts, a matter which is exercising concern through the whole of Africa. He reads it in Afrikaans, and when I ask him to read it in English, he says in a contemptuous manner, “I will put it on the Table.” Is that the way to treat us in this House? Never in the history of the country has agriculture been neglected as it is to-day. What opportunity have we for drawing attention to it when private members’ days are curtailed in this way. I can read a list of these grievances. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has read out the scandal at the messenger’s court at Durban, and that is nothing compared with the scandalous way the farmers have been treated by this Government. I protest strongly against this motion, and I hope the rank and file on the other side, if they have the pluck, will stand up like men and say what they think.

I do not desire to hold up this discussion, except to say that I am entirely in sympathy with those who have lodged a protest against the motion of the Prime Minister. I rose to ask the Prime Minister when he replies to this debate, assuming he does reply, and I can hardly conceive it possible he will not reply, I want to ask him in regard to certain circumstances of very considerable moment with reference to the Flag Bill which, I understand, to be the justification which is urged for the depriving of members of the rights they have been entitled to, in the past, of using Tuesdays and Fridays. When I left Durban, certain patriotic bodies intimated to me that they desire to petition Parliament for the right to appear at the bar of the House to address members on the question of the Flag Bill. There are certain aspects of that measure which are exercising the minds of the people of Natal which causes them to wish to take this course. I want to ask the Prime Minister—

I understand the procedure is that in order to obtain the right to address the House, Parliament has to be petitioned. It is difficult to see how a private member will succeed in bringing a petition before Parliament, if this motion is carried. If I am wrong in that respect I would like the Prime Minister to say, assuming Parliament is prepared to hear these people, will the passing of this rule preclude them from appearing before the House, and if it does, will he give the assurance that facilities will be given for these people to be heard at the bar of the House on the very subject, I understand, justification is claimed for abrogating the privileges of members of Parliament. It is extremely difficult to address the Prime Minister. He puts on a very weird and worried look. I do not know whether he takes me seriously, but I am entirely in earnest in asking this question. I do want to ask him whether, in the event of this motion being carried and if the effect is as I ventured to indicate, he will then grant facilities to these people to be heard at the bar of the House. There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer and that is a statement made by the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay). What I understood him to say was that he considered that there were too many legal elements as composing the Cabinet. May I venture to say, as a member of the legal profession, that I do not think the country is suffering from the circumstance that there are too many legal elements in the Cabinet. I rather think that it is because the Cabinet has attempted many illegal methods that the country is getting into such a state to-day.

I cannot better describe what is happening this afternoon than by using the words of the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay), who compared the work of the House to the proceedings of a municipality. After the two hours spent this afternoon I must say that the advantage lies with the municipality. The whole debate this afternoon shows us what is coming. We have been told on various platforms by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that they will fight us step by step on the Flag Bill. This is the first step, this afternoon, with the result described by the hon. member for Pretoria West. I congratulate the hon. member for Standerton on his first step. It has been said that I should have said something about the motion. What? Is there anything I could have said that hon. members opposite did not know? It is hardly four or five days since the Governor-General made his speech from the throne. That stated that this session has been convened earlier because there are three Bills, defeated in the last session, which the Government considers should be passed as soon as possible in the interests of the country. It was also said that those three Bills would be the special subject for consideration by Parliament during this year, and the hope was expressed that Parliament would complete them early in December. Hon. members therefore know precisely what the object of this motion is. I could not have enlightened them about it. Now I have heard that it has been said: Yes, but you ought to have said whether the motion was intended to apply to the whole session. The fact that the question was not directly put is proof that hon. members opposite knew very well that would not be so. If they were serious in their objections they could have simply asked the question. The hon. member for Standerton who is so concerned about the farmers’ interests could have asked a question, as has been done on previous occasions, and he would have received a reply. Instead of taking two and a quarter hours, the matter would have been disposed of in five minutes. But, of course, proof had to be given how much they intended taking up the time of the House. Now, this is not a special session, but the session has specially been convened early, and with a view to the passing of the three Bills, the rejection of which was due to our hon. friends opposite. I have not the least doubt that the hon. member for Standerton, so far as the Flag Bill is concerned, is determined to wreck it. He can do what he likes, and hon. members opposite can do what they like. We must assume that they will do again what they did last year with regard to the three Bills, but I assure them that the Government is going to do all in its power—come what may—to put the Bills through, and to do so before the end of the year. It is for this reason that I am now introducing this motion and that the following one appears on the paper, namely, to make sure of those three Bills going through. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) wants an assurance from me. I shall not give him that assurance. Parliament and this House are here, and this House can at any time decide whether it will do so or not. However, as far as I am personally concerned as a member of this House I shall not give my support to such a stupid thing as that which hon. members opposite, from Durban, would probably like to be passed. As a member of the House I shall do my best to prevent it. With an apology to hon. members opposite who may possibly have been innocent in the matter because they did not understand the motion, I now move.

Motion put, and Col.-Cdt. Collins called for a division,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—69.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. J. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J.

de V. Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Strachan, T. G.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W.

le Roux.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—49.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

For fear of there being a similar long debate, I should like to say at once that I want these evenings to be taken in order that it may be made certain that these Bills, which we have already referred to, will be passed.

Not so certain.

I have not the least doubt that hon. members opposite will try to make it as uncertain as possible. Let me also say that both as regards these evenings and the use of Thursdays and Tuesdays, it is what we all want until the session adjourns for the recess about the end of the year. I do not wish it to be said later that hon. members have not had enough time to discuss these three Bills. When they have been duly disposed of the Government is prepared to meet and assist members as much as possible, and give them every opportunity to introduce private Bills, always, of course, with due consideration for the time required for necessary Government work.

seconded.

Even at the risk of once more concentrating the wrath of the Prime Minister on this side of the House, I wish to make objection to this motion. I do not see why the Prime Minister should resent the attitude we are adopting in this House. This afternoon we have done our best to defend the privileges of this House, and we are doing the same on this motion. The Prime Minister, by hook or by crook, by fair means or foul, would like to see these Bills carried, but he cannot blame us when we do this and prevent the laying down of a precedent which may have disastrous effects. The Prime Minister, by a little exercise of courtesy, will go further than by adopting an attitude of truculence. With regard to this motion, hon. members know that we always resort to this expedient of night sittings towards the end of a session and when we do resort to this expedient we are reduced to such a state of mind that we cannot do proper work. I am afraid that on the first days of the session we are being reduced to that state. We have to do our work in the mornings; we have to sit in a foetid atmosphere to do our work, and if we have to sit here practically every night, we are soon reduced to a condition which makes it almost impossible to do serious work. Hitherto it has been the practice to do this towards the end of the session, and now we are going to start this towards the beginning of the session.

Have you never done this?

We have discussed this before In no ordinary session have we resorted to these night sittings in anticipation of the day under the rules of the House.

You have.

It may have been done under very special circumstances. The Minister seems to have been looking up ancient history, and he may explain. We are going to deal with very difficult matters. The Prime Minister has said that I stated on the platform that I shall fight the Flag Bill inch by inch and step by step. There are two ways of fighting—the way of an out and out fight, and the way of exploring methods of agreement and methods of solution. The Prime Minister laughs, but let me tell him that we shall, on this side of the House, leave no avenue unexplored either by way of opposition or trying methods of agreement, to try to arrive at a solution of this question. Now at a time like this, when we are really up against a very serious state of affairs in this country, the Prime Minister brings forward a motion the result of which will be that hon. members will be reduced to a state of exhaustion and to a temper in which it will be impossible to do their work properly. A grave mistake has been made by the Government in moving this in the first days of the session. The Government should see whether it is not possible to keep the door open and to arrive at a solution of the grave matters in which we are concerned now. The door is shut now. Then if an alternative is mentioned, it is met with jeers and sneers from the other side. It makes one feel forebodings about the future when you see that every attempt which is being made to help this country through one of its gravest crises, is met with jeers, sneers and contempt. It will not improve tempers and the rate at which we are working. I would rather see some other method to expedite our work—by morning sittings rather than night sittings. We are not overwhelmed with select committees, and it would have been far better to take some hours of the morning, and not have these long night sittings. They are making matters much more difficult to deal expeditiously, properly and with dispatch with the matters we have before us. If the Prime Minister thinks he will beat us to a frazzle, we shall do our duty under all circumstances in this House.

I would make an appeal to the Prime Minister, who is not showing his usual consideration to this House. He showed consideration last session, owing largely to the absence of the Minister of Defence. Í put all this down, I say quite advisedly, to the influence of the Minister of Defence. I do not think for one minute that if the Prime Minister were left to his own devices, he would have brought this in. My experience is there is nothing that wearies hon. members more than evening sittings. It knocks them up more than anything else. It is more tiring, and I find that myself. It was remarked last session that of all the hon. members of this House the Ministers are the worst attendants. The Minister of Justice thinks he has more important matters to attend to.

I do not like Parliament.

What did he say the other day—that Parliament was the most important thing the English race had discovered—and now because he does not like it he wants to destroy it. It does not affect Ministers as much as members on this side. We have to attend to the business to see that nothing goes wrong. According to the statement of one of their own hon. members (opposite)—

It is by one of your own members, a loyal Nationalist. So long as they wander about the lobbies or go to the billiard room, it does not matter, and when the bell goes they come in. A Minister looks after his own Bill, and then clears out of the House; in fact, the members who put in the fewest attendances are Ministers themselves. The Minister of Justice admits that and gives the reason quite frankly. So long as the Government supporters hang round the lobbies and troop in when the division bell rings, that is all that is asked of them. That, however, is not fair to the Opposition. How can you get the best out of the House if you tire it out? One would almost imagine that it was the object of the Government to wear out the Opposition. It is a monstrous state of affairs to force the House to sit at night on the very first working day of the session.

I wish to thank the Prime Minister for treating the House with more courtesy than he did on the former occasion, for he at least condescended to take the House into his confidence and tell it some of the motives which actuated him in bringing forward the motion. Possibly the indignation expressed by us at the curt way in which he proposed the former motion had something to do with that. Where is the urgency for the introduction of this motion? We are told that its purpose is to enable the House to pass as quickly as possible three measures which failed to pass last session. That is three-and-a-half months ago, and the country has gone on quite well without those measures, and it would go on, possibly for three-and-a-half years more without them. I ask the Minister of Defence, for whom I have a sneaking sympathy this afternoon, for having been the target of so much diatribe, which of these measures is so urgent that the whole organization of Parliament must be upset in order that they should be passed at the earliest possible moment. The country has gone on for a hundred years without a Government Iron and Steel Industry Bill, and it could continue to go on quite well without such a measure. Is that measure so urgent—whether it be good or bad I will not discuss now—that the whole machinery of Parliament must be upset in order to pass it? Then we have the Nationality and Flag Bill. Is that so urgent, and has there been such an insistent demand for the immediate settlement of this nationality and flag question that we should be asked to take the unusual step the Prime Minister wishes us to take? Important measures should not be rushed through, hut should be discussed in an orderly and dignified fashion. The longer we take over it, probably, the better the measure will be. The only measure for which there can be any urgency at all is the Diamond Control Bill, and it could be got through in less than a week if a little measure of reasonable tolerance and a spirit of give and take were displayed by the Government. I fail, however, to see the urgency which lies behind the demands the Prime Minister is making on the time of the House. The Minister of Defence states that on some previous occasion night sittings were resorted to at the beginning of the session, but if that were done, it was in war time, when “time was the essence of the contract.”

The same here.

It was a short session, called to meet a special emergency at a time of war, and when a legitimate demand could be made on members to discuss it every day. The present circumstances, however, are entirely different. We have gone on very well without these measures, and we shall continue to do so, and if the majority think they should be passed, it does not matter two pence whether they are passed in October, November or December. The Prime Minister will look rather foolish if he asks us to sit night after night to pass these measures, and when they reach another place for the members of that House to say that they refuse to be hurried, but require time in which to consider them. They may even say that they think those measures so important that they will refer them to a select committee. Then we shall have been rushed, bullied and dragooned into passing measures in double quick time, and may have to watch the leisurely proceedings of a dignified house of review.

I should like to remind the Prime Minister that he has a motion, No. 5, further down the Order Paper, to refer the Native Bills to a select committee. I know that it is his wish that the principal members on both sides of the House should be members of the committee. Now, I want to ask whether the Prime Minister thinks that the leaders in the House will be able to give their attention from the commencement of the session to the Bills which deal with possibly the greatest national matters affecting South Africa, when they have practically to sit every night in the House, and then have to meet in select committee at ten in the morning on the most important matter concerning our country and people. Does the Prime Minister think that they can do justice to the Bills, to the greatest question awaiting solution?

You will have another holiday in six weeks.

I thought the hon. Minister was also concerned about the native question, and that he was in earnest about it, but it seems from his interruption that it is a matter which can stand over.

The matter is not going to stand over.

We reached the position during last session that we had later on to sit in select committee without the lead of the Prime Minister, and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) had to act as chairman of the most important select committee of the House. The Prime Minister well knows that the country is not being fairly treated, by convening the session earlier because in that way the time for consideration of the three most important Bills is reduced. In the ordinary course the people would have had the opportunity of discussing the Bills up to the end of January so that three or four extra months would have been available for consideration. The people of South Africa, however, are now being deprived of proper consideration of the three Bills which the Prime Minister wants to push through. This throws a great responsibility on him, because he should give the House every opportunity of discussing the question calmly and deliberately. The Prime Minister can try to drive and push the people of South Africa but the people at bed rock are sensible, and will not allow themselves to be driven. A time will come when they will settle with the Government. The Minister of the Interior may laugh, but he struggled hard for many years to get into the House. He eventually succeeded in doing so, but the time will come when he will have trouble in being re-elected. I am sorry that our Nationalist friends, who speak loudly about the rights of the people, and of their being a people’s party, and standing up for the farmers’ rights, are making such an exhibition this afternoon. There was a kind of arrangement between the Minister of Agriculture, and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) that a certain question about farming should be put. I must say that the play was a failure. What an exhibition! By forcing things in this way and by taking away the rights of the House, we are not able to debate these important matters, which were raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, The speech from the throne may say that farming is apparently in a flourishing position—

The hon. member is a little off the point.

The Prime Minister is now proposing to take away our time. In connection with such a motion we can refer to matters which we consider important in the interest of the people generally, but which owing to the autocratic action of the Government cannot be put on the Order Paper.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I say that the motion is not in the interests of motions announced by hon. members, nor in the interests of their constituents, but in the interests of an autocratic Government. That is the position, and the people are beginning to find out that all this high-sounding talk of popular government and a popular party is mere talk and nothing else. If the Prime Minister goes on in this autocratic way he will realize his mistake. He got a fright this afternoon. He introduced a motion of a far-reaching nature to deprive us of our rights as private members.

The matter is now disposed of.

That happened and it is proof of the autocracy of the Government. The Prime Minister always said, “I know my people,” but I can tell him that the eyes of the people are being opened with regard to the autocratic action of the Government in matters of the greatest importance to the people of South Africa.

I want to ask; is the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) serious He spoke about the taking away of rights, etc., and we have always been asking for the extension of members’ rights. We do not ask for a reduction of time, but an increase of time. I ask that in addition to the time we already have, members should also sit on Thursday, Wednesday and Monday nights. Is the hon. member in earnest? I ask, is he honest? Or would it be unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, to say that the hon. member is not honest?

It would be better if the Prime Minister did not say it.

Then I withdraw the question. But you will agree that it would have been a suitable one if I could have asked it. His argument is, however, ridiculous. There is another thing which is just as ridiculous, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). They argued that it was killing work to sit three nights a week. What are the facts? In ordinary circumstances we should in any case after fourteen days have had night sittings. That has happened every year, but it has never yet killed them. Yet these hon. members, and the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) argue that it is a violation of the rights of the people to overwork them in this way. He mentioned the fact that important select committees are sitting, and that these night sessions will kill members if they also have to attend the committees. The hon. member has never yet sat on an important select committee which did not also sit during the time that night sittings were in progress. The important committees always commenced sitting after the eleventh day. He has always lasted out in the past, and he will be able to last out the extra ten days. Hon. members make a fuss about nothing! The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has never previously thought that night sittings after the eleventh day caused inconvenience. I think that I have always hitherto met him and hon. members, when they came to me saying that they had been working too hard. I shall continue to do so in the future. All reasonable members will admit that we do not have much time to dispose of these Bills. It is, of course, the case that members opposite differ from us, and would like to see the Bills defeated. But we on this side of the House exceed them in numbers, and the Opposition cannot object to our seeing that our views prevail. It is not unreasonable to expect that we shall dispose of these three Bills before we adjourn for the recess at the end of the year. If hon. members feel that they are having a hard time, then they must not waste three hours of the time of the House on nothing.

On nothing?

Yes, everything could have been disposed of in ten minutes. This is the first step in the conflict. I wish them luck with the second.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—69.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J.

de V. Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Strachan, T. G.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le Roux.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—48.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

I wish to make use of this, the first opportunity, to obtain some information from the Government as to their policy with regard to this Bill, which the Minister now seeks to introduce. There is a good deal of misunderstanding among the public, a good deal of mystification really, as to what the position is, and this misunderstanding arises from the fact that for some weeks now Ministers have been speaking to the country with two voices in regard to this grave matter. I think it is very necessary we should know exactly where we are. The matter is of the gravest importance, and it would be criminal if in darkness, so to say, in misunderstanding, we moved forward to a very grave crisis in this country. I therefore wish to raise a couple of points and see whether it is possible for the Government to clear up the misunderstanding, and the difficulties which exist, so that we may know where we are, because I am sure that clarity on this Bill can only be useful in helping towards some possible solution. The misunderstanding arises, as I say, because of the fact that Ministers have been speaking with two voices over this matter. The Minister of Justice, a couple of weeks ago, in a letter which he sent to the “Rand Daily Mail” and which has been the occasion of a good deal of talk and consideration among the public, made certain statements of which I wish to quote two. He said that under the legislation which the Government was proposing the Union Jack was the imperial flag of South Africa; and then he goes on to make this further statement—

The statement therefore made by the Minister of Justice in this letter over his name, is thus that under this legislation there are two flags in South Africa, a domestic flag and an imperial flag, and that if this legislation is passed in its present form South Africa will have these two flags. I need only point out—and to members of this House it is scarcely necessary to point out—that under the Bill before us there is one flag of South Africa. The second chapter of this Bill and Sections 7 and 8 define the position clearly that there is one flag and not two, as the Minister stated.

When did you discover that?

I discovered it by reading the Bill.

So you discovered it from the start?

From the very start. It is the flag of the Union of South Africa, not two flags; there is only one flag. Evidently in the mind of the Minister of Justice, although he may unintentionally, I assume, have misrepresented the position, there was the idea that there either was or might be two flags in South Africa on an equal footing, one the imperial flag, as he called it, and the other the domestic flag. Then the Minister of Justice somewhat later went a step further and he gave an interview to the “Pretoria News” which was reported in all the papers. It has not been contradicted since, and I therefore assume that this interview has been correctly reported. In this he says that when he stated that the Government would be willing to accept any reasonable proposals in regard to the size of the shield on the flag, he intended that to apply not only to the size of the shield, but to the component parts of the shield. So this is another point. The Minister of Justice says he was prepared to concede not only the enlargement of the shield on the flag, but also the alteration of the component parts of the shield. Asked whether he regarded the design proposed by “The Cape” as a reasonable suggestion, Mr. Roos replied that it was a possible way out, but the suggestion would have to be made by the Senate. The impression created by this letter and by this interview on the public mind has been this, that the deputy Prime Minister is prepared to go a long way and to make very large concessions, and he adumbrates a transformation of the Flag Bill under which there would be two equal flags of South Africa, one representing the imperial aspect and the other the domestic aspect of South Africa, and beyond that he is prepared to press on his colleagues the transformation of the domestic flag, so that not only will the shield be enlarged but the component parts of the shield will also be enlarged, and he goes the distance of saying that “The Cape” design might be a way out of the difficulty and he suggests that the Senate should put it forward. The effect of this letter and this interview has been to create an atmosphere of conciliation, so to say, all over the country.

That you did not want.

There is a strong undercurrent all over South Africa among reasonable people, that if possible the calamity of a referendum should be avoided, and some method of settlement should be evolved, which would prevent the referendum, and they have looked to this communication from the Minister of Justice as opening the way out. That is the one voice. We were prepared—I am prepared—to consider it seriously, and to look upon it as a genuine contribution. I do not understand what the Minister means by that unseemly noise.

After all you have done to oppose an agreement.

You are not deputy Prime Minister yet.

I do not follow the Minister. I thought the Minister was also trying to come to some possible solution.

I did try, but you never helped.

I am very sorry to hear from the Minister of Labour that he has given up trying to explore further methods of settlement. My point is this, that while one Minister in the Government is making these apparent overtures and spreading an atmosphere of peace, so to say, and of settlement in the country, other Ministers, no less important than he, are doing just the opposite. The Minister in charge of this Bill said only the other day in the Free State that the Government has reached the last, the utmost, limit of concession. [Interruption.] Well, I am simply stating facts, not expressing either approval or disapproval, but I am trying to elucidate how is it there is such mystification amongst the public to-day. One Minister holds out an olive branch, and the other Minister says that the utmost limit of concession has been reached, and he is not only cheered to the echo by hon. members behind him, but backed apparently by the Prime Minister, who said in Pretoria that no single step further would be taken by the Government to introduce an amendment to this Bill. If an amendment were forthcoming from the Senate, good and well, but no single step further would be taken by the Government. This attitude of some of the Ministers has the support of their party in the country. At Pretoria, at the congress of the Nationalist party, a resolution was passed to the effect that there should not be an inch of further concession; and, to me, the remarkable fact is that the Minister of Justice, who is the leader of the party in the Transvaal, did not attend these sittings or take part in these discussions which led to this drastic resolution, but, instead of that, allowed this party congress to take this impossible resolution, and made no move at all. He was inditing his letter to the “Rand Daily Mail” at that time. He helps to create complete confusion in the public mind. The congress of the Cape Nationalists took a similar resolution at Robertson, to the effect that, under no circumstances, should further concessions be given, either by way of enlarging the shield, or by any other method. That creates confusion in the public mind. I suppose Ministers have had time to confer. The Minister of Justice may have spoken personally a week ago, and since then he has had the opportunity of conferring with his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, and, I dare say, the Government has come to some settled policy on the matter, and are in a position to tell the House what their policy is. Is it the Roos policy—one of further concession—or it is the contrary policy of not one inch further? I want from the Government a statement of their policy—surely the country is entitled to it. We ought not to trifle with the country. Public opinion is very deeply exercised over this question. I need not tell hon. members—every hon. member knows—that no graver question has been before the public for many years—and it has profoundly disturbed the public mind. Reasonable people are looking with the gravest apprehension to a forcing through of the Flag Bill by the Government, and the least they can expect from the Government is a declaration of consistent policy. What is this? I think we are entitled—I say it in all fairness and frankness—to have a clear statement by the Government—the country demands that there should be such a clear statement by the Government, as to their policy on this matter. Is it the policy of standing pat—forcing this thing through, or is it the contrary policy of meeting public opinion, making concessions where necessary, and so trying to get at a result by agreement? An hon. member there has just now interjected: “Let us wait for the Senate.” Why should we wait for the Senate? Surely this House has some important position in this country. I am surprised to hear why so suddenly the Senate has rushed to this important position. For years they have maligned the Senate, tried to abolish it, and declared open warfare, and now suddenly, in the gravest emergency in this country, the Senate is looked to for a solution. I say no; I feel we have as important a position as the other House of Legislature in this matter. We do not want to be let blindfold in this House with some solution which may be found in the Senate. We must explore to the uttermost to try to find some way to solve this question. I want to know where we are. Is the Government going to stand pat and adopt a non possumus attitude, and say: “You can talk until you are blue in the face, but we are not going to accept anything here.” My second point is this: What facilities are we going to have during the course of this discussion, on which we are entering now, to come to some agreement? If the Government is going to force this Bill mechanically through every stage and reading without affording us any means of coming to some agreement, or coming to consultation, it is hopeless to look to any solution in this House. I may put my question more specifically. Is the Government prepared to send this Bill once more to a conference, as was done two years ago? We and the country want to know what means of agreement and consultation are going to be given us by the Government. Are we simply going to have these debates across the floor of the House, or is the Government genuinely anxious to have a means of exploring ways of agreement? The conference of two years ago failed at the beginning. We may have to revert to that procedure which two years ago proved a failure. Is the Government going to agree that this Bill is going to be sent again to a select committee? Everybody understands it is impossible to settle this question on the floor of the House. This is a debating chamber. You cannot come to any solution of a grave question merely by way of question and answer across the floor of the House. You will have to get together around a table whether the table of a select committee or a table in a conference room and exchange ideas and try to arrive at a solution in that way.

You had your opportunity.

I want to know whether such an opportunity will be given again.

Absurd nonsense.

We have had a conference and a select committee and both failed. My question is whether the Government is going to constitute a conference or a select committee, or what other procedure are they going to allow in order that there may be a conference and agreement. If, however, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, the Bill is going to be mechanically forced through, there will be no settlement at all, and the country will know what it is up against. It is necessary that a policy should be clearly laid down, and that we should know what opportunity will be given us for reaching an agreement and coming to a solution of this great question. I do not want to enter into a general debate now, and it is more for the purpose of ascertaining what the proposal of the Government is, and what opportunity there will be for arriving at some agreement, that I have asked these questions. I need not point out the extreme gravity of the situation. The position to-day is such that unless we come to some peaceful agreement—some general agreement over this Bill—we may see a state of affairs in the following years that all of us will regret, for there is a foreboding of disaster if the Government proceeds on the course upon which it has embarked. It is the path of statesmanship not to force things through, but to give people time in which to explore a peaceful solution.

You won’t meet us.

Can we look forward to any kind of solution, consultation or peaceful settlement in regard to this disastrous question which is vexing, the country to-day to its depths?

We discussed this matter very fully last year, and the warnings we gave that side of the House as to the state of feeling in the country on this subject have proved accurate. Right through the Union, so far as I know, there is a longing to come to a satisfactory settlement by agreement. Wherever I have been there has been a strong feeling in that direction. I hear “hear, hears,” from that side of the House, but this afternoon when the leader of my party said we ought to explore every avenue in order to come to an agreement, nothing but jeers came from the Government side. Is that creating an atmosphere which gives any hope of reaching a peaceful and reasonable settlement? During the recess the Minister of Justice gave what might be termed either a warning or a threat. He is reported to have said that should this Bill not be accepted in the form in which it is presented republicanism would be revived. I wish to know, therefore, whether the later speech and statement made by the Minister of Justice is a genuine and sincere indication that he and a large section of his followers are prepared to meet us. I do not think, however, that the spirit in which the matter has been tackled this afternoon by the supporters of the Government is going to help us at all. I speak with all sincerity when I say that throughout the Eastern Province, and those districts of Natal, which I have visited, there is a strong feeling that we should come to an agreement on this question, and that I for one have come back in that spirit and with the intention of continuing our efforts to arrive at a compromise agreement if possible.

Why didn’t you do so last year?

Because when the matter was first mooted instructions were given that certain fundamental things for which we stood should not be included. How in the world could you expect any reasonable and self-respecting man to come to an agreement under such a limitation!

What about the select committee?

The finding of the minority which saw, perhaps, further than the majority did, was that we should have one flag which would combine the traditions of both races. I intervene in this debate only to beg the Prime Minister to realise that there is amongst my friends and supporters, and amongst members of this side of the House, a strong feeling that it is not even yet too late to come to an agreement on this vital and vexed question.

If possible I wish to give the House an opportunity of adjourning before 6 o’clock, and therefore I shall confine myself to replying as shortly and succinctly as possible to the questions put by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts). I want to remind hon. members opposite that we commenced this flag question on the assumption that there would be co-operation between the two sides of the House in making a choice of a flag for the country. Hon. members will also remember that the leader on that side of the House has, from the commencement up to the present constantly refused that co-operation and indulgence which are necessary to arrive at a choice. I want to remind the hon. leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite that the proposals which have been made in connection with a compromise on the flag have been moved on this side of the House. We have made one concession after another to try to meet the standpoint of the opponents and to arrive at a general agreement. It is not necessary to mention the various ways in which we have tried to meet the Opposition but I ask the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to mention a single step taken by that side of the House to meet this side of the House in the matter. They have uncompromisingly and stubbornly stood by the attitude which he, and his supporters, at the very commencement, when the matter was introduced into the House took up, right up to the present. All the concessions that were made were made by this side of the House. The leader of the Opposition now asks for a further opportunity at this stage of arriving at an agreement. He wants us to hold another conference as we did in the beginning, or he wants the matter to be again referred to a select committee. I ask him, what use did he make of the opportunities given him in the past of arriving at an agreement? During last session when the matter was brought up in the House we reached a point towards the end of the debate on the motion for the second reading which was very near agreement. The hon. leader of the Opposition will remember that at the conclusion of the debate I asked him certain questions. I asked him pointedly whether his amendment to the motion for the second reading, namely, that the three old flags should be combined “as far as possible” meant that all three flags could be broken up and mutilated in the same way, so as to arrive at a compromise flag. He replied in the presence of all the members of the House, “yes,” and it was so understood by his lieutenants sitting there. When I continued my speech they called out—

We were then close to a general agreement, but how did the leader of the Opposition use the opportunity in select committee? In select committee he finally departed from the attitude taken up in the House, and from the point of view of his own amendment to the motion for the second reading. Does the hon. leader of the Opposition expect us after that experience to do the same kind of thing again? I think this is making fun of the House and of the country. The procedure which is going to be followed by the Government has already been explained by me and by the Prime Minister. Our policy is that on our side not a single new concession with reference to this flag proposal shall be offered, and that no hope of a single concession shall be held out. If the hon. leader of the Opposition at last wants to take a practical step on his own account to arrive at an agreement, then he has his opportunity in the Senate. In the Senate he has a majority, and if the Senate makes a proposal which is acceptable to us then we shall accept what is acceptable. In any case every reasonable and bona fide proposal will be earnestly considered, but in the meantime, and until that time we shall make no proposal and hold out no hope of a concession.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—67.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McNenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J.

de V. Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Strachan, T. G.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—46.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Business suspended at 6.4 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

Wednesday is too early for the second reading stage of this Bill. It is a very important measure and some of us, at any rate, have got to read all through it. I think that to set down the second reading of this Bill for two days hence is a monstrous shame. The second reading should be put down for this day week. I hope the Minister will have some reason in this matter.

We will see what the Order Paper is like.

You know you cannot do that. Why cannot you put it down properly for next week? This is a subterfuge. I move—

I will consent to Friday.

All right, that is better. Second reading on 21st October.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Report referred to Select Committee on subject of Native Bills.

Let us have some reason in this matter. This is a very important Bill, as my hon. friend knows; in fact, as I pointed out to him, it has not the support of more than one-tenth of his own followers if they express their own frank opinions. The man, perhaps, who knows more about this Bill than any other man in this House, is the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), who cannot be here until next week. I want fair play, and I say that it is not fair to try and force through an important Bill of this kind in such a way. I would certainly ask that it should be set down for second reading for a week tomorrow. That will give the hon. member for Kimberley time to get here for the second reading. I believe that he is due here on Monday next, and he will thus be given time to go into the matter.

I would like to meet my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), but he must not forget this, that everybody in South Africa has already been made acquainted with the fact that these Bills will come on here at the very earliest moment this session, and I think the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), if he takes any great interest in the subject, should have been here.

I believe he has done his best to get here.

My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) must not forget that it is only the second reading that can take place on Wednesday. It is by no means certain whether we will come to it on Wednesday. I take it that hon. members opposite will have sufficient to say on the Bill, if they want to oppose it as far as the second reading is concerned to take up probably the whole of Wednesday. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) will have plenty of time because it will not come on for committee stage before next week. That is the time when he would like to be here to give his opinion upon the various sections of the Bill because we all know this, that the hon. member is very desirous of having the Bill through, and I have been personally approached by the hon. member for Kimberley to assure him that this Bill will come on and will be passed. I gave him the assurance that I would see to it that would happen. I hope in these circumstances that my hon. friend will admit that there can be no objection to having it put down for Wednesday, because I am positive that my hon. friend, as much as anyone else, is desirous of having the Bill through although there are certain provisions with which he is not in agreement, but they will not be affected on Wednesday. They will be affected only the following week when I hope that all members who take an interest like the hon. member for Kimberley will be here. In these circumstances I hope my hon. friend will see that there is no reason for objection to its being put down on Wednesday. The sooner we get the preliminary stages over the more time we shall have to devote to those special provisions which are of more immediate concern to hon. members.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.