as Chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

Report to be printed and considered in Committee of the whole House on Monday.

read the following message from his Excellency the Governor-General—

Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen of the House of Assembly: I return you my most sincere thanks for your thoughtful Address expressing sympathy with me in the bereavement which I have sustained by the death of my beloved brother, the Marquess of Cambridge. Your affectionate participation in all that concerns my feelings and interests is a source of comfort to me in my great loss.—Athlone, Governor-General.

I move—

This settlement is an old one, established in 1883 with about 5,000 acres of land cut up into fifty 100-acre plots. Two thousand acres were added to it as commonages. The intention originally was that it should be a settlement to promote the fishing industry. It was thought at that time that Port Shepstone would develop into a port of considerable importance, but this expectation was not realized. The Natal Government passed an Act in 1894 by which a certain measure of local government was given to these people by the formation of a committee of control, but this committee, owing to lack of necessary powers, acted in rather a slipshod fashion and does not appear to have been able to administer the settlement as it should be administered. A number of complaints have reached my department from time to time, especially as regards encroachment by settlers on the commonages. It was pointed out that the time has arrived when a committee of control with more power should be established to administer the settlement. This is also necessary because the old committee of control could not deal with the commonages, which remain Crown land. I drew up a Bill last year and there was no objection to the establishment of a proper committee of control, but we had some objection in connection with the powers proposed to be conferred upon the committee, especially as regards the exchange or sale of portions of the commonage. The portion of the commonage which abuts on the sea would be very suitable to sell as sites for seaside resorts, and a good deal of money could be realized in that way and used to buy other ground for grazing purposes. Some objections were raised to the powers proposed to be conferred last year. I sent one of my officials down there; he had a meeting with the settlers, and they all agreed with the provisions of the Bill as now before Parliament, except for two dissentients, a certain gentleman and his son, and it is alleged that the reason of his objection is that this gentleman has encroached on the commonage to a greater extent than he would be entitled to if it were properly divided. Otherwise all the settlers are agreeable to it. There are now 132 sub-divisions owned by 89 settlers. There is another matter which, I think, I should bring to the notice of the House. There is a certain gentleman well known to this House who has a farm there. They are mostly Norwegians in the settlement, and they came in 1882. This gentleman had a farm in the middle of the settlement, but not forming part of it.

In the old days he grazed his cattle on the Government land round what is now the settlement. He says the surveyor gave him the assurance that his grazing rights would not be interfered with, but since this committee was established they have been constantly at logger-heads with him about his grazing rights. A year or two ago he took the matter to court, but the dispute was settled out of court, although the settlement was made by an order of the court, to which he agreed. It is Colonel Sangmeister, who was a senator. He wanted me to include in the Bill a provision entrenching his rights. To this the settlers objected, and, of course. I did not agree to that. Eventually he agreed, as the order of the court gave him the right to graze a certain number of cattle on the commonage, that he would acquiesce, and consequently the matter was settled. The hon. member for Natal Coast (Brig.-Gen. Arnott) has been very much interested in this matter. These are his constituents, and they have been at him for a long time to put this matter right. I thought it was a matter that required my attention, and that I ought to see that these people were put on a proper footing, so that they could administer their own settlement. I do not think it would be right for the House to refuse this. It is in the interests of the settlers; they ask it. I trust the House will agree to the second reading.

I have great pleasure in supporting this. These settlers were brought out in 1882, and there are still a large number of the original settlers. It was intended that they should start a fishing industry there, but, unfortunately, the fishing has not been a success. The farmers have done well. There was a German settlement alongside, which was not under the aegis of the Government, but under that of a Berlin mission. The farm which has been referred to as being in the centre of the settlement was acquired by one of the Germans, which was the cause of the trouble. One part of the commonage of this settlement is alongside the railway and the seashore, and has become very valuable as building sites. This land can be disposed of at a high price. The grazing is better inland, where, as is provided in the Bill, further commonage can be acquired.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 7th November.

I move—

The House will remember that a Bill was passed in 1925 by which the pensions of our graded railway officials were placed on what I regard as a satisfactory basis. It was felt at that time, and is also felt to-day that, while we were making provision for the needs of the graded staff, steps should also be taken to give certain privileges to the non-graded staff. The Bill now before the House embraces the principle which the Administration regards as sound in this connection. The position of the harbour workers on our boats has often been raised here, inter alia, by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and other hon. members. The view has been expressed that practically nothing is done for those people when they leave the service unless they apply to the charitable fund of the Administration, when it depends on the goodwill of the Administration. Besides this, there are thousands of natives, coloured persons, and Indians. There are not too many of the last named, but there are many of the first named in our service. As the large majority of them are not entitled, under the provisions of the Act of 1925, to become members of the pension fund, the Bill proposes to give grants to such members of the non-graded staff, and hon. members will see that the qualification for such grants or gratuities is a period of 15 years’ service. It need pot necessarily be continuous service, because in the case of natives, it often happens that they go back to their homes and, subsequently, re-enter the service. If such persons after 15 years’ service leave on account of age or bad health or other lawful cause, they can, under the Bill, be given grants or gratuities. Hon. members may possibly ask why we depart from the provisions in the Pensions Act, namely, that the staff should make contribution. There is much to be said for the system of contributions by the staff to such a fund, but it will be appreciated that it is unsuitable when dealing with natives, coloured people and Indians, and with the class of railway official who does not work under regular conditions. If, for instance, we create a system under which contributions are demanded, then it will mean that the cost of administration will be so high that the introduction of the system would not be justified. The people come and go and are on a loose footing, and in the circumstances a system of contributions is undesirable. Accordingly the idea of such people having to contribute has been abandoned. I may point out that, if contributions are demanded from this class of person, and they leave the service before the period of 15 years has elapsed, then it means that repayment will have to be made. That would lead to all sorts of difficulties, and make the administration almost impossible. The amount which it is proposed to give such members of the staff is six days’ wages in the wider sense, i.e., other privileges converted into wage value, added to the ordinary daily wage, for every year of service. It is difficult to give the cost of the whole scheme, because, up to the present, no detailed returns have been kept with a view to such a fund. It will, of course, be necessary henceforth to take detailed returns from such persons. On account of its not having been done in the past, it is practically impossible to determine how many persons will be entitled to the grant. To give the calculation approximately, however, I may say that, so far as it can be fixed to-day, it will be between £2,000 and £3,000 a year. However, it is impossible to determine that that is the correct amount, but I reckon that the expenditure will be approximately that. I think the House will agree that, if the natives, coloured people and Indians serve the country long and well, we ought to make provision that after 15 years’ service they shall receive a small gratuity as a sign of appreciation of such good service.

I think we can shorten the proceedings if the Minister is prepared to send the Bill to a select committee. I think he promised to do that last session.

Not this Bill, the next one I promised.

If the Minister is not prepared to allow the Bill to go to the select committee on Railways and Harbours, then its consideration in this House will take some little time. On what basis is it proposed to make provision for these men? The Minister by this measure is depriving certain men of their undoubted rights under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and that is a matter on which they should be heard. Then why is everything left entirely to the discretion of the General Manager of Railways and Harbours?

Assisted by local committees.

There is not a word in the Bill about the powers of these committees. Parliament should have far more information on the subject than it has now. The department can issue regulations, but we have no idea what these regulations are going to be. Although the local committees may make regulations, the final decision is left to the General Manager, and from him there is no appeal. The Bill will prejudice the men when they come before a select committee, for they will be told that they have an Act of Parliament under which they have certain rights, and they could not go beyond that. This is a very serious matter. The majority of the workers on the railway are receiving 3s. 6d. per day, which means that the highest gratuity they can obtain after 15 years’ service is 15 guineas. If a man is particularly fortunate and is paid 7s. a day, he can receive a gratuity of 30 guineas. When a man reaches the stage at which he is paid 7s., as a rule, he has a family, and should he be retired with a gratuity of only 30 guineas, it will be impossible for him to live in decent circumstances, and it is also practically impossible for him to secure any other work, there being a prejudice against the employment of men who have been in the Government service for a long time. I wish to call attention to the case of a man who was in the Cape Town Harbour service for 15 years, during which time he was recognized as being a British subject. Suddenly, however, it was discovered he was not a British subject, and he has been called upon to take out naturalization papers. He has rendered faithful service, has excellent certificates and splendid reports from the police, but he cannot be naturalized because of his colour, and so he has to leave the service. The Act says that he must be naturalized if he is in permanent employ, but his employment is not permanent, so why at this late hour call on him to be naturalized, and then turn him down without reason? Somebody in the Department of Railways or of the Interior is, to my mind, using these powers wrongly. The way to secure satisfaction in the service is to hear the workers when they have a grievance. If the men have not been consulted over this Bill their representations should be listened to. It is very important that the Bill should be sent to the select committee, and there is no urgency about the matter, so referring the Bill to a select committee will not unduly delay its passing. The select committee on Railways has disposed of the great questions of grain elevators and electrification, so the committee will have a lot of time in which to consider this Bill. One other matter, take the case of many casual labourers who have served 12 to 14 years. If these men are heard they will be satisfied, even if we are unable to give them better conditions, but if we do not hear them they will have cause to be dissatisfied. I feel very strongly that there should be an appeal—if not to the Minister then to the Railway Board. Under the Bill the general manager may turn down a man who may be able to put up a very good case. There are other little matters of detail which we need not go into at this stage, and I hope the Minister will agree to refer both Bills to a select committee. It will not take long, and there is no particular urgency.

I do not agree that this is not an urgent matter, but I also do not agree with the method of the Minister in dealing with this important question. There are many deserving men who will not benefit by this measure, and I want to see a Bill introduced to include those who have already left the service. This Bill provides only for those who are in the service, and that is an important point. There are many scores of old railway servants in the Cape Peninsula and in the Union for whom this Bill makes no provision at all. It is true they can make application for a grant from the charitable fund, but that grant is limited to a certain amount, and it is a form of charity. I would rather the Bill was held up if the Minister cannot make proper provision for all these cases of old servants. I can quote one or two concrete cases. There is the case of an old labourer, Adams, recently working down at the docks. He is an old coloured man and a registered voter with 23 years service. He is retired on the ground of old age, and this letter was sent to him—

This is signed by the assistant general manager. This servant was given this very nice letter thanking him for his valuable services, but there was no provision for a gratuity or a pension. He was never eligible, and, subsequently, this old servant made an application to the charitable fund. After making the application he was graciously granted £10 at the rate of £1 per month for ten months. I want this Bill, if possible, to cover such cases as this and to give these servants a right to go to the committee you are setting up and ask for some consideration, and I think the Minister should try to cover this point. I have letters I could read from many old railway servants who have been retired on the grounds of old age. They want assistance. I told them a Bill was coming before Parliament which might provide for them, but I find it does not. These are all men over 60 years of age who have been retired through no fault of their own. Their only crime against society is that they have reached the age of 60 years. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) that the amount any servant can secure under this Bill is so miserably small and utterly inadequate that you cannot refer to it as substantial relief. There are many cases of men who were drawing only 5s. a day, and they can only receive one week’s money, £1 10s., multiplied by the number of years’ service. Take a man with 15 years’ service. He only gets £22 10s. under this law. That is a farcical way of dealing with this subject. I think instead of “not exceeding” that amount, it should be “not less” than that amount. I do not bring this criticism forward in any carping spirit. Any reasonable man will agree that the provisions under this Bill are not adequate for these men. I would like the Minister to consider whether it would not be possible to do something on the lines I indicate, and I ask the Minister to give himself a day or two longer to go into the question of the extension of the principle of the Bill, and make the measure more generous.

This Bill affects a class of men of whom there are a great number in my constituency. That is the men who are employed on the lighters at Algoa Bay, and who carry on a hazardous mode of life. In dealing with these people I have always found the Administration very sympathetic, and the general manager has always made some allowance to these men, but there is a great difference in that and the men having a definite right. There are one or two limitations I would like to refer to. In Clause 1 the benefits are limited to servants casually employed by the Administration for a minimum of a specified period. I think it is only the coxswains of the boats who get a guarantee of a certain number of days and, therefore, only one in five is eligible under this Bill. Why should this Bill be confined to those who have a guaranteed number of days? I should like to see the Bill extended to all people. The coxswains get a little more pay, and why they should be guaranteed a certain number of days I cannot quite follow. Then there is another matter I would like to be clear about. In Clause 2 there is a reference about continuous work, that this would apply where a man—

I can understand that that would be quite clear in regard to the ordinary man, but then you have the case of the man who is only employed for a certain number of days, depending upon whether the work is there or not. Is there not a date from which these men could calculate? It may be that you have a man who has been employed over a period of 15 years, but when you count the days you may find that he has only worked, say, four days a week. I would like it to be made clear that it is the calendar year and not a year calculated on the actual number of working days. Then, as other members have said, I think the limit of six days is rather small, and I would suggest that it should be made at least ten days. I will take it on the highest basis of the men I know, 10s. a day. I will take it that a man receives 10s. a day, that he has done 30 years’ work, and, presumably, done four days a week. He would then be entitled to 180 days at 10s., that is, £90. The value of the gratuity is to enable a man to set up in something, and if he was given a gratuity on the basis of ten days, it might just make all the difference. The idea of a gratuity, I take it, is not that for the rest of his life any man is going to live on the gratuity, but he is going to be put in such a position that he can help himself. If you take the six days’ pay and nothing more, it would not have the effect of stopping these people from coming to the House with petitions. I take it one of the objects of this proposal is to keep these petitions out of the House. Another point which has already been referred to is why should the gratuities remain in the general manager’s discretion? It makes all the difference to these people if they feel that they have got a right. Under this Bill the general manager is given the right to do certain things, but these people have no more rights under this Bill than they had before. I would like, if it were possible, that these people should get some rights established under this Bill, and that the matter should not be left entirely at the general manager’s discretion. It would make all the difference to these people if they felt that they had some absolute rights under this Bill, whereas, under the Bill, as now drafted, they have got no rights whatever. I am glad that the Minister has brought the Bill forward, and I hope he will be able to get it amended in some way.

I do not intend to go into the merits of this Bill. I rose principally for the purpose of pointing out that it is quite evident that it will take some time to get the Bill through committee of this House. The Bill requires very careful scrutiny. That something has been done at last for casual men, which is not provided for by the existing law, is a good thing, but an important Bill of this kind certainly ought to go before the Railway Committee. When we look closely into the Bill it does not appear that very much is being given under it. In the first place the persons to whom it is proposed to give the gratuity are very limited in number, and, secondly, it is left to the discretion of the general manager as to whether they receive anything at all. Under the circumstances it does seem to me that a very strong case has been made out for sending this Bill to a select committee. I hope that the Minister will give due weight to some of the representations which have been put before him. In regard to what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) about debarring men from coming to Parliament, I do not agree that that will be the effect of the Bill. Where you have a right under any statute, you must exhaust that right first, but if, for instance, you apply for a pension or a gratuity under a certain Act of Parliament, you go to the Administration, and if they have got the right to give it to you, they give it, but if they have not got the right, they say: “Go to Parliament.” If this Bill does not make provision for any case, then the man concerned will have the right to come to Parliament. Seeing that this part of the session will be closing in a few days, we hope, and as this Bill cannot possibly receive adequate consideration without further inquiry, I would strongly urge the Minister to accept the suggestion that, after the second reading, the Bill should be sent to the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

I agree that this Bill is a step in the right direction, but I would also like to urge the Minister to send this Bill to a select committee. While I congratulate the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) on his speech, I cannot congratulate him on his logic, because if ever there were a speech which pointed out reasons for sending this Bill to a select committee, it was that of the hon. member. Seeing that many vital things are at issue, I think it would be wise to send this Bill to a select committee, and in support of that view I want to draw attention to one of the items in Clause 2, which reads—

I want to quote what some would say might be an extreme case. An employee enters the service and shortly afterwards he meets with a very serious accident while in the execution of his duty. He remains in the service, because, if he takes advantage of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he gets compensation and is compelled to leave the service. He continues in the service for 15 years, during which time he suffers great pain and inconvenience as a result of the accident. Eventually, he is forced to retire on the ground of ill-health, caused by the injury sustained while on duty. According to this Bill, he will receive, at the discretion of the general manager, a gratuity not exceeding six days’ emoluments for each year of service. We will assume that his wages were at the rate of 10s. a day. On that basis he would be entitled to a gratuity of £45. This magnificent sum would be the compensation given to him for the loss of employment, for ill-health and also for the suffering caused through the accident which has lasted while he has been in the service for 15 years, and practically for the rest of his life after he is out of the service. I think that the employees in many cases would be better off under present conditions; as I know there are some cases which have been met by the charitable fund in a generous way. I think, in view of these criticisms and other criticisms which could be advanced in regard to this Bill, the measure should be—and I hope will be—sent to a select committee.

An Act was passed in 1923 to grant to officials discharged from the service repayment of their pension contributions. The Pensions Committee is now getting request after request to repay to officials who are out of the service. With regard to these people I ask whether the Minister cannot make better provision. An official leaves the service after fourteen years and gets a grant on account of his age, and then he comes to the Pensions Committee. In the long run we have to pay, and I do not know whether it will not be better to make provision in the law. Anyone who has served 15 years and left the service last year will come to the Pensions Committee. The Minister should, if possible, make provision for such people by law.

I want to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I would strongly urge the Minister to send this Bill to a select committee. It is only right that that course should be adopted. It may appear to some of us to be rather a simple Bill, but the criticisms to which it has been exposed during this debate show that my hon. friend the Minister requires more information, and this House requires more information. Some of the points raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) should be taken into consideration by the Minister. It is far better in these things to get evidence from the men themselves if you want to satisfy them. Let them come before the select committee and be brought face to face with the officer concerned with pensions, etc., and fight the matter out on the spot. About being in a hurry, my hon. friend can date back the operation of the Bill for a couple of mouths if necessary. It would be far better to refer it to the Railway Committee when it meets, and it would give satisfaction, although this Bill contains quite a new departure so far as the railways are concerned, and should be thoroughly threshed out.

What is the new departure?

Paying these gratuities. You had a haphazard sort of way of paying them before, I am aware, but now it is to become the right of these men to ask for these gratuities. Several members criticize the fact that it lies in the discretion of the general manager to give these gratuities. I do not think it should. First of all, I should not think the general manager would want it, because it must be a pretty stiff job to decide in many cases. It is far better to refer a thing of that sort to a small committee.

There will be local committees.

I think we should know rather more definitely what this is going to cost. My hon. friend says two or three thousand pounds a year, not a very big amount I confess, but still some further examination should be made to let the House know what this is going to cost the Railway Administration.

I wish also to add my quota to the appeal which has been made. We up there have a number of boatmen. They have had no opportunity of joining any pension fund, and some of them have worked to 70 or 80 years of age. The Minister gave them a gratuity a year ago, but it was only for twelve months. I would suggest this should be sent to a committee. It could be dealt with by the Railway Committee just as well as by a select committee. What we want in this Bill is humanity. There are times in our lives when we must rise above the ledger and get back to the human race. The feeling seems to be it should be sent to a committee. Does my hon. friend think the number of days is anything like sufficient? Just think of it—six days! I must give the Minister the credit that, to all the things we have brought before him, he has given generous support. Let this be sent to the committee, and may I suggest it should not go to the Pensions Committee at all. I say again the Pensions Committee have not much power. What should be written over the Pension Committee door is: “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.” The railway fund is separately administered, and this matter should be given to the Railway Committee who know the needs of the railway men. This is rather a dull afternoon, but not so dull that we need dull our hearts to those who are suffering. I do appeal to the Minister to send it to a committee. It can do no harm, because I feel in my heart that the allowance is so small, it is bound to get some little improvement, and that may well be on the side of those who are suffering, and there are those in this House who are always willing to plead for the sufferers. The taxation of the country should never be considered when it is a case of starving people. Why not take a little kindness into your heart and think of these poor unfortunate devils?

I appreciate the manner in which this Bill has been received by the House. Undoubtedly it is generally recognized that we should do something for this particular class of servant. I am glad that the House has dealt with the matter on that basis, but I would say in general to those members who have pressed for further benefits than those extended in the Bill to bear in mind that these things grow. The amount in the first instance may be comparatively small, but these amounts increase. We had the experience in 1925. Everybody in this House was enthusiastic about the terms of the Superannuation Fund Bill, but when we came to foot the Bill the country has not heard of the manner in which railway expenditure has gone up. No credit is then given.

Why don’t you tell us what it has cost? We want to know.

I asked the officers to go into the matter closely, and when they told me that they could not state the exact amount I again referred it to them, but I think the hon. member will agree that there are real difficulties. No proper record has been kept in the past, and, therefore, it is very difficult to arrive at the exact amount. I will, however, again go into the matter and, perhaps, I may be able to give the House further information on that point. Hon. members have pressed for the reference of this Bill to a select committee. I have rather taken the view that the matter was so urgent that we should have dealt with it long before. Unfortunately, at the end of last session we were not able to deal with it, and I rather regret that this matter should stand over another three or four months. However, in view of the strong pressure on all sides that I should send this to a select committee, I am prepared to do so, but hon. members must realize that we cannot deal with it in this part of the session. I now move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

On the motion that the House go into committee on Monday,

If the committee stage is taken on Monday will the Minister then be able to move for a select committee?

I have consulted the officers of the House, and I understand that is the best method, and in any case I have given the undertaking.

House to go into committee on 7th November.

I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendments put, and Mr. Jagger called for a division,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—44.

Alexander, M.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Nicholls, G. H.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—52.

Basson, P. N.

Beyers, F. W.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

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.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

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 Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

May I ask Mr. Speaker what the effect is of the last division. In Clause 2 another place rejected sub-clause 1, and put in its stead a clause of its own. Does it follow, from the division which has just taken place, that the position is exactly restored, or have I to move formally that the original sub-clause 1 be restored?

The amendments effected by the Senate have been rejected, so that the position as before is restored.

On amendment in Clause 13,

I object to that. I do not know on what basis we are dealing with these things. If this amendment is objected to, and this is carried, the sub-section stands.

Do you accept the amendment?

No, no.

Are we entitled to discuss this amendment?

Yes.

I would like to say that I welcome, not only this amendment, but all the amendments that have come from another place; in the first place, because they are inherently sound. We made it quite clear to the Minister that on this side of the House we look—

The hon. member must confine himself to this particular section.

I will do so, and I may say at the same time that my objections to the original clause and to the clauses we objected to, hold good. I am particularly pleased that another place has made this amendment, because in all my experience of parliamentary history we have never met with so little courtesy and consideration from a Minister of the Crown as from the Minister of Mines and Industries.

That is no argument in regard to the amendment.

Of course it is an argument. I am trying to show why this amendment, made in another place, was necessary. If the Minister had shown a little more courtesy on this or on the other clauses, this Bill would have passed last session. The Minister has not only been discourteous, but obstinate. Those who heard what took place in another place—

The hon. member must not refer to what occurred in another place.

I think you, sir; I will confine myself to this House. I hope the Minister will take heed and warning, and take the lesson to heart. I am not speaking from a party point of view, but for all independent legislators in this country. We can be led, but not driven, and I hope the Minister will take this to heart—that hectoring, dictatorial methods will not gain him his way with any side of the House. The diamond industry could have been put on its feet, and the reason why it has not been is purely due to the obstinacy and the lack of courtesy shown by the Minister, and the double sitting to which we have been dragged down here would have been unnecessary if the Minister had been at all reasonable about this and the other amendments.

I also support the amendment made by another place. For a long time we have been going in a dangerous direction in our legislation—giving autocratic powers to the Minister.

Who must be the judge?

Whoever it might be, I am sure it would not be the hon. member. The tendency here, and in other countries as well, to which I have referred, has grown to such lengths that we had during the last few months a remarkable address from the Lord Chief Justice when he went to America, which was commented upon to a large extent in the papers. He pointed out that the equality of rights of individuals in the State was being interfered with by legislation, which put specific, drastic powers in the hands of a Minister in office to do things which might be of the greatest moment and of the greatest material value. The Minister hears nothing but the official view, and individuals who might put up a very good case, if time and opportunity were given them, are not given that opportunity. We are going a great way in our legislation to put matters at the absolute disposal of Ministers and departmental heads and people of that description. In a very large number of cases they have to deal with difficulties which may crop up in an unforeseen way, and these cases must be dealt with a certain amount of elasticity. The working of the Immigration Act, for instance, requires the making of prompt decisions, and it may be necessary to entrust those decisions to a Minister, but what necessity has been advanced by the Minister of Mines—who, by the way, has not been very liberal in giving his reasons—for assuming the drastic powers he is now asking for? I hope to have the opportunity, on another occasion, of going more fully into this very important question as to the extent in which we are placing our liberties, rights and interests in the hands of people who, when they choose, answer us across the floor of the House backed up as they are by an obedient majority. I voice my protest in regard to this particular clause, and I hope to renew that protest against regulations and decisions which are heard of for the first time when they are published in the Government Gazette.

Question put: That sub-section (5), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and Col. D. Reitz called for a division,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—58.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Beyers, F. W.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

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 Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Noes—47.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

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: Nicholls, G. H.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by the Senate negatived.

On amendment in Clause 20,

I do not know whether the Minister will accept the amendment to this clause.

No, I cannot accept it.

This is an illustration in an aggravated form of the very point I raised just now. Here we have matters of a most complicated nature in the decision of which you have to find out what was a man’s intention at the time, and points such as these can alone be determined by the courts of law. Here the Minister has taken the power to satisfy himself what a man intended when he divided a certain farm. In the original proposal the Minister was the sole arbitrator as to what the intention was when a certain thing was done. Now the Minister is still able to act on his belief that the man’s intention was to contravene the law. Persons who claim that they acted bona fide should be able to take the Minister before the court, which is the proper tribunal to see that a man’s liberty in person and property is protected, and the onus would be on the Minister to show that he was justified in taking the steps he did. This is an illustration of the dangerous tendency of our legislation. We are going, very often, along a most fatal and dangerous course prejudicial in this case to a large number of people, including some hon. members opposite. Do they realize the extent to which they are cutting off their own rights and liberties by supporting these clauses, under which their constituents may suffer by the arbitrary action of the Minister? The present Minister may not remain in office, and he may be succeeded by a Minister of an arbitrary mind who is not very courteous. This clause is Czarism in its worst form, for it gives officials power to deal with facts entirely independent of the courts and without the unfortunate person concerned having an opportunity of securing any redress. I support the amendment made by the Senate. It has reduced the evil principle of retrospective legislation, partly because it has taken away the power of the department to deal with the persons concerned.

Are we to understand the Minister does not accept any of these amendments?

None.

Not even the substitution of “and” for “or.” Surely we ought to consider that. If the Senate’s amendment is rejected, the result will be the Minister in every case—whatever the people’s object may have been in dividing the land, the mere fact the land has been divided must necessarily increase the number of owners’ and discoverers’ claims—and the Minister, in every case, has the right to go into the matter and say: “I am satisfied this was done with the effect, not the object, of increasing the number of owners’ and discoverers’ claims, and, therefore, I cancel these rights.” If the members on that side are prepared to give that power without reflecting on the consequences, then we cannot help it, we can only point it out. Any man who divides his farm after the 30th June, 1926, and alluvial diamonds are discovered afterwards, the people who owned the divisions into which the land has been cut will have their rights interfered with by the Minister. I ask them to reflect on that. The mere fact that the division has been made will allow him to interfere. If they will swallow that, they will swallow anything, but we shall be free from responsibility, having pointed it out.

Is the Minister prepared to accept this alteration of “or” and “and”? I cannot quite understand.

No, I am not prepared to accept it.

The Minister seems to think it is undignified to accept any amendment, however reasonable. If the amendment remains in the Bill it stultifies the whole section. If he leaves “or” in, it gives the Minister no option.

You are entirely mistaken. Don’t you see the Minister “may” in Section 52?

Say a number of farmers sub-divided their land; automatically their mineral rights are increased pro tanta, and the Minister must declare—

Not only “must,” but “can.”

I cannot understand the Minister’s attitude. He seems to be adopting the attitude of a still, strong man in a loud and blatant land. I add my protest to the ever-increasing tendency to arrogate dictatorial powers to themselves. It is the Minister’s obstinacy that saddles us with a pernicious clause like this.

Question put: That all the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause, and Mr. Robinson called for a division,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—58.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Beyers, F. W.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

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.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Noes—49.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

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.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

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: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by the Senate negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 26, 33 and 50 (Dutch), put and agreed to.

On amendment in Clause 52,

I object to that amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 59 (Dutch) and 68, put and agreed to.

On amendment in Clause 73,

I think the object of this clause and the whole Bill is to enable the Minister to control the output of diamonds. This clause, which prevents partnerships or companies holding alluvial claims, will increase the number of alluvial diggers. If you have a large number of alluvial diggers it makes the control much more difficult. Take the ostrich feather industry, for instance. If there had been fifty farmers producing ostrich feathers they could, amongst themselves, have come to some arrangement by which to control the output, but where you have thousands of individual diggers and a clause prohibiting companies or a combination of individuals holding ground, the Minister is increasing his difficulties of controlling the output. So that this clause defeats the object for which the Bill was originally intended.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted in sub-section (1) stand part of the clause,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—59.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

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.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Noes—48.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

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.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

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: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by the Senate in lines 41 to 46 accordingly negatived.

Proviso proposed by the Senate to sub-section (1) put, and Mr. Jagger called for a division,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—48.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

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.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

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: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—59.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

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.

Havenga, N. C.

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, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Weasels, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) put and negatived.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted in paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) stand part of the clause,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—60.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

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.

Havenga, N. C.

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, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Noes—48.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

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.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

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: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by the Senate in paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendments in Clause 73 put and negatived.

Question put: That Clause 75, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—61.

Alexander, M.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

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.

Havenga, N. C.

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, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le Roux.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Noes—47.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

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.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. E.

Rider, W. W.

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: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by the Senate negatived.

Amendment in Clause 76 put and negatived.

Amendment in Clause 78 put and agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 88 put and negatived.

Amendment in sub-section (1) of Clause 96 put and agreed to.

Amendment in sub-section (3) put and negatived.

Amendment in Clause 116 (Dutch), put and agreed to.

read the following message—

I see that you have the words “it is not in the public interest.” Who has decided that?

It is the voice of the people.

But you are sending a message that the amendments are not in the public interest. I have not heard those words mentioned this afternoon, and some of us think the amendments are in the public interest. I do not remember a message of that kind going from this House before.

It is in the usual form, and the hon. member may move to amend it if he wishes.

Message approved of.