I want to say a few words in support of this motion by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) but before doing so I want to call attention to a particular part of the motion which hon. members seem to have overlooked. The latter part of the motion reads—

That seems to have been overlooked entirely, because it was suggested by the Minister of Defence that a commission or committee should be appointed to inquire into all commissions that have sat, the payments made, and the members appointed, for the last ten years. It would take weeks and weeks, even months, and you won’t get through. It is to the interest of the hon. members who are mentioned that this thing should be thoroughly investigated at once. They are anxious I have not the slightest doubt to clear themselves, certainly the hon. member for Brakpan is, and quite rightly so. He does not want this inquiry side-tracked, because that is really the suggestion of the Minister of Defence. If a broader motion is introduced it will simply result in side-tracking the inquiry.

Nothing of the kind.

If this motion is carried the Public Accounts Committee will have to get to work at once, which I have not the slightest doubt my hon. friends there will welcome. In their own interests they should support the motion as it stands and not try and get the inquiry side-tracked where nothing will be arrived at. The first instruction the Auditor-General got was to inquire—and there was no limitation of time—into the position of members of Parliament who sat on commissions. He went back as far as ever he could get the papers. What good is it going to do supposing similar fresh instructions are given? We on this side are not afraid of this inquiry. I am not pleading this because we do not want an inquiry. I believe I am pleading in the interests of getting at the truth of this particular matter and in the interests of those two members whose names have been mentioned. I do think in the interests of these two hon. gentlemen and in the interests of the House, we should let this inquiry go on and send the matter back to the Public Accounts Committee. There is room for further inquiry.

Into my conduct?

Into the conduct of these two gentlemen and the commission generally. I hope I am not giving offence to my hon. friend, but there is room for further inquiry. The main defence in this matter was in regard to the letters of appointment and that is a matter that should be inquired into. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) abused the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and said he had sat on commissions and had taken allowances for it. There is nothing wrong in that. I have sat on commissions and have taken allowances from time to time. The point is that you took what was illegal and improper.

No.

Here is the Auditor-General’s report where he mentions these two gentlemen and he says you took more than was due to you.

No.

I will read it—

I am only stating the facts as they appear here. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has drawn allowances, as we have all done, but you cannot show that in any shape or form he has drawn more than was due to him. These two hon. members are charged by the Auditor-General with taking more money from the public chest than was due to them. Then it was said that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout drew remuneration when he sat on the Liquor Commission. Of course he did, but he only drew what he was entitled to and not a sixpence more. That is the whole point. These hon. members drew more than they were properly entitled to. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has done a public service in dragging this into the light of day. My long experience of the Public Accounts Committee is that this is the best way to bring to notice things of this kind and to bring them to the notice of the public. Publicity is the great weapon which the Public Accounts Committee uses in these matters. There is another matter. The hon. member for Brakpan said he questioned the correctness of the minutes and he denied any responsibility for the minutes. My hon. friend has been in public life for a good many years. He has been a member of local bodies on the Reef and he knows perfectly well the procedure in these matters. The minutes are taken down by the secretary. The very next meeting these minutes are brought up and read out by the secretary. The next thing that is done is, the chairman asks “Are these minutes correct”? Every member of that committee or board or whatever it may be, has the opportunity, if he disputes the correctness of the minutes, to say that something is wrong. A correction is made by the chairman, and only then are the minutes signed. He asks whether there is any objection to the minutes being signed.

There were no minutes brought up.

If there were none my hon. friend should have insisted on the proper conduct of the business, and said to the chairman that he had forgotten to have the minutes read and that they should have been read. An excuse of that kind won’t wash. If these hon. members were green-horns and did not know how public business was conducted it would be a different matter; but here is the hon. member for Brakpan who has been on public bodies for years. Has he ever been at a meeting of the Benoni or Brakpan municipality and gone on without the minutes of the previous meeting having been confirmed?

The minutes were not circulated.

In all public bodies the minutes are put before the meeting. The next defence is that the letters of appointment were altered, after they had been issued, to include all the time the commission was sitting. It was understood, and it says in the letter of appointment as forwarded to the Auditor-General, that they were to be paid three guineas a day for every day the commission sat. These hon. members say it was also included, all the time that the commission was in session, and if that is proved it is a very strong defence; but it is a very curious thing that no alteration at all is recorded in the minutes—not the slightest. The man who was first appointed chairman—Mr. Mulligan— retired from that commission because he considered that the remuneration was not sufficient; he wanted six guineas a day. That is perfectly straightforward. But my hon. friends here went on. They say it was the secretary and the chairman who got the terms altered but there is no record in the proceedings, the minutes, or in the letter of appointment of this increased remuneration; not one line. As an ordinary business transaction it ought undoubtedly to have been recorded. When the Treasury sent the papers to the Auditor-General for inspection and report nothing was said about it. It is all right for my hon. friend to protest; that is the way we have to look at these things. I would like to ask my hon. friend who authorized these alterations from three guineas per day that the commission actually sat to three guineas per day for the session?

If the hon. member wants me to answer that, I understood it was the chairman and secretary who were responsible, who got into touch with the Government authorities, because we were informed at the following meeting.

It is certainly an unbusinesslike manner, and I hope the Minister of Finance will take note of that. He allowed the terms of the appointment of the commission to be altered.

Why not?

The least that could be done is to put a note on the paper so that the Auditor-General could see it; how is he to know otherwise? Is there anything said in the papers to give the chairman and secretary authority?

You wait until this case comes before your committee, when you will be able to judge with a clear mind.

We want to know who made this alteration, and who gave the authority. If the alteration was made by someone without authority—the chairman has no authority to make the alteration—

You should hear the evidence before you make up your mind.

I am merely replying to my hon. friend; that is all. I find hon. members are rather inclined to blame the control of the Auditor-General, which is grossly unjust. The Auditor-General, who is a servant of this House, goes through the accounts and payments to examine them.

What about four years ago?

What about it?

How you treated the report then.

With great respect. The Auditor-General always goes by the papers which are sent to and are before him. How can he send for this or that man and ask for an explanation? The Auditor-General (Mr. J. de V. Roos) is the best friend in the public service that the taxpayers have. I say that after a good deal of experience. He is very thorough in his methods.

Did you say that at the time of his appointment?

No, but I am saying that from my experience of him extending over ten years, and I do not know a man who is more fearless and impartial in the judgment he forms. This country is fortunate in having Mr. Roos as Auditor-General. There is one department, however, which comes very badly out of this business on account of its very slack methods, and that is the Department of Finance.

In what way?

You have had power since 1911 to draw up statutory regulations regarding commissions, but you have only just recently done so.

They are not statutory even now.

It would be far better that you should stop this sort of business.

What do you want to stop?

The things we are now discussing.

Give me the details—what is the allegation?

The payment to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) of £15 15s. for attending one sitting of the commission.

That is not so.

The letter of appointment laid it down that the members should draw £3 3s. for each day the commission sat, but the hon. member drew £3 3s. a day for the time he left home to the time he returned, thus receiving £15 15s., although on that occasion the commission sat for one day only. If the Minister of Railways were criticizing this he would raise the roof. The Treasury allows other departments to appoint commissions and fix the terms of payment without sending a copy of the document to the Treasury. Is that a businesslike way of doing things? Other departments increase the scale of payments without regard to the fees fixed in the letters of appointment. If those are the usual methods of the Treasury, then they are most unbusinesslike and very lax. When members of a commission are paid they take their vouchers, which are for sums higher than those laid down in the terms of appointment, to the Treasury, but the Treasury knows nothing about the change. Members of commissions should be appointed and their terms of payment fixed by the department concerned, but in conjunction with the Treasury. Two commissions requisitioned special trains, the cost of which will fall on the taxpayers of the country. I hope the House will accept the motion, and I am certain that two hon. members named in the motion should support it. If, however, an amendment is carried to spread out the scope of the enquiry to all commissions appointed during the last ten years the hon. members concerned will still lie under this charge, as the matter will either never be cleared up or only after very considerable delay.

I entirely agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that in the person of the Auditor-General, South Africa has an official it can be very proud of. He is in every respect always impartial, and in moving my amendment I do not in the least want to criticise him. I welcome his criticism. The hon. member said that the report of the Auditor-General was always our Bible, it should also be the same to the other side. I can assure the hon. member that my amendment is not in the least intended “to side-track the issue.” We fear that the Opposition is afraid of having a proper inquiry after all the commissions which have been appointed in the past and the amounts paid in former years. If they are not afraid, why did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) not say at once that he would accept my amendment. As for minutes, I have never yet heard of members of commissions being responsible therefor. The chairman and the secretary are responsible for seeing that they are properly kept and signed. It is of course impossible in a commission of fifteen or twenty members for all the members to see that the minutes are read and signed. The attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in expecting members to be responsible for the signing of the minutes is unfair.

I only said what I found in the minutes regarding the attendance of meetings.

When the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) asked if he was to be held responsible for the minutes the hon. member expressly said “Yes, certainly.” It is very unfair. I move, as an amendment and pursuant to notice—

As for the remarks of the press and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I am not in the least concerned. Even if we are only back benchers we have been sent here not only to make laws, but also to see that the finances of the country are properly controlled. I am therefore glad that the hon. members for Brakpan and Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) immediately agreed to any enquiry the House might decide on. My impression of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is that when he talks the hon. member for Brakpan is not entitled to differ from him. He seems to be out to draw as much poison as possible out of a thing. That is not only my impression, but it exists on his own side. It seemed that when the hon. members for Brakpan and Vredefort got up to speak the hon. member for Bezuidenhout immediately rose to make a venomous attack. He seems to think: “How dare anyone comment on me, exercise the least criticism when I have spoken; no one has the right.” That is my impression. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may sit on commissions and draw two guineas a day, but no one else may do so. The hon. member is an expert, and nobody else! I have tried to trace in Hansard how many times the hon. member has spoken, on what subjects, and where he considered himself an expert. I had to give it up in despair. He is an expert on anything. The hon. member says that he must warn the Government, a man of his wisdom and experience must warn the Government. There was a time when he had the opportunity of warning the Government, his own Government. He could have warned the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) not to dismiss white people from the railway service and appoint natives, he could have warned him that it would be a big nail in the coffin of the South African party.

The hon. member must keep to the subject.

There you have the would-be administrator of Natal.

I never aspired to it.

What I so much regret is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, with his extraordinary capacity, made an attack on the member of the commission who has not the opportunity of defending himself here, an eloquent attack on a judge of our country, a judge who is entirely above his level. Does (he hon. member for Bezuidenhout possibly cherish the idea of becoming a judge? I am very sorry that the attack was made on the hon. members. We have known the hon. member for Vredefort for years, and they have been accused of demanding sums to which they had no right. I do not want to go further into it, but the Auditor-General’s report emphatically says that the hon. member for Vredefort will be entitled to an allowance of three guineas plus free railway transport for every day on which the commission sat. On Sundays the commission did not sit, but inspected the mines. Were not the members entitled to three guineas on those days?

What about Sundays?

If an inspection on Sunday was necessary they were entitled to payment. Hon. members can be certain that if there had been any irregularities and exploiting on the commissions which are to be enquired into I would be the first to point them out. I do not know why the hon. member for Cane Town (Central) made the attack on the Minister of Finance? Is it because the Minister does not follow the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), but the sound policy of the Nationalist party? I shall be glad of an enquiry; then hon. members opposite will see the unfairness of their accusation and probably be startled by what has taken place in the past.

seconded the amendment.

We have had a wonderful exhibition on the part of the hon. member who moved the amendment (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). We have had I think a wonderful exhibition on the part of the Minister of Defence. If this is all the defence that the Government have to put up against the motion moved by my hon. friend the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), then I think it was the duty of the Government to have accepted it.

There is no defence yet.

I agree with the hon. member that there is not, absolutely none.

We want an investigation, for the last ten years.

The ten years is a smoke cloud to throw dust in the eyes of the public. The ten years has already been before the Auditor-General. He has already reported for the last ten years and more and he reports no irregularities except the ones which he mentioned in this particular paragraph, and as far as the hon. member’s amendment is concerned he sets it out in these words—

All the irregularities that he refers to in paragraph 49 of his report, which embraces all these years that the hon. members want inquired into, are in connection with the Mining Regulation Commission. We do not allege misappropriation against the two hon. members who are mentioned, we do not allege dishonesty against them. We allege that they took payments which were not justified by any law or regulation in force when these payments were taken, and we want to know on what authority and how these payments were made and why they were allowed by the Treasury, and I cannot understand the Government allowing a motion of this kind to be on the paper and trying to burke it, trying to put it off, trying by every possible means first of all by abusing my hon. friend who moved the motion, and then putting forward a mere delaying proposition.

The Government has nothing to do with it.

That is a new doctrine. Where does the money come from?

I am talking about the amendment. It does not come from the Government.

If the Government have nothing to do with it, then I would like to know why it is on the paper here to-day. This motion of my hon. friend is not an attack on two hon. members of this House. It is an attack on the Treasury and, of course, we want an inquiry into how it came about that the two hon. members accepted this payment. Let us have one thing at a time. Here is a definite accusation made by the Auditor-General in connection with a certain inquiry that payments were made for which there was no justification in the law or regulations, he reports that to Parliament, and we want the Public Accounts Committee to take the matter up, go into it at once and report how and why these payments came to be made. Why the Government should avoid an inquiry, why they should up the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) to throw a cloud of words around it, and delay it as long as he possibly can, is incomprehensible to me. I cannot understand why these irregularities having been reported by the Auditor-General, the Government should hesitate to accept this motion. Instead of that they come along and make a violent attack on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I heard his speech and in my opinion it was a temperate speech. It was a speech bringing to light certain facts.

Full of innuendo.

Well, of course, hon. members from his statement of fact are entitled to draw any innuendos they like. I say the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) chose a way in my opinion which put the matter clearly, strongly I admit, but temperately before the House. What do hon. members opposite and their press do? They accuse my hon. friend here, without the slightest justification, they insinuate that he had been guilty of taking payment without any authority. There is not a word of truth in it and they know there is not a word of truth in it, and they did that in order to excite public opinion against my hon. friend. That shows to my mind an absolutely wrong attitude on the part of the Government towards this resolution. The Auditor-General: reported certain irregularities. There is no doubt on the documents he had in his power and control there were irregularities and I say I can’t understand why the Government should hesitate for a moment to accept the motion and let that inquiry go on. What do hon. members say in their defence? I do not take it they are making a defence, because we have not yet: come to the stage of an inquiry. They say that when the commission met there were two methods of calculating the emoluments placed before them. One was a Treasury regulation which said they were simply to get compensation for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in carrying on their work. Then there was a letter to them from the department saying they were to get three guineas a day for every day they say. As my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) pointed out this sort of thing we want investigated. How is it the Treasury allow this sort of thing to go on? The commission sat and these two things were laid down. First of all the Treasury regulation, subsistence allowance and nothing more and then a letter from the department giving them three guineas a day for every sitting. They did not like either of these things, and they discussed it at the commission and the Chairman said he would not serve. According to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) whose statement I accept absolutely in the matter, it was left, to the chairman and the secretary to see what they could do. As my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) said, there is not: a word to show that the Treasury ever sanctioned any departure from the original letter. There is no new letter of appointment. There is no official communication to the commission. The Auditor-General has nothing to show that any departure was made from the terms of appointment, but the commission is assured by the chairman apparently, that it will be all right and that they can charge three guineas every day when the commission is; in session. When is a commission in session I suppose that means every day from the time the commission is first appointed to the time when it has sent in its report, Saturdays, Sunday and every day. They say that is the assurance they got, that they were to get three guineas a day for every day the commission was in session, whether they were at home or not. I say that if the Treasury gave any authority of that kind it is high time the matter was investigated. Anything more unbusinesslike, more slack, more wanting in decent control over public expenditure, I cannot imagine. If the Treasury did give that assurance, and we must suppose they did because they made the payments upon that basis, then I say certainly it is a matter that demands immediate enquiry, not as regards these two members but as regards the Treasury and the way these commissions are administered. I do not want to go into details of the monies drawn by these hon. members because I do not want to bring in personal innuendoes or to put the position of these members in any worse light in the eyes of the public than it is, but the Auditor-General has been specially asked to report on all commissions since Union on which members of Parliament sat and he brings up these definite matters that have come before him where large amounts of money have been drawn without any covering authority or regulation, and in my opinion we would be lacking in our duty if we did not ask the Public Accounts Committee to go into the matter at once, to make a report to this House, and immediately, and not to wait for the general report of the committee which comes up as a rule at the end of the session. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) brings up this amendment of his. We know quite well why he has brought it up. He thinks it will give the public an impression that members on this side of the House have drawn monies on commissions just as irregularly and just as wrongly as those two members over there did. He is welcome to that opinion if he likes, but there is not a word in the Auditor-General’s report that justifies any such insinuation. There is not a word dealing with any irregularities during that time except in regard to the particular commission which he mentions and I can only regard this amendment as a misguided attempt on the part of the Government to avoid accepting this motion and to put the thing off and avoid an inquiry. I think they ought to have adopted exactly the opposite line. They ought to have welcomed an inquiry not only for clearing up any ground there may be for suspecting the commission acted improperly, but, more important, with the object of getting the regulations governing the appointment of commissions and the payment of members brought into some sort of order. At the present time as far as I can make out the regulations of the Treasury and the manner in which they check payments are in a state of chaos, and it appears that any claim which comes along signed by the chairman of the commission and claiming payment is passed by the Treasury without question. I think it is a lamentable thing that the Government instead of accepting this motion at once and getting on with an inquiry have put up all these smoke-screens, all these personal attacks on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and all these delaying amendments like that moved by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). They have used every possible means for creating a cloud of dust round this motion instead of accepting it at once as they should have done and getting a report back as soon as possible.

This motion deals with a matter which was referred to in the report of the Auditor-General. It was also raised last year by the Auditor-General. As hon. members know, at the commencement of every session that report is referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts and that committee has the right to deal with any matter with which the report deals. This report was made as a result of a resolution which the select committee passed last year. I do not know what is the object of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in bringing forward this special motion, unless it is intended to be some sort of attack.

On a point of order is any member of this House entitled to say of another member that he intends to vilify and blackguard? These terms were used by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev Mr. Hattingh).

I think there is far too much of this throwing of words across the floor of the House, much of which I do not hear. It is wrong that hon. members should use words of that kind.

I do not see any necessity for this motion concerning a matter which would in the ordinary course have formed the subject of enquiry by the Public Accounts Committee unless it was intended to be an attack. If it was an attack, why ask the select committee to enquire at all? Are we going to have the judgment of this House on what are supposed to be facts brought out in a report and then have an enquiry?

Do you want me to prejudge them then?

It seems to me the hon. member is pre-judging. I must say that statements have been made which do not seem to indicate that an enquiry is wanted, but that judgment is now being given. I say that is most unfair. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says the Government is trying to avoid an enquiry. What justification has the hon. member for that?

Your friend’s amendment,

Has not the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet as a member of this House the fullest right to bring forward any motion he likes without the Government being associated with it in any way?

Did you hear what the Minister of Defence said?

Does the hon. member want to suggest that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet was put up by the Government to propose this motion?

Yes, he said so.

The hon. member has said, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said, that this is an attack on the Treasury. He might have waited until a reply was made by the Treasury.

We never see them.

This is the sort of thing where an enquiry is asked for and judgment is pronounced before there is an enquiry. I was unfortunate in not being present last Tuesday, and I asked my hon. friend to say that of course the Government welcomed an enquiry, but I said I did not think we could accept the motion in this form. We welcome an enquiry, but I am not going to have one worded as this is, where judgment is given that these payments were improper. Hon. members have based their case on the fact that because the Auditor-General has made these statements, they are necessarily true, and that these payments are necessarily improper and illegal. I think the hon. member might simply have asked that the matter should be enquired into. It was not necessary for him to frame his motion in such a way as to make it appear that judgment was given beforehand in the case.

Where do you get that in the motion?

You take it for granted these payments are illegal. The hon. member for Yeoville has said so. I welcome this enquiry and I think in view of the statements made by the Auditor-General it is very necessary that this enquiry should go back a little further than payments to this particular commission. If payments of this nature are to be regarded as illegal and improper, then I think the House should know that in making these payments we were acting under regulations and we were conforming to what had obtained for a number of years previously. Now we hear from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) of the necessity for statutory regulations. He has been a member of the Government for a number of years and why did not the necessity for this appear under the previous Government? The hon. member knows that since I have been in office I have framed certain regulations to try and put this matter on a better footing. We acted here in conformity with the practice that obtained when I took office. What is the actual attack here? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said it was an attack on the Government. We have heard him say it is not an attack on the two members, but on the Government. I heard that the two hon. members are exonerated. The attack on the Government is that the payments were illegal and improper—on what grounds?

Do you want an answer? I say they are illegal and improper, as far as we know. We are not inside the Treasury, but we depend on the Auditor-General’s report; and he reports that these payments have been made without statutory authority.

Does the hon. member accept that before the matter has been inquired into? It is not the first time the matter has been raised in the House. Hon. members will recollect what the reason was for questioning these payments. There is no statutory regulation with regard to the payments. Every commission is appointed on the authority of the Government, and members of it are paid on contract with the Government. As far as this particular commission is concerned, I am informed by the Secretary for Finance, as soon as the commission began its sittings they brought before the Treasury the letter of appointment. These commissions are not appointed all on the same conditions. We have had many commissions to which much higher fees were paid. In this case I am in formed that the matter was raised with the Secretary for Finance and he said—

Sunday included?

What is the hon. member talking about “Sundays included?” This commission was dealt with on exactly the same lines as other commissions. This matter was challenged last year. The first point raised was that members were paid while they were in Cape Town and were supposed to be doing parliamentary work. If that is to be challenged as objectionable the same would apply to a member who is on a commission and performs work at his place of residence. I say that may not be a sound principle, and in the new regulations we say that shall not happen; but that has happened in the past. Members of the previous Government while sitting on commissions were paid while in Cape Town.

One case.

What difference does it make whether it was one case or twenty cases?

The Auditor-General could not find another case.

That was just my grievance—that the Auditor-General could not find any other cases when he was asked to find other cases.

Mention the case again.

Two hon. members admitted it last year. It was the case of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) who sat on a commission under the previous Government, and were paid while the commission was in Cape Town. Why was this matter never raised by the Auditor-General before, when this practice was carried out, when members had to be paid reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, and that has been a dead letter; in practice they drew £2 2s. or £3 3s. a day. Does the hon. member actually want to discriminate and say this is not a fair argument because we have only one case and not half-a-dozen cases? If it is illegal in the present instance, why was it not illegal under the former Government? Why did we not have these statutory regulations under the previous Government when it was in office?

That does not justify you.

That does not justify me, but it shows it was not formerly considered illegal and improper.

You have not told us yet why the terms were altered.

What does the hon. member know about that?

The records of the Auditor-General shows that clearly.

Why should they not be altered? Why should it not be done verbally, and why should it be done in writing? I do not accept that doctrine, no matter by whom enunciated. The Secretary for Finance said that the ordinary practice would be followed, and in the special terms of that letter. The letter was brought to the Treasury, and the secretary of the commission was informed that under the strict terms of the letter the payments would have followed that of the ordinary practice—

Why was the Auditor-General not told this?

Does the hon. member say the Auditor-General was not told?

Yes, I do.

I do not know why the hon. member wants an enquiry; he seems in possession of all the facts.

He was not informed.

Does that make it untrue? I am informed by the Secretary for Finance that he was informed, and he made the point that it was not competent for the Treasury to alter the terms. I don’t think we should debate the details, for the proper course is to allow the matter to be investigated in the ordinary way by the select committee. I think it inadvisable in a case like this for an hon. member to bring up a special motion for the committee to make a special report on the matter.

In the ordinary way the House does not have an opportunity of discussing the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Last year the hon. member said we must discuss the committee’s report, but when it was discussed he was not in the House.

Will you give a day for the discussion of the committee’s report?

The hon. member may have a day certainly. The report of the select committee was discussed last year. I repeat that I do not know the details of the payments, but so far as the Government is concerned, all I can say at this stage is that we acted in accordance with the practice which has obtained for a number of years under the previous Government, and since then we have drawn up regulations which I shall, in due course, lay on the Table. They will not be statutory regulations, but they will be for the guidance of officers. In the end the matter will always remain one for the Government to decide, as to the terms on which a commission shall be appointed. I certainly have no objection to the inquiry, but if it is held, it should not be confined to this particular case, but we should find out the practice which obtained under the previous Government.

Was there anything wrong then?

No, but such an investigation will prove that the payments under discussion were made under circumstances which were identical to payments made by the previous Government. That is what the investigation will prove—it will prove that previously payments were made to members of Parliament for sitting on commissions in Cape Town while Parliament sat, and if such payments are objectionable then the payment of a member for doing commission work at his own home is also objectionable. It is just as well to have an expression of opinion from the House on the latter point as on the former.

What about payments for sittings which never took place?

I am not prepared to discuss that. I am not aware that the payments were illegal. We can only pass the motion if it is suitably amended that the Public Accounts Committee be asked to report on the whole question without laying it down that the payments were improper.

I did not suggest that they were improper.

I wish the Minister of Finance had not shown so much heat—I do not think it is really decent.

A little louder.

The Minister said he had no intention of going into the merits of the case and then he proceeded to argue the merits.

I replied to definite allegations, that is all I did.

The Minister might have left the details to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The motion as it stands is a very simple one, and the matter is already before the select committee. The whole of the Auditor-General’s report is before the select committee, and we have actually got to the very clause now under discussion in the House, and it is only standing over because of the discussions here. The only point in the motion is that, instead of waiting for the select committee’s whole report, this matter should be specially reported on, and that seeing that the Auditor-General makes a statement affecting members of the House, the report of the select committee on that point should be expedited. The Minister might, therefore, accept the motion, but when it comes to the amendment, that is a different business altogether. It was definitely admitted by the hon. member who proposed the amendment that he did so with the idea of finding out whether hon. members on this side of the House have received illegal payments. That is wanting to turn the Select Committee on Public Accounts into a smelling-out committee, and to that I object most strongly. That is not the purpose of the committee; which is to scrutinize the payments that have been queried by the Auditor-General particularly in regard to what Government departments have done in making illegal and improper payments. But to act on the lines of the amendment would be degrading for the select committee, and there would very probably be a good many vacancies on the committee if the amendment were carried. I hope the Minister will use his influence with the hon. member to withdraw it. I am not going into the merits of the case, as I shall be one of the judges if the motion is carried.

I understand I have no right of reply on the motion, but I want to say a word on the amendment which apparently has received the support of the Minister of Finance. I take no notice of the terms in which the mover of the amendment introduced it. They certainly did not add to his dignity or reflect particular credit on him. If the amendment means no more than what the Minister of Finance seems to read into it, namely, that we should have the right to look into the past to see whether there are precedents justifying these payments, I can see no particular harm in it. I admit that if an attack is made on the Treasury or on the members of the commission, then it may be relevant and it may even be a complete defence to find out what was done in the past in regard to other similar commissions But the extent of investigation of what was done in the past only so far as it is relevant to this inquiry is not the purpose of the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). The impression he has made on members on this side of the House is that it is intended deliberately to set out to side-track the present inquiry and make it impossible for the Public Accounts Committee to conduct this investigation. We submit that the facts brought forward by the Auditor-General are sufficient to justify an inquiry ad hoc, by the Public Accounts Committee. It is very far from my intention to burke the truth, but surely a Minister of the Crown would not like to place the Public Accounts Committee in the position of simply, at random without motive or purpose, going through the records of every commission for the last ten years. We have a difficult enough work to do and to impose that task upon them would mean that none of their normal functions could be done this session. There are fourteen members of that Public Accounts Committee, excluding the Minister of Finance, who does not sit, and of those fourteen members at least seven have themselves sat on commissions during the last ten years, and would therefore be automatically disqualified from serving on the Public Accounts Committee for the investigation. The chairman is one, and the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) is another, and there are other members. The Minister of Finance will forgive me, I know, if I say in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet that we cannot help thinking it was a deliberate attempt to side-track the inquiry. If the Minister of Finance reads into my motion any attempt to pre-judge this matter or to send it to the Public Accounts Committee with the dice loaded, he has entirely misread it and in that case is incapable, in the present instance, of understanding the plain meaning of language. All it refers to is the Auditor-General’s report, and says “whereunder it appears that, prima facie, certain payments were irregular and improper.’” If there is any doubt on the matter I am prepared to modify the wording of my motion.

You have had your discussion and I have told you the matter is being investigated. Why don’t you withdraw the motion? If you insist on a vote I shall vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet.

I am trying to deal with the Minister’s speech and arguments in favour of the amendment. When he said that my motion prejudged the matter, I asked him to point to anything in it that was prejudging it and I challenge him to do so now. The motion was drawn up most carefully so as not to prejudge the matter, and for the purpose only of setting up an inquiry. If any evidence is led before the Public Accounts Committee which would support what has happened in this case, by a reference to previous cases, that evidence will not be ruled out by the chairman. We want to see whether what took place is according to precedent or not. The amendment is a motion for inquiry into all commissions and I see in a certain section of the press, and from remarks by members on the floor of this House, that an attempt has been made, by innuendo, to suggest that I have been guilty of some alleged impropriety in connection with my services on the liquor commission. I have already taken steps to deal with the press. I shall now deal with any member who dares to suggest, without a word of proof, that I have in any shape or form been guilty of impropriety in connection with this commission.

No one has suggested that.

It has been suggested outside and it has been suggested in this House.

What about the evening sittings?

I shall deal with that in a moment. It true that I have reprobated the practice of members of Parliament sitting on commissions and it is true that last year, at the special request of the Minister of Justice, I sat on a commission, and to that extent members are entitled to twit me with inconsistency. A select committee was appointed to sit on the Liquor Bill and sat through 1926 and could not conclude their labours. It was necessary for somebody to go through the Bill and revise it, according to the evidence, and for that purpose it was necessary for three members of the committee to sit and review the evidence. I was asked by the Minister of Justice to sit on the committee. It was extremely inconvenient for me and it was at the request of Dr. Reitz and the Minister himself that I agreed to serve. A plain hint was given to me that if I did not serve on the committee the temperance cause, which I have always had at heart in this country, might go unrepresented, and I felt that not to serve on the committee would be a betrayal of everything I stood for in this House and in my public life. Regarding what the Minister of Finance said this afternoon that sitting at the place of one’s residence was on a par with sitting while Parliament was in session, let me say that he himself introduced amended regulations in 1926, and deliberately in those regulations made it impossible for a member of a commission to take payment while sitting in Cape Town during the sitting of Parliament, but he made it permissible for members of Parliament sitting at their home residence to take payment.

May I explain just what I said? I said I understood exception was taken to the payment of members of Parliament while sitting on commissions in Cape Town on the ground that they had no out-of-pocket expenses and that principle was applied to members doing work at home. I said the former case had been made illegal, but that we had permitted the other case to continue and I further said that we might have to look into that matter later on.

The Minister did issue regulations in 1926 in which he put a stop to members of Parliament receiving payment in Cape Town when Parliament was sitting, but did permit members sitting on commissions at home.

We are dealing with the position before the regulations were altered

I am explaining my own position. My commission was appointed under these new regulations which expressly regulated the position. I repeat that no possible exception could be taken to Dr. Reitz’s receiving payment while the commission was in Pretoria or to Mr. Kentridge or myself receiving payment while the commission was in Johannesburg. I have explained how that commission was appointed. It was purely a drafting committee. It took no evidence, it had no secretary, and minutes were kept by the chairman, and before any of us agreed to serve on that commission we had to arrange that and where we had to sit. It was a fundamental requisite of that commission that we should have the services of Mr. Lansdowne, the Government law adviser, and he told us he could not attend the sittings of that commission unless it sat in the evening. Therefore, such sittings of the commission as were in Pretoria began in the afternoon at 2 and went on the whole of the evening until 11, and that will explain to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Rev. Mr. Hattingh) why we sat in the evening.

Did you draw only out-of-pocket expenses?

No, we drew actually what was laid down in the regulations, namely, two guineas a day, and when I went to Pretoria three or four times a week I only drew the two guineas a day without a penny for expenses. I have explained why we sat in the evening.

What did you do during the day? Did you attend to your legal work?

On most days we sat the whole of the day. There were some days when the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) could not attend because he was attending some mining enquiry. There were other days on which I had to be absent and for which I made no charge. We were told that the Minister expected us to do our work in forty or fifty sittings. Finally I want to say this, that we only drew with scrupulous exactitude payment for the days on which we actually sat and the total cost of that commission was something under £300, we having sat for three or four months. Is there any other question any hon. member would like to put to me in regard to that commission?

Were you doing any legal work on any day on which there were sittings of the commission?

I have not the slightest objection to the hon. member putting that question. I would not be prepared to say that on every day on which the commission sat I was there during the whole of the time. Usually I was. I can refer the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) who put the question to me to the law adviser, and he will tell him if he goes and chooses to ask him that for three months’ work—

You have not answered my question. I would like to know if you did any legal work on any day on which the commission sat?

It is quite possible I did. The commission sat on fifty days, of which I received payment for 42. Where I did not attend I made no attempt to draw any payment nor did any other member of the commission.

How could you?

That is the whole point of the present motion. The commission having sat in the case of one person for 63 days, that person drew over £400. But I am not entitled to reply on the general motion. Mr. Speaker will call me up. Let me tell the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that he himself the other day standing up in this House said that he appreciated to the fullest the work that our commission had done, and that the State had got ten times the value of that work.

You do not suggest that the other committee did not do their work Why tell us now that you did your work so well? We take that for granted.

I am taking the earliest opportunity, seeing what has appeared in the Nationalist press, of dispelling any impression that there is any hanky-panky of any sort in connection with that Liquor Commission. I hold my honour too dearly to allow that to be thought for one moment. I have nothing to hide, and nothing to fear. What I do object to is hon. members without a shred of evidence, without a particle of evidence of any sort, suggesting by innuendo, and their press following it up, that I have been guilty in the slightest degree of any impropriety of any sort. The press I propose to deal with instantly. If any hon. member has anything to suggest let him suggest it now, and I will deal with it now.

I agree with the Minister of Finance that the motion is unnecessary. One thing I cannot understand. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and has introduced this motion although he knows that we have just asked for an enquiry. The majority of the select committee are Government supporters, and they decided upon a detailed enquiry. Was it his sole purpose to malign the hon. members for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and Vredefort (Mr. Munnik)? In the ordinary course the select committee would have reached the enquiry last week. I am astonished at the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) wanting to make out that we do not want any enquiry. It was just we who asked for it, also the hon. members for Brakpan and Vredefort, and the Minister of Defence said that we welcomed the enquiry. But what is so peculiar is that as soon as the amendment is introduced to enquire into a period which affects the other side of the House as well hon. members of the Opposition become afraid and do not want an enquiry. Why are they afraid? We do not say that there is anything wrong, but why are they afraid? Let us go into the matter properly and see what happened in the past. The Minister of Finance made it clear that the regulations of the previous Government have been followed, and therefore it is also necessary to enquire what the position was with regard to the commissions that sat in the past. It is also wonderful that the Auditor-General mentions that some of the records of the commissions in the past cannot be found. That must also be enquired into. It is peculiar for Government records to go astray in that way. However, the chief reason why I have risen is in connection with a remark of the Minister of Finance which I consider very serious, namely that the Secretary for Finance said to the Auditor-General that the Treasury had given its approval before the members received any payment to the action taken. My question is, if that is so—and that is why I welcome the enquiry—why is it not mentioned in the report of the Auditor-General? Nowhere is there a word with regard to the appointment, nowhere is anything said of an agreement which was so entered into between the members and the Government representative, the Secretary for Finance; nowhere is there any question of an agreement or anything that the Secretary for Finance said, and I think it is a serious point into which the select committee must go carefully. With the little legal knowledge I possess I want to say at once that I regard such an agreement by the Government on the one hand, represented by the Secretary for Finance, and the members concerned on the other as quite legal and binding, even if verbally entered into, and the Auditor-General’s duty was, when legal advice was asked for, to bring it to the notice of the legal advisers, and to mention it in his report, which he has not done. I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) that the member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts must not go into details, and must not go so far as the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) and Bezuidenhout, because these two members who serve on the select committee have practically expressed their opinion already although they will now have to sit and judge the matter. It has been repeatedly asked: “What about Sundays?” In this connection I want to refer to the Police Commission the reference to which appeared in the same Auditor-General’s report. In that case surely an agreement was also made to pay for Sundays. Why then may not the members of this commission draw it? All the points must be gone into. I do not think it necessary to prolong the debate. The matter is coming before the Public Accounts Committee and I therefore appeal to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to withdraw his motion and to leave the enquiries to the select committee.

I just want to say a few words. In the first place I was accused of using some words across the floor. I did not say the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was a blackguard and a villain. I did not use those words. I referred to the motion in his name, and in referring to that motion I find it is the duty of the Finance Committee to inquire into all these things without a motion in this House or without an instruction by this House to do so. It is their general duty. It struck me as very strange that a member of that committee especially should come into this House knowing his duty as well as anyone else ought to know it, and bring forward a motion of this kind. There must be some motive. What motive is there? I would like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to say what motive there is. He could have done the very same thing without any motion in this House.

Shall I tell you? In the ordinary way, the reports of the Public Accounts Committee come back to this House and are never discussed.

That is not true.

Normally that never happens, and therefore if this matter had been investigated in connection with other matters the committee has to investigate, it might have been buried under a mass of detail, and probably would not have come back in time for proper discussion to take place, and my sole motive is that there should be a special investigation and a special report early in the session, so that the House may have an adequate opportunity of discussing it.

The hon. member knows as well as any member of the Finance Committee that last year—I happened to serve on that committee for a time—a report was framed to be brought before the House. There were certain matters of importance, and it was decided by the committee to bring these special points specially before the House, and that was done. It could have been done in the very same way in this case. What strikes me as very strange is that the indictment against these two hon. members should be drawn up by a member of the Finance Committee and supported by another member of the Finance Committee, and I would never have believed that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) would have acted in the way he did this afternoon in attacking and prejudging these two hon. members. I would ask those two members of the Finance Committee are they going to withdraw from that committee when this investigation is to take place?

No, certainly not.

No.

Then can it he an impartial committee?

Of course it can be impartial.

Can it be an impartial investigation?

Yes, quite.

Were you not a one-man commission once and quite impartial?

Quite impartial.

And quite unanimous.

With regard to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said in that connection, I never addressed any meeting before I finished my work on that committee. The hon. member is quite misinformed. As regards the investigation of other commissions as well, the hon. member has tried to put up a defence.

For myself?

For yourself. The hon. member started off in this House with an attack on other hon. members, and he finished up with a self-defence. But nobody said he drew his money illegally or improperly—

No one dare say it, either.

Yet the hon. member thinks he may say anything about other members of this House. Of course, I am not supposing that any member on this side of the House will lower himself to attack in this way. As regards the Liquor Commission, the question has been put, and not replied to definitely, did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout do his legal work during the day and then have these sittings during the evening, and draw his £2 2s. a day for that evening’s sitting? It has not been replied to.

Yes it has.

We do not know, and that is why an investigation is so necessary. Rumour says he attended to his legal profession all the time, and had sittings in the evening or late in the afternoon.

Why not?

No one says “why not,” but what right has Re to criticize those members who did their duty the whole of the day while they sat on commissions? It would mean he had no out-of-pocket expenses that day, but that on the other hand he had some income. Those two and three guineas ought really to be for out-of-pocket expenses, and I would like to know what the letter of appointment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) says.

What sort of a one did you get?

I am quite satisfied that I did my duty, to such an extent that it (my report) has been accepted, not only by the Minister of Justice twice, but by other previous commissions as well, and notwithstanding the erasure of all these clauses by the hon. member, they were put back by the Minister exactly as I recommended. So I am quite satisfied I did my duty. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), as a legal man, did not seem to know what “session” means.

I know what “Parliament in session” means—not a “commission in session.”

He ought to know what it means. Under the previous Government members of commissions who were appointed were paid for every day of absence from their homes until they got back. They were paid for Sundays as well during their absence from home. That is quite correct; why should they not be paid if they are away from home and engaged on public work? They might have to wait for information from a public body for a week, and they have to pay for all their other expenses for six or seven days. They were in session for a whole week, although sitting, say, for one day only. Then I should like to ask the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) where are the minutes of the Liquor Commission?

Ask the chairman.

I ask the hon. member. The Department of Justice has no information whatsoever of the minutes kept by that commission. Officially there are no minutes in the possession of any official of Parliament or of the department. If the minutes were kept by the chairman, as stated by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, they were never read out at the meetings of the commission.

Where do you get all this from?

They were never officially signed by the chairman. These points are for investigation, and they show the necessity of investigating more commissions than one.

On what authority do you make these statements?

Are they true or not?

On what authority do you make them?

On the authority that I know.

How do you know?

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) must not ask questions.

It seems to be true, anyhow.

It would have been the honourable way for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to withdraw his motion immediately after the replies made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), who made a full and clear statement and met every possible charge in that motion. I hope that the hon. member, although he is a member with an appropriate name, “Black fumes from the gas well of Rezuidenhout”—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you going to allow that? Are you going to allow the hon. member to indulge in such language?

I must ask the hon. member not to indulge in such language.

I must ask you, sir, to ask the hon. member to apologize.

I have nothing to withdraw.

I ask you, sir, to call upon the hon. member to withdraw and apologize for a grossly undignified attack upon myself.

I will say what I have said; Mr. Speaker can call upon me to withdraw if necessary.

If the hon. member says it again, I will make him apologize.

I am sorry that I should have said “appropriate.” I hope we will have a full investigation of commissions during the past ten years, and that it will be possible for the Government to prevent biassed members sitting on the committee. I hope they will consider whether it is not necessary to appoint an impartial judge to go into these matters, and if that cannot be done I think it will be the duty of this House to ask those hon. members who have formed their opinions and pronounced their judgment today, and on the previous day when this matter was debated, on this question that they should retire from the Finance Committee before that investigation takes place.

The minutes were kept by the commission giving dates and places and notes of what we did. They were mostly arguments and proposals, and the hon. member is at liberty to see them. I do not think they were signed and they were not read out. Subsequently they were typed and circulated, but I do not think they were signed, for most of them were proposals and arguments. They were not presented to the department, because the department did not ask for them. The minutes are at Pretoria.

Question put: That all the words after “the” in the first line, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—45.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. 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.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

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.

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

Noes—68.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

De Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen,H. D.

Van 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: Alexander, M.; Pienaar, B. J.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr. I. P. van Heerden put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.:

That this House, having regard to the remarks made by the Controller and Auditor-General in paragraph 49 of his report for 1926-’27, instructs the Select Committee on Public Accounts to make a full investigation into all payments made to members of Government Commissions during the last ten years and to report specially thereon.

I have an amendment to Clause 56. The position under this clause has already been pointed out. It gives wide powers to the Government. Under Clause 56 you can have total prohibition throughout South Africa. I would rather have the issue of total prohibition debated on its merits on a motion for total prohibition and not give these powers to the Government. Under this clause the coloured people can be differentiated against. The present Minister may not do it, but under the clause the power is given to deal with it. Relief works and mines are not dealt with in this section, but in the next section areas in the neighbourhood of mines and factories are mentioned, and, after all, we are passing the Bill as it reads, and not for its intentions. You have your machinery in the licensing board, but unless these words are put in, it will be possible to make drastic changes without the licensing board being considered. Under the circumstances, I would like to move—

In other words it would only be if the licensing board thinks it necessary to enforce this clause that will make it possible for the Government generally to take this action.

I would like to make my amendment clear to the House. It would be necessary, if that amendment were adopted, to move the deletion of Clauses 53 and 54. I want to explain why that has to be done. Clauses 53 and 54 are, at any rate, as far the east coast of the Union is concerned, quite impossible clauses. They will stultify development and they will create unnecessary hardship all round. Clause 53 was originally inserted in the Bill to deal with the existing evils in the Cape where smuggling was going on into the native reserves from various licensed premises which acted as a focus for illicit liquor dealing. The Cape Liquor Board had the right to differentiate between area and area under the old Acts. Now it is proposed—and I believe the Native Affairs Commission and the Native Affairs Department suggested it—that this power, instead of remaining with the licensing board, should be given to the Minister. Under Clause 95 of the Bill, there will now be total prohibition for natives in the Cape. While Clause 53 deals with conditions here in the Cape, it neglects altogether the conditions existing in the other parts of the Union. If Clause 53 were passed as it is, it would practically put a ban upon most of the towns of Natal which are within three miles of a native reserve. The committee will understand that the whole of the east coast more or less is merely a chequer board of white areas and black areas. Consider the lands along the Natal coast. Take one instance. The Lands Department have recently obtained from a native reserve transfer of a large area of land which to-day is being cut up into a township. The Lands Department obtained the services of a town planning expert, and he has planned this town with full regard to the amenities of the place. If this clause were passed, it would be quite impossible for that township to erect an hotel with a liquor licence. That would be the position of hotels up and down the coast in Natal. They do not cater merely for the requirements of the local population, but for the many thousands who come down to Natal from different parts of the Union every year. Clause 54 says—

It also states that all existing licences shall cease on the 31st December, 1937. All those hotels which are existing in the country towns of Natal, and which have no local authority, are going to be put out of action ten years hence, and no fresh licences are to be granted.

Surely they will get a local authority.

They do not go in for local authorities. They are under the provincial authority. Natal is very largely a small settlement area. It has more Europeans to the square mile than any other portion of the Union. With the intensive agriculture going on, these small townships are dotted about throughout the whole countryside, each having the necessary hotels and necessary licences. These would be done away with if Clause 54 were passed. The gentlemen from Pretoria and Johannesburg, who drafted this clause, say, in effect, if we take a liking to a place and, by our visits, turn it into a pleasure resort, then we will allow it to obtain a licence provided the hotel erected is in accordance with our gilded taste. A sum of £10,000 must be spent upon it. This argument against the existence of country hotels comes from the Free State, and the conditions of the Free State some 40 years ago are assumed to be the conditions existing in Natal to-day. I believe that the conditions existing in the Free State, when they had these country canteens, cannot be compared with the comfortable, well-run country hotels in Natal to-day. There is really no analogy between the two classes of licences. If these two clauses are dropped it will be necessary to give the Minister that power which he seeks under Clause 53, because there are undoubtedly places where the Minister would have to exercise the right of discretion as to whether licences should be allowed to be established within half-a-mile of a native location or three miles of a native reserve. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) argues that it would be better to give this power to the local licensing board on the ground that that is more democratic than giving it to the Minister. What popular expression of opinion exists on the local licensing board as far as the coloured, native or Indian population are concerned? They have no representation upon it. In any case the local board is appointed by the Minister. As far as the discretionary power is concerned in these cases, I would much prefer to see that power in the hands of the Minister, who would work through the Native Affairs Department and become cognisant with the whole of the conditions, than I would in the hands of a local board. Clauses 53 and 54, as they stand, are most harmful, and it does seem to me that Clause 56, at any rate, should be amended in order to give that discretionary power to the Minister, which is so necessary in dealing with lands adjacent to native reserves.

I do hope that the committee will feel that it is able to accept this clause as it is printed. Hon. members like my hon. friend, the member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), are very fond of putting up some hypothetical bogey, prohibitionist, half-mad Minister, who may have to administer an Act such as this in years to come, but he knows, just as I do, that no Minister in a Cabinet is allowed to ride his own particular hobbies and act unreasonably.

Do we know that?

I do not know whether my hon. friend rode any particular hobby of his while he was in the Cabinet or not. Speaking seriously, one knows that whatever the personal convictions of any particular successor to the present Minister on the Liquor Commission, he would have to administer the clause, such as it is, in a perfectly reasonable manner. When horrible pictures are painted of the drying up of the whole of the Union by the machinery of this clause, hon. members who paint those pictures know that such a thing is never likely to happen. I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) that if and when we do have prohibition in this country, we should not have it by ministerial decree, but by the vote and expression of the people. If I were a South African Mussolini, and I had the power by a stroke of the pen to make the country dry, I would not do it. It is not the intention of this clause for the present Minister or anyone who comes after him, to exercise that particular power. But this is a country where the liquor evil does break out in particular districts and quite unexpectedly in a particularly violent form. It is in existence to-day in large areas of the Transvaal diggings in such a form that a hundred or more establishments are openly selling liquor without any licence whatever. The state of affairs on the diggings is such as to make it necessary to grant these ministerial powers. In places where there used to be diggings and bottle store licences were granted, the diggers have all gone, but the bottle stores are still there and doing business. There is an immense amount of the illicit traffic. There are administrative problems in connection with the liquor traffic that can only be tackled by ministerial action. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) wants this only done when the licensing board requests it should be done. To wait for the initiative to come from the licensing board, when it may never come, before the powers given in this section can be exercised, is a mistake. I do ask hon. members to remember the purpose for which this was framed, not only in regard to the diggings, but in regard to the native problem and the coloured problem. I can think of districts now where the evil in regard to the sale of liquor to coloured or natives is such that nothing but prompt and drastic ministerial action will stop it, and where the licensing boards would be so influenced by local feeling that it would be quite impossible to get them to take action. If hon. members will pass this clause they will be doing one of the best things they possibly could to check some of the more violent expressions of the liquor evil in South Africa.

I cannot understand why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) objects to this mild protection asked for by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). Why does he fear the licensing courts? He has got the licensing courts constituted to his own desire, and now he seems to fear them. According to the law as it exists to-day in the Cape Province, the Minister has the power, but the power is qualified and defined, that the Minister can only issue a proclamation where there are a number of natives congregated on a certain public work. If the Minister will look at Act 23 of 1883 in Section 21 he will find that the power of the Minister is entirely restricted to natives working on a certain public work, and then the Minister can say “temporarily while this work goes on the licence-holder will be prevented from supplying these natives with intoxicating liquor.” But here, if we adopt Clauses 56 and 57 as they stand to-day, the Minister may practically enforce total prohibition in the country. He may restrict the locality of the digger, he may restrict the class of people, he may restrict the hours, and he has power to veto the licence in a certain area. These are most drastic powers.

Why do you distrust the Minister?

I do not distrust the present Minister. The present Minister, as long as he is there, will not apply these two clauses drastically, but Ministers come and Ministers go, and I should like to see the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) administering these two clauses. I hope the committee will agree to the small protection given under the amendment by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street), and that the Minister will not have the power unless he has first consulted the licensing court. The licensing court will be acquainted with local conditions, and will be the best source from which the Minister can get good and sound advice. I do not want the board to be an advisory body. I want the Minister’s power to be restricted subject to the consent of the licensing court.

In defending this clause the Minister said that if necessary he ought to have the power of making restrictions in diggings and similar areas. He, however, already has those powers under Clause 147, where the removal of liquor and the like on diggings can be regulated by the Minister. The clause reads [clause read]. The Minister, therefore, already has the power to impose restrictions in the interests of the public. Clause 51 also gives him a right of restriction. I believe the Minister can use those clauses if necessary. I consider this matter of great importance. I believe the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) is a matter of great importance to the whole people. The Minister must have certain power, but he has all that is necessary in the clauses mentioned.

This clause seems to me somewhat illogical and inconsistent because all through the draft Bill the liquor licensing court is made the point on which the control and administration of the Bill practically revolves. Then why exclude the court on this particular instance? The hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) seemed to think he had made an important discovery the other day when he told us I was quite wrong in thinking this Clause 56 meant that the people would have no control. With a flourish and an air of triumph he said that “Governor-General” meant the Cabinet. I am afraid that in the 30 years, concerning which the hon. member spoke so feelingly, he has not learnt that a decision by the Cabinet is not a decision by the whole country. If he thinks so he has still a long way to go.

I have not yet been a Minister.

That does not do away with the fact that the hon. member does not know. The weakness of the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is that he places the initiative with the licensing board. To cure that weakness and to meet the difficulty of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I move as an amendment—

As we have given the licensing boards full plenary powers we shall do so here again. None of us suspect the Minister of arbitrary action, but the principle is wrong. If my amendment is agreed to we adopt the principle of consulting local opinion and leave the Minister with considerable powers. What is the need for haste in a matter of this sort? Three weeks will make no difference. A question of emergency may arise which needs the decision of the Cabinet; but in regard to the diggings, to which the Minister referred, there is no need for such haste as to give the Minister this power immediately without consulting or warning anyone or giving anyone a chance to be heard. This moratorium of three weeks is sound, and gives local people a chance of knowing what is going on. I hope the Minister will recognize the modesty and reasonableness of my amendment and accept it.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander—

It is very difficult to closely follow all the amendments to the clause. I have listened to them all, and I hope the Minister will stick to his clause. I do not like giving a Minister too much power, but in this case I would rather give the power to the Minister than to the licensing court. Various hon. members, especially the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) want a preliminary enquiry which will last three weeks. I am not in favour of that. We have seen in the past what happens when e.g. a strike commences and enquiry has first to be made, and one has to wait three weeks. As the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) said the conditions on the diggings and settlements are such to-day that they cannot possibly continue. We cannot permit an indefinite quantity of liquor to be sold. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) moved to delete Clauses 53 and 54, which are standing over, but I do not agree with that. I hope Clause 56 will remain as proposed.

I want to point out to the hon. member and the Minister the inconsistency in this connection. The hon. member will see that it is provided in Clauses 57 and 58 that in the case of strikes the Minister will act alone, if he is asked to do so by a magistrate.

Or local control.

In other words the magistrate or licensing board. The hon. member now wants the Government to have the right of immediate action in case of strikes. Clause 57 lays down that the Minister shall not act on his own initiative, but will wait for a request from the magistrate or licensing board. Why then should the Minister have the right, under Clause 56, of acting immediately where we are not dealing with strikes, but with ordinary diggings—and where it is not therefore a question of urgency? Why the distinction? There is no urgency in Clause 56, yet the Minister takes full powers there. There is an urgency in Clause 57, but there the Minister may not act on his own initiative. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to the principle of closed houses, but that I am opposed to the principle of unlimited power in the hands of the Minister.

When Clause 56 was debated last it was defended on the ground that it was only meant for alluvial diggings and relief works. If that were clearly stated in the clause I should have no objection, but to-day the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that the object was to prohibit the sale of liquor in any area, in the interests of the coloured people. There are coloured people in all parts of the country, so the Minister will have the power of totally prohibiting the sale of liquor. The Minister trusts the licensing boards. Why this exception? The Minister ought to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). Otherwise I move as an amendment—

That limits the Minister.

This does give wide powers, but it follows legislation which has been in existence for a long time. Section 21 of Act 28 (Cape) 1883 (Liquor Licences Act) states—

This power was not intended for temporary purposes, for there are places like Alice and other spots where it has been in existence for 20 years. The principle has not been extended, but the scope of the persons affected by it is made wider under the Bill. There are natives in many parts of South Africa, and where a proclamation of this nature is issued the white inhabitants of the areas would be affected. It is the same principle without any limitations.

You could apply this to Johannesburg.

You could apply this section to any area in South Africa.

And to the whole of South Africa?

Yes. I gave as instances your diggings and relief works, but I did not intend, nor do I think I stated that I intended these instances to be exclusive of any other matter which might arise. The matter might easily arise in other parts of the country, and I did not intend to restrict this section to these particular instances. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) I think the criticism of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is well founded. A licensing court is placed there to say how many licences there shall be in a district, and how they shall be conducted, and I do not think that board is the right body to advise you that there should be no licence whatever in a large district. That criticism, of course, might be brought against the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central). It is going to be extraordinarily difficult to have your licensing board, which is called for a specific purpose on one particular day, sit for say three weeks at a time to consider matters of this kind. It is outside the ordinary time of the functions laid down by Section 21.

Will you accept the same principle as in Section 57 “magistrate or?”

That is a different matter. I will deal with that point. As far as that particular position is concerned I think in practice it would be found to be unworkable. In practice, in most cases, your licensing board will feel they are criticizing their own work by saying whether a portion of these licences they have granted in the district should be declared to be in a restricted area, and should cease to be in full force. It would put them in an awkward position if you consider the general scope of their work. It is said this section is unnecessary because we have Section 137 dealing with the diggings. My answer to that is that I did not intend my answer to be exhaustive, and in the next place it deals with the removal of liquor. It obviously does not apply to all the difficulties on diggings, and therefore will require the additional powers under Section 137, even if we use this section in regard to diggings and relief work only. Then I come to the words “on the request of the licensing court.” We have the words suggested “on request of the magistrate or any local authority,” and I think that amendment would appeal to me, because I do not think it could do any harm. They would have special knowledge of what is taking place in their area, and they would not be dealing solely with liquor licences.

Cannot you say, “in consultation with?”

I am going to point out in the report stage the difficulties in connection with that, and I assure I do not want further difficulties in connection with consultation. Where the need arises the request would very readily come from the magistrate or the local authority. I have no doubt about that, and it would be very valuable indeed as a safeguard against the too hasty employment of the powers given under this section.

You would not be bound to carry out the request.

No, but you could not do anything unless the request is made, and after that you could enquire whether or no it should be carried out, and I think that amendment is one this committee should accept. I think we can meet the point of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls when we revert to the other section, because these difficulties do not only apply to Natal. They equally exist in many parts of the Transvaal and we may have to eliminate this provision about three miles from a location. Then with regard to these “palatial mansions,” we might have an amendment in this committee to reduce this amount. When the hon. member moves the amendment I suggested, I shall be prepared to accept it.

In view of what the Minister has said, I would like, with the consent of the House, to withdraw the amendment and move—

Why not keep it to a magistrate.

There may not be a magistrate, but there might be a local authority, and it leaves it in the discretion of the Minister whether he leaves it to the magistrate or the local body. In view of what the Minister has said I hope the committee will see its way to accept this amendment because it meets my point to a large extent.

I hope the Minister will not abide by what he has just said, namely, that he will not accept any further amendments, because I want to move a very reasonable amendment. Any club before it can have a licence, must satisfy the licensing board that it is a bona fide club. You have several rules by which they are governed, and the licensing board must have a copy of their rules and be satisfied it is governed by a committee and that such committee meetings are regularly held. Only members of the club are permitted to pay for accommodation or refreshments supplied. The ordinary member of the club is elected in due course and according to the rules, the election of such member is either by the committee or members of the club, etc. My point is that the club is only entitled to a licence after conforming to all these rules laid down in Clause 74, and it is governed in a way that no other body is governed. For instance, members receive no profits, everything goes to improvements. I want to put it to the Minister that clubs should be exempted from this clause, and I move—

I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this. A club is governed entirely in another way from other licensed premises, and I feel that unless this is accepted we shall have the position that a club in the centre of Cape Town will be closed down because there is some disturbance at the docks, for example.

I feel that we should not make a distinction in favour of clubs, because if we do you will have to carry it through in other respects. For instance, as far as elections are concerned, it would be rather awkward if your clubs, which are usually hot-beds of politics, remained open during election times. Take the case of strikes and tumults. When you close up other licensed premises, the workman will be a hit disgusted if he finds that all the clubs are open and selling liquor. I do not think when there is a restriction of this kind the clubs should be exempted from that restriction. I think it would be a mistake to make that differentiation. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), the only question is that it has been suggested to me that it might be put in a somewhat different form, covering what the hon. member says. It has been suggested—

My trouble is that my own amendment also suffers from the same weakness as that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), that it leaves the initiative with the magistrate.

It is really the hon. member’s amendment, only it lays down that instead of the request going to the Governor-General it goes to the Minister.

I am prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of the one mentioned by the Minister.

With leave of the committee, amendment withdrawn.

I move—

The Minister knows I am all against giving too much autocratic power to a Minister, but it seems to me this is one of the cases where in times of great emergency it might be advisable for the Government to retain the power of using this clause. Of course, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, you could get one of these recommendations.

I do not think that matters much.

The question is whether the Government should not retain the initiative although the advice of the local authority should, where possible, be obtained.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has withdrawn his amendment. The concession of the Minister means nothing more than that he will now be able to shield himself behind the magistrate or the municipality. I now move the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central)—

Is this amendment in order, Mr. Chairman?

The hon. member has the right to move the amendment.

I hope the Minister will not accept it. It is going to make it impossible.

I am moving the amendment because otherwise we shall, to all intents and purposes, be introducing a restricted local option.

If my amendment is accepted, it will solve all difficulties. I propose to try it.

The question at issue between the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) and the Minister of Justice is whether it shall be referred to the licensing board, magistrate or local authority. I suggest that this would meet the difficulty and would meet the Minister’s position and also on similar lines the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Piquetberg. I move as an amendment—

That leaves the initiative with the Governor-General. If it is necessary to put into words that the report shall be made within a reasonable time, that could easily be done.

A practical logical difficulty has just been pointed out to me. It would be rather illogical for the “Governor-General” who in terms of the section “deems it desirable” to refer it to the magistrate. It is as if he says “I do not know whether I am right, and you, the magistrate, should tell me whether I am right or not.”

I think after all the last amendment made by the Minister is the soundest, because it is more important that the initiative should come from the district or local authority than from the Governor-General, as the people of the district will know better what is going on.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. de Waal, in line 53, and by Mr. Stuttaford, Mr. Alexander and Mr. J. P. Louw, dropped.

If my amendment is not adopted, I presume the intention is to retain Section 53?

You can amend it, but this clause is necessary, because Clause 53 contains absolute prohibition.

Can I move my amendment as a whole?

The hon. member can move it only as he has put it.

Amendment proposed by Mr. de Waal, in line 48, and amendments proposed by Mr. Nieholls, in lines 50 and 52, put and negatived.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.7 p.m.