During the discussion which took place yesterday on the second reading of the Dairy Industry Control Bill, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) drew attention to the provisions of Clause Twelve under which a Board to be established under the Bill was given power to impose a levy on all butter and cheese imported into the Union. The hon. member drew my attention to Standing Order No. 114 (1) which lays down that “all proposals to raise funds, whether by way of taxation or the imposition of any impost, rate, or pecuniary burden upon the people” shall originate in committee of ways and means, and asked whether in view of this Standing Order the provisions of the Bill in question should not have originated in committee of ways and means. I pointed out that the proceeds of the levy did not flow into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and that the Standing Order applied only to charges which form a portion of the State revenue to meet State expenditure, and by way of illustration I would now like to remind the House of the proceedings in connection with the Agricultural Produce Export Amendment Bill which was introduced in 1922. The main object of that Bill was to raise money for the assistance of cooperative societies, but as the money was to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, Mr. Speaker Krige ruled that it should have originated in committee of ways and means. The Bill was accordingly discharged, but when it was re-introduced in the same session with provisions under which the proceeds of the levy were to be paid into a separate fund it was allowed to proceed.

The provisions of the Bill to which the hon. member has drawn my attention are somewhat different as they are only incidental to the measure and even if they were to be regarded as imposing taxation would only require the Governor-General’s recommendation under paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 114; but the same principle applies and it was decided by Mr. Speaker Molteno in the first session of the Union Parliament on the Miners’ Phthisis Allowances Bill that moneys which are not paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund under Section 117 of the South Africa Act cannot be regarded as taxation in the sense contemplated by Standing Order No. 114.

These rulings are in accordance with the practice of the House of Commons (see May, 11th ed., p. 599, and Todd’s Parliamentary Government in England, Vol. II, pp. 193-194) and confirm the ruling which I gave yesterday; but I may add that there has been a growing tendency to impose levies payable into separate funds and I am glad that the hon. member drew the attention of the Chair to provisions which seek to empower a board to impose what is virtually, although not technically, a customs duty on imported articles. For the reasons already stated I did not feel satisfied in ruling that these provisions were irregular, but they are, as far as I have been able to ascertain, unprecedented, and I hope that the House will seriously consider whether it should invest any board or authority outside Parliament with powers which have hitherto been exercised by Parliament itself.

I move—

I am prepared to argue the question of urgency. In the first place, this enquiry is going on at present and is now being conducted by, I understand, police officers in secret, and what is the nature of the enquiry? The Secretary of Justice has intimated to the public that it is of an official nature, and my hon. friend, the Minister of Defence, told us yesterday that it was a departmental enquiry; the police officers who are engaged on this enquiry tell us it is a mere investigation. Now, according to the alleged facts as conveyed to the public press, at present there is a secret court sitting, convened by the police officers. A police officer of high rank has issued subpoenas to the complainants in this case. I do not question the legality of that court under the Police Act. The point which I raise to-day is of much more vital importance. It is, namely, that the Minister, when I put him the question yesterday, did not deny that the Government has sworn testimony in its possession of certain grave assaults having been committed on certain men in Wellington. I submit that if that charge in the affidavit had been made against some ordinary member of the public, there would have been a different procedure. What would have been the procedure that would then have been adopted? The procedure would have been that to which every complainant and every accused is entitled, namely, at once to be arraigned before a court of this country. Instead of that being done, it appears that they have now resorted to a provision in the Police Act which gives the Government or the Minister the right to conduct a departmental enquiry. But according to the way I read that Act, it does not necessarily compel the Minister to take that step in the first instance. There is a provision under Section 11 which says that a police constable who is charged with having committed any offence against the terms of the Act can then be arraigned before a magistrate. But the point I wish to submit is that here it is not a question of a contravention of the police regulations, or of a provision of the Police Act. This is an offence at common law. It is a contravention, if there is a contravention, of the common criminal law. That is the course which should have been followed by the Department of Justice, instead of the holding of this hole-and-corner enquiry which is now going on. If I were in the position of the police authorities I would court such an open enquiry. What can they lose by an open enquiry? The complainants can state their case, and the accused can put their case before the court. At once the whole matter is ventilated, and if it has to go to a higher authority, that is for the magistrate to decide.

What damage will the complainants suffer by delay?

I come to that point. The complainants, the men directly implicated, are now behind the scenes with the police officers. They are in custody under the influence of the police officers. I make no insinuations against the administration or the police officers, but I do ask, from the public point of view, from the point of view of the administration of the law in this country, after all, who is on trial? Are those complainants on trial, or are the police department and the police officers on trial ?

I can assure the House that the whole conspiracy referred to by my hon. friend only exists in his own brain, and I am sorry to have to say, but I deplore it that an hon. member should deal with a matter of this kind in the way he did yesterday, and has done again to-day. If this is to be the way in which we are going to question the bona fides of the police

I think it will be best for me to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to state the facts. I feel at the moment that I should allow the motion. The facts can then be dealt with later.

I rise to a point of order. I do not understand the procedure that is being followed this afternoon. The rule says quite distinctly that when the hon. member who makes this motion for the adjournment of the House has stated his case, and you are of opinion that he should be allowed to proceed, that then before any argument is heard on the question, you ask if there are a sufficient number of members who wish the matter to be discussed.

I feel that it is a matter of importance, and I was prepared to allow it, but I was also prepared to hear arguments on the other side to convince me.

May I put my point of order? My point of order is that you are doing something which has never yet been done in this House. It lies between you and the hon. member who moved this motion to decide whether or not the motion is one of urgent public importance coming within the scope of this rule. Once you have so decided, then the rule lays it down that you ascertain whether there are sufficient members in favour of the matter being discussed. Then the hon. member may continue his speech. You are now hearing arguments on the merits of the urgency, which has never been done in this House before. I submit that the rule provides that you call upon members to rise in their seats before you allow argument.

The argument is only on the question of urgency, about which I feel somewhat dubious.

In order to arrive at a state of conviction or otherwise, the matter must rest between you and the hon. member who is moving the motion, and your mind must not be influenced by arguments by any other member. I have never yet heard the Chair call upon the contrary to be argued.

Yes, it is on that point that I want to show that there is nothing in the whole matter. There is only pure suspicion behind the motion, and suspicion which has arisen out of the sensation which certain newspapers have for the last three days been making in their chief columns about this matter. The hon. leader of the Opposition should realize that he is taking a very responsible step in making such accusations against the police.

I made no charges.

What about “in conclave with the accused"? Let me say that the Minister of Justice is not here on account of domestic circumstances. He has been absent for a week, and will only arrive tomorrow. The adjournment of the House is now proposed on a matter of urgent importance—

It is not true that the Minister ordered a secret enquiry.

What about the Minister’s answer yesterday?

That was his answer.

Speak to the point of urgency.

I am sorry, but I must rise to a point of order. It is a matter of precedent which is being laid down. Under the rules it seems to me to be perfectly clear that the ruling just given is doubtful. Will you kindly refer, Mr. Speaker, to the rule where it states that after an hon. member has put his case to the Speaker, Mr. Speaker shall without further debate decide the point of enquiry. I have no wish to go against you Mr. Speaker, but only to know exactly where we are.

I was not quite convinced as to urgency.

That may be so, but on a point of order …

Withdraw.

As the question involves the liberty of the subject, I shall allow the motion. Those hon. members who support it will kindly rise in their places.

The requisite number of members having risen in support of the motion, Mr. Speaker called upon Mr. Krige to proceed.

I am prepared to take full responsibility for moving the adjournment. The Prime Minister has given the House to understand that I am taking too great a responsibility in having moved in this matter. It is all very well to say it is a “newspaper stunt.” The newspapers are, to a great extent, the source of public information. Before I took this step I yesterday put the question to the Minister, and if the Minister then had any idea or any evidence to show that the whole thing was a mare’s nest, why did not the Minister give an explanation to the House? The Government are in full possession of the details, whilst we, on this side of the House, have no data except those supplied by the public press, and there is no doubt that the incident at Wellington has created a feeling of insecurity, not only among the coloured people of this country, but among the Europeans. It is not only the feeling of the people directly concerned. It is a responsible body—the Town Council of Wellington, whose employees are concerned in this matter, and the Minister who is acting for the Minister of Justice has information in his possession which would prove that the Municipality of Wellington has demanded a public trial, I am not going into details of the nature of the alleged assault, but if only a very small part of what has been made public in the press is true, it is the duty of the Minister of Justice and the duty of the administration of justice to see that a proper enquiry before a properly constituted court should be held, so that the details may be set before the public. I have said enough to justify the motion which I moved.

What is the urgency?

The hon. member is only now waking up. The highest authority in this House has ruled that there is urgency, and Mr. Speaker added that in his opinion the liberty of the subject is at stake.

I wish to second the motion, first in order to see that justice is done to these coloured people, and also in justice to the police.

The hon. member should not go into the merits of the case.

Why is this, then, a question of urgency? We feel that if only half of the report is true, as published in the press, there is ample justification for raising this as a matter of urgency. We see there that the complainants had been, at the luncheon hour, in the presence of one of the accused policemen. At the same time, we see that the complainant’s attorney is not allowed to see him. I tell you this, that if this is true, whatever enquiry takes place after this, if any of those men withdraw or modify any of the accusations they have made, the public will not believe them. The public will think that they have been got at. That is the reason why this is a matter of urgency which should be dealt with at once, and prevent further irregularity. The hon. Minister of Defence, replying on behalf of the hon. Minister of Justice, yesterday, said that it was a departmental enquiry. The Secretary of Justice informs us that it is an official enquiry. The officer on the spot tells us that it is merely an investigation that is being made. We really do not know where we are. But, if reports are true, the police are allowed to get into contact with the complainants. Here a grave error of judgment has been committed as we all know the fear engendered by a policeman in uniform where a simple or uneducated coloured man is concerned. I should like to ask if these men are under arrest? If so, why—they are the complainants not the accused. Why cannot they see their attorneys? The point is that if this matter goes too far now,. I am afraid that whatever enquiry takes place, it will look like a question of white-washing, and this would be a grave injustice to the police as a whole. That is why it is in the interests of the police, in whose integrity we believe and for whom we have a deep regard, that the matter should be dealt with at once. It is only a short time ago that, in England, the good name of the police was in question and an investigation was held. It was found that a small coterie of men, taking advantage of their power as policemen, were making money out of it. They were severely punished or dismissed from the force. A small minority might be causing the same trouble here, and unless public opinion is behind the police force, they have no real power. It is because we are proud of our police and believe in their integrity, that we are anxious to see that nothing is done or left undone that would react to their credit and good name that we desire that the case should be fully investigated. It is as much in the interests of the police as it is in the interests of the coloured people that this should be done at once.

I will just say at once that the speech of the last speaker is typical of what has been going on in the minds of certain persons during the past few days, and which certain newspapers are trying only too much to bring about with a large section of the public of South Africa. I must say that I feel that it does anything but redound to our honour, and for that very reason I deplore deeply the line of action of the hon. leader of the Opposition. Yesterday, after asking whether the Minister of Justice had received information about the alleged assault by police constables at Wellington, he asked: “What steps in connection with the matter had been taken by the Minister, or what steps he intended to take?” That was within twenty-four hours, I think, after the matter had been heard of. If there is one thing that I can say, I think, without any one contradicting me, it is that everyone hearing what is reported to have taken place, said to himself: “If it is true, I hope the people will be well punished.” Without exception everyone would take up that attitude. But what was the hon. member’s implication? Within twenty-four hours he asks a question from which the inference necessarily must be that our legal procedure in South Africa is such that justice will not be done to the people,—“What steps he intends to take, or has taken.” Has the hon. member ever doubted that in such a case no decent man will do so before legal steps are taken? Did he doubt it? Can he mention one example where the police in matters of this kind have hesitated to take the steps at once which, according to law, they are obliged to do? Why then the question?

Why not ?

I will tell you. Because it is an insult offered to the whole of our judicial procedure; because it at once brings it into doubt.

May we not ask the question in Parliament?

But you are acting as leader of the party. Did you consider the conclusions from your action? Did you consider what people, strangers to South Africa, would think about it? Would it not be that crimes go unpunished here? The hon. member said that the police in secret with the accused

With the complainants.

Good heavens, what does it mean then? What sort of complainant are we dealing with ?

The “Cape Times.”

There may be any kind of defence in the matter, and then I say the sooner we go the better. Has the leader of the Opposition so little confidence in the fact that the people were actually injured that he must now be afraid of their withdrawing their complaints? Then I want to ask further, if they are people of that kind, whether it can make any difference whether the police take action to-day or to-morrow? I must say that I am deeply disappointed. I can understand the newspapers trying to make a little political capital, but my friend, the leader of the Opposition, will surely not say that he did it for political purposes? The motion of the hon. member reads as above quoted. The Minister of Justice was, and is, not here, and I do not even believe that he knows what has taken place. It is therefore untrue that he ordered the enquiry.

That is a laboured argument.

Why? This is a complaint against the Minister of Justice.

He is responsible.

And I have shown that he had nothing to do with it, i.e., with the instructions.

We know that the Minister of Justice is responsible for the whole administration.

Why then did you not frame it differently ?

That is unworthy.

The unworthiness is on the opposite side. You are conducting yourself so undignifiedly as has seldom been seen in this House. Moreover, it was not “secret.” How do you arrive at that? Taken from the papers.

The Minister of Defence said that the police were instituting an enquiry.

Nothing was said about secrecy.

Is it public then?

No secret departmental enquiry is taking place, and no departmental enquiry in the proper sense of the word. What happened is simply the following. On the 21st of January certain sworn declarations were sent to the Sub-Commissioner of Police in Cape Town. They contained certain charges of assault by members of the police at Wellington upon certain coloured people and natives. A further fact is that according to paragraph 4 of the general police circular of 24th January, the statements were actually sent the same day to the Attorney-General. I do not think my hon. friend can complain of delay. After the Attorney-General had thoroughly gone into the case, he found that there was not sufficient to justify immediate action, and to indict. He immediately sent the statements back to the police for further information. This is now being obtained. The sworn statements contained, e.g., no indication of the accused persons, who they were, therefore further enquiry had to be made, and the head of the police at once ordered further enquiries to be made to find out who the persons complained against were, and also how far the statements were well founded for the information to be sent to the Attorney-General. That is precisely the position of affairs to-day. The police immediately carried out the instructions and inter alia held a parade so that the complainants could indicate the persons. Now can the Attorney-General or the Department of Justice act if we do not first of all know who the accused are? That is all that took place, and now the newspapers report that there is a secret conspiracy to whitewash guilty persons. No one ever dreams of doing anything but justice. What was the Minister’s reply? The answer he gave yesterday on behalf of the Minister of Justice was—

Is there anything wrong in that ?—

or anything wrong in that ?—

That is the only point which might lead to misunderstanding. It is actually not a departmental enquiry, but an enquiry by the police. These gentlemen, however, immediately acted on it, without hesitation, on the ground of all the writing in, and shouting by, the newspapers. Now the hon. member says that meetings are being held with the complainants in secret. The hon. member is now so sick of his complaint against the Minister of Justice, and his conduct, that he would be very glad for me to leave out “the Minister of Justice.” Further, the answer given yesterday stated—

Did you read what was in the papers this morning ?

That is the very thing I so object to in the conduct of the leader of the Opposition. In such a serious matter he allows himself to be influenced by small talk and shouting in a few newspapers. Thereafter he comes here with a serious complaint. He actually disseminates suspicion here, without allowing time to get the facts, and he says that the police are trying to rectify matters in secret. He is a leader of the Opposition, and the whole transaction makes the impression that the object is to make political capital. The hon. member is not a leader of the people, and allows himself to be led by newspaper shouting.

The Prime Minister has an extraordinary idea of what the functions of an Opposition are. If they bring up a question of this kind, he makes the House ring with taunts. If we suggest that there may be an injustice done, and that wrongs may be covered up, we are accused of some act of high treason against the State. We are not going to be deterred by any taunts.

Newspaper talk.

Let me say to the hon. member newspapers voice liberty in this country, and are the means by which these things come to light.

It is not true.

The newspapers in this country are entitled to do their duty, and bring to light things which appear to be wrong, whether they are wrong or not. This particular newspaper has made no insinuations against the Government: it has published facts, which have never been denied, as far as I know, and which have been borne out by answers in this House— but not a word must be said about them. Last time we had a wonderful exhibition from the Minister of Agriculture when an hon. member dared to suggest that the farmers of this country did not always work as hard as they should, and an attack was made on the hon. member—a racial attack. The one defence they have is to rouse racial passions. As far as the information given us goes—not newspaper talk —there is a danger of a grave perversion of justice.

Why do you not ask a further question to get the true facts?

We thought we had the true facts before. We do not know they were not true. We give the Minister credit for giving us the true facts. Here is a case where sworn statements are made by certain persons that serious assaults have been committed on them by the police. In the ordinary course, these allegations would have been sent to the Attorney-General, as the Prime Minister told us was done, and it is for him to decide, subject to the instructions of the Minister, of course, whether a prosecution shall or shall not take place. If all that happened was as the Prime Minister told us a few minutes ago, that the Attorney-General is still engaged in satisfying himself as to whether these allegations were or were not sufficient to found a prosecution upon, there would have been no more to be said. The Attorney-General is perfectly justified in making the necessary enquiries, to satisfy himself that a crime has been committed —that is part of his job. The Police Act has nothing to do with it. But what we were told is something quite different. When my hon. friend asked his question yesterday, he was told by the Minister of Defence that the matter was being investigated; and that is all right. He was further told that a departmental enquiry was now proceeding. [Reply read.] Why a departmental enquiry ?

A police enquiry.

Why a departmental enquiry ?

Why not?

I will tell the hon. member why not. These people who have made complaints have been served with subpoenas to give evidence before the people who have been accused of the assaults upon them. Does that accord with our ordinary ideas of justice? Suppose an ordinary citizen is assaulted

He goes to the public prosecutor and not to the press.

If the press do their duty, they will take notice of it.

Why should he not go to the press ?

Why should he not? Is the man subpœnæd to appear before a departmental enquiry or a police enquiry? No, he is going to give his evidence before a court of justice, and not before a departmental enquiry.

Against whom ?

The hon. member knows something about law. Did he ever hear of a procedure like this—a summons to the complainant to appear before an enquiry?

made an interjection.

This procedure is unheard of—to appear before a secret departmental enquiry.

Secret ?

Secret, because the public is not there, and the legal advisers are not there.

All departmental enquiries are secret.

I believe the hon. member is also a member of the legal profession. We are moving for this adjournment because we are afraid that if this departmental enquiry goes on, and these men have to appear before the men they are accusing, under stress of a subpœna, and with no legal advice, they will give evidence which will prevent this being properly investigated. We say that this is a matter for the Attorney-General to enquire into, and that if he finds the evidence sufficient then a prosecution should be brought before the courts of the land. These men are still under arrest, and they are still in the hands of the men against whom they are making accusations. The procedure in this case appears to us to be in conflict with the first principles of justice. We are told that the information we have is untrue. I say that if it is untrue we are only repeating the information we got from the Minister in this House yesterday, speaking in the name of the Minister of Justice. We do not want a departmental enquiry in a case such as this. This is no disciplinary act; it is an allegation of an act of trespass upon the liberty of the people of this country, and if allegations of this kind are made under oath they should be investigated by the Attorney-General.

The Prime Minister dealt very severely with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) about his action this afternoon. I want to associate myself with him. The Prime Minister was entirely justified in what he did. We are not concerned here with the question whether the facts mentioned in the papers, and brought up in this House, are true or not. The question is what grounds the hon. member for Caledon had for thinking, if that serious crime was committed, that the law of the land would not be applied; that justice would not be done, and that those who were responsible would not be punished.

Yes, but what line is being followed ?

No enquiry had been instituted as yet whether the allegations were true or not. The hon. member and his friends have just as little right to assume that the charges were well grounded as I have to assume that they were the reverse. If the offence was committed the law will take its course. That is the answer the Minister gave, and I believe that if the persons are guilty, the law will take its course.

It is not the common law of the country.

Is there anything wrong in the reply? The Minister replied that if the people had committed an offence they would be punished. He further said that if the offence was committed the law would take its course. Is there anything wrong in that? What right then has the hon. member to bring the matter up again this afternoon? Is he justified in expecting anything more?

But is the common law being followed ?

But what justification has the hon. member for assuming that the common law is not being followed. The only information we have before us is that given by the Prime Minister, and from the nature of the case it was necessary for the authorities to make further enquiries. No, but hon. members opposite say that there is something more behind the matter. They say the Minister ordered a departmental enquiry, and the department has no right to investigate such a matter! If the members of the police are accused of offences, it is the duty of the department to make enquiry so that it can take the necessary steps.

Yes, after the prosecution.

Before and after the prosecution. It is said that a subpoena was served on the complainants. If any irregularities took place in connection with that, there may, perhaps, be a reason for complaint, and dissatisfaction, but certainly not for such a fuss that the judicial procedure of the country is in danger, and that this House should be especially adjourned to debate the matter. I do not know whether the subpoena was regular or irregular, but I want especially to refer to two points. The first is that the Minister said that the prosecution would take place if the facts justified it. Is that not enough for hon. members? No, the spirit exhibited here shows that they will not be satisfied with it. No, they prefer to talk here of “secret conclave,” “whitewashing,” etc. As the hon. member says, if further steps are now taken, we shall not be able to attach any importance to them, because there is something behind the whole matter. That is typical of the spirit inspiring members, and therefore I say that the motion and the debate is a reflection on the judicial procedure in our country, and the Prime Minister was entirely justified to be very indignant about it. I do not wish to be misunderstood, and therefore I want to say again that the common law of the country must, and will, take its course. Since this Government has been in office nothing has occurred to justify hon. members opposite in thinking that the law did not take its course if a crime were committed. There is absolutely no justification for the action of hon. members.

I do hope that this House will regard this motion in a very serious light.

It is a question affecting, the liberty of us all and the administration of justice, and cannot be regarded as a light matter, one for repartee or an allegation of party politics. The administration of justice is the very breath of our nostrils, and the freedom of the subject is a thing which cannot be trifled with. My point about the way in which the matter has been dealt with is that I thought that the serious allegations made in the press would have been dealt with by the Minister of Justice, or by the Minister acting in his place, in this way. I thought he would have said, with all the resources of his department for acquiring information behind him, “so much of this story is true, and so much of it is false,” and that he would have told us exactly what the position is. Instead of that, I would like to know why he introduced the element of party politics, and seemed to suggest that it was something against the Government that brought this matter before this House. It is interjected to me that I am asking for a statement of facts before an investigation has been held. The hon. member who stated that does not understand what he is saying. I am asking for a plain statement of fact as to what steps have been taken and what steps not taken. I do not expect him to tell me whether a police constable is guilty or not, but whether the ordinary administration of the law in this case has been carried out. I have given my life to the administration of law in one way and another and I am glad to be able to claim the Prime Minister as belonging to the same profession. He has practised at the bar and sat on the bench. Has he ever heard of a single case in which a man has brought a charge against a police officer and where a subpoena has been issued to him to appear before another police officer? But the Minister repudiates that as a most improper procedure for the police to have adopted. I knew that I could rely upon him to give an unbiassed opinion. Now is it true that the police issued a subpoena or not? Do you admit that it is so? I came here after reading what was in the press which only raised a suspicion in my mind, but I believed that false information had perhaps been given. I did not mind whether an enquiry was going on by the police. I do not mind a little hesitation on the part of the Attorney-General. He has a very serious responsibility and is justified in acting prudently. But still these two forms of enquiry are going on and the Attorney-General is finding out the names of the parties, and whilst the police are enquiring whether police officials have acted properly or improperly, a subpoena is issued on the complainants. I characterize this as an impudent abuse of the common forms of justice.

Do you blame the Minister ?

What a foolish question to ask. The only thing I blame the Minister for is treating this serious question in a flippant manner and making allegations against the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). I would as soon blame the Minister for inflicting the lashes.

Have you looked at your motion ?

The Prime Minister knows perfectly well the essential question on which the Minister and his colleagues are silent. That is, was a subpoena issued? Did a police officer act as judge of a court? He may of course be a judge of a court where a subordinate officer is being tried, but is this case being tried by a police officer now? If so, it is another grave charge upon justice. You are setting up a police court to try what should be tried by the ordinary law of the land. I think we can only, with deep regret, come to the conclusion that far more of the statements in the papers are true than we suspected. This police officer—not the one who inflicted the lashes—took the position of a court of law, and compelled complainants to come and give evidence. What is the Government going to do? If the Government say they are going to take this matter seriously, I am satisfied. But the Government have not said so. They have not admitted the fundamental question whether the policeman has issued subpoenas or not. There is no answer, but I ask the hon. Minister for himself to say whether we may assume that it is true. It is only trifling with this House to draw any other inference than the one we are invited to draw by the silence of the Government on this point. I will again ask the Prime Minister, as a brother barrister, if I may so far presume, to consider what that means. It means that a man not in the most exalted ranks of life has been allowed to take upon himself with the sanction of the Minister the power to bring witnesses before a police officer to give an account of himself. The man has already made an affidavit and is asked questions about it. The Prime Minister knows that such an examination should be conducted before a trained lawyer, who would not allow him to be brow beaten.

Why did you not raise this in your motion?

Are you going to take refuge under that subterfuge? I think everybody, including the Prime Minister, followed me. In allowing a police officer to subpoena witnesses to appear before him and examine them he has permitted a gross miscarriage of justice. It is absolutely essential when the man should be examined and cross-examined on a statement he has made, it should be before a tribunal capable of judging whether the questions are proper ones; and he knows that a great deal of his life at the bar—as also my own—is devoted to getting witnesses fair play. The police department, if they do not denounce their subordinates in this respect, are leading the way to a departure from what has been hitherto our shield of liberty. I venture to think that more has been proved than I suspected. What has been proved first of all, is the attitude of the Government towards this most serious question. I never dreamt when I entered this House that it would be treated in this very flippant way, or treated in silence and not answered or denied. That is the fundamental root of the question which is in the matter now brought to the attention of this House. If ever there was a question which called for the intervention of Parliament in the interests of liberty and justice, I say this is one of them! I hope that this House will be true to its traditions as the guardians of liberty and vote for this motion.

The hon. member who has just spoken (Col. Stallard) has worked himself up into a state of indignation over what he calls the callous disregard of the Government for the liberty of the subject; and he went on to say that far more has been proved than he ever thought would be proved.

I cap " proof,” and I say “admit.”

The hon. member used the words “far more has been proved than he ever dreamt was true.” In answer to the question what has been proved, the principal thing that has been proved in the hon. member’s mind was that this Government treated the whole of this matter in a callous, flippant manner. The hon. member will forgive me, possibly, if I disagree with him. Without a sufficiency of information, the hon. member assumes all sorts of things as being unqualified facts which are not facts, and he proceeds on those grounds.

Was a subpoena issued or not?

I will tell the hon. member.

You cannot tell me?

The police officer will tell you.

The hon. member is neither more nor less solicitous for the traditions of liberty in this country than we are. Not a bit. If all the facts were as the hon. member imagines them to be, we should be just as indignant as he is.

You have admitted it.

I do not think that I have admitted anything so far as I know.

Nor are you likely to, either.

It is impossible to carry on consecutive remarks when hon. members are interrupting. After the eloquent speech which the hon. member has made, he is now preventing me pursuing my remarks. In courtesy to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) who sent a note to the Minister of Justice just before lunch, this note and the information he asked for in it was handed to me after the House had commenced its sitting yesterday, and I gave him (for my colleague) as much information as I then had. I told him that an investigation was taking place. Also, apart from that, a departmental enquiry under the regulations was taking place, and the law will take its course. I can assure him of that. I will give hon. members as much information as we have. Of course hon. members may assume a great deal. Mistakes are made, and the Opposition may feel that mistakes are made by the highest authorities. The hon. member may believe that highest authorities may be supine and callous, but the information on which the hon. member bases this belief may be wholly incorrect. Now let me give him this information. Subpoenas were not issued by the investigating officer who was sent out to conduct this investigation, but at the trial the sergeant of police, who was under the impression that the investigation in question was to be a statutory enquiry under the Police Regulations. Upon the investigating officer’s arrival at Wellington, the mistake was explained and the subpoenas were not made use of, and nobody was compelled to attend the enquiry. The hon. member will see we cannot give more information than we have ourselves.

Were the subpoenas delivered to the complainants ?

The sergeant of the police issued the subpoenas. When the responsible officer arrived, and ascertained the facts, these subpoenas were withdrawn and, as already explained, no one was compelled to attend the enquiry or to give evidence.

Were they served?

What is your point?

I cannot proceed if I am to be continually interrupted. I cannot give hon. members any more information than we have ourselves.

You can tell me whether they were served or not. I have asked you several times and you have refused to answer.

They were issued at the instance of the sergeant of police.

And secured the attendance of these people ?

If they were issued, presumably they were served.

Who signed them?

Does the hon. member want to know the pen with which they were signed and whether they were signed in black or red ink? This is entirely beside the point.

Who signed them? [Interruption].

I must ask the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) to cease his interruptions.

When the responsible investigating officer arrived on, the spot, he did his utmost to undo the mischief, and it was undone, and the indignation, the justifiable indignation, of the hon. member was due to the fact that he was under the impression that the responsible officer conducting the investigation, had issued and served the subpoenas, and the argument of the hon. member that there was any wrongful use of legal forms disappears in thin air.

Did they appear on being: subpœnaed ?

Really, I am afraid I fail to understand the hon. member. I understood that the gravamen of his charge is against the Government, that this investigation officer who had conducted this secret enquiry and had subpoenaed the very persons who were complainants, and under the compulsion of that subpoena had forced them to give their evidence. I have told the House that that is not the case. Therefore, I really do not know the reason for the hon. member’s very forcible remarks.

Who signed the subpoena?

I have given the House all the information I have. Does the hon. member mean to insinuate that the subpoenas were signed by the investigating officer ?

Yes.

As soon as the responsible officer arrived there, he immediately cancelled that—it does not matter who signed it for the purpose of this discussion. The whole point is whether a subordinate officer gave any wrong impression as to the character of the investigations or the subpoenas. As soon as the responsible officer—the investigating officer arrived—and as soon as that fact was ascertained, he did all in his power to remove any ill effect the issue of these subpoenas might have had. The indignation of my hon. friend had he known these facts would have been couched in a very much more quiet temperature than it was.

Will the Minister reply to one question ?

No.

I am afraid the intervention of the Minister of Labour has not done the Government any good. In my view this is a most amusing situation—here we have the South African party as the champions of the oppressed.

Their usual rôle.

On the other hand we find girding against them hon. members who in 1922, when they did not constitute the Government, took up with considerably more force than the South African party has done to-day the cause of the oppressed. They would have made the welkin ring over this matter if the South African party had been in office to-day. The Minister of Defence and Labour would have risen in his place and would have anathematized the Government with all the language at his command. I remember it well; the Minister remembers it, and other hon. members who were in the House then will recall the time when the Police Bill was before the House. He joined very powerfully indeed in protesting against these disciplinary trials of officers of the police force. I appeal to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) who was the main champion of the police at that time. I gave him support, and so did the present Minister of Defence. I think the Minister since that time has passed through an era of militarism, and is looking through a glass very darkly indeed.

What was the date the Bill was introduced ?

1912, I think. It is a long time ago, but principles should last, and I have yet to learn that principle has to give place to expediency, or even to the sweets of office. The Minister of Defence did not do the Government’s case any good at all—quite the reverse. He did it harm. I have listened with pain right through the debate, first to the Prime Minister and later to the Minister of Finance trying to turn what is a very reasonable motion into scoring party points against the Opposition. If, at the very beginning, the Minister of Defence—there was no necessity for the Prime Minister to intervene —had admitted that complaints had been made, and that the Government was going to put the matter right, there would have been no need for all this heat, or for the fulminations of one side against the other. If the Minister of Defence had only allowed his recollections to have play and looked back to past years when he was in opposition, and was once a Labour man, and had allowed that experience to colour his present day actions, he would not have accused the Opposition of bringing this matter forward for party purposes, for the fact remains that something has gone wrong and has to be put right. Even now we do not know the facts. The Minister has said that the subpoenas were served by a very inferior officer without any warrant whatsoever, and that they were issued by a sergeant, at once a query was raised from this side as to who signed them. The Minister said it did not matter a row of brass tacks who signed the subpoenas. Most emphatically it does. They might have been signed by the Minister himself. Would it not then have amounted to a row of brass tacks? The fact of who signed these documents would have a tremendously important bearing on the case, as they might have been signed by some high official. According to the reproduction of the subpoena in this morning’s paper, it was signed by Maj. Hatchell of the South African police. I should imagine he is a very important officer indeed.

He is the investigating officer.

Oh-ho! Does it not matter a row of brass tacks who signed the subpoenas? Here is the very investigating officer issuing subpoenas to the complainants who have no leg to stand upon, if they are to be privately investigated. One of the very things which my hon. friend used to gird against was the private, secret inquisition, and here is an investigating officer himself sending out subpoenas. It is unworthy of the Minister of Defence to take refuge behind that. He was deliberately misleading the House when he told us that a sergeant issued the subpoenas.

Order.

I withdraw, and I should say the Minister was misleading the House and knew all about it.

The hon. member must not pass any reflections of that sort on the hon. the Minister.

Yes, sir, I withdraw that at once in deference to your ruling. Well, he was misleading the House, whether he knew it or not; he knew when he said it that Maj. Hatchell was issuing the subpoenas, and that the sergeant did not issue them without the instructions of his superior officer.

Mr. Speaker, is that not, in other terms, stating what you asked the hon. member to withdraw ?

The hon. member must withdraw any insinuations of that character.

Very well, sir, if that is regarded as an insinuation I will withdraw. If the hon. Minister will intervene and make any further explanation on that point, I will be only too happy to give way to him. We are all of average intelligence—some of us a little inferior, perhaps, to the Minister of Defence— hut we were unable—I, at all events, was unable—to read anything else into what the Minister said than a desire to lead the House to believe that the sergeant was responsible, whereas the major investigating officer himself was responsible, and the sergeant was only the medium by which this subpoena was transmitted from the investigating officer to the complainants. That is another point about which one has a right to ask in the interests of justice, and is it not a strange thing to be analysing the speech of the Minister of Defence? It is very painful indeed when one looks back. We have now to ask at what particular moment in these proceedings were these subpoenas withdrawn. The Minister did not reply to that, and did not tell us that, and one would have expected that under these circumstances the Minister would have given us the fullest possible explanation; but he gave us the least possible, and has been doing not only his Government no good, but the police force, over which he temporarily presides, no good, leaving it open to conjecture and suspicion. A free, frank and open avowal would have been better for him and everybody else concerned. He said the withdrawal of the subpoena was explained. To whom? Was it carefully and completely explained to the two unfortunate coloured men? Were they told

May I, on a point of explanation, say that it is only fair over against my hon. friend, the Minister of Defence, that he has nothing to do with the explanation that was given here this afternoon. The Minister of Justice being away, I asked for the information, and the information was supplied to me. What I read to the House with regard to the affidavit and the subpoenas was no more than what I was supplied with on a bit of paper, and I communicated it to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). The Minister of Defence has nothing to do with it, and so far as this afternoon’s information is concerned I am responsible.

I am sure the Minister of Defence will be duly grateful to the Prime Minister. I thank the Prime Minister, and I would tell him of my unfortunate disability of not being able to understand him when he speaks. I would say that I am not dealing with the remarks of the Prime Minister, but with the explanation of the Minister of Defence. I want to know whether it was explained, and I think I have a right—even after the explanation of the Prime Minister—to ask the acting Minister of Justice on this question whether it was explained completely to these coloured men, low down in the social scale and presumably uneducated, and whether every care was taken to impress on them that they had these rights now and were not bound to appear; that they were in the position of free men so far as this particular enquiry was concerned: and what is still more important, that they had the right to consult their legal advisers on the question. I understand, and I am open to correction and will accept that correction at once— that these coloured men were not permitted to see their legal adviser. Is that true? Silence in a case like this is the strongest condemnation that that Government has yet had this year. My hon. friend the Prime Minister intervened very generously on behalf of his discredited colleague, and said the poor unfortunate acting Minister of Justice could do nothing in this matter, and had no more information than the Prime Minister. That is another charge against the acting Minister of Justice. Judging from his asseverations in the past, his former principles, his actions and above all, his speeches of the past, one would have thought that the very first thing he would have done was to make a personal enquiry into this injustice. I would have done it if I were there.

The I.C.U. You were afraid of your job.

I did so there too.

And you regret it ever since.

Not a bit. There the hon. member does me less than justice. That is what the Minister should have done. Perhaps he was afraid of his job. Whatever may have been the case, we have a right to condemn him for not having done it, and the fact that after this business occurred and this motion is brought up, neither the acting Minister of Justice nor the Prime Minister—who has taken a strong personal interest in it, according to his speech this afternoon—knows anything of the facts of the case and could not give us a decided answer except that the sergeant issued the subpoenas and the subpoenas were withdrawn. The Government has not covered itself with glory. The very best thing they could have done was for the Prime Minister to have said to the member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) “yes, there is something wrong, and we will have a public enquiry by people in whom the public have got confidence, not a departmental disciplinary thing, and everything would have been done with. The Opposition, if they were trying to score a point, would not have had a leg to stand upon, and the Government would have strengthened its position. I would ask the Prime Minister as a matter of concrete justice; will he go into the matter himself personally, and cause an enquiry of a public character to be held. The whole country is ringing with it. Justice is at stake. Will the Prime Minister grant an enquiry?

No, I have sufficient confidence in my Department of Justice.

Then the hon. gentleman’s confidence in the person of the actual Minister of Justice is decidedly misplaced. I am indeed sorry to hear that determined asseveration from the Prime Minister. For his own sake I wish he would have granted an enquiry. I admire him personally despite past clashes, and I am very sorry to see him place himself in a false position because he has too tender susceptabilities towards the very small left wing of the Pact. He is throwing away an opportunity of doing justice. This is not only a matter affecting these coloured people. This is only the beginning of the thing. The confidence of the people in the Department of Justice is at stake. The whole of the people of South Africa are concerned as to whether there is confidence in the Department of Justice or not, and you cannot satisfy that determined effort on the part of the public to see justice done by a mere police enquiry, of which we have had many examples in the past. With the best intentions in the world your policeman is not the best enquirer, because he is inclined to lean to the police side of the story. That was proved in London when the police there were hauled before the bar of public opinion at the instance of the politicians. I yet hope that the Prime Minister will appoint the enquiry asked for.

I am sorry that I have to expose the deliberate ignorance shown by some hon. members opposite.

The hon. member must withdraw that imputation.

[Interruption.] I bow to your ruling, sir, and will ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether they seriously and honestly base their attitude on facts? I talk about facts, and not the statements of the press, including the Cape Times. Let me draw attention to one or two things that hon. members on the other side of the House are perhaps not aware of. Can they show me where in our law the holding of a police enquiry simultaneously with a prosecution before a magistrate’s court is prohibited? It has been laid down in the recent case of Botes versus Minister of Justice, E.D.C., that a disciplinary enquiry can take place simultaneously with the prosecution, and it has also been held that it can take place either before or after. We are carrying out regulations and we are abiding by the terms of the Act passed by the other side of the House. Fault may be found with that law, and I may agree with you if you find fault with that particular procedure, but that is a very different thing to saying that the Government is doing something calculated to prevent justice being done. The Department of Justice cannot do more than comply with the law. A similar case may crop up to-morrow, and the Opposition may again suggest anything but what is fair. It has also been held by the same court to which I have referred that a complainant in a prosecution is not entitled to have his legal adviser assisting the prosecutor. Why blame the Government for adopting a procedure which is in accordance with the Act, and suggest that it is full of injustice? The Opposition has come here this afternoon to do something, and it is not to convince this House that we are entitled to find fault with the procedure adopted by the Department of Justice. What the object of the Opposition is remains to be seen. We can all guess. If the lawyers on the Opposition benches accept the decisions in the cases I have mentioned it would only be fair on their part to suggest to their leader the withdrawal of the motion immediately and. not waste our time any further.

I think this House will be grateful for the explanation given by the Prime Minister with regard to the statement of the acting Minister of Justice for two reasons. The first is that the remarks of the Prime Minister give point to the conviction we on this side of the House have always felt, and that is that whenever a member of the party to which the Minister formerly belonged speaks he invariably states something about which he knows nothing. The second reason is that the very fact that the Prime Minister had to correct the acting Minister of Justice gives a very good reason for raising this question this afternoon. I must confess to some astonishment at the position which the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have taken upon this matter. One would imagine from the fierceness with which they attacked the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that the matter is a political one. The administration of justice should be completely divorced from politics, and when a member makes enquiries as to the administration of justice one would expect to get an answer; whether it is a satisfactory answer or not, is beside the point, but the questions should certainly be dealt with calmly and adequately. When the hon. member for Caledon got up and drew the attention of the Government as he was perfectly entitled to do, to a matter which has been ventilated in the press, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance launched on him a savage attack and accused him of exploiting politics. To my mind, it was exceedingly strange. Coupled with that savage attack on the hon. member for Caledon, an attack which asserted political bias, was an attack on the press, of which I shall speak later. The object of the mover of this motion was to attempt to get enlightenment on the subject, and he brought forward certain alleged facts and asked for information. I think every lawyer in this House will agree that these facts are true and if a prima facie case is made out, there have been irregularities in regard to the administration of justice. The principle so discussed strikes at the very root of justice in this country. It has been said by the hon. Minister for Finance that Col. Beer had said that if an assault had taken place, the law would take its course. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood) said we are carrying out the regulations; what more do you want? And hon. members opposite seemed to be satisfied with that. I insist that this is not a political matter.

Is it not ?

This is the first time I have been allowed to believe that the administration of justice is a political matter. We on this side of the House will be satisfied if the police were carrying out the regulations, but what are the facts? First of all, a subpoena is issued, and signed by the officer in charge of the investigation, by what authority has still to be explained. But the explanation given is that this was a mistake and that the sergeant at Wellington was under a misapprehension; and that the subpoena would be withdrawn. This produced a bad impression. Had persons to whom subpoenas were issued been told that those subpoenas had been withdrawn? It is alleged that three persons upon whom subpoenas were served, were kept in the custody of the police all day and that they were not allowed to consult their legal advisers. Is that allowing justice to take its course? The facts of the case apparently admitted by the hon. Ministers who have spoken are, that there has been some sort of enquiry without the prosecution of any person at all. Some persons have been forced to give evidence and dealt with in an entirely illegal fashion. The purpose of the motion was merely to get some information. We are not levelling any charge against the police. The life of a policeman is not a very happy one, and those who have to do with law take a pride in the justice of our police force—a justice which is exercised impartially. In their own interests, and those of the police and the public, there should be a proper investigation. If an alleged assault takes place by an ordinary member of the public, you do not have an enquiry by a police officer. Either there was an assault in this case, or not. If there was, why did not proceedings follow in the ordinary way. It is said that the Attorney-General did not have sufficient information, and had to make further investigation. What investigation? We are waiting for information, and what we do not want is this disturbing and unhealthy evasiveness. I quote from the much maligned press—

Then it was stated that the enquiry was to be a departmental enquiry. Later it was stated by Maj. Hatchell that the police were merely making investigations. If the latter is true, why did they issue subpoenas. No one seems to be in a position to get the true facts. When an ordinary organ of the press attempts to report this matter, a savage attack is lodged against it.

The hon. member should moderate his language.

I withdraw that and will say a determined attack. We are asking for information. We are uncertain as to the nature of the enquiry. Is it a merely formal one? Is it an investigation, or an official enquiry? It is all very well to say “newspaper stunts” but the statements were made on affidavit. The information in the Cape Times said that the subpœena was signed by Maj. Hatchell.

Do you state it was signed by Maj. Hatchell?

The subpoena has on it the words “(sgd.) Hatchell, Major, S.A. Police.”

Do you allege it was signed by Hatchell?

No, I allege that the subpoena has written upon it the word “Signed" and then follows “Hatchell, Maj., S.A.P.”

You do not go further than that?

I understand this to be a facsimile of the original subpoena.

Is that the original subpoena? Is it signed ?

No, not in longhand, but it says, “Sgd. Hatchell, Maj., S.A.P.” I understand that the word “Signed” means signed, and it means that the subpoena was issued by that particular officer. I have attempted to show why we are asking for this enquiry, and the urgent public reasons for obtaining the information from the opposition opposite, and also the unnecessary opposition which is shown by hon. members on the other side. There is nothing to fear. We are not making a political attack upon the Government. We are merely asking for information. Why, therefore, this excessive protesting when we are merely asking for information upon a matter of urgent public importance. I believe it is my duty just to make certain references to the allegations which have been made against the newspaper in question, the newspaper responsible for the publication of these allegations. Both the Prime Minister, and, I think—and I speak subject to correction—the Minister of Finance, referred to these “weak” statements in the press.

I said nothing of the kind.

I accept the Minister’s contradiction. I said I was speaking subject to correction. I do not know whether the Prime Minister wishes to lay down the doctrine that any newspaper or organ of the press in South Africa is to be debarred from publishing matters affecting the administration of justice, or any other sphere of our administration, without the consent of the police or the Government. I thought we had got away from these mediaeval times. It is surprising when a reputable newspaper publishes this information, information of the most serious character, that it should be described as “weak” statements in the press. Any fair-minded man in this House, or of the public, must realize that had it not been for these disclosures in the press, this very serious matter would not have been ventilated, and a matter which is of great public interest would not have come to light. But there is this rather strange attitude, strange reluctance on the part of the authorities to allow the organ in question to continue to give publicity to this matter. I ask those responsible for some explanation of it. I feel that we should get this in justice to the newspaper and the press of South Africa. I have authoritative information that the source of the information published in the “Cape Times” did not come from the police, but from outside sources, and that the press acted in a bona fide manner when it published this information. No sooner had the information been published than it would appear that the chief of the police—I am making this statement although I may be incorrect—thereafter in consultation with the Secretary of Justice issued instructions to all police stations that no information should be given by police officers to representatives of the “Cape Times.” Apparently, because the “Cape Times” published this information, this victimization took place. Up to that stage the police were always ready to give information on matters of public importance to this press organ, but the order was issued that no information should be given at any police station to the “Cape Times.” My information is that they made representations to the chief of police and he was asked that this order should be countermanded. I understand that later the Secretary of Justice informed the “Cape Times” that these orders had been countermanded. But this morning I understand also that the “Cape Times” attempted to get information at various police stations, at Mowbray, at Retreat, and at Diep River, and the representative of the paper was informed that no information whatever would be given to the “Cape Times”; that, apparently, after a personal assurance had been given by the Secretary of Justice that this ban on the newspaper in question had been withdrawn. If facts such as these are true, it would appear that not only are irregularities taking place in the course of the administration of justice, but that also an attempt is being made to muzzle the press, which is doing its best to provide the true facts. I may say that this is the most sinister fact in our public life. Not only are the ordinary canons of justice to be unobserved, but those who wish to bring out and give publicity to miscarriages of justice or to irregularities, are also to be shut out. Therefore, I feel it is my duty to bring these matters before the House, because it is to my mind a most serious inroad not only against the rights of the press, but also of the public, and it is going back to the days of madiaevalism, or the Star Chamber, when you have these investigations in secret and muzzle the only organs which can bring the true facts to light. In view of these facts, I think the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) was justified in bringing his motion before the House. He merely asked for information, which was a reasonable request. The country wants it, and we shall be only too pleased if responsible Ministers opposite will give us that information. But we suffer under a feeling of resentment when our natural inclinations to find out the truth of matters pertaining to the administration of justice should be met in this manner and the attempt made to show that we are attempting to make political capital out of the matter.

I did not intend to speak of this matter, but I have been struggling for 2½ hours to find out what all the fuss is about. It seems to me that “the mountain has come to birth and towards evening a mouse will be born.” It may be that my inexperience is responsible for this, but I have experience of police work and nothing irregular has taken place at Wellington. For eighteen years I was one of the commissioners of police, and the practice followed has been the same from the beginning. I have never yet heard from the South African party or the Nationalist side that it was irregular. From the slight information I have got from the newspapers, a certain alleged irregularity took place at Wellington, and the local Commissioner of Police, who for years was my colleague, did the correct thing in sending the documents to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General said that he had insufficient information, and the Commissioner of Police then merely did the ordinary thing by instructing that an ordinary enquiry should take place, and it is about this so much noise is being made. In all the eighteen years I had the honour of being one of the commanding officers of the South African Police, that was the rule followed. If there ever was a body which saw to justice being done, it is that police force, and it has again been proved this afternoon that the object of the Commandant of Police was merely to get at the truth. I am certain of it that if this motion had not been introduced, and the newspapers had not written so much about the matter, if it appeared that the complaints at Wellington could be substantiated, the law would quite ordinarily have taken its course. In such case I would be sorry for police involved in the matter, because, I do not know if I really ought to say it, but we deal a bit more severely with an offence by a member of the police than in the case of a member of the public, because the police must uphold the law, and therefore, more than the public, must take care not to contravene it. I am sorry that the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) is not in his place, because I could possibly give him some information in connection with the subpoena. The hon. member asked if it was issued by the investigating officer. What took place? Hon. members should understand that there was an ordinary enquiry, and a board of enquiry under the regulations. A sergeant thought that a board of enquiry would be appointed, and I understand that he issued he subpoena on his own authority. Major H. knew nothing of the subpoena, and when he got to Wellington he found that the subpoena, with his name typed at the end, had been issued. He immediately recalled the subpoena, and could not do more. The result was that no one was summoned. Where, then, was any harm done? From my long experience I may say that the ordinary course will be followed if the accused persons are convicted. This has taken place in innumerable instances in all parts of the country. We have now for nearly three haurs been discussing the subject which occurs year after year. The object is not to wink at the things in the case of the police. The whole matter is that the Attorney-General wants a little more information to know what steps he ought to take.

I shall not detain the House long, but I must express my astonishment at the action of the Opposition side of the House. When they were in office they proclaimed martial law for every bagatelle, and what does martial law mean? It means that a person has not the right to go to the ordinary courts, and they could have done with him what they wished. I want justice to be done, and therefore I want to state what happened to me when that party was in power. When I was in gaol in Johannesburg my wife visited me there. When she saw the circumstances she wrote to my mother. I did not make a complaint; I would rather have died than complain to the Government. But she went and complained to my mother, who wrote to the Minister of Justice. But what happened? My case was investigated by the very man against whom the charge was made. That was under the regime of the Opposition party. I am therefore surprised at their attitude to-day, but I am also glad about it because it shows that they are converted, even if it is a case of the Dutch proverb, “the young man has been converted.” I hope the Government now in office, which has people behind it who know that my present statement is true, will see to it that a thorough investigation takes place, and that no injustice is done to the weak, whatever colour their skin may be. I hope what the previous Government did will not be repeated. We must take note of the Latin proverb; “Justitia fiat cœlum ruat,” let justice be done even if the Heavens drop.

I wish to raise the point of order whether the Minister of Defence, having quoted from a document, is not required to lay it on the Table if asked to do so by any hon. member. I wish to press that the Minister be required to place the document on the Table, because we have considerable doubts as to the truth of the statements in the document, and we wish to know the origin of the statements and to have the person who made the statements held responsible for them.

It is usual, when documents are quoted from, to lay them on the Table if a request to that effect is made, unless the Ministers can claim that it would be against public policy to place such documents on the Table. I do not know whether the Minister can make that claim in this case.

I am afraid I cannot find the document in the file, but I will lay the document on the Table.

It is a document of considerable importance to the whole of the discussion, which I characterize as amounting to a flaunting of the rights of Parliament. Throughout the whole of this debate Ministers have occupied a position which has been to my mind a complete defiance of the rules of this House. The whole of the afternoon we have had a concealment of facts which it is the right of this House to know.

May I interrupt the hon. member? Does he wish me to lay this on the Table? [Former reply read.]

Yes. This matter first came to the notice of the public through statements in the press, and very serious grave statements, which if proved, would have justified the arrest of the persons concerned on a charge of a very serious crime. The endeavour of the Opposition has been to ascertain what truth, if any, there was in these statements, and we were surely entitled to have a complete statement made since this happening was brought to the notice of the public. Surely we are entitled to have a complete statement what the facts are as they are known to the Government or to the Department of Justice, and for them to be laid before this House. What do we have? An exhibition in this House which I hope never to see again on the part of the Ministers of the Crown, who adopt an attitude of incriminating concealment before this House, an attitude which any hon. member possessing any self-respect or respect for this hon. House cannot tolerate; and that is all of a part of the steadily growing disregard of Ministers towards the rights of Parliament. We have nothing but abuse; I make an exception of the Minister of Defence, who had no abuse in him, and we had complete courtesy from him. We have had statements of the most serious kind, which are calculated to mislead everybody in this House and everybody outside, and to give the impression—

I do not think the hon. member has the right to make use of that expression.

I said that statement was calculated to mislead; I did not accuse the Minister of deliberately misleading.

In what respect?

If the hon. member does not understand in what respect, I do not propose to waste any time on the hon. member, and such interjection coming from him displays a singular want of attention on his part.

In what respect was it calculated to mislead ?

The statement itself, as it is proved to be when read alongside the subpoena which was published and purported to have the signature of Maj. Hatchell.

Typewritten ?

I was long connected with the procedure of the courts, and the Minister will know that a subpoena very seldom bears the signature, as long as the original bears a signature. If there is no signature on the original, by what right could the person issuing the document say it was issued by Maj. Hatched? The Minister has not explained that, and has let it go to the public and out of the House that those things were issued without authority, and as soon as the mistake was discovered the whole thing was to be put right with the people principally concerned. Not one single Minister has condescended to ted us the nature of the enquiry that is taking place at Wellington. It is perfectly wed known in the case of any action on the part of any member of the police force for indiscipline, he is dealt with under the police regulations, and in this particular case it is obvious that the member of the police concerned would have been charged under sub-section 31 of Section 38 of the Police Act of using unnecessary violence … on any prisoner or any person liable to detention. Have we been told that such a charge had been made against any member of the police force? Ministers have not even condescended to ted us as much as that? Where is the Attorney-General in all these happenings? The Attorney-General knows perfectly wed that these grave statements do not appear in the press without sub-stantiation; an organ of the standing of the Cape Times does not publish statements of this sort without some substantial verification.

The hon. member must not discuss the merits of the case, but must discuss this motion.

These statements in the paper show the necessity for enquiry. There was something further; the gravity of these statements should have awakened the Attorney-General to his obvious duty which was to guard against the possibility of this matter being treated as a slight disciplinary offence instead of a grave crime. Has the Attorney-General done so, and have we had from Ministers that the Attorney-General has done what the proceedings indicate ?

Yes.

We have had nothing but what the Minister told us yesterday about a departmental enquiry being held and an investigation taking place.

You have had the Prime Minister’s statement.

The Prime Minister’s statement is one totally lacking in any detail in these matters. The Attorney-General’s duty has not been done, and I have on previous occasions indicated that in matters of this sort the Attorney-General has been very much to blame, and it leads one to the conclusion that the Attorney-General is not doing his duty. Who is to blame for it? Ministers themselves; who have preferred to sit in this House and give us no information—but a cheap, nasty form of abuse.

I associate myself with what the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) said as to his surprise at the action of hon. members opposite. This shows how they are entirely lacking a policy. Our country is in very difficult circumstances, and almost every industry is in difficulties, but hon. members opposite, instead of maintaining the interests of the people, come and waste the valuable time of the House with trivialities. It surprises me, as a young member, that hon. members opposite do not look after the true interests of the people, and have merely one object, that of making political capital. They think this will help them at the next election, but the country will condemn them, and see what kind of matters they try to make political capital out of.

The hon. member must address the chair.

What are the facts? There are rightly or wrongly two people who are accused as criminals, and the statement is that they were ill-treated. When it was brought up here, and in the newspapers, the Government said that it would make a proper enquiry and see that the law would be carried out, as the Government has always done so far. They do not act as the Opposition did when it was in power, about which the hon. member for Namaqualand mentioned his experience. After the statement by the Government, I expected members of the Opposition will do all in their power to allow the law to take its course, then there was the Cape Times, the mouthpiece of the Opposition. Unfortunately, the members for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), as usual, ran away after he had made an attack, but I want to tell him that the Cape Times, which he regards as such a trustworthy and authoritative newspaper, has caused much trouble in the country in the past. The Government promised an enquiry, but to-day we suddenly find that the Opposition want to drop trivialities. I listened attentively, and until the speech of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), I thought that there was nothing in the speeches, and nothing in the matter. The hon. member for Roodepoort made a typical advocate’s address, and his great point was that no enquiry, no departmental enquiry, may take place while a criminal prosecution is proceeding. If that were right, it would be an important point, but I refer to the case of Boetes vs. the Minister of Justice, where Mr. Justice Gardiner, in his judgment, said that he did not agree that it was unreasonable to hold an enquiry, even while the criminal prosecution was actually proceeding. Very well, what about the accusation? Hon. members opposite want justice to be done, and now they bring up trivialities with nothing in them, and want to pretend that a great injustice is being done, and that they are defending right and justice. Those are the members who have never before stood for the poor man. As for the enquiry, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. du Toit), who can speak with authority, has explained the matter very well. Lawyers on the opposite side ought to know that when such an investigation takes place the information is secret, because when statements are made to the police secretly they cannot be used in the public or ordinary courts. It is deplorable that hon. members waste the time of the House in this way.

I cannot congratulate the Government on their latest champion, the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). He was pulled up for irrelevancy, and in his irrelevancy I do not propose to follow him, but he said the country will want to know what is the object of the Opposition in raising this matter? I will tell him. We are in Parliament here as the guardians of the liberty of the people, as the old Latin proverb puts it, quis custodiet custodes ipsos. “Who shall watch the watchman?” We have in our modern civilization the police as guardians of the public, guardians of the peace, guardians of the law; and a prima facie complaint has been made out that they have been neglecting their duty. It is, therefore, our duty to draw attention to this. If we draw the Government’s attention to it, and the Government refuse to act in the matter, then there is a case against the Government. We would not be doing our duty if we did not take note of what has happened. Any power the Government and the police possess is derived from this House, and it is the duty of this House to debate any matter in which the Government seem to have failed in their duty. There are several grave matters; grave irregularities that are being carried out at Wellington. The originators of these are convinced that they are irregular, and they have countermanded their instructions. An enquiry was being made in which certain individuals were to act not only as prosecutors and as witnesses, but also as judges, and were prepared to act, I assume, also as executioners, if required. We have the right to expect from the guardians of the law scrupulous adherence to the forms of the law. If it is necessary to interfere with the liberties of the subject, this should be done in as legal a form as possible. Policemen have no privileges, beyond those of an ordinary citizen. They are entrusted with certain powers, but as regards law, they are subject to the same rules as any other citizens, and they can claim no special privilege. Now it would seem that some special instructions are necessary to be given to members of the police force in that regard. They are entrusted with powers and duties, and sworn to carry them out in regard to law, but they have no special privileges if they exceed their powers or fail in their duties. A painful impression has been created in this House by the Acting Minister of Justice.

The hon. member will forgive my interrupting him, but he has just referred to me as the Acting Minister of Justice, possibly misled by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) having so referred to me. He is quite in error, I am not the Acting Minister of Justice at all.

I withdraw that trifling inaccuracy. The hon. the Minister who acted on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Justice says he has not the least idea.

I had not the least idea.

I accept the Minister’s statement that he had not the least idea, and probably has not still, but it occurs to me that although he had undertaken to act on behalf of another Minister, he did not take the trouble to make himself acquainted with certain points on which he would be bound to be questioned. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was questioned as to whether he knew that these subpoenas were signed by a particular officer, but the hon. Minister of Finance ought to know that the original is not usually served, only a copy, so that this was an issue designed merely to distract attention from the real issue. That is not the way to deal with the matter. The subpoena was served by a responsible police official, a sergeant of police, with all the authority of a non-commissioned officer, and the idea of imposing on the ignorance of these poor unfortunate coloured people by serving them with a formidable legal document, a document they would think they were compelled to obey—is a thing that should never have occurred. If that document was not signed by him, who was responsible for typing the signature of the police officer on the document? These poor people have apparently been grossly maltreated. Who was responsible for bringing these men into the presence of those who had ill-treating them, intimidating them and hoping to extract from them some information which might be useful in a court of law? Not that I believe that any court of law would take any notice whatever of any evidence obtained in that way. The whole thing is not right. It makes us very uneasy. There is no question that these gross irregularities have happened, and they should not have happened, and the curious thing is the attitude of the Ministry towards them. No one expects the Ministry, or the Minister in charge of any department, to have immediate cognizance of all that is going on. Irregularities do occur. But if and when they do, let the Minister acknowledge that these things happened without his knowledge, or are alleged to have happened, and that if they are true, as alleged, and if these affidavits can be proved to relate the true facts, such incidents will not have his countenance for a moment. That is not the attitude which is taken up. The attitude which is taken up is calculated to create serious uneasiness in this country. Let me repeat that the country expects, not only from the Opposition, but from the whole House, that we shall carefully guard their liberties, more particularly when they are assailed by people who are entrusted with considerable powers over their fellow-subjects. It is not right for hon. members opposite to take exception to the form of the motion, they should do their duty to the country, and when matters of this sort have occurred, or are reasonably believed to have occurred, we should have their full support in investigating them. It is unworthy of the Ministry and of Parliament that there should be endeavours to evade it, as, I am afraid, the main issue has to some extent been evaded this afternoon.

The hon. member who has just sat down has listened to so many speeches that he has commenced to believe facts which do not exist. I want to quote one thing from his speech which I noted down to show that there is so much talking that hon. members opposite are beginning to make each other believe things. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), whom we respect very much, and who speaks authoritatively on so many things, says: “There is no question that these gross irregularities have happened.” The whole point is that it has not been proved that any irregularity has taken place. What we do know is that certain statements about irregularities were made, but not proved. The “Cape Times” published certain sworn statements about something which certain persons, who were not named, had done. How can the people, who, according to the statement, had committed the offence, be prosecuted if an enquiry is not made, and how can an enquiry be made before the complainants state that this or the other constable had assaulted them? If I went to the Cape Times and told them that members of the South African party had assaulted me on the street, how could the police start a prosecution if they may not ask me what member had assaulted me? It does not matter how hon. members talk, but it is clear that it is here alleged by certain persons that the police had assaulted them, and the Government officials immediately took steps to find out who had committed the alleged assaults. What more do hon. members want? If I say, e.g., that a member of the fire brigade had assaulted me in Harrington Street, how can he be prosecuted if I am not given an opportunity of saying who it was? The whole talk of the Opposition looks very much like what the English call " a storm in the teapot.” The Government officials did everything in their power to find out who had committed the alleged assault, but I want particularly to point out that the irregularity has not been proved. Hon. members opposite, who have had anything to do with legal procedure, know that it often happens that sworn statements are made which cannot be supported. It is not a shame. It happens every day in all four provinces. A sworn statement is made to the police, and it is for the Attorney-General to say that an enquiry must take place, because he cannot immediately indite. The police have to get further information. It is, of course, impossible to bring persons charged with alleged assault before the court, if we may not ask the complainants to indicate the persons guilty of the alleged assault. Again, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) complained of the fact that the Cape Times, according to the statement, could get no information at the Mowbray police station, or other station. Have hon. members ever thought what would happen if the press were allowed to get any information with regard to alleged crimes? It happens every day that people come to the police station where they make a sworn statement about certain persons, but the police cannot give that information to the press, and because they have not given the information, the hon. member comes here and makes such a noise. The statement is not given to the press because any man has the right of making a statement to the police. It is clear that such statements are usually private, and only when there is a chance of conviction does a prosecution take place. I am also surprised that another hon. member stated here that the public prosecutor, or the Attorney-General himself, should institute the enquiry. What could they do better than to instruct a high official like the one they sent to Wellington to make an enquiry? I think the South African party have again hopelessly failed, this afternoon, in its attempt to make a little political capital.

This discussion has arisen from newspaper reports, and it is to be regretted that hon. members did not wait to see the afternoon paper, for if they had we should have been spared this long debate. All the statements from this side of the House are proved up to the hilt in the afternoon paper, which shows that there is no justification whatever for the mares nest which has been raised by the Opposition. It has been said that these men were handicapped because they were not allowed to see their legal adviser, but Mr. Jacobson—who represented these men when they made the accusation against the police— but apparently this is not correct. Mr. Jacobson, who appears to be a practical individual, and knows the whole facts, has in an interview explained the crux of the case. He said—

So that after this hubbub the whole thing boils down to this—that two coloured men have lost a day’s pay and Parliament has wasted the whole of an afternoon. It is now time that we got on with public business.

The statement referred to by the last speaker would not have saved this afternoon’s debate. If the ordinary procedure had been followed there would have been no need for an enquiry. I am satisfied that the Government is trying to protect someone and I am surprised at the wrath, indignation and anger of the Ministers for there is something at the back of the whole of the case. The newspapers were perfectly justified in bringing the matter to the public notice. I give credit to the “Cape Times” for what it has done in this matter. If the Minister had said that Government would follow the ordinary course the discussion need not have taken place.

I am very pleased that I brought the matter to the attention of Parliament, but I am surprised at the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance trying to lecture me as to the attitude I should adopt on public questions. As long as I have the honour of occupying the position I do I shall certainly not go to the Prime Minister and ask him what attitude I should adopt. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance made what is practically a personal onslaught on me because of the position I at present occupy. It is the old story—if you have a weak case blackguard your opponent. That was the essence of the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence. Even if it were only for one fact which has emerged from this discussion it was worth while bringing the matter before Parliament. It is now admitted by the Ministers that the subpoenas were issued in the name of the investigating officer, although previously they denied that they were issued by that official. What is the inference? That a false subpoena was issued under the control of the administration of justice. Once you try to falsify an instrument of a court of law, where is public security? That has clearly emerged; and there has been an assault on the press. Who is right; the press or the Government? Was the press right in alleging that that that subpoena was issued under the aegis of the investigating officer? The Minister denies it.

By his directions.

That subpoena had the authority of the investigating officer, Maj. Hatchell. The Prime Minister knows that he is responsible for the administration of the whole Government, of which he is the head, and he is here to answer any question; I am not looking at the Minister of Justice, but I am charging this Government. If the Minister is not here, that should not deter us from doing our duty towards the country and the people. What effect has the issue of this subpoena had? Has the Minister or the Prime Minister explained to this House that this subpoena, which now turns out to be false, issued on the authority of the department, has not had the desired effect? Does the Minister deny that ?

What has that to do with the motion ?

It is a very important question, and I want to bring it home.

I do not want you to run away from the motion.

It is germane to the motion. The Prime Minister is not to-day in a position to tell this House that that false subpoena has not had the desired effect. When the subpoena was withdrawn, did the investigating officer tell these complainants

Why didn’t you put this question ?

Will the Prime Minister allow me to go on? He now discloses his case to be worse and worse. He has challenged me that I come here to make an onslaught on the Department of Justice. I am trying to make one point; I say deliberately that that false subpoena had the desired effect of bringing these complainants into the hands of the investigating officer. The department served it, and the police constables who are charged with this crime were yesterday still in charge of these very men who made the complaint against them. Is that a state of affairs we can allow in the pure administration of justice? The Prime Minister accuses me of coming here on a privileged charge. When the investigating officer realized that that subpoena was false— I take it the newspaper report was correct—I have the right to tell the Minister, and any Minister who has spoken, that if they are not prepared to give us the full facts, the salient facts, I am entitled to make my deductions. I say that this false subpœna had the effect of bringing these men into the company of the police officers. As soon as it was discovered that this subpoena was false, did the officer of police then tell these men, “You are here on false pretences, and I have no authority to question you on that subpoena.” No. The Prime Minister knows that when the police are really on their trial to get these poor, simple people, who have a great respect for law and authority, into the company of a police officer, there is a great moral influence brought to bear upon them. The discussion to-day has done a great deal of good. I hope that in future the Minister will instil a sense of discipline into the minds of his subordinates, so that they will never attempt to prostitute the procedure of the courts by issuing false subpœnas.

Motion for the adjournment put and declared in favour of the “Ayes.”

On a point of order, I understood that it was decided that you gave it to the “Ayes.” Then, sir, a division was called for by the Government benches. Is it in order to go back on the decision which has already been given.

The House was not full, and that was the reason I gave another opportunity.

I rise to a point of order. After you had given that the “Ayes” had it, a division was claimed. Surely the bell should ring for two minutes before the division is taken.

After the lapse of two minutes, and by Order 125, the Speaker may again open up the question and may declare whether the “Ayes” or “Noes” have it.

Upon which the House divided:

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. P. C. de Villiers from service on the Select Committee on the University of Pretoria Bill and appointed Dr. N. J. van der Merwe in his stead.

I move—

Clause 1 gives power to the Government to proclaim ground for the establishment of a coloured settlement in Gordonia. I am fully acquainted with the whole of the circumstances, as I was on the select committee which passed the resolution on which the Bill is founded, and I have no fault to find with the measure, but sub-sections (2) and (3) go far beyond the intentions of the select committee. They provide that the Government may extend the boundaries of these settlements and may also establish a coloured settlement in any portion of the Cape, provided it is agreed to by resolution of Parliament. This opens up a very wide question. It is perfectly obvious why the Minister has included these sub-clauses. No doubt it is eminently desirable or it may be in future to establish coloured settlements, if this settlement is a success, and extend its existing boundaries, but I submit that ought to be done by a specific Act, and not by a resolution of Parliament. We know how such a resolution is obtained. The Minister comes along with the recommendation to the select committee, which considers it without going at all into the principle. In the case of a Bill, the whole principle is discussed, and whether the principle should be adopted or not is thoroughly thrashed out. In this case, the House might adopt a principle without adequate discussion, and set up segregation in the Cape, which seems to me eminently undesirable without a full discussion. We adopt a principle in this Bill which is very unwise. The coloured people in the Union have their rights under the Land Settlement Acts of the Union, and stand equally with Europeans in applying for land. The natives are in an entirely different position, and by legislation we have placed them outside the Land Settlement Acts, and set them aside in specific areas in which only they can own land, and we have set aside European areas in which only Europeans can own land. There is no doubt that the Minister could in carrying out the resolutions of the select committee have brought this settlement under the ordinary Land Settlement Act, but he could not set up machinery, especially applicable to the coloured people. He has chosen to have this Bill, and I approve of that entirely—I think it is a wise measure —but he should have left it there, and we should have been satisfied with establishing this one settlement, and if it was found necessary to establish another a special Bill could be introduced to deal with that. We should recognize that by passing a Bill like this and a number of resolutions which passed through this House almost without discussion, we are setting up a long list of settlements in the Cape, and we have gone on the long road of coloured segregation, and embarked on that without a dicussion of the principles. We shall have got into recognizing three forms of segregation—black, white and coloured. Since the question of the territorial segregation of the races has been one of the burning topics of our public life, it seems undesirable to bring in another form until we know what we are doing. I, therefore, urge on the Minister to delete sub-section (3). It may be desirable to extend the area, or whatever is necessary, to make the settlement effective. There is another reason I have, and that is a local reason. Coloured people exist not only in the Cape, but also in the north, and there are coloured settlers who have no right to the land they occupy, and they live on sufferance. I understand the Prime Minister visited such a coloured settlement in Zululand. These coloured people have no rights as coloured people have in the Cape. They have reached a respectable standard, have a good education, and make good farmers. They are living in the native reserve under the jurisdiction of a native chief, and at any moment may be sent off this land. If sub-clause (3) is withdrawn, all these cases will be discussed on their merits, and will be dealt with by a Bill. Even in such matters as the change of a railway route, it is necessary to bring in a Bill. In an important matter like this, we should give it the consideration it deserves.

seconded.

When I saw the Bill for the first time, I intended to move an amendment to Clause 1. I wanted to move that it should apply not only to Gordonia, but to the whole Cape Province. When, however, I read the Bill a second time, I found that Clause 3 provided that it would apply to the whole province. Therefore, I quite support the clause. I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). There are many ordinary and respectable coloured people in the Cape Province who also want land, and when I was on the Land Board, I was daily asked by the coloured people why they could not also get land. It is all very well for the hon. member for Zululand to say that the coloured people can also obtain land, under the Land Settlement Act, but he knows well that if a European, and a coloured person, want the same piece of ground that the former will get it. It is our duty to think of the coloured man as well. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) knows that there are also coloured people in his constituency who are very well off, as, e.g., in Kuils River, and who are sometimes even an example to Europeans. I therefore hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment so that those people can also have a chance by the clause being made applicable to land throughout the Cape Province, and especially on the Cape Flats.

I would like to support the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure). I want to ask the House and the Minister not to delete a single word of this clause. I do not actually know the ultimate aim of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), except that in the north of Natal there are coloured people living for whom in the course of time provision will also have to be made. If there are cases of coloured people also wanting land, there is always the remedy under the Land Settlement Act, which has been suggested, but we feel that the large majority of the coloured people, about 90 per cent., live in the Cape Province, and that the Government must first provide for the place where the majority of them live. Practically the motion of the hon. member for Zululand means that he wants to destroy the principle. He wants to regard the case of the Gordonia settlement as an incident in our legislation, and move that the principle should not be further extended. Thus, the provision should not be made for land for coloured people, but only for a group of coloured people. The result would be that the coloured people who do not live near to Gordonia will get no ground. I have received no mandate from the Griquas in Griqualand West, but I have often been asked if they could not get ground as the coloured people in Gordonia do. I knew the Government intended doing something in this direction, and it was a matter of great joy to those to whom I was able to tell it. There are coloured people living at Gordonia who own land, and there are others who did own land, but most of them have lost it in course of time. They are people who have the ability to succeed on the land, and if it is right for Gordonia, it is right also for the other parts in the Cape Province. Therefore I hope the Minister will not accept the motion of the hon. member for Zululand. The idea of coloured segregation seems to be a sort of nightmare with the hon. member for Zululand. It may be that the hon. member feels strongly about it, but I think that there is absolutely no danger in it. Any properly thinking statesman knows that such a policy will not be possible in South Africa at all. We do not know how the land will be situated in a 100 years, but even if there were a Government which felt very strongly on the matter, there is still a guarantee in the Bill as it provides that both this House and the Senate will first have to approve of the Bill being extended in its application. As we have this guarantee as a safety valve, and a safety measure, we need not bother about further segregation unless we assume that both Houses of Parliament will also lose their heads, and be carried along by an over enthusiastic Minister. I hope the House and the Minister will be prepared not only to give the rights to a small group, but to all the coloured people in the Cape Province.

I regret very much that I cannot accept the amendment of my hon. friend. At the second reading of the Bill, I explained that this is very largely an experiment. My hon. friend will see that in sub-section 2 it is provided that the Governor-General may by proclamation in the Gazette from time to time alter the boundaries of any coloured persons’ settlement area, but no such proclamation shall be issued unless both Houses of Parliament have by resolution approved of the alteration. This settlement will be one of 400,000 morgen of land. Supposing I have only fifty people for this settlement. Then I would come to Parliament and ask for the passing of a resolution to make the settlement smaller, and make the rest of the land available for Europeans. I can assure my hon. friend that as far as I am concerned it is not the policy of the Government to establish coloured settlements all over the Cape Province, but only where necessary. We have already several small coloured settlements, and it may be necessary to have another. What I feel is that the House has such complete control over these matters that if there is any man in the House who objects to anything being done he has ample opportunity for voicing his objection under the sub-section I have quoted. Parliament has, moreover, complete control as far as the establishment of any further coloured settlements are concerned. I do not think anybody need fear that this will be a policy that will be embarked on upon a large scale. That is out of the question, but there is nothing to prevent any future House from saying that another settlement shall be established. I do not see what good my hon. friend’s amendment will do. The safeguards are ample, because Parliament will have to be consulted. I do not foresee any danger, and I hope my hon. friend will withdraw his amendment.

With leave of the House I withdraw the amendment.

Remaining amendments having been agreed to,

Bill, as amended, adopted, and read a third time.

I move, as an amendment to the words proposed to be inserted—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

The amendment proposes to omit certain words and add others which will alter the sense of that section so as to make publication of the declaration of infected areas compulsory so far as publication in a local daily newspaper is concerned instead of having it as the Minister proposes, a permissive duty on him to publish in a newspaper circulating in the district in which the area is situate if it is his pleasure to do so. I think all farmers in the House will appreciate the importance of a declaration of infection being published widely and at the earliest possible date in the area in which it has occurred. I am not pressing for publication in the Government Gazette; I want to make it obligatory to publish declarations of infection in the newspapers in the district in which the area is situate and not leave it in the province of the Minister to do it if it pleases him and not to do it otherwise. I do not think it fair to the stock owner that an infected area should exist without publication in a newspaper circulating in the district, as otherwise stock owners might blunder into an infected area and harm might be done. It is only fair that stock owners in the infected area should be appraised of the fact in the manner indicated. I am hoping that my suggestion will commend itself to the Minister. I know that the Minister’s proposal has been taken over by him from the old Act, but this does not make it necessarily as useful as the amendment I propose.

seconded.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. We talk every day of the high expenditure of the country. It is now proposed to make it compulsory for the Minister to notify in a local paper every small matter, which is absolutely unnecessary. In the old Act the Minister was allowed to decide whether it was important enough, when a disease broke out, to publish in the local paper. It always worked well, and I have literally taken over the provision. No owner has ever suffered loss on account of non-notification. Everything of importance to the district is always published.

Amendments put and negatived.

On Clause 2,

Amendment put, viz.—

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendment in lines 18 to 26 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I should like to see this Bill in its final form, printed, but I should like to ask the Minister if we take the third reading now—and I am quite prepared to assist him—if he will omit the following order of the day and then agree to the adjournment of the House.

I am very sorry that the hon. member has made the request. We have made little progress today, and it is still very early. I hope we shall continue a little longer.

As I was not in the House when the earlier stages of the Bill were taken, I should like to take this opportunity of offering a few suggestions. The Bill provides that certain agents must find security up to the sum of £200. I should like to see that amount reduced to £100. There are hundreds of small agents in such places as Cradock, Graaff-Reinet, George, Knysna and the smaller towns in the Transvaal and elsewhere whose individual annual turnover is not more than £1,000. In the case of a big auctioneer, however, the annual turnover may be from £60,000 to £100,000 a year, so in the case of the small agent, he has to provide security equal to one-fifth of the annual turnover, while the big agent gives security to the amount of, say, only one-fortieth of his annual turnover. The Bill also stipulates that account sales shall be forwarded to the seller within seven days. I read that to mean cheques, because the cheques generally accompany the account sales. But it must not be forgotten that the auctioneer also has difficulties. He does not always sell for cash, and if he wishes his sales to be successful, he frequently has to give credit. This is an advantage not only to the auctioneer, but also to the farmer, in view of the better prices which generally follow the fact that buyers have not to pay cash, but may even give bills extending up to 60 days. A further point is the provision that the bulk may be taken at the price of the first unit sold. This would be all right if the first unit were disposed of at the best price, but sometimes it happens, owing to the fact that occasionally bidders are nervous, or for some other reason, that the sum obtained for the first unit offered is the lowest price of the day. The farmer’s produce in such instances will be sacrificed. I hope the Minister will consider the points I have raised.

The hon. member has had various opportunities of moving amendments. Now he comes at the eleventh hour on the third reading and says that the guarantee is too large for the small man. During the debate by the other side I heard it said that £2,500 was too low. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. His further difficulty is that the auctioneers, who are in a large way of business, cannot send the statement to the buyers within seven days. If we make no restriction, the poor farmer who sends his goods may be made to wait months, and the Bill was introduced especially to prevent this. His third objection is that if an animal is sold at a low price, the purchaser will be able to buy all the cattle for that price. We have specially altered this because hon. members raised the point, and the seller now gives instructions as to how his property is to be sold. I therefore do not see that objection.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The old Bill provided for 25 members, but it now provides for seven or more.

It is difficult to collect more people in the thinly populated parts. We therefore want to make it easier. Seven days is required for the credit associations, and we want, as far as possible, to make the law uniform in this respect.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

As this amendment introduces a new and important principle which was not contemplated by the House when the Bill was read a second time, I am unable to put it to the committee without an instruction from the House.

Let us give the hon. member an opportunity of explaining the amendment.

As the motion is out of order, it is not in order to allow the hon. member to explain it.

Cannot the hon. member move it as an unopposed motion?

Clause as printed, put and agreed to.

New Clause 5,

I move—

1. (a) The members of the company shall be paid interest (not exceeding the rate of eight per cent, per annum) on the amount paid up by them on their respective shares.
2. (b) If after the payment of interest at the rate of eight per cent, per annum in terms of paragraph (a) any balance is available, so much thereof as may be fixed by the directors of the company (or such larger amount than the amount fixed by the directors as may be determined by the members of the company in general meeting) shall be paid into the reserve fund of the company.
3. (c) If any balance is available after the payments referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) have been made, it shall be divided equally among all the members of the company.

Agreed to.

Clause 6 put and negatived.

New Clause 6,

I move—

6. Section forty-eight of the principal Act is hereby amended—

1. (a) by the addition of the following words at the end of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1):—“provided that in the case of a company formed for the objects set forth in paragraph (r) of sub-section (1) of section four any assets remaining after repayment to existing members of the nominal value (or such lesser amount as may have been paid up) of the shares registered in their names as aforesaid shall be divided equally among all the existing members of the company.”
2. (b) by the deletion in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of all the words after “the same shall be distributed” and the substitution therefor of the following words: “among such members in proportion to the value of the contribution by each member to the society’s business during the last preceding five years or, if the society has existed for a period of less than five years, during the existence of the society.”

I move—

We have had experience in our co-operative societies that when the profits placed to the reserve are divided among the members, an injustice is done. It happens that there are farmers who have sold their agricultural produce through the society for ten years; but after ten years they have reduced their farming operations and during the last five years they have sold less. The reserve fund is only divided on the basis of the sale of produce for the last five years. Consequently they suffer considerable damage while the members, who have sold during the last few years, reap the benefit. I want to rectify this by my amendment.

Agreed to.

Proposed new clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

It would be very detrimental to the interests of co-operation if this was allowed to go through, because it will have the effect of keeping men out of co-operative societies, and I am sure the Minister has not that object in view—if you disallow co-operative societies dealing with persons who are not shareholders. You have to remember that in the past years farmers have had rather bad experiences in some cases. There are some cases where men hesitated as to whether they should take shares or not. If they are not bound down as shareholders they can find out whether they can get the services they require. You can look upon a non-shareholder as a potential shareholder. One of the objects of co-operation is to gather into the societies as many producers as possible. If you debar men from coming in unless they are shareholders you are going to keep out a number of them. I would like to refer to the disadvantage attaching to amending the 1922 Act as far as some members of the societies are concerned. It was agreed in connection with the society in which I am interested that the articles of association should stand if certain producers joined within six months. That was a solemn pact with the Government of the day, and we joined. I do not think it is fair to alter the conditions under which we came into that society under the 1922 Act. This affects other societies, and it would cut away some of the privileges under which men have joined societies to amend the 1922 Act. The Minister said that the newer societies made it a complaint against the older societies that they came under this Act, but the older societies look to the Government to carry out their side of the agreement. We have carried out our side of the undertaking, and I plead with the Minister to take our point of view with regard to the matter.

I move—

To delete the clause.

My object is more particularly to delete the proviso to this clause, and if the Minister wants to retain the other part, I have nothing against it. There are certain measures—

I want to point out to the hon. member that he is moving a new and important principle, which does not appear in the new Bill, and which also is not covered by the clause as amended. I must, therefore, rule it out of order.

I do not know whether the Chairman rightly understood me. My amendment to insert a new clause is different to the one I am now discussing. I have now moved to delete the clause, and with all respect to the Chair, I think that I am surely in order in moving that.

The hon. member has the right to move the deletion of the clause, but he cannot move the other amendment.

No, I have not come to that yet. I am only moving to delete Clause 7. The other amendment is quite another question. I want to point out to the Minister that there are companies in the Cape Province who have done work of co-operative societies, and are still doing so, and on account of there being a Co-operative Societies Act in the Cape Province they have to register in the Cape. Other companies pay a considerable tax to be registered as co-operative societies. I may say that in the case of the company to which I belong they have paid in over £3,000 to the treasury. When the Co-operative Societies Act was passed in 1923 it was rightly pointed out at the time that these companies registered under the Cape law, and which had done pioneer work in the matter of co-operation, could not be excluded under the new Act. Provision was then made that those companies, if they complied with the new co-operative Act could come in within six months as cooperative societies. That agreement was made, but not as a kind of compensation. I can quite understand that the Minister said that he would like to have it altered, but what was the result? It means in the case of those companies a breach of the agreement under which they came in, and it means to those people not only heavier taxation of a few thousand pounds, but it will in any case not result in the treasury being much assisted. Moreover, it will, on the whole, be very injurious to co-operation, and no new co-operative society that is registered will have any benefit in consequence, and that will put back the idea of co-operation. The Minister has already suggested that he should leave it to the judgment of the House, and, therefore, I hope the House will favourably consider my motion and delete the clause. If the Minister wants to retain the clause without the proviso, I have no objection, and in that case I will make my amendment only applicable to the proviso. That will suffice for me.

Just allow me to bring to the notice of the committee that this clause of the Bill gives far more privileges to co-operative societies. When losses are made no income tax is paid. But if the co-operative society sells to non-members, then it must pay income tax on the profits made thereon. Various members have pointed out to me that they joined the co-operative societies on account of the exemption obtained. I made it clear to the House that there were 300 societies who only trade with their members. These 300 now object to there being a few societies, who will be placed in the favourable position of being able to trade with non-members. The Transvaal Wool-growers’ Association, e. g., has applied to be permitted to trade just as in the case of the B.S.W. and the F.C.U. with non-members, but I refuse the application because it was never the intention of the Co-operative Societies Act. Those two societies, however, decided at that time that they wanted to reserve the right of trading with non-members and they are in a stronger position to compete to-day, so that they can pay more than the others. I know, however, that there are members like the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) who feel very strongly about this matter, and I am therefore prepared to leave it to the decision of the committee. I want to keep my word. I, however, feel this, that if we also exempt the trade that co-operative societies carry on with non-members, it is a question whether the treasury will be able to approve of the first part of the clause and lose the revenue.

I should be glad to know whether the agreements we entered into are not going to be maintained as, personally, I foresee it will give considerable trouble. Personally, I had put my reliance on the Government of the day that the agreement would be looked upon as a strict agreement so far as those co-operative societies that came under the Act were concerned. If you are going to break this practice now, what guarantees will you have for the future, if, in a year or so, there are going to be alterations. It seems a very undesirable position for these co-operative societies to find themselves in. May I ask that these old co-operative societies should be protected under that Act under which they signed on. It was on the distinct understanding that they came under that Act, and it seems grievous that they are going to be faced with alterations to that Act. There are no guarantees for the future and I ask the Minister to safeguard the old societies that came under that Act.

I hope the hon. member will not mislead the House. The hon. member says that there was an agreement. The Act was in existence, but my predecessor said that if they would alter their articles of association, they could come in under the Act. That was permitted, and the member or non-member with whom the companies had dealings when that agreement was entered into, came in, and they are in a special position. It does not, however, remain there, and every day any non-member can still do business with them. There is something in the argument as far as the members and non-members prior to 1922 are concerned, but we must ask the question whether it is fair towards new members.

Now I understand that the Minister admits that there actually was an agreement at that time.

No.

In any case there was a misunderstanding at the time, and the companies came in under it. The understanding was practically an agreement. The question to-day is whether they would have come in if the understanding had not existed. They must have paid a fairly large sum, and I feel that the companies will be brought into an inconvenient position if we follow the Minister. I support the hon. members for Cradock (Mr. Bekker) and Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly).

I do not see why you want this clause at all. If you want to encourage co-operative societies, then the Minister has full power to do that under Clause 3, section 6, whereby no co-operative agricultural society or company may deal with the products or livestock of, or supply farming requisites to, or except for the purpose of supply to its members, purchase any products or livestock from, or perform such other services as its regulations provide for members for any person who is not a member of that society or company, unless the Minister has given his consent thereto in writing on such conditions or for such periods as he may determine.

I am afraid the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) does not understand the position. It states in Section 2 that I can allow it, if so desired, and if it is essential, as in the case of milk. I have always allowed it under the old Act and I am still allowing it. There are two societies—the Boer Saamwerk and the F.C.U.—formed prior to the Act of 1922. They could deal with non-members, but I have always refused except in special cases to deal with non-members. Now the position represented by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) is that they would deal with non-members. I quite agree in regard to dealing with non-members, as far as the date that they joined the co-operative association is concerned. But what is happening to-day? They can still canvass the whole of the country, and can get non-members to deal with them to-day. That is the position. Is that true co-operation or not? Are we going to have true co-operation, and in special cases give an allowance where the co-operative society can exist, like the one which has been mentioned, or shall we leave those few societies to go in opposition against all the others that are only allowed to deal with their members? That is the position that this House must decide. There is a feeling that they would join if they knew we should ask them to pay income tax if they deal with non-members.

I just want to point out that the position under which we then worked was not restricted to members with whom we then did business. It was unlimited. I appreciate the Minister’s argument, but cannot see how it can be logically applied, because every co-operative society pays income tax of course. If the Minister feels that he needs the clause for some company or other, well and good, and if he feels that the extra concession must be given to existing organisations, prior to 1922, or which were organised thereafter, well and good. I think it will be a fair proposal to exempt from the provisions of the proviso the companies that came in under section 57 of the 1922 Act. Then they do not get any privileges, nor is any damage done then; they just remain as they are.

May I point out that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) said that it was unfair for me to move an exception now, but I find, on going into the law, that there never was an agreement. The co-operative societies were only exempted when the present Minister of Finance proposed in 1925 to exempt cooperative societies from income tax. I do not think, therefore, that an injustice is being done because no agreement existed.

I should like to point out that the agreement I am referring to is in connection with the articles of association when the officer of the department was the registrar of co-operative societies. He came to East London and discussed the matter with us for a day and a half, and it was under the condition that the Government would accept the articles of association that we came in. In the articles of association it provides what we are asking for here. I do not want the Minister of Agriculture to be under a misapprehension. I am only asking for what we decided upon in agreement with the accredited officer of the department. It would be wrong for the Agricultural Department to go back on its undertaking, and we should be exempt from these particular conditions.

I have listened to this debate with interest, and I should like to put the matter in this way, as I understand it. If I put it in this way, many members will agree that if we now pass the clause as it stands, it will amount in effect to a breach of faith with those few associations referred to. After 1922 we were allowed to come under the law. They were at that time trading with people who were not members, but who were allowed to come in and be registered as co-operative societies, although they were not trading with members. In order to join, they had to make certain financial sacrifices, and change their articles of association, and so they were treated as co-operative societies. The law in 1925 exempted the co-operative societies from income tax. Two or three societies which had been allowed to register as co-operative societies, although trading with non-members, were exempted from income tax, although, as a matter of fact, they differed from the ordinary co-operative societies. They had to make certain sacrifices in order to be registered as co-operative societies, and so in effect they were co-operative societies. If we change the law to-day, and make them pay income tax on the basis with non-members, it will amount to a breach of faith. I appeal to hon. members to stand by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. Bekker).

I am not against the amendment, but there is still something unfair here. The societies must all carry on business on behalf of their members, but if we pass this amendment, and these societies get the right of trading with non-members with exemption from income tax, they will come into unfair competition with the other societies. The Wool-growers’ Association in the Transvaal may not trade with non-members, and if it is found out that the farmer can trade with other co-operative societies of that kind without assuming any responsibility, then they will not join that association. We must treat everybody in the same way.

This may affect the Estcourt Cooperative Bacon Factory and Natal Creameries Limited which have dealings in all parts of South Africa.

In order to encourage co-operation, the treasury very reluctantly had to agree to a very unsound principle of taxation and give exemptions to the co-operative societies for the purpose of fostering co-operation. If hon. members now insist on that exemption being continued, even when the co-operative societies deal with non-members, the object we originally had in mind will be frustrated entirely. Seeing that it would be difficult to differentiate between the transactions of a co-operative society carried out with its own members and the dealings it had with non-members, the correct solution would be to return to the previous sound principle of making no exceptions in the case of these societies also formed for the purpose of trade. If hon. members are unreasonable, it is high time for us to reconsider the whole position.

The Minister is taking the wrong point of view. If the Minister does as we suggest, the treasury will not be robbed of a farthing. Co-operative societies make no profits. The money only goes back into the pockets of the farmers, who discharge their liabilities to the State when they pay their own income tax.

I cannot agree with the hon. member, for it does make a very great difference to the revenue. If cooperative societies were treated as companies, they would have to pay 2s. 6d. in the £, whereas individuals pay income tax on a very much lower rate.

The Minister seems to overlook the fact that after all a co-operative society is merely an agent for the disposal of the produce of its members. It makes no profits, it being a body of individuals bound together for the sole purpose of selling their produce, and the only deductions made by the societies are for the payment of working expenses. How, then, can the treasury tax a co-operative society ?

I am afraid the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) does not quite follow the position. We are not interfering with the agreement of 1923, as co-operative societies can trade with non-members, but in that case they will have to pay income tax on the profit they derive from transactions with non-members.

I am sorry I cannot agree on this point with my friends on this side of the House. A co-operative society might do 10 per cent, of its business with its members and 90 per cent, with non-members, yet hon. members on this side suggest that Government should not impose income tax on the 90 per cent, of the profits such a society would make on its transactions with non-members.

The Minister of Agriculture says that the tax is to be applied either to the turnover of or the profit made by cooperative societies from customers who are non-members. But co-operative societies can have no profit, therefore the tax must be assessed on the turnover of the societies with their non-members. What will happen should a society function at a loss? It does not seem equitable that it should pay income tax when it makes no profits and so has no income.

I appeal to the Minister to stand firm on this clause. It is a very wise provision he is making. He is not saying that they have to pay their ordinary taxation which the private broker has to do, and he is not putting a burden on them. What he proposes to do is very fair. There is a great outcry throughout trading circles in the country because societies have been allowed to sell without taxation and licences, and, after all these facilities, they are asking to be exempted from paying income tax on profits, mind you, from non-members. We are getting a little suspicious of the number of the non-members of two societies mentioned the other night. If it was a small thing they would not worry, and why are certain hon. members getting so anxious? We have heard a very interesting thing to-night from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) in regard to the agreement with the Government. Had such an agreement been known, there would have been an uproar in the country. I congratulate the Minister on the stand he is taking, which is fair and reasonable, and I am supporting him.

Clause put; and “ayes” declared to have it.

I ask for a division.

It is too late.

Might I ask what your ruling was, Mr. Chairman?

The clause can be put again and a division taken if the committee has no objection.

The hon. member is a new member, and the Chairman was rather quick.

Upon which the committee divided:

I want to tell the hon. members, whose amendments I have ruled out of order, that they can, of course, move to report progress and ask leave to sit again, so that they can make their proposals.

On Clause 8,

I move—

This clause is going to do co-operation a great deal of harm. You may have a co-operative society not meeting the requirements of some of its members, and it will be impossible for them, because of this compulsory clause to resign. I agree that with regard to articles like butter and tobacco, where forward contracts have to be made, a man should be bound to a society, but with wool and mohair the position is different. A man should be able to shift his custom to where he can get the service he requires. This compulsory clause will be taken advantage of by the societies.

I move—

The object of my amendment is, as provision is being made to impose a fine on members of co-operative societies in areas where the compulsory provisions of the Act of 1925 are in force, to make them also apply to the buyer of the produce. I think that no one will object to this. As the farmer, the seller, is obliged to sell his produce to the co-operative societies, it is no more than right that anyone else who, for his own benefit, wants to tempt the farmer to sell to him, shall also be made liable to the fine. A few days ago we had a congress in Cape Town where particularly tobacco farmers strongly urged this principle. It is only the tobacco farmer who comes under it. The last speaker (Mr. Hockly) fears that the wool farmers will be prosecuted under this. The compulsory provisions of the Act of 1925 do not apply to wool, therefore the wool farmers cannot come under this. It applies only to the tobacco farmers now, and I am glad that the Minister, who was present at the congress, accepted it, and promised to support it. It was only reasonable, as the seller is obliged to sell to the co-operative societies, that the man who tempts them to sell outside their society should also be liable to the fine.

I wish to clear up the points raised by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly). I would like to call attention to sub-section (5) of the original Act, which provides—

I just want to say that I cannot accept the motion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly). The compulsory provision is, as the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has explained, only applicable to tobacco farmers. There is not the least intention to apply it to wool farmers. Regarding the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux), I think there is much in favour of it. In the past it happened that a co-operative society entered into an agreement and unfortunately there were then unscrupulous people who went and sold their produce in the compulsory area to some one else. Penalty was very light, and it is now being changed into £100. The hon. member now proposes that the fine should not only apply to the seller, but also the purchaser. It is not fair that the man who knows that the farmer in the compulsory area may not sell to him, can go and tempt the poor man to sell him his tobacco. I therefore support the amendment.

Then I would like to say that if that is not included, I will withdraw my motion.

With leave of the committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Hockly withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Mr. le Roux put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

We have facilitated the passing of more than one stage in three Bills, and the fourth Bill is practically finished as well. It is fair that the House should adjourn now.

The order paper is very full and the Bill very short. I have met the Opposition with regard to the amendment of quite a number of provisions, and I think the Bill now coming on will be through in five minutes.

I assure the Minister it will take longer.

When the Bill is passed we can go home.

I support the remarks of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige).

The Minister has considerably altered this Bill after our debate. He said the other day that the farmers’ associations are satisfied to include wheat in the articles which will come under the Bill. That may be a good thing for those who sell wheat wholesale. But there are also cases where our people sell wheat by retail. The bywoner sometimes buys a few bags, and then there are those parts of the district that do not produce wheat, so that the farmers buy from each other. As the Bill reads, all these people must be subjected to this kind of regulation. The wheat must be in a specific kind of bag. It must be weighed and all the regulations must be carried out. If the farmers do not carry out the strict regulations, they are subject to a fine. The Minister may say that his intention is to be fair, but it is the officials who have to carry out the regulations. Take the liquor law. The police officials are prosecuting the people, and administering the Act most strictly. The Minister is powerless, because it is the law of the land. It would be the same in this case. There would be much trouble in our country. I thought that we could make arrangements to insert a certain provision that certain sales of small quantities would not fall under the regulations.

Clause put and negatived.

New Clause 1,

Let me say at once that when I come to the regulations it is my intention to so draft them as not to press heavily in the cases mentioned by the hon. member. But if he wants to take out wheat let him propose it. The people with whom he had the meeting wanted us to include wheat in the Bill. I said that I would not stand on what articles were to be included, but would leave it to the House to decide, and to make an alteration if members wish. I hope, however, that the hon. member will not object. I shall make the regulations fair, because I do not want to give the people trouble. I move—

I do not intend to move that anything be left out. I refer the Minister to the trouble there was, and ask for time to find a solution. The Minister refused my request and is forcing the Bill through the committee.

With the principle of free voluntary co-operation I agree. When such co-operation gradually gets into the hands of a department of the Government anxious to retain all the powers and to impose irksome regulations on the freedom and liberty of the people concerned, then it is a very different matter. We are drifting fast in that direction. It is proposed here, as it is proposed in other Bills, to create an army of highly paid people who are to be engaged in carrying out the regulations proposed, not only in regard to wool but other things, and all of whom have to live out of the profits of these various industries. An amount of red tape sufficient to strangle the industries of the country. So far as wool is concerned, we are getting no benefit at all from the regulations. I ask the Minister whether we are likely to profit at all by the levy which has been asked for. Wool is going down in price, and we are doing our best to hamper the farmers, and increase its cost of production.

Clause 1, and Clause 1 only, is under discussion.

I am dealing with the amendment which the Minister has just moved.

There is nothing about dairying in that clause.

If this amendment becomes Clause 1 of the Bill then these regulations will follow it.

There are other clauses to the Bill.

I am quite prepared to abide by the Chairman’s ruling.

The hon. member is as usual totally wrong. Here there are just five products included, namely, wheat, wool, hides and skins, lucerne and tobacco. Any other produce can only be included with the approval of both Houses.

I quite agree that the Minister of Agriculture has made the matter quite clear to us. Am I to understand that oranges are not included in this Bill?

Only five products.

I was referring to wool, which is one of the articles included in this, and provision is made here for the marketing and packing of wood. Is that not so?

Yes.

Well, that is the point I am dealing with. In referring to the levy, I was, perhaps, out of order, but I object to the restrictions that have been placed upon the liberties of the wool grower, restrictions which call for certain inspection, etc., and which are the cause of the creation of an army of inspectors, all of whom must live out of the profits of the wool grower. Now I do not see where the wool farmer is going to benefit by this at all. As a matter of fact, we are paying 78 per cent, more to-day to get our wool down to the coast than we were paying in pre-war periods, and we are getting nothing at all for it. I should like any member if this House or the hon. Minister, to indicate where the wool grower has profited to any extent in the slightest degree by the protective policy that has been inaugurated by this Government, and now we are busy with further regulations, all of which are going to impose not only expense to the wool grower, but they are irksome and unnecessary. For the Government to insist on regulations such as are suggested here will not benefit us one little bit. Research work will benefit other countries far more than it will South Africa and the expense will not proportionately compensate our growers in any way.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

I feel that the word “pack” is not comprehensive enough. If the articles referred to are to be properly marketed they must not only be well packed, but also well graded, otherwise the object of the Bill will not be attained.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment, as we already have an Act dealing with the grading of produce, while this is a specific measure regarding the packing and marking of produce. The amendment would complicate things terribly and would bring in an extraneous feature which would be highly undesirable.

On a point of order—is the amendment in order seeing that the Bill deals with packing and marking, and the amendment appears to introduce a new principle ?

On the grounds mentioned by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) I do not think I can put the amendment without an instruction from the House.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

We have a good many Acts in this country under which inspectors are appointed. The Minister of Labour has numerous inspectors, and it has never been asked that the employer or employees must pay a fee for the visit of an inspector. Take the Factory Act, you have inspectors there, but I have never heard of an owner or operatives being asked to pay a fee. You have the Health Department and you can allude to Housing Acts, under which inspectors are appointed, but in none do you find that when premises, articles or the conditions of labour are inspected is the owner made to pay. I can understand under the wool levy a portion is asked to carry out the objects to which the levy is devoted. I do think you should omit saddling the owner with the cost of the inspectors.

May I ask the hon. member not to press it. The object is not to unnecessarily burden the people. When produce for export overseas is graded, a small fee is charged, but if anything is to be done on a large scale, then we must be protected that we do not have to do it for nothing.

If the Minister will not accept it, I am not going to press it. The Minister was good enough to say that in this Bill he was going to leave it to the House to decide themselves. I put it to him to leave us a free hand.

It would be useless to accept amendments which would dislocate the whole Bill.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

I put it to the Minister that £30 for the first offence is too much. Take the law of common assault. Judging by the sentences passed by our courts a man can knock his wife about and black both eyes and a five pound fine covers the offence.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 10th February.