I have to announce that notice of objection to the adoption of the third report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, presented to this House yesterday, having been handed to me by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), it now becomes necessary for a date to be fixed for the consideration of the report.

I suggest that we consider the report on Monday next.

Will the Minister make it Monday week ?

Yes.

Report to be considered on 31st March.

I want to inform the House that the Government has decided to appoint a commission to enquire into—

1. (1) The economic and social conditions of natives, especially in the larger towns of the Union;
2. (2) The application to natives in urban areas of the existing laws relating to the regulation of wages and conditions of employment and for dealing with industrial disputes and/or the desirability of any modification of these laws or of providing other machinery for such purposes;
3. (3) The economic and social effect upon the European and coloured population of the Union of the residence of natives in urban areas and the measures, if any, to be adopted to deal with surplus natives in, and to prevent the increasing migration of natives to, such areas;
4. (4) What proportion of the public revenue is contributed by the native population directly and indirectly. What proportion of the public expenditure may be regarded as necessitated by the presence of, and reasonably chargeable to, the native population.

It was not my intention to make this announcement until the personnel of the commission had been completed, but circumstances have arisen which make it desirable that the House should know exactly what the Government has in contemplation. As soon as the personnel of the commission has been completed, I will inform the House of the names of the members.

I recognize that it is now too late for the submission of the motion to a select committee, but I venture to hope that during the recess, the Government will give the matter most serious attention. With regard to the remarks made by the Minister of Mines, I think it is a pity that the hon. the Minister should have attempted to cold shoulder this motion. The Minister has had no experience of gold mining. As to the speech of the Minister of Defence I am bound to say that if the mining industry had been actuated in the spirit of his remarks, it would not have been the success and of the benefit to the country that it has been. Since his political apostasy, however, he has become, as far as the Government is concerned “dust and ashes dead and done with.” The motion before the House does not emanate from the mining houses. The mining houses are managing the mines very well on behalf of their shareholders and in some cases almost entirely on behalf of the staff and the men working on the mines as so many of the mines are not making a profit. But the mining houses are not now undertaking any fresh responsibilities or going in for new ventures. Nor does this motion emanate from any capitalistic source. I regret that the capitalists have been driven away. They have gone to other parts of the British empire; they have gone to Canada and Trinidad and other places. The Government should realize that the much despised capitalist and the British investor are as necessary to gold mining as dynamite or cyanide or native labour. I would like to inform the members on the other side of the House that the British are not all saints; they do not turn the other cheek lightly, or suffer fools gladly. Neither does this motion emanate from the British Empire Marketing Board. That ought to be welcome news to our friends on the other side who give liking unto nothing not hammered on their own anvil and many of whom would sacrifice their own people to carry out their personal spleen. The motion is an expression of the opinion of the people of the Transvaal, and of Johannesburg more particularly, that something should be done to determine, in our day, whether the low-grade mines can be worked and what will be the material loss and the compensating gain to our white population and the Union generally. This is not a party question, because it involves the welfare of every man, woman and child throughout the Union. It is too late to have a select committee, but this is too urgent a matter, in my opinion, to be the subject of a mere departmental enquiry. I think a commission should be appointed to be comprised of the state mining engineer, the leading mining engineers of the Rand, the leading mine managers, and representatives of the Chamber of Mines and of the trades unions, so that they can all get together and formulate some scheme for the working of these mines. They should also ascertain whether our working mines could be induced to mill a certain quantity of low-grade ore, and to what extent the life of the present mines would thus be extended, and what compensation would be necessary to compensate the mines for working their low-grade ore? On the broad issue, a commission of enquiry could go into the matter of greater working of the present Main Reef which has been touched very slightly up to now. The reefs worked on the Rand are mostly the South Leader and one or two others, but the great body of the Main Reef has been very little touched. There are a few mines which get fair results, but it should be open to the commission to find out whether that great body of ore could be profitably worked or not. Then, with regard to the Battery Reef, quite a large proportion of this is now being worked. In recent times the Consolidated Main Reef Company has been working the Bird Reef with I believe good results. Then also, we have the Kimberley Reef which has never been touched, and other reefs which have not been explored. If these reefs were exploited in a proper manner, great bodies of ore might be found profitable to the great advantage of the Union. I read an extract from what was said by Prof. Prescott the other day; he is one of the greatest authorities on mining in the world: Referring to low-grade mining, he said—

That goes to show that the low-grade mines can and should be worked. Then the mining commission should extend their inquiries to find out by experiment whether a mine could be worked with all white labour, with a guaranteed minimum wage; secondly, if coloured labour could be found to work the low-grade mines; and thirdly, whether it would not be possible to work a low-grade mine with native labour entirely. If this could be done, it would be found that many mines at present not working at all could be brought into operation. The native is an excellent mine-worker, if given a good wage, and reasonable conditions. That is one of the ways in which the urbanized native could possibly be employed, and it would also give an opening to white people in other industries. I commend this point strongly to the Minister of Mines and Industries. While on the subject, I wonder what Great Britain would give to have this great stretch of mineralized ore from Springs to Randfontein. To-day in Great Britain they are mining millions of tons of coal which is marketable, but has to be sold at less than the world’s price. In this country we have only to produce the gold, and we can get a fixed price for it. If any European country had the advantage of our reef, their unemployed problem would be solved for generations. There is also a possibility as time goes on, gold may grow scarcer and the price may then go up, and low-grade ore may become more profitable. This is not a parochial matter; many industrial concerns have been able to succeed through Government assistance. Ministers in the past have lacked faith, imagination, vision and ordinary commonsense, and it seems to me to be impossible that anybody possessing these attributes could fail to make some attempt to get this gold out of the earth and use it. The Rand gold-mining industry is the biggest industry in the world. Owing to the topsy-turvy condition of affairs in this country, we have never had a Minister who knew his job or had any sympathy with the mining industry, and in this respect the late Government were not entirely blameless; although it is only fair to say that shortly after Union the great war broke out, and the country could not proceed with the exploitation of the mines on the Rand. On the contrary, successive Governments have been heaping disabilities on the mines. High rates of coal, and high rates of food and clothing and everything the mines use have added to these disabilities, but the greatest direct imposition is in regard to miners’ phthisis. As almost everyone knows, miners’ phthisis is common to all countries where there is reef mining, particularly reef gold mining; but every man and woman in this country has benefitted by the gold industry on the Rand, and it seems to me that the people of the Union should bear some portion of the liability which attaches to the mines on account of miners’ phthisis. We have all benefitted one way or another, and I think it is only fair that in some way we should also directly shoulder some portion of the burden. Take the Crown Mines. Their liabilities to-day under the Miners’ Phthisis contribution amounts to nearly £700,000. That is one mine alone which has to provide for compensation to miners in respect of miners’ phthisis, the sum of £700,000. Their liabilities do not end there. There is a potential liability attaching to every mine. If a mine goes out and cannot pay its portion of the contribution, that contribution can be passed on to the working mines. It is a tremendous handicap. It is a tremendous tax in regard to miners’ phthisis. The mines have not asked that they should be released from the liability on account of the mines which have ceased working, but I think that they might ask that such an imposition should be ended. Two years ago, when the matter came before this House, we were told that the further increase of benefits to dependents would amount to nearly £800,000. That has now increased to £1,500,000. In connection with the working mines, it is not asked that they should be relieved of the liability, but I suggest that any new venture coming forward in the country, with regard to the working and development of low-grade ores should be exempted from these heavy contributions to the Miners’ Phthisis fund. Millions have been spent by the Government on every other department of the Government, but taking the mining industry from the beginning, scarcely anything has been done for it. Every progressive development in the mining industry, every progressive advance in scientific research, the water supply of Johannesburg, the Institute for Physical Research, the beginning of the great electrical power supply—all these undertakings, and many others, have been done on the initiative of the mines and mostly by the money of the mines themselves. They have come to the Government for so little that the Government are giving them less than nothing. Through the impetus of the gold mining industry all the farms and farming, and agricultural development throughout the country in those allied industries have gone ahead by leaps and bounds. If through some unforeseen circumstances the mines on the Rand were to close down tomorrow, the condition of the Union would be very parlous indeed. It is inconceivable that anything of that kind can happen, but there it is. The agricultural industry, industrial development, and indeed every development going on in the Union to-day is, in one way or another, directly attributable to the gold mining industry of the Rand. There is another point of grievance and it is as well to ventilate our grievances when we have a chance. It is rather customary in this House to look askance at anything coming from Johannesburg or from the Transvaal.

Ikona.

Why we are suspect I do not know, but the fact remains that we are suspect. That does not apply to hon. members on this side of the House from the Transvaal only; it also applies to hon. members of the House from the Transvaal who are on the other side of the House. And let me say these early pioneers were big men, they made big mistakes, as big men will do and have done since the world began. But they laid, surely, the foundations of the prosperity of South Africa, and they laid, surely, the foundations of that wonder city of Johannesburg of which we are so proud. I think I have said sufficient to prove that if we want to go on with low-grade mining we must enlist the sympathy of the mining houses. I believe that if the Government resolutely determine to exploit the low-grade mining areas on the Rand, they will come to our assistance again, as they have done in the past. This scheme of low-grade mining is a great adventure, and I do not believe that failure can possibly obtain. At all events, complete failure is a remote possibility. We are bound to have some bright spots in mining. It seems to me to be impossible that great wealth should lie within a few feet of the surface of the ground and not be utilized. I know that the members of the Government despised and have no great love for the capitalists and financiers. It is, however, within the knowledge of this House, and of those connected with the Rand that when Barnato Brothers had fulfilled their contract and put up all the money required under their contract the Government Areas were still in unpayable rock. To the undying credit of Barnato Brothers they agreed to put up another £250,000, and with this extra money they developed what is to-day the greatest gold mine in the world. If you spend the necessary money anything might result. There is another point about our gold mines. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, wo have probably greater wealth in our gold mines on the Rand than we have in all our coalfields, or iron and steel industries, and it is perhaps greater than the wealth of the copperfields in Northern Rhodesia. It is all lying there to be proved. If the House will bear with me for a short time, I propose to deal with some figures. As everybody knows, figures can be as untruthful as any ordinary man can be untruthful. I have tried to keep within bounds, and I wish to give the House an idea of what it may cost to produce a certain amount of gold. These are the results I have arrived at. Assuming that we can mine 50,000 tons of ore at, say, 14s. a ton, that would yield us £35,000 in gold and would cost us £45,000, the apparent loss being £10,000. What I want to make the House understand is that the £45,000 which we spend to produce £35,000 of bullion, is not poured into the ground. It is distributed in wages, farming produce and mining stores generally. To take a year, we find that in the course of a year if we mine 600,000 tons we would have to spend £540,000. That is spent in farming produce, in wages, in mining stores and in everything that the mines require. The important point is that that money would not go out of the country. For that £540,000 spent the Government would receive £420,000 in bullion, and there would be a paper loss of £120,000, but as the Government get at least 4s. per ton (and probably a good deal more) from taxation, it follows that the Government do not lose a penny and we bring another £420,000 into circulation. Unemployment in the Union is rife; not only poor people want work, but there are people in every grade of life seeking employment. They want better wages and a higher standard of living, and I believe the solution is to be found in the exploitation of this mining ground. We spend millions of money on education, but when our children leave school we cannot find them occupation, and we lose heaps of money in keeping them in blind alley occupations. Of course it is no disgrace to a man to work on the roads, or in a humble capacity on the railways, but neither of them form a great object in life for young South Africans, and it would be much better to put them in the mines and teach them not only mining, but engineering, surveying, plumbing, carpentry, pipelaying and many of the other occupations that are incidental to mining. Then after they have been trained here if they cannot find work in South Africa they can go to other countries and make a decent living. The proposal opens up such great prospects for the good of our people that we cannot afford to neglect it. Under present circumstances the ordinary South African boy or girl has very little chance of obtaining employment. I am told that for every white man working on the mines seven other white persons are as a result found employment in other capacities. So, if we can get 10,000 people to work on the mines, employment will as well be given to 70,000 other persons. Surely that is something to strive for. I hope the Minister of Mines and Industries and the Minister of Justice will take the matter up very seriously, and will not be discouraged by people telling them it cannot be done.

I think the House will agree with what the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) has said, but it is too late to appoint a select committee at this stage. The Government has already made it clear through the Minister of Mines that in its opinion an enquiry by a select committee will not be effective. The pros and cons, however, now fall away, because everyone must agree that a select committee at this stage can do no proper work. The Government, however, thinks that an enquiry will have a good effect and, for this reason, it is prepared to consider the institution of an effective enquiry as soon as possible. I want to ask hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé), to leave it to the Government to decide what the most effective enquiry will be, a technical enquiry, an inter departmental enquiry, or even, possibly, an enquiry by a commission. It is a matter on which the Government will have to consult its technical advisers, and also the mines who have not expressed their official views here. It goes without saying that they must be consulted about the best method of enquiry. The Government is, therefore, ready to institute at once an effective enquiry which will take one of the three forms I have indicated. I should be glad to know whether the hon. member for Springs in the circumstances, seeing that no good work can any longer be done at that stage by a select committee, will be prepared to withdraw the motion.

I do not speak as one having special knowledge of the mines, but as a representative of a farming constituency. I must frankly acknowledge that in past years there was not too much friendly feeling, shall I say, on the part of the farmers towards the mines. I am not going into the reasons for that. But with the passing of time it became clear, and it is especially clear to-day, to what a great extent the farmers depend on the mines, and especially on the continued existence of the gold mines. I have listened with great pleasure to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey). The gold mines produce an article which has a standard value. At present it is practically the only industry in South Africa that does so. It can, therefore, be considered that the industry rests on a solid foundation, and if we can in a fair way support such an industry we are doing good work and taking a step in the direction of the continuous development of the resources of South Africa. I always held the view that there must be co-operation between the gold mines and the farmers, because in proportion as the one develops the other also must be assisted, so that neither of the two industries is smothered to death. We are now dealing with the low-grade mine. Out of 32 mines there are 17 that are put into the class known as low-grade mines. It is a serious state of affairs, and we must try to remedy it. It shows us that, although the gold mines will still last a long time, they are, nevertheless, a vanishing asset, and we must prepare agriculture against the day when the mines disappear. If, at present, we did not have the mines, I should like to see what our economic position would be. As an agricultural people we are dependent on the mines. They use South African produce amounting to £10,000,000 a year. Then there is the further consideration that £15,000,000 is paid out in wages and salaries. What an enormous source of maintenance and construction does this not mean in economic matters. I am, therefore, glad to see that the Government intends to take steps in the direction suggested by my hon. friends. The Minister of Defence said that there had already been commissions and committees of enquiry. There was an enquiry in 1918 and another in 1920. The position, however, is that we cannot have too much enquiry, because we are concerned here with a matter affecting the economic foundations of South Africa, and we must remember that the commission of 1920 made enquiry in an abnormal time when the gold premium existed. To-day it no longer exists, and therefore I think that the least we can do is to make an enquiry. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) has not only rendered a service to the area where he lives, but this motion is in the interests of the whole country now that we are to get the enquiry. Whether he will be satisfied with the enquiry promised by the Minister I do not know. As for a select committee, I agree with the Minister of Justice that the time is a little short for a full enquiry, and as the Minister has stated that all the interested persons will be consulted, I think the enquiry will have a good result. I am only sorry that it did not take place before. Of the £10,000,000 of South African produce, one-third or about £3,000,000 in value is bought by the low-grade mines, and if these are no longer able to do so the country will have a big setback. £5,000,000 is paid in wages by the low-grade mines. We often talk about our young men who are given a scientific education that we cannot find work for them; that does not only apply to persons with degrees, but to all our young people who have been technically trained, and one of the chief methods to improve that state of affairs is to support a great industry like this.

I intended to move an amendment, but as the Minister has said that an enquiry will take place, I shall not do so before I have heard whether the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) is going to accept the Minister’s proposal.

I will not detain the House long, but I just want to say that I heartily agree with the motion, insofar as it asks for the institution of a proper enquiry. An enquiry has indeed been made from time to time, but we had the last proper enquiry about five years ago. We know that circumstances have changed very much, especially recently. Take, e.g., the last 20 years, the position has changed very much during that time and also the experts have changed their theories very much on certain points. The theory in the olden days used to be that only the central Rand contained gold, later the west Rand, then the east Rand, and now also the southeast Rand. Therefore, I think the Government ought to take steps to have another enquiry made, and for that purpose, I will move an amendment, which, I think, will provide a proper solution. We all realize that gold is one of the most important products of our country, but I do not agree with the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) that the mining industry has not been sympathetically treated by the Government. I think he erred there, because since the time this Government came into office the mines have been very sympathetically treated. The industry cannot complain, they have also done well, and had various record productions, and we are entitled to a little more gratitude from the mines. I do not know whether the hon. member spoke on behalf of the mines, but I am also fairly well acquainted with the mining industry, and, as far as I know, the mines are fairly well satisfied with the treatment received from this Government, and the Government, moreover, intends to treat the industry well in future. I am convinced that the present Minister of Mines and Industries, even if he has not been long in office, will do everything in his power, when it is necessary to do something on behalf of the mining industry. I just want to refer to one point more, and that is how hopeless our technical men sometimes are. I do not say that I do not believe in them, but they have already made very great mistakes in the past. We had the case of the engineers complaining that the reef did not go beyond the Kleinfontein mine. The hon. member for Springs is well acquainted with it, but I am not certain whether he held that view at that time. At that time we had old prospectors, I was one of them, who said that the gold reef went further, but we were not able to convince the technical experts. Mines, therefore, started at Springs, but they were coal mines, and in developing those mines they found that there was also gold, and so the whole theory of the experts was upset. Perhaps there are still experts who say that the gold reef does not go further. In 1921 a cable was sent to England, and I am sorry to say that I believe the hon. member for Springs also had a part in it, which stated that the reefs to the Nigel mine would not be payable. England wanted to invest money in the mine, but the result was that England would not invest money in mines in that district. A short time after it was, however, proved that that area was the richest gold area, because no less than five ounces a ton were got in the Sub-Nigel. I think that an enquiry should be made into those reefs, because, according to information, they run another 30 or 40 miles further, but they have never been properly developed. If, however, proper enquiry is made to see what the quality of those reefs is, then it is possible that we shall find that the best goldfields are still undeveloped. It may possibly be said that this is a little optimistic, but if only the reefs are worked on the south-east Rand, then we shall be able to give work to all the poor whites in the country. There may possibly be difficulties in connection with the necessary native labour, but I trust that those difficulties will be got over by the wise Government we now possess. My amendment coincides with the alteration which the Minister of Justice has suggested. It reads—

To omit “select committee” and to substitute “technical committee, departmental committee or commission of enquiry”; and to omit all the words after “Witwatersrand” and to substitute “in so far as the main reef extends and matters in connection therewith”.

Hon. members see that I want to make the proposal a little wider, so that matters in connection with those reefs can also be investigated and a report made. I hope the Minister will agree to accept my amendment, because I am certain that it will solve the whole question.

seconded the amendment.

The speech of the Minister of Justice was the most welcome sign we have had, because it shows that the Government consider that something is required, and that something is going to be done. One does not like the suggestion that it is too late for a select committee. If we look at this motion we shall find that it is a very simple one. It wants an enquiry into one particular subject, and one only, and it is quite unlike many of the motions which have called for select committees in the past. I think that if the idea that it is too late for a select committee finds favour, the feature of the motion I have mentioned should be borne in mind. I prefer to support the original motion, though the amendment may have something to recommend it. I support the original motion the more readily because of the mover. If any hon. member in this House, or any man in the country, has earned the right to speak on this subject, it is the hon. the mover. I remember, too, that he was chairman of the Low Grade Mines Commission, and the informative report which many of us have studied from time to time is a document still of very great value. But it is well to look at the difference between the motion and the commission which dealt with low-grade mines. The order of reference of that commission was very wide. They were to enquire, for instance, into the position of all mines working at a loss, the effect of any of those mines closing down, into what steps should be taken by the Government to obviate the closing down of any of those mines, the position of native and coloured labour, mine supplies, general costs, and a great many other important matters. There is little comparison between the present motion and what it asks for, and the wider reference of the Low Grade Mines Commission. Consequently, I would argue that even at this stage of the session there is ample time for a select committee. The select committee of 1918 has been referred to, but that select committee was in a very different position, and we have got to remember that it devoted little consideration to anything but a Government subsidy. Now there is no question here at all of a Government subsidy. In the motion it is left entirely open. What is wanted is an enquiry. There are many possible ways of bringing about the necessary help in order that this great asset of the state shall be worked. Relying on the Mining Commission of 1922 for our figures, we are probably not putting up the best possible case to the Minister. It has been suggested that the position to-day in regard to low-grade ore is considerably better than it was found by the commission of 1922, but we are obliged to present these figures because we have none of a later date. This shows it is a good thing to have these enquiries, because they produce figures of value to the country at a time like this. The first consideration is that 220,000,000 tons of ore which will run between 3 and 4½ dwts., which can be worked for a small consideration, and the benefits will accrue to South Africa. According to estimates we require a reduction of 6s. per ton in order to work the whole of that ore. That may seem a small amount, but on 220,000,000 tons it represents a considerable figure. But there is a further asset of almost equal value; a further 220,000,000 tons scattered over the various areas throughout the Rand. It would be a rather more difficult matter to work this second 220,000,000, but there is 440,000,000 tons of ore. I need not tell the House the value of that ore. The great reason for immediate enquiry is that by the reduction of 1s. a ton, 3,500,000 tons of ore would become available, and we have to bear in mind that some of this is disappearing daily. Here is a great (asset with every possibility of being entirely lost, though at present it can be utilized for the benefit of South Africa. Now what will the Government get out of such a venture? The Government profit is estimated at £400,000 per annum. It may be a good thing to spend a certain amount of money to obtain that profit, because, if the Government have not paid more than the revenue it will receive the balance is all profit. The part of the money that will go to the producer will also be profit, and we have evidence that this can be done at the cost of 1s. a ton. I believe the Minister hesitated to refer this matter to a select committee because of the expense.

There is no comparison between the expense of a select committee and that of a commission.

That is one of my points, but the proposal is to refer it to a select committee. It is the cheapest form of enquiry, and in all probability the quickest. If the Minister hesitated to undertake this expense of a commission, there are many men who would undertake it.

Will they pay the expenses of the commission ?

I am sure that the Minister, if he is in any difficulty in regard to the expenses of the commission, will find that there are different men who will be pleased to help him out. I do say this that an enquiry, or a commission, is very necessary in the light of new technical knowledge and in the light of experience that is being gained since the Low Grade Mines Commission report of 1920. I am quite certain that such information will be gained that will be not only helpful to the mining industry, but really helpful to the country. I should like to have seen such a report to study before we get the Kleinfontein enquiry. That report, I understand, is on the Table of the House to-day. When that mine closed down it is quite fair to say that if we had known the position precisely of this asset of which we speak to-day on the Witwatersrand, the Government Would have been in a very different position to handle that mine than simply to appoint a commission to take evidence and report. In all probability, the report will be nothing to what the country desires and expects. No, if it were possible, and I believe it is possible, and I was very glad of the hon. Minister’s intervention, if it is still possible to have a select committee during the present session, it should be done. I think if the hon. Minister will accept my point and examine it, it will be such a confined reference and so small in comparison to other commissions which have taken place, that there is plenty of time to appoint that commission and for it to carry out its task during the present session. Let us not be faint-hearted over this. There does not seem to be any difference of opinion in that we have there a great asset, that that asset is available and the earliest possible enquiry should be made. I should be extremely sorry to rush the Government into a commission if a select committee will fulfil the object. I should be sorry to press for that expenditure. I am certain that a great asset is there and is daily and monthly disappearing, and to-day we are looking at it, and the longer we look at it and the longer we leave it there, the greater the difficulties are and the less likelihood there is of our bringing it out. If we get a select committee, whatever Government reports may follow, I am sure that select committee will be of great use to the Minister. I appreciate the hon. Minister’s position in leaving the decision to the House. At this stage I think that he should make up his mind, instead of leaving this decision to the House, to accept the motion of the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé), and it will be something bright during the present gloomy outlook. If you decide to have a select committee to-day and this country feels that this great asset is going to be worked, I feel that this so-called depression will look lighter. It may not be lighter, but it will look lighter. There will be work for a large number of white people, and there will be use for the farmers’ produce, and we shall give the people of this country greater confidence than they have had in the past. That is wanted in these days of so-called depression. I support the motion of the hon. member for Springs, and I hope it will be accepted, and that the simple process of appointing a select committee will bring into action this great body of ore which means so much to the Transvaal and, indeed, to South Africa.

As an ordinary citizen, and as a farmers’ representative, I should like to give this motion my very hearty blessing and support. When the Minister discussed this matter the other day, he intimated that he really did not know much about mining concerns. He was quite frank about it, and I appreciate that he has not yet had time to delve into the whole question and get a better knowledge of it. But surely that is one of the strongest reasons we can put to him for accepting a motion of this kind. The Minister said further that the mines themselves, the Chamber of Mines, has not approached him on this question. Now I can very well conceive of the reluctance of the companies to work mines which barely pay the costs, or that do not satisfy the costs of working. So that we should not expect to be approached by the Chamber of Mines in this connection. The country, however, does approach the Minister. It has been pointed out very clearly and eloquently by the mover of this motion what an amount of work and trade spring from a single individual mine, be it low grade or not. It affords employment for thousands and hundreds of thousands of natives, and in proportion as natives are employed so also whites. The markets and the trade which result from such employment, to the farmers and others is tremendous, and we are looking for markets to-day. Are we going to allow this wealth to lie there undeveloped? We do not appreciate what an asset we have in our black labour in this country, our cheap black labour. I have tried to point out in connection with our railways what it means, how much they have done, and on the mines too. But for that labour our mines would not have developed or progressed at all, or l have progressed very little indeed. Let us compare our position with what has happened in Australia. We know that many mines there, which are infinitely richer than numbers of ours are, have been closed down long ago or undeveloped in consequence of their high cost of labour. One feature which it has been a pleasure to me to note is that whereas a few years ago if one went about the country as I have in my district and elsewhere, the popular cry was: “Tax the mines and relieve the farmers. The mines will be worked out in a few years, and we shall have left only a few gaping holes in the ground.” That was the argument, but you do not find that spirit existing to the same extent to-day. Farmers are realizing that it is to the interests of the country that they should be sympathetic towards the mines and should try to encourage them. Look at what the mines mean, not only to our general trade, but to the railways, etc. I hope the Minister will realize the importance of the subject.

What objection have you to the amendment ?

I do not object to the amendment, but the motion is better and has been carefully thought out by an expert of great experience. If we work upon that idea and support the proposal of the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) we shall be taking a step in the right direction.

In reply to the debate, I will preface my remarks by referring to a report on the New Kleinfontein mine laid on the Table this afternoon by the Minister of Mines and Industries. It is a most valuable document and a report such as I would expect from the present technical head of the Mines Department. I would ask the Minister to publish it as soon as possible as it contains information, valuable not only to the mining industry, but to the country at large. Paragraph 64 of the report states—

If any justification is needed for my remarks in proposing the motion, it is to be found in this report. I proposed that motion on the 4th February, and the report is dated 22nd February. I think a perusal of this report has no doubt brought about a change of heart among the members of the Government, and has led to the amendment put forward to-day. I would now like to reply to some of the criticism which has been offered in the course of the debate. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), who is not here to-day, blames me for coming forward on a very pessimistic note. I do not know why I should be blamed for that. I am accustomed to face facts as they are. The fact is that we have a large amount of low-grade ore. I stuck closely to my muttons and did not waste time wandering all over the field and referring to mines which did not come within the scope of my motion. Then he said I asked for a subsidy. I never mentioned the word “subsidy” or any other similar remedy, although it might have been in my mind. He also referred to the Low Grade Mines Commission of 1920, and said he noticed that my name figured as its chairman. I should draw attention to the vast difference between the conditions of 1918, when a select committee reported on the low-grade mines, and of 1920, when this commission reported, as compared to the conditions of to-day. In 1918, the position arose immediately out of the war, and there was no premium on gold, and the low-grade mines were struggling their hardest against adverse conditions. The 1918 select committee made no recommendations that were of any value, merely stating that a direct subsidy was not feasible, but the position in regard to the 1920 commission was entirely different. When it was appointed in 1919, the position was very much the same as in the year before, the commission springing directly out of the report of the select committee. A month after the appointment of the commission, it was suddenly found that gold was at a premium, the price rising rapidly to 30 per cent. above its normal value; that cleared the air at once, and there were no struggling low-grade mines, all of them having been rescued by the premium. That naturally induced an entirely different attitude, and the commission showed how the position of the mines could be alleviated, but it did not think there was any great urgency about the matter any more. Then, later on, when the premium disappeared, as a result of the 1922 disturbances, the industry on the Witwatersrand was re-organized, and in the year thereafter there was a reduction of costs amounting to no less than 6s. a ton in some mines. To-day we are once more approaching the position that the low-grade position is an urgent one, and entirely different from what it was then, and there is, as I indicated in my previous statement, and as other hon. members have also expounded, a clear case for enquiry. That is my reply to the other point of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). He asked us: “What is the use of enquiring into the low-grade mines which are finished; you should pay your attention to the rich mines.’ We would be all very glad if there were only rich mines left, but the contrary is the case. The Minister of Mines and Industries admitted my facts and figures— that the position of the low-grade mines and of low-grade ore was as I stated. I would like to refer to a remark made by the Minister of Labour in this debate, whom I do not see in his place. He said I knew very well that all mines came to an end, and there came a time when the amount of gold in the rock was insufficient to pay expenses, and there was nothing else to be done, except to shut down. I would like to remind the Minister of a frequent occurrence on the mines. It has happened on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere that a manager has reported to his directors in the sense in which the Minister spoke; that is, to tell them: “Gentlemen, I am very sorry, but the expenses are not covered by the amount of gold in the rock, and there is nothing to be done except to shut down.” Very frequently the result is that another manager is promptly appointed, and it sometimes happens that that manager turns the loss into a profit. I trust the Minister was not speaking in a prophetic tone regarding his own position in the immediate future. He also said he did not see that any good thing could come out of an enquiry. I am glad to see his colleagues, as indicated by the amendment to my motion, do not agree with him. I would now reply to some remarks of the Minister of Mines and Industries, who said, in the first place, that differentiation between one mine and another could not be effective any more than you could differentiate between a farm that suffers from drought and another that does not. I opened my eyes when I heard this. Surely this House knows better than that. Did we not have the Act of 1916 for the relief of farmers who suffered from drought—a comprehensive Act, which was amended in 1927—which serves for this very purpose of differentiating between farmers who suffer from drought and those who do not? Therefore, I say it is not quite impossible to differentiate between one mine and another. With regard to the two remedial measures which were mentioned, I made no recommendation, because I consider that was the duty of the committee to enquire into. He “did not see what the select committee could do.” I assure him the select committee could do other things; it need only be set on foot, and the committee will receive suggestions in plenty, I assure him. The Minister hopes more from increased efficiency and amalgamations than from any remedial measures that could be devised by this House. I am at one with him that increased efficiency can be looked to for an improvement in the position. Our engineers have done wonders in the past, and can be relied upon to do wonders in the future, but there is a limit to what they can do, and they want encouragement and assistance from time to time—such encouragement as the Minister of Mines and Industries can give them. I assure him a visit from him and a few encouraging words spoken, to the technical men especially, would be heartily welcomed. I will deal with the suggestion put forward to-day by the Minister of Justice. I would have preferred a select committee, for this reason—I think if you appoint a commission it will consist of Government officials, members representative of financial interests, trade unions, such as the miners’ union and the underground officials’ union, and, perhaps, others. These representatives will be chosen as representing their particular section of the community, rather than for their skill and business acumen in enquiring into a matter of this kind. A select committee, on the other hand, will consist largely of hard-headed business men from the House, and they would naturally expect to receive the cordial assistance of the Minister and his department in getting information; and, finally, when it came to sifting the evidence, and suggesting remedial measures, I would trust these hard-headed business men more than all the members of a commission. And a select committee has the supreme advantage that its report carries far greater weight than that of a commission. The report of a select committee is read and discussed by members of the House, and the remedial measures suggested receive greater attention and carry greater weight in this House. I do not think it is any use going on with the request for a select committee, in view of the proposal now made by the Government. I am glad, however, that we have got the Government as far as we have, and even if their conversion and repentance is an eleventh-hour one, at any rate, it is a repentance, and I am, therefore, glad I have got them as far as I have. As to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet), I would leave that for the Government to deal with, and do not propose to offer any remark on the subject. I, therefore, propose to withdraw my motion, and to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.

I object.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Does that meet the wishes of the Minister? Does it cover the Minister’s suggestion ?

Yes. Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

On this subject little remains to be said, but as it is of such a comprehensive nature and so far-reaching in our national life we should be neglecting our duty if we did not mention the injurious effect the acceptance of this motion will have. The mover and seconder told us that the section existed in European countries. They gave the history of it, and also showed how it was abolished gradually in other countries. What particularly struck us that every country met with great difficulties when it tackled the matter to get rid of state lotteries. The hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) pointed out that England struggled for 80 or 100 years to get rid of it. When once the lottery has got established then it is difficult to get rid of the cancer. It is not strange to my mind that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) introduced the motion. His view of the world differs as the heavens from the view of the world and the national view that we have. He has views which are strange to South Africa and that are strange to our national character, and which have blown here from overseas. They are used to views which could only be introduced in South Africa by people who do not understand what is really in the interests of our national life. The hon. member’s views differ as the heavens from ours and therefore I am careful about a motion coming from that quarter. It is a poison, a toxin which has created a pathological condition in Europe which the hon. member wants to come and vaccinate South Africa with. I must raise my voice against it. I must sound a warning and it is not I alone who warns against it but also men like Sir Herbert Samuel to whom the whole world listens with respect. I have been particularly disappointed by the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) seconding the motion. He has sprung from the South African aristocracy and yet he spoke here so lightly in recommending a thing like that which is a danger to South African national life. There is something in which we can follow the European aristocracy. The aristocracy of countries like England, France, Holland, and Germany are always inspired with the deepest national sentiment. They put the national interests and national development first and we must imitate them in that respect. If I may give our young men of the national aristocracy some advice, then it is that the national interests should always stand first. Further, I also am disappointed that the hon. member pleaded so plausibly for a state lottery and said that there is no difference between a lottery and deciding anything by lot. If he said anything like that on the street it would possibly be dishonest of him, but then he might expect that there would be people who would believe it, but it does not befit him to want to persuade this House of such a thing, that is going too far. Secondly, he argued that the state was so illogical that it made use of the proceeds of the lottery, but yet refused to take part in it. Whether the state is logical or not, I do not wish to argue with him. But when the state controls something and keeps it in the strength and in that way gives it a kind of justification that surely differs as the poles from the motion now before the House. There is another argument which is used and that is if the state does not want to use this method of getting in money, and as the hon. member for Troyeville has said if the state does not use a lottery to get in money for the relief of suffering to look after the sick and to alleviate need, then it means that the state is unsympathetic towards those people. A more illogical argument I have never heard from an educated man. I think we all feel that the frivolous and light-hearted way in which the hon. member for Brits has dealt with the motion has entirely killed it. When we talk about a state lottery or premium bonds I do not wish to pose as anyone having much knowledge of them. I do not think that I have ever yet bought a lottery ticket. I have certainly never had one in my name. Everyone acknowledges that there is a gambling spirit in the world and he must look at the effect such a thing will have and judge as the guardians of our national honour and character. I at first tried to judge according to what I found conditions in South Africa to be. The following arguments appealed very forcibly to me. There are two industries in our country, if we may call them so, which must be considered in connection with this matter because the gambling element is closely connected with them; the first is the illicit drink traffic, and the second is illicit diamond buying. In both cases persons want to secure a great benefit without effort. I need not explain the effect of that to the House. We are all sufficiently acquainted with its effect on the national life, and if anyone possibly is in doubt about it I want to refer him to the speech which was made by Mr. de Villiers Roos in 1916 when he was still Director of Prisons. The effect of that was that a large number of men and women in consequence of this wrong spirit landed in gaol. Examine the cases reported in the public press. In one way or another young men are induced to take part in gambling or at the gambling tables, or by means of lotteries, or on the race course. Such a young fellow possibly is from a good family, he possibly is the help, the pride, the hope, and the support of his parents, but in the long run he is guilty of embezzlement. On enquiry you will find the origin was that the man started to gamble. That weakened his backbone, so that he not only became a disgrace to his family, but also a disgrace to his nation and eventually a burden on it. Take the number of bankruptcies which from time to time occur among leading men in Cape Town and other cities, business men with great reputations; if the court proceedings are referred to it will be found that in many cases gambling was the ruin of their families. In many cases such prominent men started in possibly an innocent way, but they eventually fell a prey to the gambling spirit. Those are data which we must all consider when we ask the question if we can allow the state to set its seal on state lotteries. I have here an extract from the speech of Sir Herbert Samuel on “The gambling evil”—

Sir Herbert Samuel is a man who has already made history, and is interesting in many respects. I think I cannot put the principles more clearly, and if the House is to take any step it must think of the essential interests of the nation. If we really want to do anything good we must take note of the signs of the times and when I and others from day to day see certain signs which fill us with deep grief, I cannot see us taking such a step. Take the retrogression of a large section of the white population. In many cases it is in consequence of unavoidable circumstances, but in many it is also due to a weak backbone, to lack of strong character, and the absence of primary and forceful warning. Take the stream from the countryside where the people have become hopeless and have thrown up the sponge and have deserted their more or less favourable surroundings. I know that circumstances often contribute very much to it, but I state as a responsible man that in many cases if more will power, more persistence, more energy were exhibited then the stream to the towns would not be so great. I do not speak to the detriment of my fellow South Africans, but I say that if many people had more backbone the stream would be less. There is another side to the matter. How many applications do not I and other members constantly receive for appointment. Applications to be made before Ministers, etc. Are we in view of the facts justified in taking any step which will further weaken the will-power of the people? Can Parliament give its imprimatur to something that will contribute to such weakening? What we need is people who are willing to live economically to keep their back and shoulders to the wheel, to take count of difficult circumstances, men of steel and backbone. We need this in view of overseas competition, and competition of coloured people and natives. We need strong men and women on the countryside. Accordingly we must see to it that men and women of that kind are produced. If the proposers were to introduce a motion that the state should take the sum that people want to invest in state lotteries and invest it in Union loan certificates, if the supporters were to come and cultivate a spirit of thrift we should be able to support it wholeheartedly. But the gambling spirit implicit in this motion we cannot encourage. I hope that not a single member of the House will support the motion.

I do not propose to traverse the ground covered by previous speakers. It is an admitted fact that a large sum of money is sent out of this country annually for participation in lotteries—genuine and otherwise. It is also an admitted fact that, notwithstanding the repeated warnings by the policy, a large number of bogus tickets find their way into circulation. Many of the purchasers of these bogus tickets have remained in blissful ignorance that they are bogus tickets. From this point of view alone I think it is highly desirable that something should be done for the protection of the public in this connection. When the Horse Racing and Betting Ordinance was before the provincial councils, it found a good deal of support in many quarters from people who were opposed to horse-racing and the evils associated therewith. They said, “We cannot abolish it; let us control it.” The logic of that contention appeals with far greater force to the patrons of lotteries rather than to the patrons of racing because of the fact that there are a far greater number of them. I am not in favour of the state running a lottery, but I am in favour of a lottery under state control, because I fear that the state would make a mess of it if it attempted to run it itself. Such lotteries as the stock exchange lottery and Tattersalls sweep in Tasmania are run openly, and it is generally accepted that they are run fairly and squarely. What I would like is a sweep run under Government control on the same lines of the Calcutta sweep. That sweep is controlled by the stewards of the Calcutta turf club and the race selected is the English Derby. The state lottery demand, in the Union, to my mind, can be met by three lotteries, one to be run on the Johannesburg Christmas handicap, one on the Durban July handicap and one on the Metropolitan handicap at Cape Town. I committee of stewards of the racing clubs in those centres would, I am sure, be quite ready and willing to do all that is necessary in the way of the promotion of such lotteries. It would, in my opinion be desirable to limit the tickets of any one lottery to 100,000, at 10s. each, and if there was a greater demand it could be split up and called, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I believe that five such lotteries would fill in each centre and would bring in a total of £250,000. I also consider it advisable to limit the prize to one of £25,000, with a 12½ per cent. deduction. The balance could be divided into 100 prizes, so as to make the distribution of the amount as wide as possible. The 12½ per cent., I suggest, should be ear-marked, 10 per cent. to go to charities and 2½ per cent., to working expenses. I am quite confident that they could be worked on a 2½ per cent. basis. In the lotteries that are run to-day it is estimated that they take from 25 to 50 per cent. for working expenses. In order to safeguard touting and prevent the issue of bogus tickets, I would not allow for any agent’s commission. Anybody requiring a ticket could send 10s. and a stamped addressed envelope to the office as is done in Tasmania, and that would provide no incentive for touting. I mention these details to show the simplicity of it. They have been proved to work in actual practice in other parts of the world. If my figures are correct and lotteries are held three times a year, the total amount would be £750,000 which would allow £75,000 per annum for charitable purposes. That would help to solve our problems in regard to raising funds for charities. If this scheme receives Parliamentary sanction, we could then introduce very drastic measures to retain the money which leaves the country for sweeps in other parts of the world. I believe such measures would receive very general public support. By withholding legal approval you play into the hands of bogus ticket merchants and aid the promoter, who retains an excessive percentage of the sweeps he promotes for working expenses and enables him to pay such large premiums to agents to urge and press the sale of these tickets. The plea of secrecy silences all questions of auditing the accounts. Some people rail against the evils of gambling, but they will never convince the vast majority of people that it is more immoral to take a 10s. ticket in a lottery than it is to insure a cargo against the risk of loss at sea. In one instance, the insurance company lays long odds that your cargo will reach its destination without mishap, and in the other case, the promoters, say of the Calcutta sweep, lay 100,000 to 1 that the ticket you hold will not bear the name of a horse that wins a particular race. What is the difference between the two from an ethical point of view? Take the Minister of Railways and Harbours. He conducts a system which very strongly savours of gambling, for every time you take out a ticket for a long railway journey, the booking clerks endeavour to sell you a ticket in which they lay you £5,000 to 1s. that you will not be killed on the journey. Is that not gambling? Every candidate who stands for Parliament gambles, and every Minister of Finance who frames a budget gambles, so why put all the blame for gambling on the race-course? There is, indeed, a great need for state-controlled lotteries. During the elections the question was raised on every election platform, and it is high time something was done in the direction indicated in the motion.

After the speech of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) it is almost an impossible matter to speak in favour of the motion. I must admit that the speeches for and against it have contained very strong arguments. We are concerned with the character of the people, and therefore I have listened attentively to the speeches of hon. members. I should be one of the last in the House who would like to see that the Christian principles and the family bond should be thrown overboard. We must, however, look the facts in the face. I think everyone will agree that money is the thing which holds the country and people together, and which builds up church and state. When then such a motion is introduced we must not treat it lightly because lotteries already exist in the country, and I am entitled to think that the state ought to alter matters in this respect. Even if we take up a Christian attitude we cannot prevent a large section of the people being in favour of lotteries. We must bear in mind that at least half of the people think differently to ourselves. Every year thousands and thousands of pounds leave the country for lotteries, and it is the duty of the Government to see that the money does not leave the country and is not used outside it. The people, or at least a great part of the people, are contravening the law-to-day because if they take part in the new form of lottery they commit an offence. I think that we ought to avoid in our legislation stamping the people as criminals. If we want to be logical we must prohibit the various ways by which money is collected for supporting the church and which are practically lotteries, just like the races. The lotteries are particularly in the interests of the working man. He cannot, like the man on the land, try to increase his possessions by buying an ox or a horse, but he sends a sovereign out of the country for a lottery to see whether he can increase his property in that way. If that is so why then cannot the man, if he wants to, invest it here under the control of the state? No one is obliged to do so, but as this state of affairs does exist to-day it is the duty of the state not to sit still but to take control of a respective form of lottery. I cannot say in what form this must be done, but I am of opinion that something in this direction will have to be done. I do not complain if the Minister of Finance says that he will not accept such a proposal, but yet I want to suggest that we should keep this money in the country if possible, and should prevent people from committing illegal acts. Hence I want to move an amendment. Perhaps it will receive no support, because it looks to me as if the large majority of the House disapprove of the principle. The Minister of Finance would possibly be unwilling to accept the proceeds of a lottery, but the provincial councils would probably be quite prepared to do so because as hon. members know there is, e.g., in the Transvaal a strong tendency in favour of lotteries under provincial control. I move as a further amendment—

There being no seconder, this amendment dropped.

I should be untrue to myself and untrue to my rights towards my constituency if I did not rise to oppose the Bill. The question arose in my mind what the object of the motion was. Was it actually to encourage crime, or to eradicate crime? Was it to lead the people on a wrong track, or to raise the people to the higher level of justice, honesty, morality and industry? What is going to be the result? That is the question that we may well ask if this motion is passed and carried out. It will undoubtedly undermine the national force. One of the greatest thinkers of South Africa, whom we can reckon among the thinkers of the world, has said—

Speaking to this motion I compare lotteries with gambling. What will the world think of us? The Afrikaner people who are known throughout the world for their fairly high moral standard will be known as a lot of gamblers. The person who seconded the motion quoted from the Encyclopedia Britannica, he presumably has not yet become acquainted with the Encyclopedia of Religion by Hastings.

That says—

Prof. Charles says—

Prof. Charles concludes—

I compare gambling to leprosy, a contagious disease, a thing that we must remove and get out of the way. Is it moral to take something to enrich yourself at the expense of another? You want to get your happiness out of the misfortune or ruin of another. I am opposed to the motion by reason of the fact that it offends against the ordinance of God that we should earn our bread in the sweat of our brow. That ordinance prescribes that men must make their living by means of their own energy and zeal. But here people want to get rich in the easiest way and at the expense of other people. Is it morality to want to construct the whole of life on the principle of chance or luck? Experience teaches us that it is men and women who by hard work, laborious industry, by precaution and care, have made life, who have made their mark. It is they who have climbed up the ladder from the lowest rung to the top. It is these people who can lead, and who can give direction through life. It is not the man who has inherited riches or who has suddenly had a stroke of luck who will throw weight into the scale. History shows that it was the man with love of work who has progressed in life. It is a sad view of life if we are to rely on fortune, and if we are to have as our aim increase of riches by the cast of the dice. Satan has put his brand on this motion and business, and a Christian people must reject that which bears Satan’s mark. No business man will keep on a bookkeeper, cashier or manager who is a gambler. It is too risky, because it may be that the man will embezzle the money of the business; that has already happened frequently. It has also been the case that a person is pressed by the bank or his creditors. He looks worried, and the woman who has saved money from her hens’ eggs in the long run gives it to him to gamble with in the attempt to get money. She strengthens the gambling spirit and he loses the money. The bread is taken out of the mouth of the children who encourage the gambling spirit. The passing of this motion will produce dishonesty, it will make criminals of people, and gambling has already done so. We need not give any examples here. Many people have fallen into sin and gone to ruin because they yielded to gambling. I hope the disgrace of being a nation of gamblers will not come to the Afrikaner people. We are not a third-class people. I think that our people still stand high morally, and let us preserve that high level. I therefore hope that this House will now once and for all express itself so clearly on this matter that it will never be brought before it again.

It is not because I have not the morality of our people on my heart that I dare to say a few words which are entirely opposed to what the last speaker has said. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) quoted from a paper and took up an attitude as if no one could speak against it. He came to the conclusion that all of us accepted the proposition which he preached. As one of the practical citizens of the country, I should like to test the matter in a practical way. The church itself, and I have the greatest respect for it, uses it at all its bazaars, the greatest gambling takes place at church bazaars. It is a fact from a practical point of view, I am convinced, that the greatest speculation and gambling is marriage which is effected by means of our church between men and women of our people. One knows that a man only knows after 20 years what kind of a wife he has, it is therefore a speculation, and it dates from the time of King Solomon; it is the oldest profession. Are we now to say that other countries can speculate with the little savings of our people, and can rake in the money with shovels? If it is a good thing for the church at its bazaars it can also be a good thing for the general public. If the general public want to speculate according to its convictions, I do not see that we can condemn it. There are not merely individuals, but thousands of people in South Africa who see no harm in it. I clearly expressed myself in favour of state lotteries at my public meeting where were my minister and members of the church council, for whom I have the greatest respect. I added that I would rather see that it took place in the form of premium bonds, as in that case everything would not be lost, hut a portion saved. I do not want to be a hypocrite either, but my electors are in favour of state lotteries, and I have also declared myself in favour of them.

I also am in favour of state lotteries under Government control, and cannot agree with the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé). The hon. member argues that we would make people dishonest by introducing the lottery system, but he forgets how doubly dishonest we shall make our people if we teach them to be deceivers, and if we assist in the fraudulent holding of lotteries. The slogan of the majority of our people is that there ought to be state lotteries under proper control. It is not un-Christian and not shameful, and I ask how many hon. members in this House at present have lottery tickets on which they hope to win something. How many well-known public men are there not who have to declare themselves publicly against lotteries, while as soon as they leave the platform, or possibly even while they are still on it, have bound themselves in connection with lottery tickets. If it is good for one it is good for another. Is not the budget of the Minister of Finance a lottery? He expects to get in a certain amount, but subsequently we hear that he has got less or more. He gambles. Does not the Minister of Justice at the moment gamble on getting votes for his Riotous Assemblies Bill? Do not hon. members gamble during the election about getting hold of the government of the country ?

Then they trade on it.

Hon. members who speak against state lotteries here are, with possibly a few exceptions, not speaking their mind freely. I am convinced of it. I am not so fortunate as the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Vorster), who got instructions from his minister to vote in favour of state lotteries.

My minister is opposed to them.

So is my minister, but he is the only exception. I came here with a mandate to vote for state lotteries, although I did not ask for it. I represent the capital of the Union, i.e., the town where the basic principles of Afrikanerdom have always been maintained with pride. What town outside of Vrededorp has stood up so much for Afrikanerdom and its ideals? We have a great deal of unemployment in the country, but thousands of pounds go to other countries and are indirectly used there to supply unemployed with work. Suppose that I put £30 a month, which I have earned at my work, into lotteries, and that I put all that I possessed into the state lottery, and then go to the Government and ask for help, the Government will then give me help, and pay me back my own money. I have given my money to the Government by way of lotteries, and it pays me back a part of it, while I work for the other part. Now, however, the money goes to other countries. Suppose the whole Union were to put its money into lotteries, and to-morrow to come to the Government for help. The people would get their own money back. To-day, however, thousands of pounds go out of the country whether the Government allows it, or it is done in a fraudulent way. Yet the people in need come to the Government for assistance when they have lost everything by sending their money to other countries for lotteries. The Government has to help the people in any case. If 50 or 60 per cent. go bankrupt to-morrow as a result of gambling the Government must help the people, but it cannot do without the people.

Do you want to make more criminals ?

The hon. member has not listened very well. We are not making more criminals, and I say if anyone takes part in a lottery it is not exactly a scandal. It is innate. The children play with marbles, they gamble with marbles. We have all gambled with them. It is inborn, and now we have to act contrary to nature. It is said that it is a sin. Let me call attention to the fact that times have changed, and also views, in regard to what is sinful. We saw it again in the case of Prof, du Plessis, who called attention to the fact that time does not stand still, and that views change.

The hon. member cannot discuss that here.

I am merely pointing out that views change. I do not say that it is exactly necessary for the Government to start lotteries. Let the Government allow the communities that want them to establish lotteries, whatever support they may get from the Government. Just let the Government keep control to see that no cheating takes place. We know that a great many abuses occur to-day. There was a big meeting in the town hall at Johannesburg recently, where it was pointed out that thousands of fraudulent tickets were sold. Tickets are sold by people which can never win, which are never drawn in a lottery. Thousands of pounds are got, and the deceivers buy a house or a motor car or what not. Lotteries are inborn. It is impossible to prohibit people taking part in lotteries. I earnestly appeal to every member of the House who has common sense and wants to keep it, to vote in favour of the motion. I can assure them that it is better to vote for than against it.

On a point of personal explanation, the hon. member behind me said that even the minister of Zoutpansberg had instructed me to vote for the motion. Let me say that I am convinced of it to represent the attitude of the electors of Zoutpansberg without dragging in the good name of our minister.

I move—

There being no seconder this motion dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gilson put and negatived; amendment proposed by Mr. Nathan dropped.

First part of amendment proposed by Mr. Moll, viz., omission of all words after “advisability of”, put and agreed to.

Second part of amendment put, as proposed by Mr. Moll, viz., substitution of the words “permitting lotteries under state supervision”,

Upon which the House divided: