I move—

Mr. M. L. MALAN seconded.

It is not often that a prophet has the satisfaction, sometimes it is a doubtful satisfaction, of seeing his prophecies come true. I don’t claim to be a prophet, but during the elections I did utter one or two prophecies. I know very well that hon. members dislike listening to a rehash of election speeches, but, in order to make my present point, I have to tell them what I prophesied. I was urging the very intelligent electors of Jeppes, and the equally intelligent electors of Boksburg, to vote for myself, and their present member, and I urged them on the ground that if insufficient independents were returned to Parliament, there would be no free speech in Parliament. By independents I mean real independents.

Order. I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the motion.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am going to explain to the House, with your kind permission, what my prophecy was, and I am going to show hon. members that my prophecy has already, in part, come true.

I fail to see what that has to do with the motion.

If I can satisfy you, sir and hon. members that I was right in my prophecy during the election, then it stands to reason that I may possibly be right in various other things I am going to say.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, certainly. I say that when I use the term “independents” I mean real independents, and not “dud” independents. Dud independents were those who, during the elections, went about making a noise like lions, but who, after the elections, crept into the fold of one of the two party caucuses. I am referring to real independents. What I prophesied was that if a sufficient number of independents were not returned to Parliament, what would happen i would probably be something like this. The Prime Minister would probably propose a motion, or introduce a Bill, and, in the case of a motion, he would not take the trouble to explain what the reasons for the motion were, nor would he take the trouble in the case of a Bill. After he had done that, after he had formally proposed a motion, the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) would second the motion, and then the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) would compliment the Prime Minister upon his obvious sincerity, and the Minister of Finance would get up and compliment the right hon. the member for Standerton, on his obvious sincerity.

Will the hon. member come to the motion?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am a bit slow, but I will come to it. After that, the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan)

Order. Will the hon. member kindly come to the motion?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I say it with great respect that I cannot make my point unless I am allowed to argue, and my whole argument is based on this, that I want to show how correct my forecast was. I say, therefore

Order. Will the hon. member kindly conic to the motion?

Will you, Mr. Speaker, kindly tell me what the motion is?

If the hon. member does not know what the motion is he is trifling with the Chair.

I apologize. I was dealing with the hon. member for Calvinia.

The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) has nothing to do with the motion.

I am hoping that the hon. member for Calvinia will vote against this motion, but I am afraid he will not, and that is why I want to ginger him up a bit. I am afraid that the hon. member for Calvinia will vote for this motion. I have nearly finished. In my prophecy the hon. member rose from his seat, but he rose a little slowly. In some things he is a bit slow, and he rose rather slowly, but very surely. In most things he is very sure, and he rose and said that although he was bitterly opposed to the motion, he nevertheless was going to vote for it. Then the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours and Defence closed the debate by telling members what he would do to them if they did not support the Prime Minister unconditionally. He probably will add that he is referring only to members from the Transvaal, as he would not like to ruffle the feathers of hon. members of the National party in the Cape. At least not too soon.

I regret to inform the hon. member that if he continues in this strain I shall have to ask him to sit down.

I apologize. My objection to this motion is that it takes away almost the last vestige of the rights of private members. It is quite true that up to now private members have not had very great rights, but the only rights we have had are now being taken away, namely, being allowed, on Tuesdays and on Fridays to bring forward various matters of importance to our constituencies. I, for instance, was very anxious to bring forward the matter relating to the lowering of the railway line between George Goch and Doornfontein stations, a matter which is very vital to the electors of Jeppes. If this motion goes through, it will effectually debar me from doing that. I cannot see how hon. members can vote for this motion—I am referring particularly to hon. members of the South African party; perhaps I ought to say the late South African party, because the signboard which all these years has been up above the door of the Whips of that party has been taken down; so it looks very much as if they have gone out of business. I am not pleading with members of the National party, and especially not with the members of the National party of the Transvaal, because they are bound hand and foot and they are solemnly pledged in black and white to vote for anything unconditionally which the Prime Minister brings forward.

Nonsense.

An hon. member says “nonsense.” I refer him to the speech made by the Minister of Railways and Harbours on the 14th March, where he said—the headlines are—”Those who may not be nominated”—

He goes on—

You will notice he does not say “unconditionally support the Government or the principle of coalition”; but no, they must unconditionally support an individual—Gen. Hertzog. He goes on—

He said further—

There is only another little paragraph. It is a very significant paragraph, which says—

The Minister of Railways and Harbours does not seem to worry very much about an equally possible and equally regrettable early demise— of the right hon. member for Standerton (the Minister of Justice). Not content with this threat, so great was evidently the fear of these leaders in the Transvaal, and so little did they trust their followers, that they forced them to sign the following document—

What has that to do with the motion before the House?

The motion is to take away all rights from private members, and I am explaining to members of the South African party

I do not see that that is relevant to the discussion of the motion now before the House.

With respect, may I use this argument: I am saying that I am hoping that members of the South African party and members of the National party—not in the Transvaal—I am hoping to persuade them not to vote for this motion. It is no use asking hon. members of the National party in the Transvaal to vote against it. This document is such an unique document that it deserves to be in Hansard. It reads as follows—

Signed, Harm Oost and all the other “unconditionals.” I understood the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) insisted on signing this document and that when he was forcibly prevented from doing so, he went at night and by stealth, and affixed his signature to this document; and that reminds me I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) on being appointed Whip of the National party in the Cape Province. He certainly is not an unconditional.”

The hon. member must now come to the motion.

Yes. I appeal to all those hon. members who are not “unconditionals,” and if they are not men enough to stand up for their own rights, I appeal to the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz); and even if she is not prepared to speak on this motion, I ask her to vote against it, as I and my whole party certainly will.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I will not trangress your ruling, and I will not depart from the motion, though I must suggest to you, sir, that this is so wide—its ramifications are so diffuse and important, that one may he excused if one might appear to depart somewhat from the motion which is before the House. It has become customary, and you, sir, in the richness of your experience, will bear me out, that when the Prime Minister of the country thinks it desirable to ask the House in its collective capacity to agree to surrender its rights in its individual capacity, it has generally become customary for him to give some indication to the House of the work which he desires to put through; we have usually examined the reasons advanced by the Prime Minister, and if they have appeared sound, we have agreed to it. There has been little hesitation to agree to do away with private members’ day, in order to deal with Government measures. But to-day we have not had one solitary word from the Prime Minister as to what business he proposes to put before the House. When we see the Prime Minister rise and nod towards the chair we have a very shrewd suspicion that he is proposing a motion which appears on the Votes and Proceedings. That is by the way. What I am taking exception to is that the Prime Minister does not see fit to take this House into his confidence at all in any one respect, and it is indicative—if you will pardon me, sir, for making reference to your ruling— I will suggest that the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. H. Reitz) was well within his rights when he drew attention to the fact that Nationalist members in the Transvaal have bound themselves completely to the behests of the Prime Minister. I am perfectly satisfied of this, that if the Prime Minister did not know that he had the undivided and unquestioned and unthinking support of both political sections, sitting behind him, he would not dare at this early stage of the session to bring this in without any explanation whatsoever. Does the House realize what this means? The Prime Minister has indicated outside in the country and he has told his caucus—and I presume through his first lieutenant and faithful henchman of a few days’ age, the right hon. the Minister of Justice, he has also given the South African party the same instructions—-we do know that they have gone to their caucuses, or the Prime Minister has done so, and informed them that they have got to do this or they have got to do that, as the case may be. They are told, in his high and mightiness, what business they are to support, and what legislation they have to give their approval to. Well, we know that, and his action to-day is indicative of the autocracy that he desires to set up in this country, an autocracy that is repugnant to all sections of the population, as will be indicated at the earliest possible moment when an opportunity is furnished to the electorate to show what it thinks, with regard to this combination before it to-day.

Speak up.

That is one of the worst reproaches I could have, to be asked to speak up by the hon. and noisy member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane), whose vocal capacity is by no means relative to his brain capacity. I want to ask the House if they realize what this really means. This country is now in a position of the most abject misery, resulting from the widespread and extensive unemployment. Hon. members who have this problem close and dear to their hearts, will now have no opportunity of indicating to the Government—which, by the way, does not comprise all the wisdom of the country—by what methods, and by what means we should go about solving this terrible problem. I say, we ought to have the opportunity of doing that, but the Prime Minister, not in his wisdom, but in his autocracy, at one fell swoop cuts away from us, with their dog-like attachment—I mean that of his uthinking supporters—cuts away from members who are anxious about this subject, and whose hearts bleed over the condition of the country, any opportunity of indicating those methods which we know to be the correct ones. I would like to have the opportunity of endeavouring to argue with those who oppose me in this point of view. I say there is no hope for this country unless we cope with this unemployment situation, that is rife to-day. I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I give just one example to show the necessity for coping with this situation right now, and not waiting until next session, or until the goodwill of the Prime Minister allows us an opportunity. In the course of the election I went to address a public meeting and I met a medical man who is very closely in touch with school children in that particular locality, which is largely town and largely rural, about 50 per cent. each way. He informed me that he had to attend professionally dozens of the children going to this particular school, and the root cause was malnutrition. The Prime Minister desires that we shall have no opportunity of laying before this House and the country the parlous condition that our youth, our little kiddies, have descended into. This medical officer told me that invariably he asked the children the same question, and invariably and inevitably he got the same answer. “What did you have for breakfast?” “Mealy pap.” “What did you have at mid-day?” “Mealy pap.” “What did you have at night?” “Mealy pap.” “Did you have anything to drink?” “Black coffee.” “No milk?” “No, sir.” “No sugar?” “No, sir.” These are the sort of things that we want to bring to the attention of the House and the country, but the Prime Minister deprives us of that opportunity and that right. I, like my hon. friend the member for Jeppes (Dr. H. Reitz) urge upon members to disregard any signatures that they have been under duress to give. I believe in legal circles you are not bound to honour an agreement that is wrung from you under duress. I would suggest to those members that they put their thinking caps on, if they have any to put on, and ignore signatures of loyalty to an individual, and make a fresh determination to be loyal to the people who are surrounding them, and whom they are supposed to represent in this House. There is the question of these poor miserable people who to-day are walking about —I am speaking about miners’ phthisis sufferers—who have no opportunity of appealing to this House, but whose circumstances are so urgent that they must be considered now and not next year. I understand the new Minister of Mines has on the stocks for consideration next year, if it please your highness, this question of amendment to the miners’ phthisis compensation law. It has got to be done now. These men and their dependents have got to be released from the worry and from the mental as well as physical suffering that they are undergoing to-day. Their paths in life have to be made easier than they are now, and it has to be done now. This, I am sure, will appeal to the ex-Minister of Justice, now Minister of Railways, and that is the necessity for immediate restitution to the railway and public servants, of those cuts, not only in salary and other emoluments, but in all other conditions that were made a couple of years ago. That is also urgent and pressing, that we should restore to them what we took away from them. It was a bad policy, a mistaken policy, and a cruel policy. It was a cruel policy because it caused them to live on a lower standard than ever before, and they were not living sufficiently high then, and it was a policy which redounded not to the credit, but to the discredit and the disadvantage of the whole country, by reason of the fact that it reduced the earning capacity of all sections. It is quite clear that the time has arrived for making restitution. We have no opportunity of bringing this before the House and of debating it in all its bearings because the Prime Minister decides that we shall have no opportunity during this session.

What is the hurry?

There is my hon. and voluminous friend again with his still voice in distinct contrast to the rest of himself. There are the farmers and their disabilities. We have seen matters on the paper and we have heard in that fashion that the Government proposes to do this, that or the other in the way of expenditure to relieve the farmers. Surely that is a matter, whatever the amount may be that we have the right to enter a caveat on, addressed not against the amount, but surely, apart from the amount, it is matter where detail is of such vast importance that the House should have the fullest opportunity of debating it on the initiative and at the instance of private members who think that they themselves can offer a solution of the problem. I claim on behalf of my party that we have a solution of the problem and we desire an opportunity of putting it before the House, not—as you might suggest to me, and as the Prime Minister will no doubt do—that we shall have our opportunity on the budget, not in a conglomerate such as the budget presents to us, but as a definite policy, debated on its merits and not surrounded by circumstances which may have the effect of divorcing our attention from that particular subject. Then there is the question of standard pay, than which excepting this question of unemployment, there is no other question which has militated more against the prosperity of South Africa. Then there is the question of a State bank. Just in passing— I do not wish to elaborate upon the question, but I will draw the attention of the House to the fact that there have been tremendous revelations, mainly in America in the enquiries of the J. P. Morgan activities in their relations to the welfare of the community that should cause this House to think and which should give cause to the Prime Minister to think and engage his consideration and make him determined, however much he may dislike the fact, to accept the policy which the Labour party has placed before this House for the last 25 years, namely, that the nation should control its own finances in the interest of the nation and not allow private interests to bleed us as they do. Then there is the question of the sugar ring. You swore in a member this afternoon who is not unconnected with saccharine.

Not very much.

He is sticky with molasses. That is an important question which many private members desire to bring before the House, namely, the machinations of those who control the sugar industry in this country through their owning the mills to the eternal detriment of the consumer of sugar. I have pointed out that the children cannot get sugar in this country in spite of the fact that we produce our sugar here by means of cheap labour and to the damnation of the planter. They tell me that the planters are going out of existence daily and surely their plight is one that deserves the consideration of this House, and I do know that there are members who are most anxious to bring that before you. Then there is the question of provincial administrations, a very important question indeed, and one which so engaged the attention of one portion of the Union during these elections that they have definitely sent representatives here to insist upon a federal system such as the Labour party have been preaching in this country and in this House for the last 23 years. That is of vital importance to the whole of this country. Now those are only a few of the questions which this House should be giving its attention to this session and as a consequence I urge upon all hon. members who have any spark of independence in them—if there can be such found in the House—to support us who are opposing this motion and vote against it and to secure the opportunity of giving some consideration to matters such as I have indicated here. And to that end I wish to give the House an opportunity of dividing and I move, as an amendment—

That will give us at least one month for private members to air their grievances and to bring before the House and the country matters which they regard as being of vital importance.

I wish to second the amendment. Having been returned by a constituency which holds certain definite views and definite principles I desire to object to the stultifying of our efforts by this particular motion and I wish to protest most emphatically against the attempt to prevent private members from raising their voices on behalf of the people whom they represent. There is this terrible disaster of unemployment in respect of which I think an attempt should be made to have it coped with right away. It is no use our crying for the moon, but remedial measures are in sight and those measures should be taken at once. We have heard a great deal of the poverty and distress prevailing in this country and I refer more particularly to the distress among the town dwellers. We have heard of the terrible distress amongst people and amongst families who have to live on mealie meal and nothing but mealie meal. Those families we are told have nothing but black coffee to drink because they cannot afford sugar or milk. We must insist that the indirect taxation placed upon these people in the shape of the price of sugar shall be removed. We must also insist that these people should be placed in the position of being able to obtain at least a little milk.

The hon. member cannot go into details. He can refer to these matters but he must confine himself to the motion.

I would like at this stage to draw attention to the fact that the provincial question has been a burning one in Natal and apparently we are not to have an opportunity of discussing it. That is a matter which we are sent here definitely to press for in the hope that something will be done. We particularly wish to draw attention to the unfair distribution of funds by Government to the provinces, which has created distress throughout the country. We have the instance in Natal, in Durban particularly at the moment, where a benevolent fund has gone bankrupt.

The hon. member will realise that that has nothing to do with the motion, and he must confine himself to the motion.

I wish to draw attention to the urgency of these questions. We have all these questions owing to the lack of funds in the provincial council, and we want to urge that this position should be remedied. The provincial council has been unable to meet the position which has been created. Through lack of funds, they are unable to relieve the distress in the towns and I trust therefore that this motion will be definitely opposed by all members who desire to see fair and honest attempts made to cope with this position.

I know that in ordinary circumstances it is not expected of a new member and especially so young a new member as I am to take part in a debate so early in the session, but unfortunately circumstances are not at all ordinary. Had my leader Mr. Roos been returned to this House with 20 or 30 followers there would have been no necessity for me to make myself prominent. Believe it or not, I would have been the last man to make myself prominent under normal circumstances. As it is, the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. H. Reitz) and I find ourselves alone notwithstanding that we represent 28,000 votes cast at the poll, although had some other vacancies been contested we believe that our party would have secured at least 50,000 votes, and it is with this thought in mind—that there are at least 50.000 electors who believe in our cause— that I feel compelled to speak for them, however reluctantly. Furthermore, the electors of Boksburg, in their wisdom, have sent me here to the highest court of the land to represent them, and I believe the electors are not so much concerned with the traditional code of behaviour affecting a new member of Parliament, as that they should be adequately represented in Parliament. The electors of Boksburg will not wait for me to serve a term of apprenticeship, but they demand that I should give them full and complete representation from the word “go.” Having said that, I would like to come to the motion itself. I object very strongly to this motion. I say that private members’ rights must not be taken away in this arbitrary manner. It was my intention this session to deal with several very important matters vitally affecting the welfare of my constituents. It was my intention to ask the House to set up a committee of enquiry into the working of the miners’ phthisis medical bureau, whose decisions, I am told, are causing grave injustice to the unfortunate phthisis sufferers. Furthermore, it was my intention to introduce a Bill providing for the establishment of State lotteries. If this motion is agreed to—and I feel sure that the 126 mute members of this House will ensure its passage—then I will be deprived of my right to place before the House the views of the citizens of Boksburg on these two vital matters. The hon. members for Jeppes (Dr. H. Reitz), Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and Durban (Umbilo) (Col. McArthur) and myself, constitute the opposition, much though that fact may be denied in and outside the House. I think the irony of the situation is that this little minority of four is protecting the rights of hon. members supporting the Government.

Six.

I beg pardon. If our opposition of six is a joke, then the cream of the jest is that this little minority should have to plead for the rights of 150 members.

I should like to say a few words to the Prime Minister, and I do so in all humility as a back-bencher, and as an ardent supporter of the Government, of which the Prime Minister is the head. Although I cannot go to the extent of the hon. and gallant member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), who estimated his loyalty to coalition at 120 per cent., I can at least claim to be a 100 per cent. supporter of coalition. I am a firm believer that the present Government is going to be a blessing to the country, and that its formation is one of the most wonderful episodes in the history of South Africa. Therefore I am not disturbed by the taunt of the hon. members who have called themselves Independents. I think it was the late Mr. Gladstone, who once described an Independent as—

We are not concerned with Independents, or any other parties to-day, when we have this motion before us. But I do feel, in all humility, as a back-bencher, that the motion does entrench on the rights and privileges of hon. members. I realize that the circumstances in which the Prime Minister asks for the motion to be adopted, are somewhat unique. There are special circumstances—three Ministers have to leave at the end of the week for the purpose of attending the World Economic Conference to be held in London, and I may point out that they are going there to do not merely South Africa’s work, but the work of the world. Therefore, there are certain circumstances in mitigation of the motion, and those circumstances differentiate the present occasion from that of four years ago, when we had a similar motion before us. I remember that the Prime Minister introduced a similar proposal at a similar stage of the session in 1929, to do away with the rights of hon. members. I felt on that occasion that I was doing the right thing when I voted against it. That motion was described by one of the speakers as being “most extraordinary” and “quite without precedent in the history of Parliament.” I believed, on that occasion, that the words I have quoted were correct. And so I would now say to the Prime Minister that, as a loyal supporter of coalition, I ask him to appreciate the fact that I feel it my duty to oppose his motion to-day because I feel that he would rather have behind him one who would honestly speak his mind rather than one who would support a motion, of which he does not approve, through a mistaken sense of loyalty. I am perfectly certain that the Prime Minister is not going to deprive any private member, no matter whether he belongs to a small minority, or to a large majority, of his rights. Private members will get their opportunities of dealing with matters in which they are specially interested, but the taking away of the rights of private members at this stage of the session is striking a blow at their privileges. There is a principle involved. I wish to be consistent, and I ask, in all humility, for the Prime Minister to understand that, on principle, I have to vote against him on this occasion.

I would like to support the motion for the same reason that hon. members are opposing it, viz., because the position is so serious that immediate steps should be taken to improve matters. All our speaking as private members on private members’ days will be of no use. We expect the Government to take steps and we private members must be prepared to sacrifice our privileges in that behalf in order to give the Government an opportunity to get on with the work. Before this House adjourned in March I made a speech here and expressed the view that the Government was making a mistake in going to the country and having a general election. I argued that the Government should be formed immediately and that Parliament should continue sitting so that steps could be immediately taken to relieve the situation. During our travels through the country at the time of the general election, I was much confirmed in that view that we, as a House, had made a great mistake in adjourning in March and in leaving the position as it then was to continue for March, April, May and possibly also for June. I feel to-day confirmed in that view that Parliament made a mistake in not continuing its session, because the position has become much worse in a few months. Take the farming population. There are numbers of them who are in the greatest need.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

I know I may not go into details now, but I just want to say that there are many of our people who in the interim have got into such a state that they do not know what to do. If we waste unnecessary time this session we shall not do our duty towards those people. Hon. members speak of the necessity in the towns but the position in the small villages of the countryside is exactly the same: the people are suffering hunger. Why should we make long speeches? Let us support the Government so that they can as soon as possible take the steps which they, as a Government, as individual members of the Cabinet, and as candidates at the election, promised the public to take. The need is great and we cannot waste a day. I therefore support the motion for the same reason that hon. members have opposed it.

I cannot compliment the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. H. Reitz) and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) on the methods they have employed this afternoon in trying to forestall the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, and I want to offer the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Bouwer) my sympathy on seeing him misled on the second day he has sat in this Houe by “jerry” leaders. I want to tell the hon. member—I need not tell the hon. member for Benoni and the hon. member for Jeppes, but I would like to tell the hon. member with whom I am sympathising that the two obvious “jerry leaders”—have misled him into a position that will reflect very unfavourably on him and damaging to his electorate’s interests.

The hon. member must not use that expression.

We don’t object.

The hon. members I have criticised know quite well that ample opportunities will be afforded for discussing the subjects they have mentioned after the delivery of the budget speech. If they don’t know that they have no right to be here, but if they do know it, as I assume they do, they ought to be ashamed to endeavour to mislead the country to the extent they are attempting to do this afternoon. They ought also to be much more ashamed of the aspersions they have tried to cast upon the members of the Transvaal with regard to the pledges that have been signed.

Have you signed one?

Yes, to support the Prime Minister in his association with the hon. member for Standerton (the Minister of Justice). As long as they work together in the manner anticipated I will support them, and when I cannot do it, I will say so. I will not profess to be a coalitionist to the electors, and then oppose coalition in this House. The voters of South Africa have certainly given the two leaders a very fine mandate, and I consider that after the decision of the electors of the Union the two leaders ought to be given a fair opportunity of showing what they intend to do. Until they have failed to show that they were sincere when they asked for a mandate at the last election, no member has a right to rise in this House and make the charges that hon. members have made this afternoon. I believe in giving a man a fair chance and not in knocking the wind out of him before he has an opportunity of speaking. I am quite sure that when the people of the Witwatersrand read in the newspapers accounts of the foul blows delivered by the hon. members on the two leaders to-day the people of the Witwatersrand will be very sore. I take exception to the scorn shown by the two hon. members with regard to the pledge we have signed, because I am sure that if it had not been for the action of the hon. member for Jeppes such a pledge would not have been brought in. The hon. member for Jeppes betrayed the Nationalist party by deeds to which I would not stoop which made it easy for me to sign a declaration of sincerity.

I don’t think we can discuss that.

I wish to register an emphatic protest against the vein in which two hon. members have spoken, and against their reflection on other members who have proved their love and loyalty to the people of the country when the two hon. gentlemen in question ran away from their duty.

Just a few words. I should have thought that the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. H. Reitz) had at least sufficient hearing to know what had taken place, but apparently it is not so. I want to ask the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) to forgive me for telling him that if he votes against the motion he cannot excuse himself on the ground of arguments which he used on a previous occasion, and for the following reason. As the hon. member has himself said, three Ministers, Ministers in fact who hold the chief portfolios in relation to the estimates, have to leave this week, as hon. members know. The hon. Minister on my right has actually to leave on Wednesday and the other two on Friday next. The only opportunity for my hon. friend on my left, the Minister of Finance, to make his budget speech is to-morrow. It is, therefore, very clear that this motion must come into immediate operation. My hon. friend next to him, the Minister of Railways, must make his speech before he leaves, i.e., on Wednesday, then there only remains Thursday—which is hardly enough —to enable hon. members who want information to put questions to the Ministers, and to obtain further information from them. Hon. members will therefore see that it is absolutely necessary to take this step immediately, so that the budget debate should take place insofar as it is possible before the Ministers leave on their important mission. There cannot be the least doubt that the Government is prepared, and always will be prepared, to give its attention to any matters private members want to bring before it, and to meet them as far as possible, but in the present circumstances it is not possible. Hon. members know that this is an unusual, a special session. We cannot call it an ordinary session because the circumstances are extraordinary, but what is more during this extraordinary session after the budget debate there will be three or four weeks time when the House will have the opportunity of considering the matters which have been mentioned, of bringing them before the public and of asking the Government to take the necessary steps. In these circumstances there is not so much necessity to keep Tuesdays and Fridays free for private members. As hon. members know, the country is not assisted by speeches in the House, but by the work done by the Government, by the assistance which is given to the public. We intend to take the first steps tomorrow, and in the circumstances I do not think that the hon. member for Jeppes and other hon. members have any ground for objection. I hope the House will accept my motion.

I do not want to speak; but if the Prime Minister will use Tuesdays and Fridays—

No. I am afraid the hon. member is out of order.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion, and the House divided:

Ayes—115.

Abrahamson, H.

Alberts, S. F.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Baines, A. C. V.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Baumann, E. P.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, J. F. v. G.

Bekker, S. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Byron, J. J.

Chalmers, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Cochrane, W.

Conroy, E. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

DeSouza, E.

DeVilliers, P. C.

DeVilliers, W. B.

DeWet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, P. P.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eaton, A. H. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fick, M. L.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Gerdener, H.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Gray, C. W.

Grobler, J. H.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh. B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Henderson, R. H.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Ileyns, J. D.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jooste, J. P.

Joubert, F. A.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Kotzé, R. N.

Krige, C. J.

Krige, J. E. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Luttig, P. J. H.

MacCallum, A. J.

Malan, M. L.

Martins, P. v. d. M.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Naudé, S. W.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Oost, H.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pirow, O.

Pocock, P. V.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Reynolds, L. F.

Roberts, F. J.

Robinson, C. P.

Rood, K.

Rood, W. H.

Rooth, E. A.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sauer, P. O.

Scholtz, J. J.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Shaw, F.

Smuts, J. C.

Stallard, C. F.

Stevn. G. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Struben, R. H.

Strydom, J. G.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Swanepoel, A. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Theron, P.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. O.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Visser, W. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wadley, T. M.

Wares, A. P. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; O’Brien, W. J.

Noes—10.

Bain-Marais, C.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hockly, R. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Reitz, H.

Sutton, S. S.

Tellers: Bouwer, G. S.; McArthur, R. T.

Question accordingly affirmed; motion proposed by Mr. Madeley dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Col.-Cdt. COLLINS seconded.

There is no member of this House who did not admire Mr. Joel Krige as Speaker. I have always heard of him as a very fair and just Speaker and I have no doubt he will make a very fair and just Chairman of Committees. For that reason I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on their very excellent appointment. I say appointment advisedly because Mr. Krige is not being elected, he has been appointed. I have already said that it is a very excellent appointment and I mean it sincerely, and nothing I say further is to be taken as reflecting in any way upon the merits of Mr. Krige. As I say, he was appointed, and is not being elected, and I want to tell the House and I wish the country to know what happened. I am not sure how many members of the Nationalist party there are in this House. There are so many of them and so many got in unopposed and so many crept in by side doors or were pushed in by the right hon. the member for Standerton. And here, when I say that they were pushed in by the right hon. the member for Standerton (the Minister of Justice) I am not specially referring to the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), because I do not want specially to refer to him, as I do not desire to make the thorny position in which he finds himself any more difficult, but I want to warn the hon. member for Calvinia, even if he is absent, that if his handmaiden, “Die Burger,” does not alter its attitude towards us, the minorities, I shall be reluctantly compelled to strew a few more thorns on his seat. I am not referring to the hon. member for Calvinia, but I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs, because he, as we all know, holds his seat by the grace of the right hon. the Minister of Justice.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I am really explaining why I am not sure how many members of the Nationalist party there are, and I must first find out how many members there are in order to explain to the House, so that the public shall know what really happened. I know that other people also assisted the Minister of Native Affairs. I cannot deny it, because at the opening of Parliament I saw Mr. Lategan, who also came from Rustenburg—or should I say Senator Lategan?

I must ask the hon. member to apply himself to the motion. These matters have nothing to do with the motion before the House.

Very well, I shall admit at once without further argument that there are some 71 Nationalist members of Parliament, excluding the ministers. That includes all “unconditionals.” They were called together in order to decide who should be the office-bearers of this House. One can understand their excitement. One can understand how eagerly they were discussing the merits and the demerits of the various possibles, and then the Prime Minister-entered, and they were simply told, “We, Mussolini and Hitler, have decided that the following three gentlemen shall hold the following three posts.” And not one of these 71 hon. members, representing, if you please, no fewer than about 500,000 electors, not one of them said one single word. I challenge any one of them to get up and say truthfully that he was ever consulted—excepting perhaps the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh). He may have been consulted. If he was, it seems that his advice was not taken. Having regard to the very excellent choice that the two ministers made, I think it is perhaps just as well that the 71 were not consulted, and I think it will be just as well if in future no notice is taken of them and if they are not consulted. In conclusion, I must once more congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on their very excellent choice.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Col.-Cdt. COLLINS seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. FAURE seconded.

The CLERK read the orders of the House of the 7th February, 1933, giving leave to introduce the Bill and the first reading; of the 9th and 13th February, appointing the select committee; of the 9th February, referring to the committee the petition in opposition to the Bill; of the 27th February, granting leave to amend the preamble and that the committee sit during the sitting of the House; of the 27th February, reporting the Bill with amendments, and of the 2nd March, giving leave for proceedings to be suspended and that the Bill may be proceeded with this session.

Motion put and agreed to; second reading to-morrow.

I move—

Col.-Cdt. COLLINS seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. M. L. MALAN seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

time be referred to it, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Mr. PRETORIUS seconded.

Agreed to.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. M. L. MALAN seconded.

Agreed to.