stated that His Excellency the Governor-General had requested that a message under section 58 of the South Africa Act convening a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament for the purpose of considering the Official Languages of the Union Bill be conveyed to this House, and announced that he was the bearer of the message.

read the message as follows—

Before replying to the principal points that have been raised by hon. members during the debate I wish to say that I am highly gratified at the generally favourable reception of the budget by the country as a whole. It is true that hon. members opposite have, during the five days which have been allotted to discussion under the rules of the House, made certain criticisms in regard to certain aspects of the Government’s proposals; but I think I am justified in saying that very seldom has there been such an almost total absence of criticism in regard to the general financial policy as disclosed by the budget. We have included in our budget proposals the important and complicated matter of tariff revision, and we have come before the House with a totally new tariff; and I make bold to say that our proposals in this regard would be accepted by the country, and not only by the majority of members in this House, but by the majority of voters in the country, who ordinarily support the Opposition. I deliberately make that statement that this budget would generally be accepted, not only by the Government supporters, but by voters who generally support the Opposition.

Oh, no!

An extraordinary feature of this debate has been the divergence of opinion among hon. members of the Opposition in regard to several very important matters upon which we are asked to take a stand; and thus we are faced with difficulty when we desire to ascertain the exact views of the Opposition thereon. We never seem to know when hon. members opposite are speaking for themselves, or when they are speaking for their party, and this is what makes it rather difficult to ascertain which of their criticisms to take seriously and which not to take seriously. For instance, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), honest free-trader as he is, and other hon. members roundly condemned the Government’s proposals in regard to protection for our industries, with a view to finding employment for our people; and we recollect the enthusiastic advocacy in his election manifesto of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in regard to a forward industrial policy, when we listened to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and the hon. member for Peninsula (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin) in regard to the proposals to finance the provinces; and when they advocated the abolition of provincial councils, and we contrast that attitude with the well-known view of hon. members for Natal. When we listened to the denunciation of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in regard to the proposal to take off the duties on wheat and flour and of discrimination in favour of farmers and against townsmen, and we contrast that with the views of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and other hon. members. When, in spite of the protestations of the majority, we hear an hon. member opposite openly challenging our right to frame our own policy in such manner as we deem to be in the interests of our country, then we begin to wonder what really is after all the exact policy of the Opposition; and I am sure the country will be very critical in determining the exact, value of their criticism. The right hon. member for Standerton, in referring to last year’s surplus of £800,000. claimed the budget as being that of his Government. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), was more generous; he pointed out that the Government was in charge during nine months of the year and, therefore, the Opposition was entitled to a proportionate amount of credit for this state of affairs. Whoever may be entitled to the credit for this, a point I wish hon. members to bear in mind is that in last year’s budget no provision was made for the provincial liability of nearly £1.000,000. I say that is an important fact which should be remembered in regard to this discussion on the general financial position. Neither the Union budget nor the provincial budget made provision for this liability, neither did the Union budget make provision for the arrear pension fund contributions. Hon. members opposite have carefully avoided mentioning these matters and if we want to criticize the general financial commitments of this year, these are factors which should be taken into consideration. The hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the leader of the Opposition have made certain general charges of extravagance and want of economy. The hon. member for Capetown (Central) specially dealt with the question of the burden of taxation, and the growth of taxation. Do hon. members opposite not realize what a grave indictment that is, not against this Government, but against the old Government? Every one of those taxes enumerated by the hon. member that go to make up this percentage increase has been levied by the previous Government.

And never taken off.

They have set up the standard of expenditure in the services of the country, and now they claim we should already, during our short tenure of office, have Cut down these services and given certain economies to the country in connection with this budget.

Yes, certainly.

They were there long enough. Why did they not effect these economies? I have already admitted in my budget that they have, during the last years, when they saw the limit had been reached in regard to this matter, cut down, but I must assume that the Government have done their duty and that they have Cut down as much as was reasonable for them to do, and now they come and claim that during the short time we have been in office we have not been able to come forward and show the economy they expected in regard to the services of the country. But we claim that we have reduced taxation, even during our short term of office. I mentioned, of course, that it is true that we might not have remitted the taxes which hon. members opposite have wanted to see remitted, but we have lightened the burden of the people. I may mention the patent medicine tax, the tobacco tax, and the partial return to the penny postage. I frankly admitted in my statement that I had not had the time which I should have liked to devote to this question during the time we have been in office, but we have effected economies. Take the Department of Defence that has been criticized in the past. I told the Minister of Defence that the country expected a reduction of expenditure in that regard, and he did his best, and the proposals that have been brought forward in these Estimates show the very substantial reduction of not less than £83,000. That is something which the country will appreciate.

At the cost of efficiency.

I do not think so. I wonder what proof the hon. gentleman has of that. What becomes then of the charge of increased expenditure? It is true that hon. members have pointed out that the present Estimates of expenditure show a very substantial increase; but as I have already pointed out, in that amount is included the provision that has to be made for financing the provinces. In that amount is also included provision that had to be made to meet the interest on our public debt; also the extra provision required in connection with our pension funds, and also an amount of nearly £200,000 in connection with the annual increments of our public servants. These are all increases, If you take them from the amount of nearly £2,000,000 mentioned by hon. members opposite, you will see that very little remains that requires explanation, and so far as these are concerned I challenge hon. members opposite to move an amendment in respect of those that show increases on previous years. What ecnomies do they suggest? It is true they have suggested economy in one direction, namely, in regard to education. They have taken the expenditure of the proposed provincial subsidies. I shall deal with that later; but I first want to give some attention to the statement of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that so far from reducing taxation, as the people expected, the Minister actually proposes to put on increased taxation amounting to £400,000 nett. I want to ask the hon. member is that a fair statement?

Why not? Certainly.

I want to state the actual position. In the proposals before the House in regard to the revision of the customs tariff the Treasury expects to get an increased revenue of £400,000.

£600,000 less £200,000.

I say a net increase of £400,000 through the customs. Whether that is wholly to be borne by the taxpayer or whether he did not formerly bear a portion we need not discuss for the moment. Let us admit for the purpose of our argument that we are getting £400,000. That is an increased burden on the people in regard to the customs proposals. Then through my proposals to modify the income tax, and in regard to the income tax paid by companies, by introducing the flat rate instead of the former normal and dividend tax we expect to get £200,000. As already pointed out the rate of taxation was not increased, but merely through adjustment we are getting certain people to pay who did not pay formerly. I admit, for the sake of argument, that this means £200,000 which the people have to pay. That gives £600,000. Can the hon. gentleman point to any other burdens which the budget lays upon the people?

Is not that enough?

Yes, if you can do without it. But I now propose to put against that certain remissions which the hon. member did not mention, namely, the tobacco tax, £200,000; penny postage—not a postdated cheque, but an actual remission during this financial year—£130,000; turnover tax and companies tax, £245,000.

That is not taken off yet. That is a provincial tax.

It will be taken off just as surely as those other taxes will be put on. That gives you £575,000 to put against the other.

These taxes will be replaced by other taxes.

Oh no, I am coming to that. A certain member mentioned licences. I wish to tell him that in regard to licences we do not intend to take out of the pocket of the taxpayers a penny more than they are at present paying in regard to licences.

You do.

Licences are not included in this. These taxes will go and nothing will take their place. But a fact which hon. members opposite have avoided is that we have to add to that—and I challenge hon. members opposite to deny the correctness of it—that under my proposals no less than half-a-million of provincial taxes, which would have been necessary, now become unnecessary under these proposals.

You have left them almost the same taxing powers.

The hon. member wants to blame me for any taxation the provinces may levy. I may inform the House now that during this year it will not be necessary for any of the provinces to levy increased taxation. That being so am I not entitled to claim credit for the remission of this provincial taxation and to put against that the provincial taxation that would otherwise have been necessary? I may remind the hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that just before the resignation of the late Government the Cape Provincial Council foreshadowed increased taxation to the tune of £400,000. That becomes unnecessary now. The deficits in all the provinces now become unnecessary as a result of provision we are now making for them. That being so where does he get the £400,000 additional taxation which I am putting on the people?

From your own figures.

I leave that to the House to judge. Although, as I have shown, there is no increased nett taxation, I have also been criticized by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) for obtaining this increased amount of £400,000 through the customs in order to balance my Budget. That is a different statement from the one made by the hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I want to read what the right hon. member stated in regard to this matter—

That is exactly the charge we made from time to time against the old Government—instead of doing the unpopular thing and taxing, they preferred having deficits which were afterwards charged to loan accounts, thereby increasing the unproductive debt, or transferring loan monies to revenue, which amounted to the same thing. They violated every important canon of sound finance, and now they want me to do the same thing. It would have been very easy for me to have done this, and to do without this taxation, instead of doing the unpopular thing, that is balancing the budget by taxation if necessary. I am sure the country, however, would not have thanked me if I had continued the financial policy of the old Government in this regard. Then there is the allegation that the proposals under the tariff will bring about an increase in the cost of living. As I have already pointed out the Board of Trade and Industries denies that this will be the position. But even if it is so, the people of this country have deliberately accepted a protective policy in the interests of our industries. Protection may raise the cost of living to the consumer, and especially may not be in the interests of the great farming community which has to sell its products in the markets of the world, but the question of developing industries is of paramount importance and the farming interests have accepted this additional burden if it can thereby promote industries and find employment for its sons, who are to-day being driven off their farms. Even if there is an increase in the cost of living you cannot have it both ways; if the country has made up its mind to have industries it must be prepared to shoulder the burden and make the sacrifice. I now come to the question of provincial subsidies, and the arrangements made at the conference at Durban. The hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says that here is a matter where in accordance with the Baxter report, a cool million could be saved, on our expenditure. I say emphatically that this is one of the questions on which the hon. member does not speak for his own party. Is the Opposition prepared to support this proposal to save this million at the expense of the education of the children—is that the policy of hon. members opposite? Do they subscribe to this statement of the hon. member? No, Sir, here again the hon. member blames me for not putting into effect something which they could not and dared not put into effect themselves when they were in office. Although the mercantile community, on whose behalf the hon. member speaks, demanded that the late Government should carry out the Baxter report, and although my predecessor stated that the late Government accepted the main principles of the report, he appeared before the House with his “undersized infant.”

We expected something better from you.

That shows the hollowness and hypocrisy of hon. members opposite. Let us examine the position and judge the settlement arrived at in Durban on its merits. We find that a certain section of the people, on whose behalf hon. members opposite speak, openly say that the provincial system should be abolished. That is a perfectly clear and understandable position, but it is not a question of practical politics to-day.

Hear, hear.

Are hon. members prepared to find a solution by agreeing to the proposals of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and others who have openly stated that they are frankly in favour of the abolition of the provincial councils? I repeat that that is a matter outside practical politics to-day. That being so hon. members opposite blame me for not carrying out the Baxter report. Is there any justification for that? Have we on this side ever notified our acceptance of the main provisions of this report? Did we not bitterly attack it in this House? First the charge was that the Minister had gone to Durban and swallowed the Baxter report, and now they say they are disappointed because I do not carry it out. I accepted those recommendations which could be accepted in the interests of the country, and rejected those which the people would not accept from this Government or the old Government. Now, why is that report altogether unacceptable to the people of the country? Because in the first place it openly advocated the limitation of the powers of the provinces in such a manner that they would be forced to levy one form of tax,—the land tax. If these recommendations had been carried out to save this cool million of money it would have been necessary to close a large number of country schools. That would have been one of the results of the adoption of that report,—by limiting the number of pupils before it could become a public school to close down a number of schools in the country. These were some of the reasons which made the adoption of the report impossible and the Government had no compunction in rejecting them, as members opposite had to reject them. The charge has always been brought against the councils that they are extravagant. I suppose we would be able to find similar extravagances on the part of the central Government during those boom times when expenditure was inflated and standards of pay were greater all round. As the Government learnt its lesson so the Provincial Councils have learned their lesson. If the councils were abolished and the Government had to take over their functions I doubt if we could do the work at less expense. We have taken over technical education from the councils and the country will watch my hon. friend, the Minister of Education, with interest and see if he can run it at less expense.

And make no reduction from the grant on that account.

What are the main features of the settlement in Durban? One was the alteration in the basis of subsidy and the other was a limitation of the powers of taxation. I am entitled to state that the position we found was this—unless the basis of subsidy was altered in such a manner as to increase it, it would have been impossible for the councils to find the revenue required from direct taxation. I repeat, unless it was possible to alter the basis of the subsidy in such a manner as to give the councils an increased subsidy it was impossible for those councils to find the amount required from direct taxation. We remember we had a demand from the Cape Council upon the previous Government for the right to impose a sales tax which the right hon. gentleman promised and then refused. This is one of the taxes the commercial people were in fear of being levied and they have now been saved from that taxation. As regards the basis of subsidy I understand the hon. members opposite have no objection to that part of the settlement. They admit it is a more satisfactory and scientific basis. We know our commitments with regard to taxation and the method would prove more satisfactory than under the old basis. I take it there was no objection to that. It was also accepted generally that the per capita grant is insufficient to pay for the total cost of education. I don’t think the Provincial Finance Commission made any assertion that it did. They did not claim it would settle the full cost of education. A balance would remain. There are also other services the councils have to perform and they must have the necessary money. Do hon. members want me to give a subsidy in regard to the other services or do they agree that the satisfactory way to deal with it is to allow the councils to have the right of taxation they enjoy under the constitution and which they have to exercise if they are to get the increased amount required. I think it is the only possible basis. The next question now arises how far would it be possible for the central Government to limit this taxing power? I was faced with that question and tried to deal with it in the best possible manner. It is rather unsatisfactory to find, after my herculean efforts on behalf of the hon. members opposite, that they now come forward and prove their ingratitude and say we have done nothing for them.

It is too true.

They say the taxing power has not been limited. Let us examine the position and see if it is so. The general right of direct taxation has been taken away. Is that not a limitation of powers? Certain definite taxes have been scheduled which the provinces will be able to levy and no other.

On a very liberal basis.

Yes, of course, that is the crux of the whole question. The hon. member opposite wants to limit it to such an extent that they will have no scope at all and will be forced to impose the land tax. I was not prepared to accept that. Certain existing direct taxes disappear and they are not scheduled again. This is another very important provision as to the limitation of certain taxes to be imposed, and in most cases they are limited to their present severity. Is that not a very important limitation?

No, absolutely no.

There is no incentive to economy.

The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) pointed to the objectionable feature of double taxation and instanced the income tax. I agree with him, but unfortunately this was one of the things that could not be helped. I ask you to tell me how it was possible for the provinces to balance their budget unless they had the right to impose this taxation. The double income-tax has been limited to an amount not exceeding 20 per cent. of the Union income-tax. Take the Free State and the Transvaal; unless they had this tax it would have been impossible for them, and for Natal in the future without this right, to balance their budget—unless you are out to force these provinces to levy the burdensome land tax. This was one of the most difficult points I had to deal with. I was severely blamed by my own side because I had been so hard on the councils, and some of our own members said I had interfered unduly with these councils. Now I find hon. members opposite attach no value whatsoever to these limitations. If that is so, I may inform hon. members that it will certainly save me a great deal of trouble and bother if I drop this portion of my Bill. If they don’t appreciate it, this question can be reconsidered, and we may find it perhaps expedient to hand back the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and his friends to the tender mercy of the “Tiger.” If they think they are not getting anything from this limitation of the taxing powers of the provinces, we can reconsider the question, and if they prefer the existing state of affairs, this Government will certainly have no great objections to adopting that course. One thing is clear, unless you abolish the provincial councils, if they are to continue to carry on the functions entrusted to them under the South Africa Act, they will have to retain certain powers of taxation. That being so, the field of taxation at least should be such as to admit of their having some choice in regard to the particular taxes to be imposed. Unless you abolish these councils, you will have to allow them to retain certain taxing powers, and allow them certain scope and latitude to select the particular taxes which they desire to impose. Provincial councils are subject to exactly the same penalties as members of this House; they are elected by the people, and, if they exceed the limits of reasonable taxation, they will be called to account by the voters in the same way as members of Parliament are. I must confess I don’t see much force in this contention of hon. members opposite in regard to the alleged extravagance of this provincial system, where they operate practically under the same conditions as members of this House. I come to perhaps what may be regarded as the principal point of the attack in regard to this budget, and that is the proposals for the re-adjustment of the British preference. I think we all deplore the manner in which certain hon. members opposite have in dealing with this question made reference to, and, I may say, attacked the members of the Board of Trade and Industries. I specially refer to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). I think, on reflection, the hon. member will by now have realized that he did not deal fairly with this question. He made great play with the thesis which had been written by the chairman of the board and on which, as he says, the Government has based its proposals in regard to the revision of the tariff. He has tried to make out that this particular gentleman, on account of what he is supposed to have written previously, has been actuated by anti-British feeling. The hon. member has made no attempt to deal with the principles of that report. He was busy for half-an-hour with the ad hominem argument, attacking the personnel of the board, and he never came near the principles themselves, and never dealt with them on their merits. What strikes one is this, that when a charge of that nature is made and hon. members opposite have made their criticisms on the same lines, they have never for a moment mentioned the fact that there is at least one member of that board who signed that report and who could not be said to be actuated by anti-British feeling, and who at least is an accented authority on questions of finance and tariffs, the member who was appointed to that responsible position by the previous Government Why were certain members of the board singled out for attack, and why no mention made of the presence on that board of this one gentleman who signed that report and to whom these criticisms certainly did not apply?

It is a one-man board; that is why.

No, as far as this report is concerned, the board carefully considered its terms, and the Government was satisfied that the proposals contained in that report were of such a nature that it could confidently recommend them, or, at any rate, certain of them, to the acceptance of this House. I now want to say a few words in regard to the manner in which certain hon. members have tried to deal with this matter. There was the outstanding instance of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) denying the right of this country to arrange its own fiscal policy as it pleases. It is true that that contention was repudiated by hon. members opposite. I am very glad especially to mention here the manner in which the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) dealt with the question on its merits and in a way to which no possible exception could be taken, and I say we are glad that that view which had been put forward in all seriousness did not find acceptance in this House also on the part of hon. members opposite. Now it is generally admitted that the abolition of the preference will bring in £600,000 to the Treasury. Well, that is a very important consideration.

Who pays it?

I am coming to that. It is also admitted, I think, by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) amongst others, that this benefit which now accrues to the Treasury was formerly shared in certain proportions between the South African consumer, the importer, and the British manufacturer. I think that is very generally admitted.

No.

These are the facts, and they should be remembered when dealing with this matter.

But we don’t accept them as facts.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) may not accept them, but I think he will find that this is the view that is generally held. Is there anything unreasonable in our contention that trade benefits should, as far as possible, be based upon reciprocal benefits given?

What are they?

I am laying down the general principle.

But you do not accept the benefits given by Great Britain.

We have heard the views of the father of preference, the hon. Jan Hofmeyr, and we have heard the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) say that you will find right throughout his speeches that the late Jan Hofmeyr also mentioned that he advocated this preference in the hope or rather in the belief that it would be followed by reciprocity. I want to come nearer home. I again wish to refer hon. members to the views publicly expressed by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) inside this House and outside in regard to this question. It was just before the right hon. member left for the Imperial Conference in 1923. The right hon. member made a speech in which he used these words—

Well, the question was raised, and you know with what result, that these proposals were subsequently deliberately rejected by the Government of Great Britain. The right hon. member then made another speech in Johannesburg when he expressed very strong disappointment. What did he say? It has already been quoted by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), but I think I may repeat it. He said—

That being so, may I ask what becomes of the contention that you dare not, under any circumstances, endeavour to place this question on a reciprocal basis, that is, benefits given for benefits received. What had the right hon. member in mind when he spoke about preference being one-sided and cutting them out if they did not want them, when he now comes forward and tells us that under no circumstances should we go in for a principle of this nature? What had he in mind?

The British people have decided.

Exactly, but does that alter the principle? Then we have merely come to the position of determining whether the British people have done enough, or whether they have not done enough. The right hon. member knows that they have not carried out the bargain. We had notification of the proposals of the British Government when we framed these proposals, and the preferences she was giving were taken into account. May I ask the right hon. gentleman when he referred to the intention of his Government in regard to Customs taxation—which he afterwards said would not be carried out, because it was better to apply his principles of finance, and his Government went pretty far with the proposals—did he not have in mind the cutting out of a certain portion of these preferences? I ask him that. One of the most important arguments used in regard to this question is as to why it would be unreasonable to base our policy on an expectation of Great Britain giving us similar benefits. It was pointed out that Great Britain could not give what is called a quid pro quo, because she is a free trade country. May I point out that there are numbers of people in Great Britain who hold that she could and should change her fiscal system in the interests of empire trade? We know it is a burning question in England. Great Britain stands by free trade, because free trade suits her conditions, and for no other reason.

And gives us a free market.

Then there is another argument that other countries do not take our goods free as Great Britain does; but surely that is not the point. The question is whether these countries discriminate against us or not. If not, and there is a market in such countries for our goods, it does not matter what duty the people in those countries pay on our goods as long as we have an equal chance with other countries to get into these markets. Great Britain does not confer any benefit upon us as long as she admits the products of other countries on the same terms, and as long as she forces us to bid or be kept out.

Do you mean to say you make that statement seriously?

Of course I do.

Well, it shows how much you know about it, that’s all.

That may be the view of the hon. member, but others are entitled to their opinion as well. Then there is the argument that we have a sympathetic money market in England. That is true. The hon. member opposite has pointed out that in Great Britain they have legislation making our loans trustee investments; and in that, way there is money available for our loans which would not be available to other countries. I admit that, but it does not entitle us to get our money cheaper than other countries. I trust all this has in the past not been a one-sided advantage, but has been of mutual benefit to this country and to Great Britain. Then there is the argument that other countries regard preference with the empire as a family arrangement not calling for retaliation. Unfortunately, that is not borne out by the facts. Other countries take a very keen interest in this matter and we have had reports from our Trades Commissioner on the Continent to the effect that wherever he has tried to push our products on the continent he has been met with the statement—

This is a serious matter and that is what the hon. member had in mind when he spoke of the urgent necessity there was for this country to try and find other markets. Now of course he belittles this attempt on behalf of the Government, but he did not think that always. I think I had better quote what the hon. member stated farther on the occasion already referred to. He said—

What had the hon. member in view when he foreshadowed that it would be necessary for the country to remodel its fiscal policy? And yet he belittles the policy of the Government in trying to find other markets for our products and calls it a slap in the face to Great Britain when we try to go outside our present markets. Mention has been made of the fact that complications might arise if we sought to enter into most-favoured-nation agreements with America, for instance, whose legislation entitles her to retaliate. My reply is that every case where negotiations are entered into for a trade agreement will be dealt with on its merits. If we find complications might arise, no business will be done; but I might point out to hon. members opposite that as far as the United States is concerned our trade to-day is very valuable to her, she sends this country a larger proportion of goods than we send to her and may not be willing to disturb the present arrangement.

Take fruits for instance, she has shut us cut.

I wish to refer briefly to the attempt made by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to read into my budget statement that negotiations for the benefits of the minimum tariff would never be carried out with countries inside the British empire. No justification for this contention exists. If Great Britain at any time should increase the preference we shall reciprocate. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) pointed out in regard to sugar that we enjoyed very important advantages which I admit, and that it is only our own fault that this preference is not of more value; that is to say if we produced more, we would get more preference. Well, if our trade does expand, we shall take this into consideration and revise those preferences from time to time. I again say there is nothing in my budget proposals to indicate that Great Britain is placed or will be placed in a worse position than other countries. She retains preferences on the cream of our trade. I think that is a fact. Perhaps I may here deal with the statement made outside the House, by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that we had only selected 22 classes of items on which we would give Great Britain preference, and that the whole of the rest of the tariff, containing hundreds of items, would be available for bargaining with other countries.

I said 95 heads were left for a minimum tariff to be bargained for with other countries.

I will give the true position. From a perusal of the proposed tariff you will find that 3 per cent. or its equivalent, more or less in specific duties, has been abolished under more than 70 important heads. The articles falling under these heads are manufactured in the Union. That is to give protection to industries in the Union. Hon. members will thus see that those heads are eliminated for bargaining purposes. We would not give a minimum tariff to any other countries if we had deliberately put on those duties to give protection to these commodities, so they are excluded. Preference has been abolished on the whole of Class 15, in order to let in raw materials free for industrial requirements. The ordinary 3 per cent. has, moreover, been abolished, in the body of the tariff, on 50 items, to let these in free for industrial or other purposes. A number of articles also on the free list, in the interests of our industries are eliminated at once for purposes of bargaining. The preference has been abolished on some two dozen items for the sake of revenue. The nature of these items, so far as they come from Great Britain, indicates that the increased duties will not affect the consumer. There are hardly a dozen items remaining on that list, on which you will be able to bargain. What becomes of the deliberate statement that this Government is out to conclude most-favoured-nation agreements or trade agreements with other countries, in order to give them the benefit of the minimum tariff?

What about the 95 heads in the minimum tariff?

Generally the tariff is based on the minimum and the maximum. There is no reason why the Government should in any particular case adopt a minimum tariff.

With each of these you can bargain.

Of course you can, but it is not likely that you will bargain in our peculiar circumstances. I come now to the matter in which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has shown a keen interest. The Prime Minister has already informed the House that Great Britain and the dominions will be consulted in regard to any future treaty agreements with other countries—that definite statement has been made. They will be consulted as to whether any particular commodity they export would be affected thereby. You can imagine many cases where an article in regard to which you enter into a treaty agreement, and on which you wish to give a minimum tariff, is not produced at all in England, and therefore the question would not arise, but we have already said that Great Britain and the dominions will be consulted. Every case will be dealt with on its merits and Parliament will have to decide the matter on its merits. The Government has no intention of entering into, and will not seek, any trade agreement under which Great Britain will be placed in a less favourable position than the country with which the agreement is effected. In other words, we intend to give her most-favoured-nation treatment in all cases. That I state is the intention of the Government, although we will in certain cases where we consider it advisable or necessary to try to come to an arrangement with other countries, Great Britain will be consulted, and in no case have we any intention of not giving her most-favoured-nation terms.

Withdraw.

There is nothing to withdraw.

I do not wish at this stage to discuss the details of the tariff. One or two hon. members have pointed out anomalies. Hon. members have not the complete proposals before them, and they will only be laid before the House when we have the Bill. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) referred to one anomaly in regard to dyes which in one instance pay 20 per cent. and in another are admitted free, and he urged that that would be confusing. The position is this. Dyes sold in small packets for domestic uses, and imported for renovating old clothes, will pay a duty of 20 per cent., because these operations are not considered as industries. On the other hand, dyes used in the production or manufacture of articles for sale will be admitted free under such conditions as may be prescribed, and there will be no difficulty in controlling this because it will be laid down that this privilege will only be given in the case of recognized factories.

It will lead to fraud.

Are importers so dishonest?

The Customs Department has been able to deal with this matter, in the past. That principle we already have in our tariff, and it has been working smoothly. May I refer to the question of the supposed benefits to be conferred on farmers by allowing them to exercise the option in the case of income-tax of coming on the cash basis or remaining on the existing basis. The statement has been made that in this Budget we are giving the farmers a certain amount of relief from income-tax. That is not so, and the whole thing does not amount to anything at all. I think that any farmer who exercises the option to pay on a cash basis will probably pay more in income-tax. The concession, however, will be very much appreciated by farmers. Farmers who do not pay income-tax are still required to make out these very complicated returns. The change will not really mean anything in money, and I do not think the income-tax will lose a sixpence; in fact, I think it will mean more revenue.

Why not simplify the farmers’ returns?

The department has always been inviting suggestions from farmers and farmers’ associations as to simplifying the returns, but they have never come forward with anything worth considering. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) brought up the question of the dumping duty on wheat and flour. He tried to make political capital out of it by stating that this wicked Government retained the duty on wheat and flour, but wiped off the duty on superphosphates. Wheat and flour have always been articles that have enjoyed very extensive protection in this country. I am informed that 36 years ago the duty on wheat was 2s. per hundred pounds and on flour 5s. per hundred pounds. The protection to-day is based on what is required under normal trade conditions. Whenever dumping takes place the farmer is placed in an unfair position. The difficulty has been that under the existing legislation, for which I am not responsible, it is possible that in certain cases a dumping duty is levied when under the law it is dumping, but when really it is not dumping in fact. That is the position we are trying to rectify. I do not think hon. members are against the principle of the dumping duty. I admit that it has worked out in the past so that the duty was levied legally under the law where, in fact, there was no dumping. That difficulty we are trying to overcome by an amendment I propose to introduce. Now, I would like to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) with regard to the taxation on companies. He raised certain anomalies with regard to the proposals in connection with the debenture interests and preference shares. It is a complicated matter, and I think we can deal with it when I bring forward the proposals before the Committee of Ways and Means. I should like to make just a few remarks in regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir E. Oppenheimer). It is always a pleasure to listen to him, not only on account of the tone but of the matter in his speeches. He raised important matters, and I must say, unlike the hon. member for Cape Town (Central (Mr. Jagger), and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir D. Harris), he appreciates the action of the Government in not laying extra burdens on the mines. The hon. member has raised a question of the inadequacy of the capacity of the mint to deal with the question of minting the whole of the Rand gold output. That is so. The gold producer’s committee have stated that they understood that the mint would be sufficiently large to deal with the whole output, and it was only afterwards found it was not so. The present capacity of the mint to coin gold is £10,000,000 per annum. Recently it has been working at the rate of £12,000,000 under pressure. The installation of additional machinery in a few weeks’ time will increase the normal to £18,000,000. We have machinery on order which will enable the mint to deal with this output. As regards the future increase of the capacity of the mint: that is a matter the Government will carefully consider later on. I don’t know whether it will be justified. At present the mines tell us they would like to deal with their whole output in this way, but they might decide not to do so later on. This is a matter the Government will have to consider carefully before agreeing to a considerable extension and the carrying out of the wishes of the gold-producer’s committee to enlarge the mint to deal with the whole output. Then he raised the question of the transferability of Union stock between London and the Transvaal. Since Union in all the loans negotiated no provision has been made for transferability. The matter was discussed in London and certain questions were raised in connection with the transferability. The question of having our local issues underwritten will be considered. Our local issues, without incurring the expense of underwriting, have been very successful. Both these questions will be gone into and will be carefully considered. I wish now to refer briefly to the point of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) where he expressed some measure of disappointment that I have not been able this year in this budget to increase the income tax abatement in respect of smaller fortunes. I did carefully consider that matter, but as he sees from the financial position, it would have been impossible to agree to that remission unless I had put the burden on other income-tax payers. I did not feel justified in recommending that. As soon as the financial position improved so that we can consider further remissions we will go into the matter and give it careful consideration and see what can be done. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) raised the question of increasing the abatement in case of children. I have considered this, and if I find the amount of revenue to be sacrificed will not be very great, I will favourably consider any suggestion at a later stage that the abatement should be increased to £60 per child. The member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) referred to the question of war pensions and what steps the Government were taking to carry out the recommendations of the Pensions Grievances Commission. We have appointed a board consisting of Senator C. A. van Niekerk, Sir William Campbell and Mr. Wolmarans, M.P.C., to go into the grievances and consider all cases, and if necessary to allow the pensioners to appear again and have their cases reconsidered. In conclusion I wish to say I have tried to lay before the country what I think has rightly been described as an honest budget. I have made provision for what might be called the liquidation of arrear liabilities, and I venture to claim that the present budget more accurately reflects the true financial position of the country than has been the case for a long time. The budget provisions could easily have been different in many aspects, if I had not resolutely tried to hold equally the scales between all sections or interests or if I had been less mindful of the true interests of the country, as a whole. With regard to the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) I am unable to accept it, and after the Minister of Railways has replied I hope the House will signify its approval of the main principles of the budget by adopting the motion standing in my name.

The Opposition has left me an extraordinarily easy task. With the exception of the hon. member for Standerton, no single member of the Opposition, has dealt with the railway budget.

We had not time.

We have had sufficient talk on the other side for some little attention to have been given to the railway budget. I must say it is an extraordinary position. The whole of the Opposition, strong solid party as they are, when we deal with more than £20,000,000 of expenditure from railway funds, are a silent party—they have no policy.

We shall get an opportunity yet.

I ask myself the reason for it.

They are so satisfied that you followed the policy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that they had nothing further to say.

He says they are satisfied. In that case does he forget the criticism of the hon. member for Standerton that I was frittering away the surplus and he was calling for the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) to come and help because I was following a policy contrary to the interests of South Africa. I was waiting—and may I admit with a certain amount of diffidence—for the attack of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) who, I know, has spent much midnight oil in preparing a speech, but, to my great regret and disappointment, the speech was not forthcoming.

He has not had a chance.

Is it because he was told by the party whip, after the experience he had had on the Partial Appropriation Bill with civilized labour, that he had better not make that speech? It would almost appear so. In any case, I sympathize with the hon. member for Harbour. May I suggest to him and the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) whom, some time ago, I challenged to produce any case of a coloured man or native who, under the policy adopted by this Government, has had an injustice done him, that since then we have had two conferences of coloured people? May I suggest that the hon. member for Harbour and the hon. member for Caledon could have asked for the assistance of the chairman and members of the A.P.O. to produce one single case of a coloured man or native having suffered an injustice under the policy of the Government? The policy adopted by the Government was frankly stated to the House, and if any case can be produced where an alleged injustice has been done under that policy to a coloured man or native, I shall be quite prepared to deal with it. Let me deal with the only speech in which any attempt was really made to criticize the railway budget. I refer to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). A more remarkable statement has never been made by a member of this House and a leader of the Opposition than was made by the hon. member for Standerton. What was the gravamen of his charge? That I, or the Government, was frittering away the surplus. If he had taken the trouble of looking at the facts and had done me the honour of reading my budget speech he would not have fallen into the great mistakes which he made. He talks about the Jagger surplus, the surplus of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), which I frittered away. What surplus is he referring to? He mentioned the figure of £930,000. That is the correct figure, not the actual figure quoted by the hon. member. That was not the surplus which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) budgetted for the year I took over. The surplus which he budgetted for was £212,000. It became much more. Under whose administration? The right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) and other members cannot have it both ways. They seem to forget that since July 1st, 1924, a new Government has had charge, and that while this wonderful Jagger—

Order, order.

I beg your pardon, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). While this wonderful man only budgetted for £212,000, the actual result was £930,000.

I have no doubt that if he had been there it would have been more.

I admit it would have been more, but then you would not have had the sympathetic treatment of the employees, which was necessary. I am not disputing that the hon. member would not have shown a bigger surplus, but what I do complain of is that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) misled, or endeavoured to mislead the country in regard to this question. The position is that under the new administration the surplus was increased by more than £700,000, that is over what was budgetted for by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

It is a pity you did not take it off the rates then.

We are coming to the rates. Let me deal with this surplus of £900,000, and give credit to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Now what is being done with regard to the surplus? We have taken £770,000 and wiped out the deficit of the hon. member’s own Government. Is that frittering away the surplus? Did he want to carry that deficit forward? Did he want me to neglect that deficit, or did I do what was only sound and what any other hon. member who has a sense of responsibility would have done? What did I do with the balance? I carried forward the balance and am going to wipe off the loss on the Durban elevator. I appeal to the hon. member whether that is not business. If that is so, what becomes of the statement of the hon. member for Standerton that I am now frittering away the surplus? I characterize that statement not only as irresponsible, but as incorrect. The hon. member has also referred to a reduction of rates by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) by £4,450,000. I have always given credit to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) for the very unpleasant task that he had to face, but let me remind the hon. member for Standerton that this mess which was partly cleared up by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was the result of the administration of two of its own Ministers—Mr. Burton and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). That was the mess which was cleared up, but it was the late Government that was responsible. When he talks about a remission of rates by four-and-a-half millions, I at once ask who was responsible for running up the rates to the extent which they were run up? Was it not the late Government?

It was the war.

Surely the hon. member realizes that we are still in the after-war period. Is there any railway system in the world where their rates are not thirty-three and one-third per cent., as ours are, or even higher still, above what they were before the war? Is there any railway system in the world, either State-owned or private, where there has not been an abnormal increase in rates, and where the rates are not to-day still very much above the pre-war level? While it is true that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) did reduce the rates, that reduction was very much overdue, and it was for many years the special plea of this side when we were in opposition, that the hon. member should have taken his courage in his hands and done what he did long before. He has also forgotten—and I hope not misstated the position—that the present administration did reduce the rates by half-a-million at the beginning of the year.

We have always admitted that.

He has evidently forgotten that, but, in order to strengthen his case, or really his want of a case, he comes and quotes the Harrismith factory established two years ago, and complains about the high rates on machinery. I ask the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) whether representations were made to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), when Minister of Railways, to reduce the rates. What was his reply? He refused. It was left to this Government and this administration at the present time to reduce the rates on machinery. But then the right hon. gentleman comes with this trumped-up charge against the administration, and accuses us blindly, where his accusations should have been levelled against the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). It is unfair and it should be beneath the dignity of the hon. member for Standerton to fling a charge of that kind against this side of the House when he knows that that is not the position. I want to say again what I have said previously, that so far as this question of reduction of rates is concerned the Government will, in the future, assuming circumstances permit, further reduce the rates, but the reduction in the rates must be subject to three main principles which I want to state to the House. The first is that we must not reduce our rates unless our railways are run on sound business lines under the terms of the Act of Union.

But you are not doing that.

Yes. Unless we do that then the Minister responsible and the Government would not be carrying out their duty. I agree with the hon. members that we should reduce as much as possible, but this should not be done except in accordance with the terms of the Act of Union. Does the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) want a repetition of the position in 1919-’20 and 1921-’22, when there were deficits of over £4,000,000? As long as I have something to do with railway administration it will be my earnest endeavour to see that the terms of the Act of Union are carried out and that we do not have a recurrence of the mess that hon. members over there brought about.

Why don’t you take your courage in both hands?

I did take it in both hands at the beginning of January. The second condition I wish to refer to is this, that our employees must have a square deal. It would be a sorry day for this country when our railway employees got the impression that any Government was simply out to reduce rates at the cost of the railway employee. Let us have a reduction when it is justified, but at the same time let us do justice to the men employed by the administration. The third condition is this, that we must always study the national interest. When it comes to a question of the employment of more civilized labour, even though it costs more, even though it may mean that the rates cannot be reduced at a particular time, then in the interests of our national life in South Africa, we must be prepared to face it and pay even more if necessary to maintain a civilized standard of living.

It is not carrying out the Act of Union.

Let me give the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) some facts as regards this budget, and let us see where I have in this budget tried to carry out the principles which I have just now stated. Let me first deal with the question of the pension and superannuation fund. Is the right hon. member aware of the fact that in these funds we had deficiencies of close on £4,000,000? I ask the right hon. gentleman who talks about frittering away the surplus, does he or does he not approve of the policy for making proper provision for these deficiencies? No reply has been given by the Opposition. This Government is making provision for close on £200,000 additionally in order to deal with this position that has been neglected in the past.

Oh no.

The hon. member when he dealt with the position had his own important difficulties to deal with, but at the same time he should have faced this position in 1920.

I was not there in 1920.

Well in 1921. In any case you were responsible for the budget in 1921-’22. I now come to another piece of information to which I want to direct the attention of the right hon. the member for Standerton. That is, for the first time we are making provision for £250,000 to reduce the amount on loan monies. Let me again inform the right hon. the member, who evidently has not studied this budget, that we are making provision for civilized labour and it is costing us £160,000 more. What is the policy of the whole strong South African party as regards the whole principle? We have never had a statement from the Opposition as to what that policy is.

On what?

The principle of civilized labour. I know it is a difficult question for hon. members opposite. Even so, I think we have the right to expect from them as a responsible party a statement as to whether they are criticizing constructively or whether they have no policy at all. The position is this: hon. members on that side of the House have been so accustomed to following Ministers who were simply satisfied to let things drift and develop, that now they are face to face with a constructive policy they have nothing to say. I think that is the real explanation; they cannot yet appreciate a really constructive budget such as we have here now. I think I have proved conclusively that when the right hon. the member for Standerton addressed the House he was talking without his book. It is quite a relief to turn from the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton to the thoughtful and, may I say, very interesting speech of the hon. member tor Salt River (Mr. Snow). Oh yes, I recognize the laugh of the vacant mind. I think I am entitled to say that when we consider that the hon. members who laugh they had nothing to offer in the debate. There are a few outstanding points which he dealt with and which I want to reply to. I am sorry I have evidently not yet been able to satisfy him that the appointment of the grievances commission is not necessary, but while I was not able to carry out his suggestion, I think I have gone very far in carrying out the spirit of the suggestion which he made. Let me refer to some of the matters to which attention has been directed and on which to a very large extent I have met him. A number of departmental committees were appointed on which the employees have got equal representation with the nominated representatives of the administration. These committees have done, and are doing, excellent work in order to satisfy our employees that the new administration wants to be fair and just to the employees. We have also extended the uses and the work of the conciliation board. The board has done excellent work. I notice that many of their recommendations were carried out by my hon. friend during his period of office. I am following that policy as far as possible. They are doing excellent work, and I propose to extend it. In the service Bill, I am giving them statutory status as regard their positions. Then we have also encouraged the policy of the open door. We have made it possible for all bona fide organizations to get into the closest touch with the general manager and the administration. We have had a large number of conferences with the employees of all classes, with nothing but good results, in that they have shown the employees that they have an open door and can make their representation, and even if these representations were not acceded to, at the same time they felt they had had the opportunity of stating their side of the case. Finally, I want to refer to the appointment of a Labour inspector—an appointment which I think has justified itself. One of the senior officials has been appointed to this position, and travels about the country and investigates those grievances on the spot, and makes his report to the general manager, who deals with the matter in conjunction with the administration. While I regret my inability to accept the suggestions for a grievances commission, I may say that the steps taken as outlined now, have to a very large extent met the point of view of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and of others who felt strongly on this point. He has also referred to the new Service Bill and the Superannuation Fund Bill. I do not propose to detain the House in regard to these two Bills, but I am hoping that we will be able to pass both of them this session. I see my hon. friend has doubts about that, but I know I Can depend on his solid support in passing these very necessary measures.

It depends.

The hon. member for Salt River has again referred to the question of the different rates of pay of the old and new entrants. I am sorry I cannot accede to the request, and I have stated to the artizans and to other classes of employees that, however unfortunate it may be, in the interests of the whole of our service, I regret I cannot go back to the old rates of pay. He has threatened me with a long debate when my salary is under discussion. Well, if he feels he has something further to add or other members have other points to make, I am prepared to listen, but hon. members must realize that if you touch one section of the staff—take the artizans, for instance—you will not be able to confine it to that section of the staff, and if you restore to the artizans the old rate of pay, you will have to do the same for the salaried staff, the running men and all sections. When the cut was made, it was made all through the service, and you must remember it was also done through the general service, and if we now go and disturb the rates of pay of the railwaymen, it will mean inevitably that a claim will be made on behalf of the general service. However much I am prepared to admit that it is an unsatisfactory position that two skilled men working side by side should be getting different rates of pay, the hon. member must be satisfied and leave the matter where it is. I have met the men by extending the old rates for an indefinite period and cutting off a year which was hanging over their heads, so that so long as they are in their present grades they will retain their old rates of pay. The hon. member also dealt with the necessity for a national view in railway construction—on the necessity, in building and extending main and branch lines, of having one great thought connecting the whole of our railway construction. This is fully realized by the railway administration and the Government, and in the new programme, which we hope to introduce this session, it is hoped to give practical proof that we are carrying out that national idea in regard to railway construction.

I hope you will have regard to the payability of the lines.

The Railway Board will be consulted in regard to all these lines, and the hon. member is not suggesting that the board will not pay sufficient attention to that. The hon. member has also referred to the large credit balances in the various funds, but you are bound to have these balances and they are there for a very good purpose. I regret to say that there are commitments rather larger than on the face of them they appear to be. I am hoping that our funds will be stronger than at present to meet all the commitments. He has also referred to the desirability of doubling the main line to Johannesburg. That is certainly a very desirable thing, but I would ask him to consider the cost. I am afraid we are a long way off doing that. With regard to relief works, it must be remembered that only a comparatively small proportion of the money spent on new railways goes in wages, a large amount having to be expended on rolling-stock and material. The hon. member has also referred to the question of fertilizers, and I am glad he is an advocate of the free conveyance of fertilizers over our railways. I remember the time when mine was a lonely voice calling out for this concession. We are now carrying fertilizers at the lowest rate. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) has referred to several important matters. I realize that the question of electrification in Natal is of the very greatest importance, and I hope, in the course of the session, to make a very full statement in regard to the whole of the position. Mr. McLellan, who is a partner of our consulting engineers, will arrive in South Africa in a few days and will go into the whole situation. The hon. member has referred to the right of the employees to send in reports to senior officers in one or the other of the official languages. I did not know that that right has ever been questioned, and certainly if it is questioned I hope hon. members will bring the case to my notice and I can promise that I will deal with it. It is true that if these reports are drafted in the language the senior officer does not understand it causes a certain difficulty, but we are out to carry out the spirit of the Act of Union, and if senior officials cannot read the reports they must get them translated, because the right is on the part of the employee to use the language he thinks best. That, however, does not refer to the right of the public against the employee, which stands on a different footing, for the user of the railway is supreme. The hon. member has also referred to the changing of historical station names. I wish to assure him that in any particular case of changing from Dutch into English, or English into Dutch, which is brought to my notice, I am quite prepared to act, but hon. members must not expect me to act just haphazard, for if I did I might have long debates on the question. Might I suggest that if there is any particular place where an historical name has been changed without the local authority being consulted, hon. members should bring the matter to my notice, and the administration will always be prepared to act in this regard. While, unfortunately, I have had no constructive or helpful criticisms from the Opposition. I very much appreciate the spirit in which the railway budget has been received from my own side of the House, both Nationalists and Labour. Any point brought to my notice, even although the debate is closed; will be received in a most sympathetic manner.

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

Gen. Smuts called for a division upon which the House divided:

Ayes—70.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl. J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—48.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, I.,

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Gen. Smuts dropped.

Original motion then put and agreed to; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

Main Estimates [U.G. 3—’25

Vote 1, “H.E. the Governor-General, £26,022, put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee on Wednesday.

To omit “now” and add at the end “this day six months—.

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “the order for the second reading be discharged and that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for enquiry and report.”]

When a fortnight ago this debate was adjourned I was on the full tide of eloquence in appealing to the conscience of the House in relation to the treatment of the native population. I will resume that briefly and give reasons why I must record my vote against the measure of the Minister of Mines and Industries. I regard the measure as a forward step towards segregation, not territorial segregation but segregation out of the great leading industries of this country. There are certain figures and facts I want to place before the House. 1,095,000 natives, according to the last census report, are employed on farms, mines, railways, shops, government services, municipalities and in trade and domestic service. Only 10,000 natives are engaged in sedentary callings. Almost 1,100,000 natives are in non-sedentary callings essential to the welfare of the Europeans of the land and the general well-being of the country. The fact is we cannot do without the native in the development of South Africa. I agree with a newspaper, which I find sometimes to be a source of amusement, the “South African Nation,” where Mr. Peter Neilson in an article on “The Black Man’s place in South Africa” says—

That is perfectly true and I subscribe to every word of it. The black man cannot do without the leadership, the control, the guidance of the white man of superior civilization and culture, nor can the European do without the muscles, the sweat, the labour, the persistent toil of the millions of native peoples living within the Union and sometimes drawn from outside the Union. We are told that the native peoples of this land are being organized by a gentleman not in Parliament whose communistic teachings have the endorsement of some members of Parliament—that this gentleman is organizing the natives with a view to securing for them much more favoured treatment in the labour market. That is Mr. Sidney Bunting.

Do you say that the Lab-cur members agree with him?

I say that certain members of this House do. You know who they are.

You should say who they are when you make a statement like that.

There are 251,000 domestic servants employed in European homes in the Union, according to the last census. What is going to happen if those plots and schemes of the communists outside the House or within it lead to a virtual segregation of the native people, or if these people are goaded into a passive form of resistance? Do we want to have in this land another Haiti? I think not. What I advocate is the principle of the white man in control with his better civilization, and with this proviso that he shall cease all talk to the natives that is provocative, and the most cordial co-operation possible between the white man and the black man and the coloured man, in the development of this land of abundant promise. But that purpose is being frustrated by provocative legislation of the sort contemplated, when you say to native men who, under our kindly guidance, have attained a distinct standard in civilization and culture. “We bar to you in the mines, in public works, and wherever there is machinery, certain work you have, been accustomed to do and restrict that to white men” I contend that in accordance with our British civilization we have no right whatever to impose an embargo of that sort and for these reasons I shall vote against the measure.

On two former occasions I voted for a motion by the then hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) and not only voted for, but seconded his motion for the removal of the colour bar. That was not a colour bar that goes anything like so far as the colour bar proposed to-day. It is said that under this Bill we are not excluding the coloured people, I would like to know how long that would continue. This Bill has been called by several members on the Government side, notably by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) and also by the Minister of Justice during the recent by-election in the Transvaal, the Magna Charta of the coloured man. On what ground is this Bill the Magna Charta of the coloured man? There is no colour bar against one coloured man to-day and this Bill does not give him anything which he has not got at present. To-day there is no colour bar, except the trade union bar against coloured and natives in Johannesburg. The Minister in introducing this Bill referred to the privileges and advantages which the coloured man is going to get under it. He is not getting any advantage under this Bill, for the simple reason that at present there is no statutory colour bar against him.

Your leader suggested that it should be stabilized.

I suggested that there should be no colour bar whatever.

Then you differ from your leader.

I do differ from my leader on that. My leader can speak for himself and I can speak for myself as far as this question is concerned. I base my views on justice. If I am to be barred from selling my labour in the best way that I am able to do, I would regard that as an injustice. I feel sure that the Minister would not submit to any such bar. I would like to know how the Socialist Labour party can agree to such a colour bar. The Socialist-Labour party are to-day seeking to bar the real labourers in the country from advancing any further, by telling them that they should only sell their labour in certain specified spheres of industry and that they shall not be allowed to enter upon the more lucrative employments. I would like to know the views of the Minister of Labour. In 1914, when the then member for Victoria West introduced his motion, the present Minister of Labour brought forward an amendment based on the principle that if we had legislation by which you could fix wages, he would be against all colour bars. He has now got his Wage Bill through this House. Why then is this colour bar to be imposed? I would like to know on what grounds it is based. Is it based on justice? To any mind it cannot be supported on any ground whatever. It is a panic measure of the Labour party, who now want to declare war on the native, the poor native who pays exactly the same taxes as any of us pay, and who, in addition pays other special taxes which no other section of the community pays. Although he is paying these taxes he is to be barred from earning the wherewithal to pay this special taxation. Is that just? But he has to pay that special tax and now you wish to prevent him from earning the means to pay that tax. That is what you are really doing. We are further taxing him through the new customs tariff. We are taxing the natives’ requirements, such things as blankets. I do not wish to take up any more time to prevent the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) from giving us his views; and I will conclude by saying that I am entirely opposed to this unjust and iniquitous measure, which would be a blot on the statute book if we allow it to come there.

I listened with attention to the speeches from the other side of the House with reference to the colour question. I must say that after having heard the arguments, I am still more convinced of the absolute necessity of legislation of the kind now before the House in the interests of the white civilization of South Africa. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) has said here that the natives are being incited by certain socialists. If this is so, then it is another proof that we must be very careful and should draw a line between white and black in South Africa. It seems to me from the speeches of some hon. members that they do not sufficiently know the actual position of the colour line in our industries. We must remember that the coloured races have much to thank the white civilization for in respect of their existence. Before the white civilization came to South Africa the natives used to attack and exterminate each other, and I think that if there were no such day in our history as Dingaans Day, then Dingaan would one day have become tyrant not only over Natal but over the whole of South Africa. When we consider this, we feel immediately that the native also has much to thank the white man for, for his very existence. Every well ordered land in the world desires in the first place to help on its primary producer to produce more and to advance the interests of the primary producer, or rather the farmer, and in doing so to increase the purchasing power. If we are not out to open up new fields of labour for our own white population and to find new world markets, then we have certainly missed our vocation as white civilization in South Africa. This Bill especially refers to the mining industry. We have already had legislation of this nature there. We had a law by which a colour line was legally fixed, and we had a provision in the regulations which was the colour bar. In the first instance, it was the line between skilled and half-skilled work, and in the second case between half-skilled and unskilled work. The coloured man was excluded from our industries. The native himself did not have such a strong objection against the colour line, but the objection came from the Chamber of Mines, and with the assistance of the previous Government they won, with the result that one of the greatest labour markets in South Africa became negligible. The purchasing powers were reduced there by hundreds of thousands of pounds and the dividends were increased by hundreds of thousands of pounds. We thereby did not increase our purchasing power, but made it worse. The millions which went out of the country in dividends did not assist in improving the state of the country. Moreover, we had another difficulty of a more national kind. If we start to create industries and exploit minerals and open the industries as a field of labour for natives, the natural result will be that the industries will be black. If this happens, then we put the native in South Africa into a position in which he will be better off than a large portion of the whites. And we are going fast towards bringing such a position into existence. Hundreds of thousands of natives have already been employed in half-skilled work and taken away the work of the whites, with the result that the whites do not have an opportunity of learning their trade in the half-skilled work and of making themselves efficient in other ways. Thus we see the national danger of allowing this matter to go on in the direction it is going, and we must acknowledge the courage of the Minister in tackling this matter and attempting to solve it. We see in the Cape Province that in the State-aided schools about 40,000 more coloured and native children go to school than white children, and in Natal we have about 7,000 coloured and black children more than white children in the schools. We therefore see the danger against which we are to-day asking protection through the Bill before the House. More and more natives are being trained to take the place of the white man in the industries, and they are becoming more and more efficient in one trade or another. I want to mention another point. I have read in the report of the Uganda Railway Administration that special schools have been established to teach the natives languages and arithmetic at night and to educate them as railway clerks, as telegraphists, as conductors on the trains and as engine drivers, and to equip them for posts. The consequence is that there were employed last year 296 white workers in skilled labour as against 2,088 Asiatics and 10,093 natives. It seems to me that hon. members opposite take up the position that our industries should become black and that the natives should be educated to do all kinds of work. One has heard of the persecution of the poor natives, but I say that the natives have much to thank the white civilization in South Africa for, and if the white civilization should ever go under in South Africa it will be a sad day for the natives. If the white civilization disappears, then they will again attack and exterminate each other, as was the case in the past. Therefore I say that this Bill which proposes to draw a line between skilled and half-skilled labour will in no way work out to the detriment of the native, but that it will only be for the good of the country and of everybody. I also do not see, that the native shares the serious objections against this Bill of hon. members opposite. As has been said already, the dangers which hon. members opposite mention only convince me the more that legislation of this nature is necessary, and I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Mines and Industries that he has taken the bull by the horns and introduced this Bill.

This simple-looking little Bill, however innocent its appearance, is of a very far-reaching character. I would ask why it is that the Asiatics and natives are mixed up in this Bill, and also whether there is any precedent for such a mixing-up? The Minister of the Interior has promised Asiatic legislation; in fact the party opposite for years past talked about what they would do when they got into power, but we have no signs of such legislation yet, and I ask the Minister is this what the Government brings forth as its Asiatic legislation? No; this Bill is ingeniously designed to capture hon. members on this side from Natal by mixing up the Asiatics and the natives in its provisions. I am sure that hon. members from Natal are not going to lend themselves to be catspaws in this direction.

What about the people you represent?

I know the people I represent, and I repeat that we are not going to be catspaws in carrying this type of legislation. Whatever may be said of the iniquity of setting up a colour bar, we have very strong opinions, and I think every honest man should have an opinion on that question; but so far as this Bill is concerned, we have no hesitation in voting against it.

I am in favour of the consolidation of the Acts of the Union, and I hoped that the Government would begin with other Acts and not with this Bill. I am opposed to the colour bar. We have never in the Cape Province heard of any such thing. In the Transvaal it has been invalidated by a judgment of the court, and instead of introducing a Bill to apply it to that province the Government want to force it on the Cape Province as well. After the promises of the Prime Minister I am astonished that this Bill has been introduced. At Stellenbosch the Prime Minister definitely promised that as soon as he came into power he would introduce a Bill to provide for segregation. That Bill has not come yet, and this promised Bill of the Prime Minister must first be introduced and then we can subsequently talk about this matter. Where is this Bill going to stop? Who can always distinguish between the native and the coloured man?

Yes, I can.

Yes, but you have the wisdom of the wise men of the East. But if a man came from Mozambique with a quantity of white blood he would classify him as a native.

Look at his hair.

This Bill is regarded by us in the Cape Province as an attempt to throw out of work coloured men who cannot be properly classified. It is with this object in view that the Bill is introduced because it is impossible to classify them. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) will have to serve on such a committee, but I have no confidence in his classification.

I don’t think anyone need be in any doubt as to my position in regard to this Bill, for I voted against its first reading. In my opinion, it would be a disgrace to our Parliament, and a blot on our legislation, if we put such a Bill on our statute book. It is true we had a colour bar in the Transvaal in connection with the gold mines, but it has been in force there only as a regulation which has been declared to be ultra vires. I was against that regulation as well as against this Bill. Now it is proposed to make this unfair and unjust discrimination against Natives legal in future and to extend it to all the provinces. It seems to me that if we are going to deal with this question we ought to do it in a proper and comprehensive manner. The Bill is aimed at Asiatics as well as natives. The late Government really made an attempt to deal with the Asiatic question by its Class Areas Bill, but was not allowed to carry it into effect. The new Government promised during the recent elections to deal with the Asiatic question in a comprehensive way, but so far it has not fulfilled that promise. If this Bill is an attempt to carry out that promise it is a very poor one indeed. If we pass this measure the Government will probably say “We have dealt with the question, and we will allow it to remain for the meantime.” Natal is particularly interested in the Asiatic question, which we desire to see properly settled. A complete solution has never been found, and I doubt very much if it will be found, but we might ameliorate the position so as to make it less dangerous. If the Government will undertake to bring in a comprehensive Bill dealing with the Asiatic question throughout the Union, then I am prepared to wait, but I am strongly against any attempt to deal with it in this piecemeal fashion under this Bill. All that has been aimed at could be obtained by the test of efficiency, and the ability to work machinery could be made as severe as necessary. I am justified in this opinion by what has been stated in this House by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) who has said that he regretted the necessity of voting for this Bill as he thought the object aimed could be arrived at under the Wage Bill. I agree with him. This Bill is supposed to cover sub-section (n), clause 4, of the Act of 1911, which refers to the grant, cancellation, and suspension of certificates of competency to mine managers, overseers, mechanical engineers, surveyors, engine drivers, and such other classes of persons employed in, at, or about mines, works and machinery, as the Governor-General may deem it expedient to require to be in possession of certificates of competency. Under that Act “works” mean chemical, metallurgical, ore dressing and reduction works, salt works, brick making works, lime works, pottery works, sugar mills, flour mills, saw mills, and any places where machinery is erected or used. Under this definition the new Bill might be made to apply to almost any kind of work in which machinery is employed. The Government has said that it wishes to restrict the operation of the Bill to the mines, but the Bill does not say so and we are going the wrong way about the matter. Let us do it openly and above board; let us make efficiency the proper test between white and coloured, and if that is carried out in a right spirit I am satisfied it will conserve the position of the whites sufficiently. But if it does not the white man is to blame. I therefore strongly object to the Bill.

I have been waiting very patiently for the resumption of this debate in order to learn what excuses hon. members from Natal on the South African party benches were to put forward for voting against this measure. The hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) evidently realizes the position very keenly when he says that this Bill has been designed to capture the members from Natal. What does he mean by that?

Exactly what I say.

He means that because of the position in Natal regarding Asiatics, it is very difficult indeed for members of the South African party from Natal to vote against this particular measure.

Not at all.

They will have to square not only their constituents but then consciences if they vote against this measure.

You have done that already.

Both the hon. member for Durban. (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien), who are the only Natal members who have spoken on the Bill up to the present, have in the past advocated in every possible way for the restriction of Asiatic trading in Natal. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has brought forward motions asking the Government to take into consideration the restriction and refusal of licences to Asiatics in Natal. I want one or other of these hon. members to tell the House the difference between refusing a licence to trade to an Asiatic, and refusing a certificate of competency for him to come into competition with the skilled workers. The secretary of the Mine Workers’ Union of the Transvaal recently visited the coal fields of Natal. Dealing with the conditions on the Natal collieries, as he found them, the secretary alleged that there was not a single white boiler attendant on the collieries. These positions, he declared, were filled by Indians, and there were no white boys in the engine-room as greasers learning the job, and he goes on to state in a report (and I want the members from Natal to pay particular attention to this) that the only chance for white lads to become engine drivers was taken from them in Natal by Indians. Are the Natal members going to allow that to go on and at the same time to agitate for the restriction and the taking away of trading licences from Asiatics? The member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) and Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) were all members of the Natal Parliament in the days before Union and I would like to ask them what they did to remove the colour bar from the conditions of contract under the Public Works Department in. Natal. Clause 14 of the conditions of contract, which I understand has never been repealed and therefore still exists to-day, says—

Contrast that, which, I take it, was agreed to by the members for Weenen, Umvoti, and Durban (Central) with what is intended under this Bill—the refusal of a certificate of competency to Asiatics. We were told on one occasion, by the member for Umvoti, that the Indians had intelligence equal to the Europeans and that under tree education they were learning trades and professions and were ousting Europeans in every direction. Yet our friends on the S.A.P. benches intend to allow this to continue. I cannot emphasize this point too strongly: they are going to assist in the continuation of conditions of this kind if they vote against this measure. The member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said, when speaking on the Class Areas Bill, that it was a cruel thing to ask the European to compete with the Asiatic on the economic field, and yet if he votes against this measure he will be perpetuating such a state of affairs. The member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) said that the whites fell that the Indian competition is most unfair. Men are thrown out of their work and boys are growing up without there being any openings for them. Here is a Government endeavouring to make openings in so tar as stationery engine drivers are concerned and in other occupations connected with machinery, and yet the hon. member for Berea has intimated that he is going to vote against it, whilst on the Class Areas Bill in the session before last he said men were being thrown out of work by the Indians. How is he going to reconcile his attitude? How is he going to square his constituents?

Oh, very easily. I can do that quite easily. There are many ways of dealing with it.

How are you going to square your constituents after your letter the other day?

I should like to hear the voices of other members from Natal on this question. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has repeatedly introduced motions to restrict Asiatic trading. Is he in favour of Asiatics competing with artisans? The Indian problem only became acute in Natal when the commercial interests were affected. If the members for Natal vote against this measure then I am convinced that they desire only to safeguard the interests of the commercial classes.

I only wish to say a few words. I do not wish to talk about the Bill itself, but about what has been said by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw). He said that the Prime Minister has said at Stellenbosch that he would preach segregation. Will the hon. member support segregation?

Is it before the House now?

Now that we bring forward a portion of it he will not vote for it. He will, therefore, also fail to support the whole. I am surprised at his attitude. He sits in his seat as a result of the coloured vote and now he gives them a slap in the face. I wonder what they will say of his speech. The native comes in and squeezes the coloured man out of his work. We want to protect him and the coloured man is not mentioned in this Bill. He, however, wishes to slap the coloured man in the face. This Bill is in conformity with the principle of segregation, and if such a Bill is once through the House then the vote of the coloured man can be extended. The hon. member for Stellenbosch, however, objects to this, and I hope that his voters will notice his attitude. Further he asks how one can distinguish between natives and coloured people. One can know them by their speech and also in another way that I do not wish to mention here. I hope that we shall now go to the vote so that we can see where members stand.

I associate myself with the members for Natal in raising a protest against complicating this question by introducing the Asiatics. I think that the biggest question which faces this country to-day is the just government of these five million natives whom we have committed to our charge and to complicate that question by introducing legislation of this sort is, to my mind, looking for trouble. In the history of the native races of South Africa it has been the policy of every Government to give these people an opportunity of raising themselves in civilization, to offer them the advantages of education and hold out to them the prospect of the benefits and rewards which would accrue when they assimilated education, and many natives have, to a great extent, raised themselves in the scale of civilization. At one blow to-day you are going to dash from the natives these hopes which you have been raising in their minds for many years past. After all, there is only one way in which you are going to retain the confidence and loyalty of that vast number of people, and that is by continuing the just policy which we have followed in the past. Never in the history of this country, I think, have so many blows been dealt at the loyalty of our native population as this Government has dealt during the past nine months. You have got the Minimum Wage Bill which it has been freely stated by hon. members on the cross benches is to be aimed at the natives. Then you have got this Colour Bar Bill, a colour bar which, rightly or wrongly, had applied purely on the Reef area and nominally, though not actually, in the Free State. To-day the Minister of Mines and Industries proposes to increase the range of that colour bar and include the whole of the four provinces of the Union and to make it impossible for the native to ever attain the reward that is due to the attempt which he has made to raise himself in the scale of civilization. You have got taxation, heavy taxation, foreshadowed by a Bill which you have on the stocks, and you have further taxation and extraordinarily taxation which will be imposed on the necessities of life for the natives by the customs tariff, particularly in regard to blankets. Further, you have got the definition of the Minister of Railways on the civilized labour policy. You have dealt blow after blow at the native and thrust him deeper and deeper into the mud, and I do say that an attempt of that kind is one that is bound to lead to disaster. Take the example of history. You have here 5,000,000 of the most virile coloured stock of any part of the world. In other parts, wherever the coloured races have come into contact with white men they have gradually died out. For instance, there are the red men in America and the Australian aborigines. There is one exception, and that is the Bantu race, which has thrived on association with the white man, and neither the white man’s vices nor his strong drink have been able to kill the Bantu race. Look at the colour question in America, where the coloured man has thriven as he has here: he is of the same Bantu stock. You are only going to rule the native by one means and that is absolute justice. If you break down that principle and substitute class legislation of this kind, then the native is going to turn to others for the redress to which he is entitled and which he fails to get from the Government. There are subversive forces which are quite ready to help him. The events of 1922 have shown us very plainly that Bolshevism was stalking abroad in this country just as it is in the older countries. If you break the faith of the native in the Government he will turn to others; there are plenty of agitators about who are only too willing to seduce the native into paths of disloyalty. If the Government takes up this attitude, if it persists in not only denying him his rights, but in denying him the rights that have been his heritage for years, then you are taking away his faith in the Government and he is going to turn to subversive elements which will lead him on a path fatal to himself and to the country. Has the Government considered what will happen if you drive 5,000,000 natives into a state of disruption? Such a position would be one which all of us will bitterly rue in years to come. The effect of this legislation, it has been said, will hedge in the natives, but I think it will have the reverse effect of hedging in the white people in this country. This attitude of the Government in saying that the coloured man when he reaches a civilized standard is going to be on equal terms with the white man is pure hypocrisy. What would happen if you were to take 1,000 coloured men up to the Rand and displace 1,000 white men? The result would be sheer revolution; and I do not think the Minister of Defence would turn out his forces to protect the coloured man in that equality which the Government says will be his right. I hope the Government will accept the suggestion of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts); I hope you will take it out of the region of party politics, and I hope this great problem is going to he one to be settled by the leaders of both parties by agreement and not by any attempt to secure a party advantage. At present it is absolutely a question of securing a party advantage on the floor of this House. It is of such vital importance to the future of this country that I make one final appeal to the Prime Minister to remove it from the floor of the House and accept the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition. Let us make an attempt on a non-party basis to get to some solution of this problem, a solution which would lead to industrial peace, both white and black, in the years before us.

I think that any unbiased man who has listened to this debate will agree that no defence has been put up from the other side against the charge of injustice which we have levelled against this Bill. It can only be called a ruthless discrimination against the native, and yet we are told that the principles of the Labour party are based on righteousness, truth and justice. I would like to ask the Labour party to-day whether they can stand up in this House and honestly state that this Bill is based on these principles. I feel certain that in their own minds the members of the Labour party know it violates every principle which they say is the foundation of their party. I should like to know how the Labour party would defend this Bill in the home of their birth. They are practically all overseas men. I would like to see them go to Glasgow, Liverpool or Birmingham and defend this Bill. In the country they come from it would be stigmatized as industrial slavery. What is the effect of this legislation? This country is going to bear the stigma of their actions here to-day. The country of their adoption has to bear the stigma of legislation of this kind. Why perpetrate the crime? They are going to be armed with the most drastic Wage Bill that the legislature can put on the statute book.

Time, too.

And even armed, as they will be, with that legislation, they take up the position that they are still afraid of the untutored native, in competition with the descendants of the men who are known as the finest skilled workmen in the world. These descendants say they are afraid of the untutored native, who has not got a hundred years of civilization behind him. I say that their own mothers would he ashamed of them. They have not got the pluck—

The hon. member must moderate his language.

Let me put it in this way. They are, afraid of the competition, though it is competition on an exactly equal basis. You are going to have the Wage Bill. I quite see their difficulty if the dice are loaded against them, but it will not be in this instance. The white and black people are going to be put on exactly the same basis in the Wage Bill. There is going to be a minimum wage, and they are still afraid that they will not be able to compete with the raw native. I repeat what I have already stated, that this is another grave injustice; to handicap the indigenous races and coloured races in this country, as this country is the only place in which they can earn their living. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), who, I am sorry to see absent from his place, quoted a speech I made during the elections, and he unfortunately misinterpreted what I said. What I said I still hold to, and that is this. If by legislation you drive the white man to despair, he has a chance, at any rate, of earning his living in another part of the Empire. For instance, if my son is driven out of South Africa, he can go to Canada or Australia or any other of the dominions, and if he has the grit he can make good, but the native has to make or break in this country, and therefore it is all the more reason why he should be treated with the most scrupulous fairness.

What about the negroes in America?

They were sent there as slaves. You surely don’t propose to go further and export our natives as slaves? There has been a suggestion that if we don’t pass this Bill the native, irrespective of his competency, can obtain a certificate. He cannot; for he is exactly on the same basis as the white man, and the only thing we ask is that when you are dealing with the native you should, like justice, be blind, and you should not look at the colour of his skin, but decide absolutely on the question of competence, and if the native is competent he has as much right to receive his certificate as anyone else. There is no colour bar in the United States, but the white race there is able to hold its position by reason of its efficiency. There is no reason why, when you are armed with a Wage Bill, that the white man here should not hold his position by efficiency.

What about £2 a month for a white girl?

I hope hon. members will not try to draw red herrings across the trail for under the Wage Bill whites, coloued and natives, will receive the same wage, and it will depend purely upon efficiency whether a person obtains employment. My position is that the only right you have for refusing a certificate to a man is on the ground of competency and not on race. I hope the Minister read the speech delivered by Dr. Abdurahman at the opening of the A.P.O., conference at Cape Town, in which he asked for nothing but undiluted justice. I hope the Minister has studied this speech and will recognize that coloured men have just as much rights to a place in the sun in this country as any other race has.

The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) challenged me to oppose this Bill because of my past attitude in this House in regard to the Asiatic question. He would have had this House believe that in the past I had agitated on certain compromising lines which he did no take the trouble to explain. It is just as well that I should remind him of the lines upon which I introduced a motion to this House in 1924 on the Asiatic question. In that motion I dealt with such prominent questions, as prior investigation had shown to be proper for Government intervention,—the regulation of licences and the regulation of the ownership of land by Asiatics living under the Government. I introduced a motion asking for the setting apart of distinct and separate urban areas for the exclusive occupation of Asiatics and for the right to be granted to landowners in any magisterial district by a two-thirds vote at a meeting called by the magistrate to declare that no Asiatic shall be entitled to acquire land in such district, and to have all land titles endorsed accordingly. The motion also aimed at the prohibition of the employment of European women by Asiatics or under the supervision of Asiatics and at the limitation of licences to Asiatics. The hon. member has forgotten that in dealing with that motion I pointed out that the matter of economic competition in industries was a more complicated question which should await investigation.

You did not say that!

The hon. member says I did not say that. I will quote to him from Hansard what I said word for word—

Will the hon. member now repeat that I did not say that?

I did not hear you say it.

The position I maintained on that occasion is the position, on the grand scale, that the amendment moved by the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) expresses that there must be careful investigation before legislation of this kind is passed. If we legislate hastily in the manner proposed in the Bill of the hon. Minister of Mines, we may be doing an infinity of injury to farmers and natives with a minimum of benefit to the class we all wish to protect against unfair Asiatic competition in Natal. In expressing doubt whether the actual operation of this colour bar will help the Cape coloured man, who is excluded, I may claim to be on the side of the angels, because I can quote the opinion of the hon. Minister of Labour in support of that view. The Minister of Labour in recent years,—I am sometimes accused of quoting things which are very ancient, but this is as recent as 1920,—the Minister of Labour introduced an amendment to the motion introduced by Mr. Merriman on the colour bar, and made it perfectly clear that he would only agree to the repeal of the colour bar on certain conditions, the chief of which was the passing of a minimum wage Bill. He laid down in that motion—

He agreed then with the opinion of the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), who declared emphatically to-day that the benefit embodied in the Bill was an illusory one, because in practice it would not widen the field of employment on the mines for the coloured man. That applies in any centre where the European worker is organized to any extent at all.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.8 p.m.

In 1921 I introduced a motion calling attention to the seriousness of the Asiatic question, and asking the Government to introduce legislation to deal with it. In 1922 the late member for Umbilo (Mr. MacKeurtan) introduced a somewhat similar motion, and in 1923 an identical motion was introduced by me, and in 1924 I introduced the motion which I read just before the dinner interval. The present Minister of the Interior, in reply to the motion introduced by me in 1924, said that the Government would have to state its policy on this difficult problem which would require legislation. He went on: “The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) had moved an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Illovo, but although I can accept the general principle of the motion I cannot, with the exception of the last part, accept the amendment.” The amendment called for the institution of the minimum wage in relation to Asiatics. The Minister went on to say—

The Minister accepted the general principle of the motion introduced by me, and during the present session a question was asked by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) as to when we might expect the legislation the Minister had promised last session. The Minister of the Interior replied that—

My view is that in dealing with any phase of this Asiatic question we must recognize, as the Minister of the Interior did, that it affects our international relations, and that it is better to formulate our maximum requirements and demands and make them subject to one bargain, instead of half-a-dozen bargains. There is no doubt that every separate Bill will promote a recrudescence of agitation amongst Asiatics, with constant appeals to the Governments mentioned by the Minister of the Interior. It will be wise to avoid that, and we should endeavour to deal with this question in a straightforward and manly way and in one measure. We, on this side, had ventured to hope that the Minister of the Interior was promising us some large, comprehensive scheme when he gave his reply to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). We accepted it in that spirit, because the member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), who had a private member’s Bill to restrict Asiatic licences on the Order Paper, withdrew it in consequence of that assurance, and I withdrew a notice of motion which I had on the Paper relating to the urgency of this Asiatic question. The Minister of the Interior in his reply to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) admits the need for prior investigation, but surely he does not claim that the present Bill has been introduced as a result of any such investigation. The Bill is a very far-reaching one. The definition of works in the Mines and Works Act includes every conceivable form of factory and works, engines, agricultural machinery and any place where machinery is erected or used, so that in its present form it will prevent the employment of natives by farmers in connection with machinery. The result will be a very restrictive effect on the work to be undertaken on farms by natives. If we deal for a moment with another aspect of the question we will find that the Minister of Interior in rejecting the proposal of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) that a minimum wage Bill should be applied, pointed to certain considerations which seem to me to have a very pertinent relation to the present bill. He said—

It seems to me that as indicated by the previous Government, it is wiser, where you have to deal with other governments, to carry with you the informed and considered and representative opinion of those governments. I commend to the Minister of Mines the example of the late Government, who ordered an enquiry on the question of the possession of land, and the question of Asiatic trading; and appointed a very representative commission, which was assisted by Sir Benjamin Robinson, who was sent here as the representative of the Government of India.

You never got any further than the enquiries.

In consequence of that enquiry a motion was tabled in this House from year to year to ventilate and discuss the matter thoroughly in all its phases and to let the views of South Africa be made known; and the late Government finally introduced a Bill on the lines recommended by this commission, because there is no doubt this commission came to the conclusion that the segregation of the Asiatic was necessary, but they left the methods by which that segregation was to be carried out to be devised by the Government. They were not in favour of compulsory segregation. In the same way they declared the ownership of land by Asiatics should be restricted to certain areas. That was a method of liquidating certain phases of the Asiatic problem in a most straightforward manner, because you had with you the informed opinion of the representative of the Government of India. For this Government to introduce a haphazard Bill such as this without any previous enquiry, is certainly to court complications and misunderstandings with the governments mentioned, and to prolong and exacerbate the feeling which exists in India and in Great Britain in regard to this question. Dealing with the question from the aspect from which it has been treated by the Minister of Labour, I should like to point out to the Labour party that the leader of that party on the Colour Bill discussion in 1920 introduced a motion which practically bound the Labour party to agree to the rescission of the colour bar when a minimum wage Bill had been passed. There is no doubt about his meaning. He emphasized that the abolition of the colour bar would bring no advantage to the coloured man of the Cape, but his attitude was that the colour bar in itself should be repealed, rescinded, as soon as a minimum wage Bill was passed in this House. We have arrived at the stage indicated in these words of the Minister of Labour. The second reading of the Wage Bill has been passed through this House, and yet we find pressure being brought to bear for the passing of a Bill, the consequences of which have not been sufficiently considered, if considered at all, in relation to the industries to be affected. If we are to be effective in the introduction of legislation touching upon the native question, we must surely aim at being consistent; and there seems to be a great lack of consistency in declaring that you will agree to the rescission of a colour bar if a wage Bill is passed, and then immediately that has been passed, to press also for a colour bar Bill to restrict the natives from doing certain work. Among the remedies that have been proposed in Natal for dealing with the Asiatic menace, the pressure of Asiatic competition, there is the novel remedy suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), who as recently as November, 1924, during the recent recess, condemned all adventitious aids that the Government might introduce as useless, and said the only satisfactory and complete remedy was the introduction of socialism. He submitted that the solution of the Asiatic and all other economic problems could only be achieved by the establishment of a socialistic state.

Where was that?

At Maritzburg on the 22nd November, 1924. I was assured by a prominent member of the Labour party that these statements were made use of; and when the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) was asked whether in view of his advocacy of socialism as the solution of the Asiatic question he was willing to allow his daughter to marry an Indian he said he would even object to his daughter marrying his questioner.

It is not true.

I am quite willing to give proof if the hon. member desires it. The question dealt with in this Bill is a much wider one than the mere restriction of Asiatic employment in Natal; and although I am entirely in favour of the protection of the working man against unfair competition of the Asiatic, or of the trader or farmer or any other section, I cannot think that the present Bill is going to achieve the purpose which it aims at. It will complicate the problem and render it very difficult for us to arrive at a favourable settlement—which will be satisfactory. There is no doubt that the Asiatic is a past master at evading any law introduced to deal with Asiatic competition. There is no doubt that whenever there is any attempt on the part of the Government to restrict Asiatic penetration, the Asiatic stands ready to promote a most acute recrudescence of the agitation which led to the passive resistance movement headed by Gandhi some years ago! We shall do disservice to the favourable settlement of this question if we deal with it in a piecemeal manner. A feeling is growing in Natal, where this question excites most interest, that not until you have a complete discussion of the matter by the Governments concerned and by the re-representative of the Indians themselves, will you arrive at anything like a workable solution of this troublesome question. It seems to me that this Bill in the form in which it is worded, is bound to provoke not only agitation, of the kind we have experienced in the past, and which certainly has not benefitted the favourable solution of this question—in connection with the passive resistance movement we were obliged to forfeit ground which Europeans held at that time—but if we embark on legislation of this sort we shall put ourselves in the wrong, because we shall be unable to point to any previous investigation, and we shall stand in the position of people who have prejudged the question. It is not only the Asiatic with whom we have to deal; we deal also with a very wide section of the community when we include the natives in the sphere of this Act. Already, through the misunderstanding of the general attitude of the Government towards the natives, and the misunderstanding of the real intention of its policy, we have had most surprising remonstrances against the natives, who hitherto have not shown themselves conscious of the kind of legislation which has been going on. In an isolated portion of Natal near Umzimkulu a meeting was recently held by Chiefs and Natives at which it was perfectly clear that the meeting constituted a sort of counterblast to the confused idea the natives had as to the legislation to be introduced dealing with their interests in this House. We had a mass meeting of natives. In the past the chiefs have held themselves aloof from agitation of any sort against the Government’s actions or Government Bills. They have satisfied themselves and their natives by expressing their dissent or remonstrances to the Government; but here we have the natives, including the chiefs, holding a meeting and passing resolutions, among which are the following—

I am the last one in the House who could be regarded as an alarmist on the native question; but I do consider that legislation of this kind is doing the Government the worst possible service. If it is intended in its phraseology merely as a sort of sham attack on the Natal members who belong to the S.A.P., I can only say it is a very dangerous weapon which is being used in this sham attack; because in the course of the legislation that is being formulated you are certainly disturbing opinion that has not in the past been disturbed by legislation in this House. You have further proof of that in the recent resolution passed by the Transkeian General Council. That council, whilst disavowing any part or sentiment with those who wish to boycott our distinguished visitor H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, went on to say that they appointed a delegation of three men to represent, at the Bar of this House, if permitted to do so, their objections to this Bill. That cannot be stated to be a party dodge or a party trick of any sort. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) is probably recognized in this House as a member who is least of all inclined to treat this native question as a party matter. These men belong to his constituency. He would be the last man to use his influence or advice in the way of suggesting that they should take any particular course of action, or to use his advice in fomenting an agitation against a Bill in this House; but I wish to say, in a most considered manner, that the pressing forward of this Bill, in its present form, is not likely to do any immediate service to the European artizan. If it had been confined to the colour bar in the Transvaal—an institution that has existed in practice ever since the gold mines on the Rand have been worked—no sort of hostile impression would have been caused in the native mind and no sort of suspicion aroused in the native mind of the wide sweep which this present Bill aims at in its scope. I think the Minister would have done well to have encouraged the Prime Minister to have abandoned this Bill,—to have discharged it from the Order Paper and allowed its subject matter first to be referred to a Select Committee for thorough investigation. I would even go further than that and say that a commission is necessary—even more vitally necessary in this case than in the case of the subject which was investigated by the Asiatic Inquiry Commission in 1922; because you may do considerable injury to the farming industry by this legislation—an industry which at the present moment is in a very precarious position, whatever may be said about the generous season we have had. There is no doubt that, economically, the farmer is alternating between starvation and a bare living and that there will be a considerable accession to the ranks of the poor whites from the agricultural industry if ill-judged and ill-considered legislation of this kind is introduced without sufficient enquiry and without sufficient investigation of its effects on the industries concerned,—the agricultural industry in particular. You are well aware of the position on many of the farms. The farmer finds it impossible to employ, to any large extent, white labour, sufficiently intelligent to attend an engine or machinery of any kind, and over a long course of years a certain number of natives have become skilled in those occupations, and in the present state of the law they are allowed to be employed in these occupations; but immediately you introduce this legislation you cause a disturbance of those conditions and a certain amount of alarm and concern among the agriculturists in this country, who are already a distressed community. I do appeal to the Minister, in his reply, to indicate that this Bill will be limited in its scope to the mining industry and to that alone, and that the large section of the people engaged in primary production, who apprehend nothing but disturbance from the effect of this law, need have no apprehensions and that the Bill, if passed will not apply to them. I hope that the Minister will realize that in speaking as I have done,—I hope moderately—I wish to appeal to him to dismiss from his mind the idea that the opposition to this Bill has any partizan colour to it. Certain statements have been published which would promote the idea that in this House irresponsible statements have been made with a view to fomenting racial hatred among the natives against the Government.

Hear, hear.

I wish in the strongest manner possible to disavow anything of that sort on behalf of my party. I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Brakpan say “Hear, hear,” as though he believed that. I have more respect for his knowledge of South Africa than to believe that he thought we had so lost all sense of decency as to encourage race hatred on the part of natives against any party in power.

You have been trying to use the natives for party purposes.

In reply to the hon. member I wish to state that there is not a single native in my constituency who has a vote, so I hope I may be considered to speak without any desire to catch votes in my constituency.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

When this debate was last before the House, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) stated, with a certain amount of unction, that he was against the colour bar. I take it that if he is logical and intends following up his words by actions, he will vote against this measure.

He said he would.

But a few days before, he spoke at Klerksdorp in connection with the by-election. The Minister of Justice stated what the policy of the Government was in regard to this matter, namely that—

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) was on the platform with him, and made a speech following the Minister. During his speech he said—

I can hardly credit that it was the same gentleman who, made that statement at Klerksdorp, as it is diametrically opposed to the statement he made with such emphasis and such unction in this House. Perhaps we will have an explanation from him.

Who made that statement? It is pure imagination.

The hon. member went on to challenge members from the Rand. He dared them to speak or vote against the colour bar. I am going to accept that challenge, and I am going to vote against the Bill. I wish to state my reasons for so doing. In the first place, this measure is undoubtedly aimed at the gold industry. If it is a sound policy to introduce legislation of this character; if it is to the benefit of the inhabitants of the Union that this policy should be adopted; this policy of excluding the majority of the indigenous inhabitants of the country from certain occupations; it ought to be introduced in regard to all occupations and industries in the country and not in regard to one only. Secondly, the Bill is based on injustice. The principle of uplifting the native is one which we acknowledge in theory and practice for the education of State provides money for the education of natives and the education and uplifting of the native is part of the State policy; but as the native advances and fits himself for certain occupations, he is faced with an impossible barrier. This law which it is proposed to place on the Statute book, will, on account of the colour of his skin, have the effect that the greater part of the population will be doomed to perpetual disability, as all hope of advancement is banished from him. That is an inconsistency. The policy of uplifting him is held out; but at the same time he is told that even if he fits himself and becomes even superior to some Europeans in carrying out certain duties, he is confronted with this impossible barrier. Another objection I have is that the Bill is prompted by a sense of fear on the part of a section of the white inhabitants. The European will never maintain his superiority by being kept a privileged class. Disabilities such as these are reminiscent of the middle ages. We are now trying to carry out what has been discarded for centuries in other countries. When I see legislation of this sort and read the lessons of history I am reminded of the saying of that astute statesman de Tallyrand, viz.—

The constitution of a privileged class, an aristocracy of white labour, cannot last. Legislation of this sort is detrimental to the best interests of the European himself. Another reason why I am opposed to this measure and a reason that weighs very heavily with me, is that I see in legislation of this character a division of the white people of this country on a question on which, undoubtedly, there should be no division amongst them. I am convinced that there are many thousands of people in this country who will resent this injustice to the largest section of the population. Where, I would ask, are the democratic principles of the Labour party now? They are jettisoned for selfish ends. I remember not long ago that that party wanted to form a union with the natives and incorporate natives into their trade unions. One of the principles enunciated by the “Guardian.” the official organ, I understand, of the Labour party in Natal, was this—

Now we have another cry altogether. I must confess to considerable surprise at the attitude taken up by some hon. members opposite. I remember the present Minister of Railways when he sat on this side of the House saying with a voice filled with emotion that the white man is the father and guardian of the native, that he must have a watchful care of the interests of the native and must uplift him. Now, what have you? You have a Ministry of which that hon. gentleman is a member passing a Bill with the object of keeping the native in subjection. Legislation of this sort is. I think, futile, it is useless and it is dangerous. There is no doubt that it will cause the gravest discontent amongst the natives. They are indigenous to this country, we have taken up the attitude that we regard ourselves as their father and guardian and this is the sort of thing we give them. On the ground of the injustice both to the native and to the white man I am opposed to this Bill.

I think the theoretical reason why this Bill was brought forward was that it was in the interest of the preservation of white civilization in South Africa. By means of this Bill it is hoped to maintain the white people in sufficient numbers in South Africa that civilization may go on uninterruptedly in the future. I think we have departed a good deal from the spirit in which this debate opened. I do not think there was any member of the House who did not feel very sympathetic towards the Prime Minister’s utterances in regard to this Bill. The Prime Minister even went so far as to say that neither he nor any of his colleagues were bound to any definite principles or fixed line in this matter, and that all they wanted was that we should all come together and discuss the problem and see how we can solve it. That, I say, is all we want. It is a great pity that more or less a party controversial tone has been introduced into this debate. So far from this Bill tending to strengthen our white civilization, in the opinion of some of us it will have precisely the opposite effect. I have been struck during the course of this debate that there were few arguments advanced to show the necessity for this Bill. In this country, as a matter of fact, there is a colour bar very real and very effective in the Transvaal, almost equally so in the Free State and, at all events, not prescribed by statute in the other two provinces, but we find that in practice there is only an infinitesimal difference between what occurs in the provinces which have the colour bar and the provinces which have not the colour bar. In the mines of the Transvaal the proportion is one white to 10.7 natives, and in the mines of the whole of the Union the proportion is one to 10.8. I submit that it was a very bad mistake of policy to bring in this legislation not only unnecessary, but also contrary to the best interests of the country. One of the most regrettable features of this legislation and certain portions of the debate is the effect upon the minds of the natives. I have many native constituents, and it is my duty to represent their views. At a very large meeting they passed a resolution to the effect that—

This resolution also says that the Bill will cause increasing disaffection amongst the natives, as it will place them outside the pale of civilization. Hon. members may say that such is not the intention of the Bill, but we have to reckon on the effect on the native mind. The resolution further states that the natives view this Bill as the death-knell to native aspirations. I do not want at this stage to detain hon. members at any length, but I cannot help endorsing what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said as to the great unwisdom of introducing such highly dangerous matters as the Asiatic question info this Bill. There is no doubt whatever that the races other than white throughout Africa and also in Asia are awakening to a sense of their own race consciousness. We have in the extreme end of Asia one of the proudest nations as regards their own nationality in the whole world—the Japanese. I wonder how they view this measure. I do not think it is sound policy on our part by any ill-judged and, as I maintain, unnecessary action to insult a very proud and powerful people. The Prime Minister said last week that a great deal of the troubles amongst the white men in South Africa were due to the idea that one white race wanted to exercise dominance over another, and he made that point very clear. We all agree with him that no one white race should assume any tone of arrogance over the other. That is the object of this party. We have proved it by our policy, by our speeches and our actions that we do not desire this dominance. Why then cannot the Prime Minister carry this feeling a bit further and refrain from wounding the feelings of people, whatever their colour, by legislation relegating them to a position of inferiority? It is absolutely necessary in certain occupations to draw an effective line, but this can be done without the aid of legislation. It is unnecessary, for instance, to put on the statute book a law instituting a social colour bar. Socially, the colour bar is quite effective. We have our colour bar, but we do not put it on the statute book. There is nothing to prevent an hon. member asking a native to dine at his table, but in practice it is not done. It would be an improper piece of legislation to introduce laws introducing a colour bar into our private and social life. This colour bar in economic matters is not necessary. If we have to make this country secure, if we want it to be safe against the inroads of barbarism we are going the wrong way about it in preventing the natives rising in the economic sphere. It is a great pity the Prime Minister did not accept the generous offer of the leader of the Opposition, first towards making it a non-party question, and secondly, offering his own services on a Select Committee so that the matter could have been thrashed out there and the country could have been spared a good many of the speeches in this debate which will no doubt be regretted later on. I wish we could get back to some of the principles that have actuated some of the statesmen who gave the franchise to this country and the administrators in other countries, who have to deal with overwhelming masses of natives. The Frenchmen claim there cannot and must not be, and there is not, a colour line under the tricolour. The French Resident-General at Morocco, one of the most successful administrators of native affairs in the world, says that the whole policy, which has proved successful, is not to treat the coloured man as inferior, but as a different race—that is logical, that is good, that is right. But do not lay down by enactment that any race is inferior. In the relatively free competition of the coloured man in the Cape and in Natal, I am going to give the House one or two figures about factories. In the free competition there is only about five per cent. difference above the two inland provinces where the colour bar has prevailed so long. So, you see, if things are left to work themselves out, it would probably be more satisfactory and avoid the stigma on our sense of justice. I deprecate the spirit that actuates legislation of this kind, which will recoil on the whole of the white population in the long run. We are pleading for civilization, and if there is one fact more certain than another it is that there can be no civilization without freedom. Does this Bill tend towards freedom? No, sir, just the reverse. By far-reaching restrictions we are seeking to impose under this Act conditions which are not desirable, but which will have the contrary effect because they are incompatible with freedom and civilization.

I fail to understand the attitude of hon. members on that side. They have got me guessing. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, speaking on this measure, that if this Bill were simply a re-enactment of the previous colour bar—the 1911 Act—the whole of the members of the Unionist party would stand solidly behind it. The hon. member for Standerton—I was here when he made the statement—said that if this Bill meant the original colour bar, the whole of that side of the House would stand behind it, but he said their objection was that it went ever so much further. He said that this particular Bill not only applies to the mining industry, as the previous Bill did, but made it possible to apply the colour bar to any industry in South Africa. Contrast that with the complaint of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), who said that this particular Bill was directed against the mines, and as much as said that if it did not single out the mining industry only, but if it applied to the whole of the industries of South Africa, the hon. member would support it. He gave the Government that impression. We find it very difficult to follow his line of reasoning, because he is one of the shining lights of the White South African League in the Transvaal, and I understand the member for Bezuidenhout is also a member of the White League.

Your understanding is full of misunderstandings.

I think the hon. member is a member of the anti-Asiatic League. That is a distinction without a difference in the Transvaal. When they are in the Transvaal they are out for a “White South Africa.” Now they are in favour of a colour bar in the Transvaal, and the only way the Unionist party can save their faces on this particular measure was by following the right hon. member for Standerton when he put up the plea that the Bill went further than the previous colour bar. Those members would have been safe in following in the footsteps of the deputy-leader of the party, but they have departed from that, and then you wonder that we cannot understand where they stand on this question. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) says we have a social colour bar, but it has not been necessary to put it on the statute book. What about the native Urban Areas Bill passed by the Government of which the hon. member was a member? This particular question has received support of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). Is it not a fact by law in South Africa we have laid down colour bars in connection with the segregation of natives in the cities and in connection with the marriage laws in South Africa? Then we come to another question. The hon. members over there talk about an iniquitous piece of legislation which is being introduced. I want them to give us an honest expression of their opinion as to the right of the natives to trade in the streets. Would they stand up and advocate that the colour bar against natives opening shops and trading in the streets in Johannesburg should be abolished? Let them carry it a, little further and say that they are out to abolish the whole of the colour bars whether for the protection of trade, the commercial classes, or any section of the community. Natives are forbidden to hold land in the towns; they are not allowed to trade in the streets, and according to hon. members over there that is how it ought to be. It is illegal for natives to trade in the towns in the Transvaal. Hon. members who represent constituencies in the Cape are so taken up with Cape Town that they cannot see further afield. I am speaking of the whole of South Africa.

Let me quote this to show how you misquoted it. You misquoted a speech of the hon. member for Standerton.

It is very unfortunate: it is exceedingly unfortunate.

Let me quote this to put my hon. friend right on a point of explanation: this is what the hon. member for Standerton said—

I just give you the fact as it is.

If the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) never carried it any further that speech bears out what I said, that that party was in favour of the old colour bar in the Transvaal. The Cape members say there is no such thing as a colour bar in the Cape. Then why have they separate waiting rooms for coloureds and for whites on the railway stations? There is a colour bar in the Cape. Will they take steps to remove from the statute book the Masters and Servants Act, which also lays down a colour bar?

No, there are white servants too.

I want hon. members to be honest on this question. (Cries of “Withdraw.”) They should face the facts honestly. Will they tell me that that Act has been applied to white men?

What about the Mount Nelson Hotel case the other day?

Will the Cape members when they speak of the injustice and of the iniquity of the colour bar, be logical, and say whether they are or whether they are not in favour of the removal of all colour bars in South Africa? I could go on quoting numerous colour bars. If we were to apply the living-in system to white men employed by the mining houses in the Transvaal, members who represent the commercial community would oppose it, yet the native is housed, fed, and practically clothed by the employing classes, and is not allowed out of the compounds on the Rand without a pass. Why don’t hon. members opposite raise their voices against the system of semi-slavery on the mines? Will the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) allow the unrestricted immigration of Japanese into South Africa?

What has that got to do with the colour bar?

The hon. member is not prepared to give a straightforward answer. If the Japanese were streaming into South Africa would not the hon. member support legislation against it? If a white man wants to come into South Africa he has to have a certain amount of wealth and education, yet natives come in in spite of the immigration laws. What about the natives imported from Portuguese East Africa?

They all go back again.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) objects to treating coloured men and natives as inferiors, but what did the Cape do in connection with relief works? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) laid down one scale of pay for white men, a lower scale for coloured men, and a still lower scale for natives.

When was that?

On your relief works.

I had nothing to do with the relief works.

It is not a bit of use hon. members opposite trying to wriggle out of it. The whole thing was quoted when the hon. member attended a meeting of the local Town Councils.

You are wrong entirely.

Why do the hon. members treat coloured men and natives as inferiors? The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is not so much opposed to treating them as inferiors, but what he does object to is anything being done in South Africa to protect the white working man, or to make natives more expensive to the employing classes, because he and his friends are out for the cheapest possible labour.

On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) was opposed to the Bill, opposed to the colour bar, and yet many of the hon. members over there are in favour of a colour bar in certain directions. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea whether he is in favour of natives having the vote right throughout the length and breadth of South Africa.

What has that got to do with it?

Let them tell us whether they are in favour of the removal of the colour bar which prevents natives and coloured men in the Cape from sitting in this House. Is the hon. member also in favour of the natives having an equal voice in the selection of members for this House?

They have.

No, they have not. If the natives of the Cape were to receive equal franchise rights on purely democratic lines side by side with the white community, then we should have a black Parliament. Is the hon. member in favour of that? Is the hon. member in favour of giving them full representation in proportion to their numbers? If not, he is in favour of a colour bar. Are the hon. members for Natal prepared to see natives have the right of voting and sitting on their town council in the borough of Durban?

What has that got to do with it? You are trying to draw red herrings across the trail.

The whole case of members across there has been based on the contention of iniquity, injustice and discrimination. I ask them if they are in favour of removing these unjust colour bars which exist in Natal, in the Cape and elsewhere. Hon. members cannot say, “we are in favour of this particular colour bar because it suits our own particular interests but we are against another because it is immoral and unjust.” The question I have put is quite a fair one in view of that attitude. Hon. members went on to ask if this Bill was passed would the Government consider the Asiatic question settled? They are against this method now employed by the Government, because they only want to deal with the Asiatics in so far as they compete with the commercial interests in South Africa, One moment they are telling us we ought to take off our coats and work, and that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for allowing the Asiatic to beat us, and in the next breath they tell us it is necessary to have legislation to enable them to compete in trade against the poor uneducated Indian. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Henderson) said all we want is an efficiency test; make it strict and the white man will get the job. That is only another way of giving the native a dose of poison in a sly manner, and I hope the Government will not accept that advice. I think every man in South Africa admires the present Prime Minister for his honesty. He has come forward and told us exactly what he is out for. He has not done things in an underhand way, but has come forward to tell us where he stands on the question whether he wins or loses. He has proved he is right because right will triumph in the end. As to the suggestion of an efficiency test, I should like to ask the hon. member for Berea whether he would apply the same thing to the Asiatic trader and the white man. If so, why is he in favour of anti-Asiatic legislation? Will he also say that if the white trader cannot compete with the Asiatic then let the white trader go under. So long as hon. members over there are prepared merely to ask for protection for their own selfish interests the working class is not going to support them. This is a national question affecting every class in the community. Cheap competition is a menace to white civilization in South Africa; it affects every class of the community and we should deal with it on non-party and non-class lines.

Would you apply the Bill to farm workers?

That is an awful poser! It makes things very awkward for me! It might create untold difficulties between the Labour party and the Nationalist party to answer that question! But I say the Nationalist party are more broadminded and more wide awake than that. As far as I am concerned, I say that South Africa will never progress until the farming, commercial, and every other section of the community realizes that cheap labour is a curse to a country and well paid labour an asset. I am doing my best to try to bring that home to the farming community, but instead of being open with each other and stating how we stand, hon. members opposite go out into the country and say to the farmers: These wicked Labourites are doing this and that and it is all against the farming community. Then they go into the towns and say to the jingoes, the people in the country are doing this and that and they try to create a difference between town and country. As far as the farming community is concerned, I say that our so-called cheap labour in agricultural production cannot be cheap; because countries where they have nothing but white labour can produce cheaper than we can produce in South Africa. I did not intend to intervene in this debate; but I have been trying to find out where hon. members on the opposite side stand on this question. If they will tell us what they want done in regard to the various colour bars in this country and what should not be done, I might be tempted to vote with them. I say I might.

It was certainly interesting to listen to the speech of the member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), but he spoke so rapidly that it was difficult to follow him. One thing he specially mentioned, namely, that the native had the right of coming into the Union and living here without its being a contravention of the immigration laws. But the natives that come here from Portuguese territory remain Portuguese subjects, and the tax which is paid by a Portuguese native is subsequently repaid to the Portuguese authorities. We in the Transvaal and the Free State appreciate the danger in connection with the colour problem, but what is the Bill before the House? This Bill has been specially drafted for the working classes of Johannesburg.

Do you object to it?

I read a few days ago a statement by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that three Bills were before the House and had to be passed specially in the interests of the working men. This Bill is one of them.

It existed in the Transvaal That also was labour legislation.

If that is so I am sorry because what is the position regarding this Bill? Is it in the interests of the white men to push such a humiliating Bill through the House? Do we as white men who appoint the Government to draft legislation act rightly if we make this legislation to protect the white man and to put him in the position of maintaining his position by this legislation? Is it not humiliating to say that the native may not do this or that but that the white man may do it? Another labour Bill is the Wage Bill. I think that if a difference were made between the wages of a competent man and an incompetent man that is quite sufficient. But under the Bill a distinction is made between the kind of work of a white man and that of a native. What will be the position in say two years? I forsee great difficulties for the Government. Later on the friends on the cross benches will come to the Government to ask for protection against the coloured people so that they also should be prevented from doing skilled work. I do not want the kaffirs or coloured men to do the skilled work of the white men, but this Bill is not necessary. It is not necessary to put such a thing on the Statute Book. We are civilized and must deal with matters on a high level. We must not descend to humiliating legislation of this sort.

The old republic did the same thing.

They were not so drastic, but with this Bill we shall be doing something which hereafter we shall regret. Why does the Government not introduce one big Bill which will embrace all these things? I know that the Asiatic question is a burning one and that the Government must face the matter, but why deal with it piece-meal? I must honestly say that when one sees the conditions in the Cape Province one says that the dividing line must be made as strong as possible, but it must not be put on the Statute Book. No, the white people must keep themselves above water. I also think that the farming population in my district agree with me on this colour question because they are afraid of its application. I shall thus support the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

I am quite certain that if the natives had not had the vote in the Cape Province we should not have had so much objection to this Bill. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) is not here because I wanted to say something to him. The natives are getting convinced that they are being exploited for party political purposes. I attended a meeting at Aliwal North where the hon. the Prime Minister addressed a large number of natives. He explained his policy and the whole meeting was satisfied with it. When, if one, however, listens to the speeches of the Opposition on this matter it seems to us that they regard it as only a small thing which we can use for purposes of party propaganda. It is one of the most important problems in the country and the manner that the House, and especially the Opposition, discusses it is certainly disappointing to the country. The Opposition has been occupied with this matter a long time and they make use of every opportunity to suggest to the natives that they are the protectors of the natives against the other party. When we meet them in the presence of the native on a political platform then their arguments cannot hold water. I want to remind the hon. member for Aliwal of the time when I represented a portion of the constituency which he now represents in this House. In that constituency there is a large native reserve and for the information of other hon. members I should like to say that the hon. member for Aliwal and I stood on the platform from ten in the morning till four in the afternoon, because he was trying to get the votes of the natives. He spoke and thereafter I spoke and at the end of the meeting the natives said that the policy of the Nationalist party was the fair policy. During those years when I represented the natives I took every opportunity to explain the policy of the Nationalist party to the native and I succeeded in satisfying them. But after my meeting the natives were gulled that we wish to push them out into the desert and wanted to take the vote away from them.

Who did that?

Responsible members and the hon. member for Aliwal also insinuated it. I just want to call to recollection that the day after the meeting I have spoken about, that is the meeting at Herschel, I wanted to meet the hon. member again at Sterkstroom and according to my information he was occupied the whole night in thinking out schemes to prevent me speaking or to hold a meeting. He talked until three in the afternoon and I got no chance. That sort of argument cuts no ice with natives and I think they understand what the position is: that the white men are forced to accept legislation to protect themselves against the native. I also ask, like the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), what the difference is between this Bill and the regulations of the South African party and of the old republic. If hon. members feel so fair-minded towards the native why then did they not take steps to repeal those regulations? Let us be honest, and not for party purposes say all sorts of things to the natives, as that there is only one party in the country who will be fair to them. I say that this Bill is necessary for the maintenance of white civilization in South Africa. Is the S.A.P. prepared to abolish the general colour line in the country? Are they prepared to give general franchise to the natives, to appoint them to the public service as postmasters, etc.? We can argue that the native is not yet so developed as to be able to do that work. The time will, however, come that we must protect ourselves against him. If we go on as at present I fear that we shall have a reputation of the so called revolution of 1922, which was caused by the abolition of the colour bar in the mines. I wish again to protest against the attempts of the Opposition to use this legislation to stir up the natives against the white man. It is an offence against the white man and the country and they do not show the native any service. I support this Bill heartily and I am certain that the native as well as the white man will support it if it is properly explained to him.

I had not intended intervening in this debate, but I do wish to repudiate something of what has fallen from the lips of my hon. friend (Mr. Steytler). He has referred to a meeting which he and I jointly addressed, and he has stated that at the conclusion of that meeting the natives admitted that the policy for which he was standing was the one which was truly in the interests of the natives. Now that is absolutely wrong. The hon. member ought to have known it was wrong. He followed it up and tried to address a subsequent meeting, at which the natives themselves would not give him a hearing, and I will tell you why they refused. The natives had, on the second occasion, said that they were not prepared to give him a hearing because only the year before, at the time of the registration, an agent of the party to which my hon. friend belongs was sent down from Smithfield with the idea of disfranchising the natives in the Herschel district, and they took exception to 380 natives out of a total of 400.

Why did the natives on the first day allow me to speak? Did they object then?

The natives on that occasion were aware that only the year before, the party to which that gentleman belongs had endeavoured to disfranchise them, and they said they were not going to listen to an emissary of the enemy, and now he claims that the natives expressed their convictions that their truest friend was the party to which that gentleman belonged. The proof of the pudding was in the eating, and he will admit they scarcely got a native vote in the whole district. If they had been genuine and said he represented the party which stood for the best interest of the natives, it would have been otherwise.

I am afraid this is irrelevant.

Exactly, sir. I have been attacked on this point, and I wish to make it clear. I wish to state that I am absolutely opposed to the measure before the House just now. I feel that it is monstrous to put a barrier such as is proposed in this Bill in the way of the advancement of the native in this country. We are pledged to a policy of trying to uplift the natives, to civilize them, and when we get legislation of this kind and put a bar in the way of their progress, it is in direct conflict with the principles for which we stand in this House. Whether we educate the natives or not they necessarily imbibe the conditions we, as a civilized people, live up to. We set them examples, and once you put a people on the way to progress it is impossible to hope that by a stroke of legislation you are going to put a barrier before those people. They are going to throw it off, and the more we endeavour to place impediments in the way of their rising by legislation of this kind, just so much we are going to put obstacles in the way of our own white people in the country.

As a representative of a constituency consisting of 10,000 white souls living in the heart of a large native population, and as a representative of a portion of Natal, where the Asiatic menace is felt worst—the town of Stanger, where Asiatics completely rule the municipality—it is desirable I should say something on the question and define my attitude. My attitude is quite consistent. I am convinced I am acting in the best interests of my scattered constituency. Before making any further remarks, may I say the most inexplicable thing to me, in the debate, is the attitude of the members of the Labour party? As a man with socialistic tendencies, tempered by anthropology, I cannot conceive how any man who claims to be a socialist can possibly support a Bill of this nature. It is this kind of thing that leads to labour men visiting this country laughing in derision at the way our South African Labour party prostitute every labour sentiment held by labour throughout the world. I have heard strangers from overseas, leading lights in the labour world, laugh at the South African Labour party claiming to represent labour principles. If there is one principle for which socialism has fought for fifty years or more, ever since trade unionism began, it is the right of the individual to sell his labour in any market he chooses for the highest price. That is the inherent right of all labour, whether as an individual or a class—the right by collective bargaining of the trade unions for their members, or by an individual for himself, to get the maximum wages in return for the wealth they produce. The whole object of the labour movement is to obtain for the worker the fruits of his work. What a doctrine the South African Labour party is now applying to the native population; what a prostitution of every labour precept There is one point raised by the hon. member for Maritzburg which I wish to meet. He said that the people who voted for the Class Areas Bill, and who thereby agreed to put a restriction on the issue of trade licences, and who agreed to restrict the right to occupation of land, had agreed to a colour bar, and that our attitude now is inconsistent. I am astonished that the Labour party cannot see that the two things are distinct. It has always been the function of every Government in the world to put restrictions on trading, for a very sound reason. And with regard to the occupation of land, the land belongs to the State, and they have a right to say who shall occupy the land and how it shall be occupied. Also in the distributing trades the State has the right to say how the goods produced from the soil or the mines are distributed. That is an inherent right in every Government. But when we consider the restriction of a man’s labour, when you say that one class of labour must be engaged only in certain occupations you touch a different principle. No Government in the world, except, perhaps, in Russia, has of late years put any restriction on the right of labour to sell its labour in the best market. Every man has a perfect right to sell his labour in the country of his birth for the best possible price. The principle embodied in this Bill is a fundamental departure, and I do not think there is anybody taking part in this debate—if this Bill becomes law—who will not look back upon it as the turning of a new chapter in the history of South Africa. Of that I am certain. We are very differently circumstanced in this country from other countries; I doubt if there is another country in the world where a Government dare bring in such a Bill as this without consulting the electorate. This Bill was brought in in the dark. The British Government felt it necessary to go to the country on a simple matter of tariff reform, but an epoch-making measure like this is brought into this Parliament without a mandate from the country and without explanation by the Minister in a speech which did not reveal the full purport of the Bill. The full implication of this measure is that the Minister has power to prescribe the work which shall be performed by certain classes of people. The definition of machinery is a very wide one—

Was that not issued under the old regulation?

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it the old colour bar arose out of the natural conditions of the Transvaal mines, and was restricted to those mines. There has never been any statute passed through this House giving this power, and the old working conditions were taken over and became the practice on the Rand. But that crept into practice many years ago; we are now evolving very rapidly and you cannot put into practice, as the Prime Minister said the other day in connection with segregation, that which was possible in 1917, because it is not possible today. Precisely the same thing applies to the colour bar. That which was possible in 1890, and could be done with impunity then, cannot be done in 1924. That is a point which has been entirely lost sight of by the Government. Perhaps I may define works—

As the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, this Bill goes right into the blue and undoubtedly it does give power to the Minister if he liked to exercise it, to prevent any native or Asiatic working even a cream separator or mowing machine, although I do not suggest for a moment that he would do so, but I do suggest that it is a very dangerous thing for us in 1924 to pass something which was not even passed in 1890. I quite agree and understand that the Government have introduced this measure with the idea of preserving our civilization; no doubt that idea inspired it, and if there were time to do so to-night, I would go into the matter fully. But I say that our civilization can be preserved in a manner much better than set forth in this measure. In legislation of this kind we are asking something for nothing, we are not prepared to pay for it, we are prepared to pass something through the House which will become law without expecting the white section to pay anything whilst preserving their privileges. That was not the attitude of the present Minister of Labour last year or the year before on the Class Areas Bill. In that Bill he brought in an amendment which disclosed quite another outlook. After the introduction, the amendment goes on to say—

Last year the argument of the Minister of Labour was that we should proceed upon these lines, that it was entirely unjust to create any kind of colour bar and the country should provide money to bring about some remedy for the situation. Now he is in the Government he chooses the easier method of passing through this House a bludgeon by which you can strike down these people without its costing us anything. I should also like to refer to the attitude of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), on the Class Areas Bill. He was talking now in quite a different strain. He then said, according to Hansard—

This is precisely what he is now pleading we should do. What is the object of it? Then he says—

I am afraid the hon. member was not in a non-party spirit to-night,

and meet the representatives of those communities round the table and talk these matters over—

What a lot of talking-over we have had—

What admirable sentiments he then expressed—

And yet, when the right hon. member for Standerton suggested meeting round a table, what was the hon. member’s answer? He proposes to vote for the Bill because it is going to preserve white civilization which previously he said would be destroyed. I have felt it necessary to define my position on this matter because, after the greatest consideration—and I think everyone should give this matter the greatest consideration possible for it is a most momentous question—I feel that if we should pass this Bill and I should have any hand in its becoming law and there should arise as a result of this legislation bitter turmoil and trouble in this country (I am not threatening, I am arguing) we should all live to regret it. I do not want to have it in my heart to say that in a mistaken zeal for white civilization I refused to study the question and helped to pass legislation which is going to put a stigma on a large section of the people and bring trouble to ourselves.

The hour is late and I feel that if I have to reply adequately to the debate it will take some considerable time. I never intended to introduce, nor did I introduce, party politics into this measure. Neither has this side of the House done so. If they have been introduced it has been entirely due to the hon. members of the Opposition. We dealt with this matter all through as one outside of party politics. I want to make this observation before going further. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), in the excitement which so characterizes him, referred to me as being moved by a spirit of vindictiveness. I defy any hon. member in this House to point to a single utterance of mine, either in this House or on any public platform, that was in any measure irresponsible or not sympathetic towards the native population of this country. I have always regarded the question of our native policy as a thing far removed from mere party politics, and as one of our most burning and intricate problems, and I have always been actuated towards the natives by a feeling of sympathy and by the conviction that they have to be dealt with as a father would deal with his son or daughter.

You have hidden your sympathy wonderfully well in this Bill.

Don’t let us beg the question. That is the question now and the House is about to decide that question. If a stranger were to enter this House and if he knew nothing of the circumstances of our country, he would conclude from the gist of the speeches on the opposite side that it was purely the interests of the native that had to be considered, that you had no white population in this country, and that the interests of the white man needed no consideration whatsoever. That is the general characteristic of the speeches of the opposite side. Not one hon. member opposite had dealt with this question from the point of view of the white man in South Africa, and from the point of view of the preservation of the white man’s civilization. For 14 years hon. members opposite, and the party to which they belong, have ruled the destinies of this country, and I say deliberately and advisedly that they have systematically run away from the handling of this problem of the future—the future of the white man. I point this hon. House to this one question and fact, that in the Cape Province alone you have potentially to-day enough native voters to swamp the white man entirely at the polls, when that potentiality is one of these days—and “these days” are not very far off, speaking of the history of a nation—converted into actuality, how are we going to deal with that problem?

What is your remedy?

Are we sitting calmly to-day, are we looking at the development, the happenings of the future with perfect equanimity, not worrying about ourselves or about our white posterity? Is that going to be our attitude, and are we going to close our eyes, are we going to bury our heads in the sand like the ostrich? The Cape Province, not to speak of recruits from the other provinces of the Union, will be able in a comparatively few years to swamp the white man entirely at the polls, and I say it is up to us, it will be up to this House, to deal with that problem effectively, and deal with it within the next few years, otherwise the position of white civilization will be hopeless and will be past redemption. There is not a single speech of hon. members opposite that has been able to argue away this one single fact, that the legislation of 1911 and the regulations pursuant thereto, were introduced and promulgated under the impression that the statute of 1911 gave ample power to do so. The regulations were issued deliberately in order to create a colour bar, and it was only in November, 1923, owing, as I have said before, to the stupid and very short-sighted policy of the Chamber of Mines that the position was challenged in our law courts, and the regulations were declared to be ultra vires in so far as they purported to create a colour bar. Well, it is true that the various commissions or some of them, especially the commission on low grade mines, had anticipated the ultra vires nature of the regulations, but still they were never questioned in a court of law. If you look at the statute—Mines and Works Act—and if you look at Section 4, sub-section 2, you can see what was at the back of the mind of the introducer of this Bill, who I understand to have been the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition—the de jure Leader of the Opposition himself—

What was the intention of that? To use his own significant words, what was behind that? At the time that statute was introduced with the object of establishing a colour bar and maintain it, and it was attempted to be established, and was maintained by the issue of the regulations. What is the history of the colour bar? In the Transvaal it has existed practically from time immemorial. In the Free State practically the same. In Natal, in practice, it has been effectively maintained all through. In the Transvaal you have the Act of 1873, which made the following provision Act No. 1, Gold Law, 1883, Section 26, refers to coloured persons not being allowed to—

Now I trace the history of the colour bar, and I want to refer to Act No. 12 of 1896, introduced into the Volksraad of the Transvaal when the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition was State Attorney, and he had ample opportunity of considering this measure and advising the Government upon it. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) asked if there was any precedent for mentioning Asiatics especially. Yes, I can give him several. Act 12 of 1896, during the State Attorneyship of the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition, had this provision—

It had this provision… These provisions existed in Act 12 of 1898, also passed during the time of the Attorney Generalship of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). It was stipulated that the expression “coloured person” shall signify every African native or any other coloured person. No coloured person might hold an engine drivers’ certificate of competency. Section 3 of Law 15 of 1898 says that a coloured person is defined as any African, Asiatic, coloured American or native person or Chinaman. Section 92 reads that every white person who wishes to work on the mines shall have certain rights. Every white person shall have the right to cut firewood free. Section 133 says—

Any person purchasing unwrought gold from coloured persons shall be punished. Every coloured person of African origin working on the fields shall be bound to have a monthly pass. In Law 22, 1898—the Diamond Law—also passed in the time of the right hon. member for Standerton, stipulated that the words “Coloured person” shall signify every African, or Asiatic, native or coloured American person, coolie or Chinaman. And so on through the whole gamut. In Section 122 it was laid down that it was unlawful to trade in diamonds with coloured persons. It was unlawful, too, for coloured persons to have diamonds in their possession. A coloured person shall not be a licence holder, but shall only be allowed in the service of whites. In the interpretation of terms it was stipulated that the terms banksman, ganger, mine overseer, shift boss, and surface foreman should be taken to mean that they were Europeans. Section 153 lays it down that no coloured person shall be permitted to drive such engine. Law 35 of 1908, also passed under the enlightened Government of the right hon. member for Standerton, under responsible Government, when General Botha was Premier gives the same definition of coloured person as in the existing Gold Law, namely, coloured person shall mean any African, or Asiatic, native, or any other person who is manifestly a coloured person. No coloured person was permitted to reside on proclaimed land except in bazaars and locations. You had the same state of affairs under responsible Government in the Transvaal up to 1911. The same colour bar was repeated under the Crown Colony Government of Lord Milner. We come now to the Orange Free State. Section 2 of Chapter 115 of the Law Book dealing with mining for precious metals and stones says—

The definitions I have read regarding banksman, ganger and so on being Europeans is taken also from the Transvaal ordinance. Thus the colour bar was perpetuated in the Orange Free State. I now come to Natal. I want to make this clear that the colour bar has obtained very effectually in all the provinces except the Cape. In Natal you had these provisions that the raising and lowering of person’s from mines shall be done by competent banksmen of European descent; safety-lamps to be inspected by Europeans, and the issuing of lamps to be done by Europeans. No lamp to be lighted underground except by a competent European. That is the history of the law so far as the three provinces are concerned, and as I say, not one argument of the Opposition has succeeded in doing away with this fact, that the Act of 1911 was introduced with the intention of a colour bar. Now I come to the great divergence of views that has been expressed by the Opposition. First of all we have the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) placing himself on a very model pedestal. And what is the result of that? Flap he goes down from that pedestal, when he admits that he is in favour of stabilizing the existing colour bar in the Transvaal. What becomes of his principles? I must compliment certain members of the Opposition tonight who, at any rate, were consistent throughout, and stated they were going to oppose this Bill and were not even going to allow the existing colour bar in the Transvaal to appear on the statute book of the country. That attitude I can understand. That is an attitude of consistent principle. But what becomes of the pedestal of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition? And, of course, he “queered the pitch” entirely for his followers when he admitted that by the judgment of the court, in November, 1923, the Government was bound to take action. What were we to do? Do you think we should have left the whole thing alone, and simply adopted the old characteristic policy of our predecessors as regards everything important, and everything that would occasion trouble—the policy of drift? Obviously we could not follow that policy. We had to grapple with the situation, and we are doing so to-day, in no spirit of hostility towards the natives, or towards any section of the community, but simply because the exigencies of the case, and the interests of the country, demand it. As I say, a great divergence of opinion has been revealed by the Opposition. You have got the statement on the one hand of the right hon. member for Standerton, and a statement from an hon. member, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) saying—

That is practically the position of the leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) cited a passage from the reported speech of the leader of the Opposition, appearing in Hansard on pages 280, etc., but the quotation he made did not fairly reflect the attitude of the leader of the Opposition, and I shall endeavour to reflect it now. I do not know whether this report was revised by the right hon. member, but so far as my recollection goes it gives, at any rate, the gist of what he stated correctly. He said—

Of course, but that is quite a different question: the extension is one thing, and the stabilization of the position in the Transvaal is another. I will deal with both. He goes on to say—

On page 285 he says—

That is the first bit of advice. He says further on—

It is quite clear and my recollection serves me, I am convinced, correctly, that the whole burden of his speech was that we were by this Bill extending the colour bar that had been in force in the Transvaal. Now the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) challenged the Opposition to attack the colour bar as it has always existed in the Transvaal, challenged them to do away with it to-day. Are they acting on that challenge? Is the Opposition suggesting that we should not pass this Bill, but that we should wipe out of our practice in the Transvaal the colour bar that obtains? Is that the attitude of hon. members opposite? No, hon. members opposite are hopelessly divided. If you take on the one hand the speeches of the right hon. the leader and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and you compare them with the speech of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), who said openly and candidly that he differed from his leader, and the speeches of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and various other speakers, there is a hopeless division on the most material aspects of this Bill, and I repeat that the hon. member began his speech with a perfervid moral aspect and immediately he had to come down from his pedestal, because he gave the whole principle away when he said—

and when hon. members tell me, like the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius)—

that is an ethical view which does not appeal to me. So far as the rest of the speech of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition is concerned, he simply evaded the arguments on this side of the House. He simply evaded the arguments in favour of the Bill. These are his old tactics. Whenever he finds that an unanswerable argument is put forward, he simply makes as if such an argument never existed. That is a very easy way of getting rid of your difficulties and it is typical of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. In this Hansard speech of the right hon. gentleman, he made this statement which I challenge. It is an absolutely incorrect statement and I will proceed to prove it in a moment. I am now dealing with the question of extension. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) shared that view. I told him by way of interruption that he was entirely wrong, and I will convince him now, if he is open to conviction, that he was entirely wrong. This is what his right hon. leader said—

Now, if the English language means anything, then the argument of the right hon. gentleman was that the regulations which had been issued by his Government had been confined to subsection (n) of paragraph 4. That is the section containing the grant, cancellation, and suspension of certificates of competency to mine managers and so on. That is an absolutely incorrect statement, and I think the right hon. the leader of an Opposition ought really to ascertain his facts before making such a statement. What do we find in the regulations? I am now testing whether these regulations have been issued under (n). Banksman means a white person, ganger means a white person, manager means a white person, onsetter means a white person. Are these matters confined to (n) of the act? Will any member get up there and say that that is so? We come to regulation 99, which says that no person other than a white person shall conduct blasting operations in or about a works in the Transvaal or O.F.S. That comes under the head. It also comes under other sub-sections of Section 4. Then we come to the regulations, I am only giving instances, I am not exhausting them—

I don’t see where that necessarily comes under “N.” Then we come to another one, Regulation 105—

Therefore, props may not be taken down other than by white persons who have had not less than three years’ experience. I don’t see how that necessarily comes under “N.” Then Regulation 143, change-houses—

What has that got to do with “N”? We now come to the colour bar, Regulation 146—

These are all ordinary safeguards.

Of course, but they are all colour bars. The hon. member the leader of the Opposition wanted to bring the House under the impression that the regulations on the colour bar were confined under Section “N” of the Act—