I move—

seconded.

That is too early; make it Monday at the earliest.

It has been published.

Yes, but many members of the House have not seen it. I think Monday is really the earliest day my hon. friend should take.

I would point out that the session is getting advanced and we must get on with the work. It is not as if hon. members did not know the terms of this Bill. The Bill was published some time ago.

Is there any objection to Friday?

I object.

Question put; and Mr. Jagger called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—61.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

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 Wet, S. D.

Du Toit. F. J.

Fick. M. L.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

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 Hees, A. S.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—44.

Anderson. H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys. L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler. H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

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.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time. It is not often that it is my privilege and pleasure to propose an unopposed Bill. The object of this Bill is the acknowledgment of God’s name in the constitution in the South Africa Act of 1909. As hon. members know dissatisfaction has existed for years on account of the name of the Supreme Being not quite specifically named in our constitution. There was a Select Committee in 1914, and the Committee brought up certain objects which I will shortly refer to. This year Parliament has again as it were under pressure appointed a Select Committee, and I am glad to be able to say that the report of the committee is unanimous. We had the advantage of the valuable experience and counsel of the late Speaker of this House on the committee, and the committee decided that it was not unnecessary to alter the preamble of the South Africa Act which has caused such difficulties and raised such objections with the previous committee. But that it will be entirely legal and constitutional to replace the existing section 1 of the South Africa Act by a section reading as follows—

and to remove the existing section 1 of the South Africa Act to the end of the South Africa Act. Of course our constitution is an ordinary Act of the British Parliament, and it is customary in England to make section 1 of such an Act the short title of a law of the British Parliament. We are simply placing the existing section 1 at the end, and in its stead we put the special acknowledgment of the guidance of Almighty God in the affairs of the Union. The objection which the previous committee had was that constitutionally the preamble of the South Africa Act could not be altered because section 152 of the South Africa Act says that Parliament is entitled by legislation to repeal or amend the provisions of the Act, and the committee argued that the preamble of the Act was not a provision. There were also other difficulties. It was inadvisable to alter the preamble and to put something into the mouths of the British Parliament, which at that time they never considered or intended. Another objection was that the national convention had not overlooked the specific mention of the name of the Almighty, but had intentionally left it out, and a further objection was that if the preamble were amended we should then tacitly cast a reflection on the National Convention and the old Colonial Parliament. It was further pointed out that our proceedings are usually opened with prayer and that the people being a God-fearing people looked up in connection with the whole undertaking of the Union and the South Africa Act to the guidance of the Almighty. It was also mentioned that even in the old church ordinances in the forties and in the new church law no specific acknowledgment of the name of God is made. The committee of this year came to the conclusion that all the objections could be removed, because we could leave the preamble of the South Africa Act intact by including the following preamble in this amendment Bill—

I think that these words also remove any reflection on the National Convention. It is a matter to which we gave our earnest attention in the Select Committee, and in this connection the advice and assistance of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), the late Speaker of this House, helped us much, and thus we came to unanimity, but the greatest advantage of all was that we had evidence in the first place from Mr. Centlivres, the Parliamentary draughtsman, who satisfied that no constitutional or legal difficulties could arise regarding this Bill, and in the second place—and this was still of greater importance—we heard the evidence of the representatives of the church associations, who were all unanimously agreed that it was desirable to acknowledge the name of God in the constitution specifically and expressly, and they are practically unanimous—I think with the exception of one witness—that the Bill as we have it before us now will be acceptable. Under the circumstances therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to enlarge further upon it, and I hope that there will be no echo in connection with this matter. We as a committee came to the conclusion that there was a very strong desire, not only in the body of the church but among the people in general, that what was originally left out should now be included, and we were fortunately able to come to the conclusion that the National Convention had the subject very much at heart, and that they at that time were confronted with great difficulties. Fortunately circumstances have changed. At that time it was a great task for the Convention to bring about the Union, and one can well understand that they had great practical difficulties in connection with this point, and that they therefore did not wish to press the matter further. We came to this conclusion, and accordingly mentioned in the preamble that it was not at all attributable to want of recognition of the Almighty that the name of God had not been originally mentioned by the National Convention.

I rise to give my hearty support to the Bill which the hon. Minister has introduced. Without doubt this Bill is a matter of fairly great constitutional and national importance to us. This matter was also discussed by a Select Committee in 1914, and I must say I have the greatest respect for the report of that Select Committee. I think that the members of our Select Committee all shared the difficulties which were made in 1914, viz., that it was very doubtful whether we had the constitutional right to alter the preamble of the constitution, because it is usually considered that the preamble does not form part of the operative portion of an Act. We all experienced that difficulty that it is very doubtful whether Parliament can alter the preamble. Further we were in the difficulty that the National Convention had intentionally excluded the name of the Almighty from the Act of Union. This made it still more difficult for us to alter the preamble. Rightly or wrongly the report of the Select Committee of 1914 did not give satisfaction to the people of South Africa. Our Select Committee was further met with the difficulty connected with the historical matter which is included in this Bill. It seems as if at the beginning when the constitution first came into force the people and the church attached a general tacit approval of the omission of God’s name from the constitution by the National Convention. It is strange. The convention was constituted from the four Parliaments of the four colonies, and the draft Bill of the convention was sent to each separate Parliament for approval or for amendment. I remember it well, because I was at that time a member of the Cape Parliament, how we here proposed amendments on certain political matters, but there was no pressure in Parliament, either by the people, or the church, on this particular point. It is a point which we should consider when we are passing judgment on the conduct of the statesmen responsible for the drafting of the Act of Union. Let us take the example of Australia. As far as I can remember Australia also submitted the draft constitution to the people. The name of the Almighty was excluded, but the people exercised such great influence on the members of their convention that the name of the Almighty was subsequently included therein. Here that did not happen. We as a committee were therefore faced by the position that we had to do with the delicate question of the conduct of members of the convention, and also of the Parliaments of the four colonies. Some of the hon. men have already passed from the public scene, and we felt that it was our duty not to cast the least blame on their conduct. It would have been very hard for me to vote for the amendment unless we had protected the conduct of the members of the convention and of the Parliaments of the four colonies from all blame in connection with the matter. After the constitution had been in working only a few years an earnest feeling arose among the people, and a request for amendment was made. It is strange that only after the constitution had been in operation for a few years did this feeling arise among all portions of the people. We took evidence, and all the church societies are in favour of the alteration, and what we felt was that our Constitution should be made as perfect and as acceptable as possible for the people. This is one of the main reasons why I advocate the amendment. It may be said that this is a matter of sentiment, but it is a matter of very deep sentiment with the people, and they rightly or wrongly blame the Act of Union. We want as far as possible to remove all the stumbling blocks from the people, and I think we shall be doing a good deed if we grant the wishes of the people in this case. The Select Committee agreed to protect the conduct of the statesmen of the past. We could not alter the preamble of the Act of Union. We did not dare to do that, and we thought that the only way out was to place a preamble in this Bill. I think that hon. members will see that this will protect the name of deceased statesmen as also the conduct of the Parliaments before Union, and the other members of the convention. I should also like to say here that I do not think that the alteration does any violence to one’s freedom of conscience. I see that certain persons in the country think that we are going to do violence to the consciences of certain persons if we introduce this section into the Act of Union. I do not agree with that, because I regard the inclusion of this section in the constitution only as a declaration that it is the feeling of South Africa, and this is not a penal clause. One might say that the King also is sovereign, and that if I commit treason against the King I am punishable. If anybody therefore has a difficulty of conscience and he impugns the sovereignty of the Almighty he is also punishable. Well, we know that the law makes provision for high treason, and these two matters should not be confused. This sovereignty stands on an entirely different footing to the worldly sovereignty. I also, with the Minister, hope that the House will unanimously accept this Bill. I am certain that it will bring about a better feeling in the land and will give satisfaction. It will meet a feeling amongst our people which we must respect.

I think that it may be expected of me that I shall state my views in connection with the Bill before us, especially as I made certain objections to the appointment of the Select Committee. I will begin by saying that the Bill before us which I have carefully read has not only removed all my objections, but that I heartily welcome it. There are some people who think that by the objections I then raised I showed that I was opposed to the name of the Almighty being incorporated in the constitution. I need hardly say here that that is not the case. I only felt that we ought to be reasonable and fair when we dealt with this matter. I know what the sentiment is which lies behind this whole agitation, and I think it is something that we as a people should appreciate very highly, and I do not believe that anybody will accuse me of not appreciating it. I believe it is the religious conviction of the people which is at the back of this agitation, but there was a doubting element in the agitation which in my opinion rested on a misunderstanding, and that was that by the incorporation at the present time of the name of the Almighty a reflection would be cast on the National Convention as if it had been guilty of a lack of acknowledgement of the Almighty, and as if we as a people were now guilty of a large act of non-acknowledgement of the Almighty. If I thought that this was the case, then I should also have felt that I should oppose the action of the National Convention at that time. I was convinced that no non-recognition was thereby exhibited, and I thought that it was thereby exhibited, and I thought that it was necessary that this point should be clearly brought to light. I am glad that the evidence before the Select Committee on this point is all unanimous. Accordingly on page 3 of the report we find the Rev. J. P. van Heerden, representative of the Board of Control of the Dutch Reformed Church, says—

And I see i.a. that the Rev. Dr. Bender also agrees with that. He says on page 6—

I think that this evidence therefore gives the right to the Minister to clearly include in his preamble that in this amendment no blame is thrown on the framers of the Act of Union. I had the feeling that this agitation would probably not have had any weight if the people had been convinced of this, but there were numbers of people who thought that the omission was an act of non-recognition of the Almighty, and this is the point that I am anxious to make plain. As this is a matter of religion, in which of course sentiment plays a great part because it is in great part a matter of the heart, I think that anyhow the claims of reason should not be overlooked. So far as my conception of religion is concerned I should not like to see an attempt made to be unreasonable. I think that religion ought not to be unreasonable. We cannot act against the convictions of reason, although it is true that there are many things which we cannot understand. I therefore think that in this matter also we should use our reason, and I am glad to see that in this Bill the objections that there were have been removed. As regards the National Convention, I can well understand that many practical difficulties existed. One can proceed from the point of view that it goes without saying that the South African people acknowledge the guidance of the Almighty and that it is not necessary to put it in the Act, because we feel that it is a fact, and that by including the name of the Almighty we do not create a God-fearing people, and that if we on the other hand put it in, and we are not a God-fearing people, it would be pure hypocrisy. I think that it is actually desirable that the spiritual life of the people should also in a certain measure be reflected in its legislation, and that this is necessary to give expression to the convictions of what is in the heart of the people. I must say that I personally deeply regret that the National Convention at that time did not see its way open to incorporate the name of the Almighty. As far as I understand the position the difficulties that I have mentioned have been actually removed. The technical difficulty which there was against the amendment of the preamble in the original Act is overcome by our not making any amendment in the preamble. I think that the committee has acted very sensibly in leaving the preamble as it was because in the South Africa Act the feelings of our people are not actually reflected, but rather the feelings of the British Parliament who passed the Act. The technical difficulty is happily overcome. I agree with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that as the Bill is now drafted no one can object and say that consciences are violated. On a previous occasion I said that people could not be made religious by Act of Parliament. I am opposed to religious compulsion, and I think that everyone in the House will agree with me. I do not think that we can in a proper sense speak of the South Africa Act as the constitution. It is an Act of Union which we have received from the British Parliament, although we settled its terms in South Africa. Only in certain parts does it have the character of a constitution. If anybody here swears allegiance as citizen, then it does not mean that he necessarily swears fidelity to every section that is contained in the South Africa Act. There is no violation of conscience nor is it said that every person belonging to the people of South Africa must necessarily accept the articles of religion. This only establishes a fact that it is the desire of the people that the recognition of the Almighty occupies an important place in the legislation of the country, and that we as a people will acknowledge the guidance of the Almighty. There is certainly no one who can argue this away. I think I may go so far as to say that this is a typical trait of the Afrikanders, and that the religious sense is something which we regard as typical of the South African people. Of course I do not go so far as to say that anyone who is not religious cannot call himself an Afrikander. But in understanding men such as Paul Kruger, Piet Retief, Christian de Wet and others who we regard as typical examples representing our national characteristics, we find it as one of the chief characteristic traits. Under this Bill no constraint upon conscience is exercised, and I can therefore heartily welcome the Bill, and I am thankful that the committee succeeded in removing the difficulty. I only wish in conclusion to express the hope that what we allege in this Bill will also be reflected in the Acts of the Government and of our distant posterity.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has so fully traversed the ground in relation to the matters dealt with in this Bill that I think there is very little that I can say, but I do feel that I should not allow the matter to go by default, because I think that by expressing briefly one’s opinion on this question it will go to show that the Report has made particularly wide appeal to members of this House. I believe that the Minister will be able to secure practically unanimous support for the second reading of this Bill for which he asks the House. I think, looking back as we can do after a lapse of 15 years, if members of this House were to-day asked to frame an Act of Union, there would be very little difficulty in procuring the insertion in that Act of a provision of the kind which appears in the Bill now before the House, and, as the question has arisen and may arise in future why this omission did occur, it is only material for us to make sure that in curing the omission it is perfectly clear that nowhere in this Union can it be thought that the omission in that Act of Union to acknowledge the sovereignty of God was due to any deliberate act on the part of the fathers of the Convention. What is, it seems to me, so vital in this regard, and what was almost entirely the point that was urged in 1914, when this matter came before another Select Committee of this House, is that indicated in the preamble to this Bill, that the omission to make that mention of the sovereignty and guidance of the Almighty was not due in any way to a failure to acknowledge that divine sovereignty and guidance. I think I am correct in saying that the Committee unanimously insisted upon that particular provision appearing in the Bill, and, if that be so, one of the difficulties that was felt by the Select Committee of 1914 completely falls away. The remaining difficulty that occurred was that it was suggested, at one stage, that if any amendment took place it should be in the form of an amendment to the preamble to the Act of Union. As this Report indicates, the Committee felt that there was a very great difficulty indeed in making any amendment to the preamble of the South Africa Act. It is unnecessary now to discuss the reasons why that should be so. If I did, perhaps I should not find myself in agreement with the way in which these reasons have been given by the last speaker (Dr. van der Merwe), but the fact remains that in place of an amendment of the preamble we have taken, by the suggested clause expressive of a declaration of mere intention, a step which is perhaps in the history of our own legislation somewhat novel. The governing factor appears to be that there is throughout the country an overwhelming majority of people anxious for this amendment to the Act of Union to be brought about and the Committee has given effect to their wishes in the present Bill. I am glad, as a member of that committee, to join in the suggestion that the second reading should be now taken.

As I spoke on the 3rd March when this matter was before the House and gave my views I do not now rise to speak again about the matter but rather to thank the House for the spirit of unanimity with which the Bill is received. I am certain that if hon. members knew how many letters I have received from church societies and private persons since the Select Committee was appointed to acknowledge their gratitude for it, then they would agree with me that the amendment should be made and that the Church and the overwhelming majority of the people are thankful that the House is doing so. I am convinced of it, and I want again to heartily thank the House for receiving the matter in this good spirit, the spirit in which I proposed it. I hope that there will now be no further difficulty and that we will satisfy the people in something which they have now longed for years.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I am sure that the country will be grateful for, and glad of, the unanimity that has characterized the second reading; and in view of that unanimity I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

On clause 2,

I move—

It has been pointed out that in the English version the word “chapter” in line 21 should be superseded by the word “part,” so that it will read Part XI instead of Chapter XI; and also the word “part” instead of “chapter” in line 23.

Agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On the Preamble.

In the third paragraph of the preamble in line 10 I should like to move—

Why not alter the Dutch?

Because the Dutch reflects the exact idea. Recognition is not gratitude.

I suggest “through any want of recognition”.

Yes, I will be satisfied with that. I take it from my learned friend that the English is good. I think you have the dual thought in the word “recognition” that you recognize God and at the same time you are grateful. It is an excellent suggestion and I move, therefore—

House Resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

May I ask the question whether the Minister intends to see to it that the Dutch text will be the official one because the word “erkentlikheid” has, perhaps, not been well translated.

That is a very difficult question at this stage.

I do not think that that is a question which can now be answered.

Amendments considered and agreed to, and the Bill as amended adopted; third reading tomorrow.

Before resuming the line of thought that I was busy with when this debate was adjourned, I wish to refer to the statement made that the law of 1896 of the Transvaal was passed during the time the right hon. member for Standerton was State Attorney of the Transvaal. It is not often that I have to apologize for, or to retract any statement I have made with reference to the right hon. member, but in so far as that statement goes, I find I was incorrect, and I apologize to the right hon. member for any inconvenience I may have caused him. I believe he became State Attorney of the Transvaal in 1898. At any rate, it does not make any difference to the substantive aspect of my argument, because the fact remains that the right hon. member was State Attorney of the Transvaal in 1898 when the Acts 12 and 15 of that year were passed and which very clearly laid down the colour bar and mentioned natives and Asiatics specifically. Of course I did not mention this because I thought it was obvious and well known that the State Attorney of the South African Republic was not a member of the Government nor of the Executive Council, but this is certain that the State Attorney had very often to attend—being law adviser—the meetings of the Executive Council, and I very well remember, in those early days, going with a deputation to the Executive Council of the South African Republic, when the right hon. member was a callow youth, and had just been appointed State Attorney, and seeing him present at the Executive meeting. Another thing is that Bills for the Volksraad would be referred—as we refer Bills today to the law advisers—would be referred to the State Attorney. But, as I pointed out last night, the fact remains that the Gold Law, No. 35 of 1908, which was introduced in the responsible Government period of Gen. Botha in the Transvaal, whose right hand man and chief lieutenant the right hon. member then was, laid down very definite colour bars, and that it specifically mentioned Asiatics and natives and subjected them specifically by name to certain disabilities. The right hon. member is very well aware of that. I do not for a moment make it appear that two wrongs make a right. The reason why I have given the history of the colour bar of the republics both of the Transvaal and the Free State, and also of the Transvaal later, is to show that there was a definite continuity of policy throughout; that this state of affairs has been in vogue since the earliest days in the different republics, and has been in vogue in Natal.

With far-reaching results.

I was dealing last night with what I characterized as an absolutely incorrect statement of the right hon. member to the effect that we are extending by this Bill what was intended to be compassed by the regulations issued under the Act of 1911, namely, that we are including in this Bill paragraphs (a) to (p) of section 4 of the Act of 1911. The right hon. member made this statement on the 25th February, when he spoke last. He says in column 281 of Hansard—

And he says—

he evidently made a mistake, or the printer made a mistake, as it is 179—

That is an absolutely and radically incorrect statement. And the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has fallen into the same error.

I do not agree with you there.

You cannot argue away facts. The regulation on which the leader of the Opposition relied has nothing on earth to do with (n). It is not a regulation under which a certificate is required. If you look at this book of regulations, portion of which I referred to during the last discussion, you will find regulation 179 on page 134, under the heading of “machinery,” and the regulation reads (it has nothing to do with (n) of the Act, nor with certificates)—

Now you come to page 284 of these regulations, and you will find there a chapter, part 4, dealing specially with certificate regulations, and then you have regulation 285, which, of course, palpably deals with certificates and would come under (n). It is to this effect—

I have never denied that that comes under (n), but what becomes of the whole framework of one of the chief arguments of the leader of the Opposition? It at once Crumbles away. In an important matter like this where you have unenlightened men, it is a very responsible thing for an hon. member to make a statement which cannot be borne out; because the result of this is to affect the minds of a large native population and to arouse their prejudice and bring them under the impression that they are not getting a square deal from the white man. What did the court say? I am dealing still with the allegation that we are extending this Bill in a manner in which it was never extended before. The court in the Transvaal stated with reference to this very paragraph of this regulation (179)—this is to show you how far-reaching that regulation was, and how far-reaching the previous Government considered the Act of 1911—I quote from the “Star” of November 12, 1923, and I will quote from the official judgment itself. This gives the decision of the Provincial Division in the case of Rex v. Hildick Smith, in regard to the contravention of regulation 179. The hon. Mr. Justice Krause stated, in the course of his judgment—

I am dealing now with the allegation of extension, and the oft-repeated citation by members opposite of the definition of “works” in the act—

Who produced that state of things? The previous Government—

That is what the court said about the regulation issued by our predecessors. Now, I deal with the judgment of the hon. Mr. Justice Tindall. This is a verbatim copy of the judgment. He says—

You therefore see that the charge of extension is entirely unfounded. The Bill is just as extensive, or as little extensive, as the regulations of the previous Governments purported to be, and as regards the charge that we are extending this Bill to the other provinces, I have already made it abundantly clear what the practice was in Natal right up to these regulations and what the practice was in the Transvaal and Free State. Geographically, there is no greater extension either. The only difference is that the previous Governments did not issue regulations restricting coloured people in the Cape Province, and you do not know, at this stage—if this Bill becomes law—what this Government is going to do. That is the only difference. The other big difference is this, that it was found ultimately that the statute of 1911 did not justify a colour bar regulation. What is the moral difference between an act of Government which was done under a misapprehension, but which creates a mischief, and a statute which actually creates a colour bar under which regulations are issued? What is the ethical difference between these two points of view? It seems to me entirely incomprehensible that it can be urged, “Don’t put this stigma on the statute book, but apply it by regulation and leave it to custom.” This is an unworthy argument, which is utterly incomprehensible to me. I need not dwell on the arguments as to the extensive nature of the words “works and machinery,” but I could reply that it extended to the regulations under the old Act. My grievance against the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is this, that in his arguments on what he acknowledges to be a burning and most important question, he is not sufficiently careful to ascertain his facts before making statements in the House. It seems to me that the right hon. gentleman, having ceased to practice at the bar for so many years, has lost sight of the fact that members of the bar, at any rate when, they argue a case before judges, have to be very certain of their facts. It is an unwritten law that when an advocate states anything as to facts the judge must be able to rely on his statements, and any court of law will make short shrift of an advocate who makes a statement of alleged fact which cannot be borne out. The fact that the right hon. member is leader of the Opposition does not justify him in being less particular about his facts, because this is the highest court in the land, and the same duty is owed to this august House of Assembly as is owed to the other courts.

Does that apply to your side also?

I will admit that I failed in that respect, but I have to deal with the man of the hour and the man of the past, and with one of the six leading statesmen of the empire of the world. “From him that hath much, much shall be expected.”

I suppose that is your reason for insulting me?

Surely, it is my duty where the right hon. member is materially wrong on an important question of facts in regard to this matter, to show that he is materially wrong? I don’t know why the right hon. gentleman should always make out that every argument against him is a matter of vendetta, It has been the old argument all through that it has been a personal vendetta against him, but it is nothing of the kind. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has also had the poor taste to suggest that there is a vendetta against the native community. It is a most mischievous statement, and is on a par with that made by the right hon. member for Standerton at Kalk Bay and other places. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort knows that he ought to remain calm—he knows that both he and I should remain as calm as possible, as it is not good for our health to be excited. For the same reason I say that the statement of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) is incorrect, when I understand him to say that the regulations are not enforced against colour outside the mines. They were applied in regard to machinery and works. Machinery is not necessarily confined to mines, and the regulations had been applied in practice in the Transvaal and the Free State.

Were the regulations not intended for the mines?

Of course not—most decidedly not! I cannot give the statistics of prosecutions, but if an hon. member will put a question on the subject I will endeavour to get the information. Another big argument advanced by the leader of the Opposition was that the natives were not consulted. Really! Were they consulted in 1911? Were they consulted by the right hon. gentleman before the passing of the Transvaal Act of 1908? Surely, I must take it that his views on the native question then were as enlightened as they are now. Were the natives consulted when these regulations were issued? These regulations have had the sanction of time, of practice and of formal regulation. The impression was so strongly held that the colour bar regulations were covered by the Act that they continued to be applied up to 1923. The right hon. gentleman assured the House in 1922 that: “We are not interfering with the legal statutory colour bar.” In numerous cases we have Acts stating that regulations under them shall be issued by the Governor-General, and that when those regulations are published in the “Gazette,” they shall have the force of law. What is the difference between those regulations and the statutes themselves? The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) stated that Mr. Justice Krause had stigmatized the regulation as being repugnant to the law of the land, unreasonable and capricious. That phraseology has nothing to do with the moral aspect of policy of Acts of Parliament. It is phraseology which you find applied to regulations which are found to be ultra vires by courts of law in every country. It has frequently happened that the Legislature has validated such regulations so there is no extreme importance to be attached to these words. Even so, these words do not reflect on this Government, but on its predecessors. I now come to the statement of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), who is always sweetly reasonable. I, unfortunately, have a way of saying things which appear to be violent, but it is my mannerism, and we cannot alter our natures. The hon. member for Kimberley implied that the Chamber of Mines had been sweetly reasonable, but I said that their tactics were stupid and short-sighted. I am more convinced of it to-day than I ever was before. The hon. member implied that they were so reasonable that there was no necessity for the Bill, for the Chamber of Mines would regard the regulation as being still effective, but I find in the Transvaal Chamber of Mines a report of the executive committee dated September 15th, 1923, containing the following paragraph, headed, “Mining Regulations—Crown Mines, Limited,”—

Does that look like an intention to observe this regulation in practice? We had the statement of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the Chamber of Mines was looking for trouble. It looks to me uncommonly as if they were not only looking for trouble but were spoiling for a fight. We have the important admission and the fair admission of the hon. member that the Government could not leave the position there. After the judgment we were bound to take steps. But for the short-sighted policy of the Chamber of Mines, this debate would not have been necessary. It is a matter we have to face in the interests of the country. Now you have this letter of August 23rd, 1924, from the President of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, Johannesburg, signed by Sir Evelyn Wallers, and he writes, inter alia—

I answered him on the 5th September, 1924, to the effect that the Chamber of Mines subsequently publicly stated that they were willing to abide by the regulations as they stand. That statement has not been denied up to this day. Are we to be dependent upon the mercy and goodwill of the Chamber of Mines? It is absurd to depend upon their indulgence because if ever a prosecution arose the magistrates, in view of the provincial judgment, would at once say it is ultra vires and would not hear the case, but would dismiss it. What will the goodwill of the Chamber of Mines avail us? It will be a serious matter to consider whether the regulations shall apply, and how far they shall apply, to the Cape Province. You have a certain regulation in the Transvaal regulating the employment of natives in factories. In the Cape Province you have not got the restrictions. What will be the position of the employers of the Transvaal and here?

We have had no trouble on that matter in the past.

You have the producer in the Transvaal having, owing to restrictions, to employ more expensive labour whilst the producer in the Cape has the benefit of cheap labour.

That question has never been raised.

It seems self-evident that the most serious difficulties may arise. I will not anticipate this point further, because the Government will carefully consider any regulations for the Cape Province. I want to read what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said in 1911. I have not got it in English; I will read it in Dutch—

We have here got to deal with a state of things under which we import from abroad, from Portuguese territory, uncivilized natives, to the number of 80,000 or 90,000. Surely these are facts which will speak for themselves. I come back again to the question of consultation—consulting the natives. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) waxes warm on behalf of the native. Why did he not in 1911 protest against the Act and the regulations which were issued?

He was not in the House then.

Then why did he not go into this matter when he came into the House? Why didn’t he intercede for the coloured people earlier? He knew they were affected by these regulations in the Transvaal and the Free State. Now if we are to accept as correct the attitude of the majority of the Opposition, then we should not only not suggest a Bill like this, but go further, and wipe out every trace of a colour bar in the existing Acts of the Transvaal and the Free State. That is the logical result of the attitude of hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), with his generous Irish heart, has been so concerned about Japan and Asia. What did his leader do with regard to the repatriation of the Chinese? Was that regarded as a casus belli in those days? Of course not. What was the prejudice in those days? The same prejudice that exists to-day against the importation of natives from Portuguese territory. I cannot understand why members in the same breath say this legislation creates an artificial position. You are trying to force something against the laws of nature and evolution, and at the same time appeal to us to rely on the strength of custom. They say leave it to custom. Surely these arguments are mutually destructive, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) deserted his leader and said the regulation should never have been issued. Does the leader of the Opposition agree with that view? The hon. member for Yeoville said he could see no analogy in the South Africa Act and the colour bar here. There is every analogy. It is the same colour bar. There may be a difference in degree. If the hon. members’ position is sincere, they should not only oppose it tooth and nail, but agitate for a removal of every existing colour bar and begin with the constitution. In spite of the ultra vires nature of these regulations having been known long before the question was decided by the courts, the hon. the leader of the Opposition gave the House the assurance in 1922, that the legal and statutory colour bar would not be affected. The only thing he wanted to see wiped out was the status quo affair. I understand the hon. member for Yeoville to say that as long as uncivilized labour was imported he was in favour of a colour bar. I pointed to the fact of the continual importation of raw natives from Portuguese territory. Look at the Natives Urban Areas Act. 1923—the segregation of natives under section 5. Is that not a colour bar? Hon. members say that I am going back to Dingaan’s Day if I quote Acts of 1896 to 1908, but here we have an Act of our own creating the colour bar. What is the difference in principle? If you confine the liberty of natives and indicate certain places where they shall live, while the white man shall live wherever he likes, is that not a colour bar?

The natives were consulted about that.

Then the natives will realize this outstanding fact, that in view of the bulk of them being in a state of semi-barbarism, it is usual that such regulations should apply as we contemplate. I repeat that there is a most material divergence of views on the other side. You have the views of the right hon. member; compare them with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and even the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and you will find the greatest divergence of opinion. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition has offered a pooling of brains. When you get members getting up and repudiating it and saying that we shall have no colour bar whatever, where is the opportunity for the pooling of brains? I welcome any suggestion on the particular wording of this Bill if hon. members opposite, and especially the leader of the Opposition, can suggest a version or wording which will render it unnecessary to mention natives and Asiatics specifically. Can he invent any wording that will get over the difficulties raised by the provincial division of the Transvaal? Can he? Is the hon. member prepared to suggest such wording?

You didn’t give him the opportunity.

We will give him an opportunity. We are willing to let this Bill go before a Select Committee.

Then why did you keep it back all this time?

The hon. member sees an evil intention in everything where no evil intention exists. I come to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), who has spoken very reasonably, but he has indicated certain aspects which, to my mind, show he is labouring under a misapprehension. He says we have indulged in a reversal of the whole policy of the past. He says that in the past we have regarded every person who is not white, as black, and now we have reversed the policy and say that every man who is not a native shall be regarded as a European. So I understand it. That surely shows that he does not apprehend the position correctly. There is no reversal of policy. The only thing that I can think of that may have led him to make such a statement is what the hon. the Prime Minister has advanced for years past, viz., that in regard to the contemplated segregation it would be iniquitous, it would be unreasonable, it would be inhuman to drive what we call the Cape coloured people into the ranks of the uncivilized hordes of natives. That is the attitude we have taken up, a perfectly intelligible attitude, and in this Bill we have purposely excluded the Cape coloured because of that. I quite admit—I do not make any secret of it—that this Bill is connected with the segregation policy that we contemplate. It has a definite relation to that policy, only the segregation policy, it is admitted on all sides, is a matter that cannot be dealt with adequately during one session of Parliament, or several sessions. It will take years to deal with this matter definitely and adequately. Then the hon. member for Tembuland also said that we have now gone and established social equality with the coloured people. Nothing of the kind. My experience of the coloured people goes back to my childhood’s days, because I was born at the Paarl, I was born among coloured people, and when I was a child the genuine native was a rarity. If a genuine native came along we all gazed at him. We always drew a very material distinction between the coloured man and the native, but my experience all through life has been that the Cape coloured people, wherever they may be, in whatever province and especially in the Cape Provinee, have never claimed social equality, and it is a very wise thing of them. I saw a deputation only a few days ago, led by Dr. Abdurahman. It was admitted there that the coloured people do not claim social equality. The National party, so far as I know, has never advocated social equality, and it is a matter that has never been advocated certainly by my hon. leader. Then the hon. member for Tembuland referred to the decision of the Appellate Division. He said that with regard to the Act of 1913 it was decided by the Appellate Division that it was not applicable to the Cape Province in view of section 35 of the constitution dealing with the coloured vote, namely, that you have to have the two Houses sitting together, and the third reading of any alteration of the franchise as regards coloured people has to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the total number of members. I have looked up that case, Thompson v. Khama and Stillwell v. Khama (1917, A.D. 209). That case went off on a special reservation in the Act of 1913 itself. There is a section to this effect, that nothing in the Act which imposes restrictions on the acquisition of lands or interests thereunder by any person shall be in force in the Cape Province if and for so long as such person cannot by such restrictions be prevented from acquiring or holding a qualification where under he is or may become entitled to be registered as a voter at Parliamentary elections in any electoral division of the Cape Province. No doubt my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition inserted that provision specially, but the whole case went off on that specific provision of the Act of 1913 itself and, of course, it is no parallel to this Bill at all. But, even if it were to be found ultimately by the courts of the country that this Bill, if it becomes law, is not applicable to the Cape Province, then so much the better for the views of the hon. member for Tembuland. We cannot hold back the Bill simply because of that remote possibility. I just want to assure my hon. friend the member for East London (the Rev. Mr. Rider) that the ideals of British civilization do not excel our ideals of civilization, just as little as your ideals of British liberty excel our ideals of liberty. I freely admit, in answer to his observation, that this Bill is intimately connected with the segregation policy. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) said that the coloured people had been inveigled, as it were, by worthless promises, namely, that they are getting relief under this Bill, if it becomes law, and that it is represented to be their Magna Charta. All that I can say is that, if there has been a colour bar in the past against the coloured people, it is being removed by this Bill, and it is not my fault nor is it the fault of my party, nor is it the fault of this Government, if the mines, in their wisdom, even after the coloured people are relieved from the restrictions of the past, were to choose not to employ them. The employers are left free to employ these people in the future concurrently with the white man. I conceive a clear distinction between the civilized coloured man and the ordinary average native on the Rand. Then I come to the hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. O’Brien), who asked me why I have mixed up the Asiatics in this Bill with other races, and has asked me for precedents. I gave him the precedents the other night. What surprised me, and, in fact, it was amusing, was that some hon. members opposite spoke as if I wanted to make out that this mention of Asiatics here was the fulfilment of the promised legislation which the Minister of the Interior gave. Nothing of the kind. He has announced that he will introduce a Bill, and that Bill is going to be introduced. Nor do I for a moment admit the soft impeachment or the definite impeachment that this Bill is intended to capture the votes of Natal. We are dealing with this Bill on its merits. We have nothing to do with the attitude of the hon. members for Natal. I want to remind my hon. friend the member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford that we are not legislating here for Birmingham, nor for the United States of America. He need not travel so far afield. There are quite enough arguments to adduce from within our own Union. The U.S.A. has a population of 110,000,000. and of those only about 15 000.000 are negroes. Then the argument was advanced that there was as little necessity for this Bill as there was no necessity for legislation on the social colour bar. An hon. member contended that we have an effective social colour bar, and that there was just as little need for this Bill as there was for legislation to make the social colour bar effective. That was an argument that I cannot follow and cannot attach any value to. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) said there was much misunderstanding on the part of the native. From where does this misunderstanding come? I will say from where. If the leader of the Opposition is guilty of expressions like these which I am about to read, expressions calculated, whatever his intentions may he, to stir up the prejudices of the native community, to inflame their minds against the white community, then I say the following expressions are calculated to cause the misunderstanding spoken of. I say to the hon. member for Illovo that if there is any misunderstanding on the part of the natives it is due to expressions like these—

In the same breath it was said—

Another remark is—

The Prime Minister informs me that there are plenty of areas for the natives, that there is plenty of ground, there is plenty of scope, and they can acquire ground on the fairest and most reasonable terms. If you have these expressions, then I can only say I am not surprised that there is the misunderstanding on the part of the natives to which the member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has referred. It also follows that the misunderstanding is not due to this side of the House, but is due to the mischievous example and the mischievous talk of hon. members on the opposite side, and not least on the part of a responsible leader such as the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is. I think that the right hon. member for Standerton has not played the game over this question. It has been sought, during this debate, to create the impression that this is hostile towards the natives, that there is something almost diabolical being directed against them; and it is unfortunate that such impressions should be created. We have all endeavoured in the past to make out—or we have professed to do so—that native questions are outside party politics, and should remain outside. I hope that we will act upon our professions, but this sort of attitude is not calculated to facilitate the treatment of native questions on a non-party basis and along non-party lines. I am more convinced than ever, after hearing this debate, that the Government has taken the right action in introducing this Bill. I hope that through subsequent legislation it may one day become entirely unnecessary to have this legislation; I hope opinion will develop in that line.

You see the evil of it, then?

I see no evil in it, but it may be rendered entirely unnecessary by the force of circumstances. Taking into consideration the fact of the judgment of the Provincial Division, and the difficulty with which the Government is faced, and looking at the whole matter on its merits and at the interests not only of the native community but also of the white community, and looking at the fact that nothing has been advanced from the other side with regard to the future of the white community, then I say the Government would have been lacking in its duty if it had not introduced this legislation.

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

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

Ayes—62.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick. M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

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: Mullineux, J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—51.

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.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

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.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt dropped.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander was then put and negatived.

The motion for the second reading put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

seconded.

This will be a very important Select Committee, and the Bill being of very far-reaching importance and it being very difficult at this stage to get new Select Committees together, I would suggest that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs. This is eminently a matter for that committee, which is a strong committee very well representative of the various parties.

In the first place the Minister concerned is not a member of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

He could be added.

My second difficulty is this. I do think that on a matter of this kind we really ought to have special members to go into this question, the more so as from the speech of my right hon. friend some time ago, on this subject—

You have not accepted my offer, and I have been insulted. That is the thanks I get.

I am very sorry to hear that—I am sure no one wanted to insult my right hon. friend; I am certain I don’t. What I said in addressing the House was that the Government accepted the offer made by the right hon. gentleman to give his services and to do what he could to assist in making of this Bill whatever can be made of it. I do think that the members who serve on the ordinary Select Committee on Native Affairs have been chosen specially with a view to the ordinary work which that committee has to perform. I do feel that this is a matter of such special importance that we ought to have special men who take special interest in this question, and who are more peculiarly qualified to consider this matter and to make a corresponding report to the House.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not adopt the suggestion of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

They will take nothing from me.

There are close on 100 members engaged on Select Committees, and some of us who could serve on this special committee are already very much engaged on a very heavy legislative programme. The Prime Minister will experience very great difficulty in getting a suitable committee together. I do not wish in any way to impede his desire to obtain a committee, but after the offer made by the right hon. member for Standerton to do his utmost to arrive at the solution of this very grave and difficult question, the Prime Minister declined that offer. I will take it amiss if the right hon. member for Standerton agrees to serve on that special committee.

I hope the Prime Minister will reconsider his decision. Hon. members on both sides of the House must realize that this a measure of paramount importance. I did not speak very long on the question as I felt after the appeal made to the Prime Minister to the right hon. member for Standerton and myself, that the Prime Minister would have agreed to the discharge of the order before the House was committed to the principle of the Bill, which I believe is a very unfortunate one. I think the House has taken an unfortunate step which eventually will have very serious consequences. Nothing could be more serious than to allow the natives to imagine that we are going to legislate on this matter without giving them an opportunity of being able to express their opinion. It is now impossible to get together a body of people to go into the question if the Bill goes to a Special Select Committee. I will point out a solution of the difficulty. It will be perfectly easy to add the name of the Minister in charge of the Bill to the committee. You have perhaps the most representative members of the House on that committee and they will have ample time to go into the whole question. They form the most representative committee that this House could get together to go into a question of this importance. I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I think it will be noted that the Committee for Native Affairs will be a totally unsuitable committee for a question of this kind to be referred to. In my opinion the Bill might be considered in the committee of the whole House. I do not see, personally, any reason for its going to a Select Committee. I think it might be sent to a committee such as the Minister would carefully select in the House, reflecting all sides of opinion on this question, but I do not think that the Native Affairs Committee is a suitable committee for an Act of this kind to be submitted to.

Why?

It is a very large committee.

It is only a committee of nine.

It is only representative of those deeply interested in native affairs. Every point of view should be represented on this committee and a special Select Committee of this House should be set up to thresh the matter out so that a suitable report could be presented, and the Bill would pass through more smoothly than it has done in the second reading.

I only wish to say that we should support the attitude of the Prime Minister. It is true that the Select Committee for Native Affairs consists of people who are acquainted with native affairs. This is, however, a matter which does not only concern the native. It is an industrial matter. The Asiatics are involved, and it affects the whole industrial life of the people. The Select Committee must be so constituted that it understands the industrial affairs of the country as well as native affairs, and a committee which is only appointed on one point cannot satisfactorily investigate such a matter.

Great care is exercised in the selection of hon. members to serve on the different committees, and I think they are selected for their ability and qualifications to deal with matters that may come before the committee. I take it that the Committee on Native Affairs has been selected from hon. members who have some special knowledge of native affairs, otherwise they would not have been put on it. Take the Select Committee for public accounts. They are supposed to be gentlemen of some experience of public finance. As a body they are selected to deal with certain matters with which they are cognizant, and I think you cannot possibly select to-day members more qualified to deal with this question than the Select Committee on Native Affairs with the Minister in charge of the Bill or any other hon. member he desired to put on.

The whole position now arises from the fact that the Prime Minister failed to take advantage of the hon. leader of the Opposition and send it to a Select Committee before the second reading. If that had been done the Select Committee would have been near to a conclusion of its labours now. There seems no satisfactory alternative but to send this Bill to the Committee on Native Affairs, specially selected as it is, and I advance the statement that no more important measure could engage the attention of that committee than this particular one. It affects the whole native population of the country for one thing, and therefore the white population of the country also. The proposal of the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) seems to be quite impracticable, because it was advanced in the course of a debate that the House lacked information and statistics bearing on the question of this measure, and it will therefore be necessary for the Select Committee appointed to take a good deal of evidence. That evidence will be taken from natives and those interested in industries, experts and others. I don’t think there is any practical course open to the House now but to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Native Affairs. I hope the Minister will follow the suggestion.

The position taken up by the Opposition shows clearly that they wish to deal with it only from the native point of view. We realize it is our duty to look after the interests of native people, but it is our primary duty to look after the interests of the white people, and the whole discussion has shown that the primary duty and the intention of this Bill is to give effect to the policy carried out by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in protecting the interests of the white population, with the exception that the Bill is more liberal than the policy of the hon. member for Standerton, inasmuch for the first time in the history of the legislature protection is also given to the coloured population. The Committee for Native Affairs, an excellent committee, undoubtedly, would naturally only be expected to look at the Bill from the point of view of the native population. It has been suggested that you will have to take a great deal of evidence. I don’t think so. I understand the only question the Select Committee will have to deal with is to devise a formula to meet the points raised by the hon. members of the South African party. They say you can have as many colour bars as you like if you don’t put them on the statute book. That is what the right hon. gentleman has asked for, and has promised to come forward and meet us to see how we can give effect to the intention of the Bill without openly referring to the natives and to the Asiatics. If there is a difficulty it is not because the Prime Minister did not accede to the request of the right hon. gentleman, but that the Prime Minister, in his desire to meet all sides of the House, mode a considerable concession in allowing the Bill to go to a Select Committee at all. Now all that is required is to formulate an interpretation clause, and all that will be necessary will be for the Government legal adviser to come before the Select Committee and advise how to flame a formula to meet the position.

I only wish to have clearness in this matter. Does the motion of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) mean that he will personally object to serve upon such a Select Committee? I understand that he is not a member of the Select Committee for native affairs. He said at the time that he would like himself to go into the matter. But this suggestion looks as if he now objected to serve on such a committee. I should regret it if he maintains this position. It seems to me that he should not take up that attitude seeing that he did not in any case disapprove of the principle of the Bill. I therefore cannot see how he can be dissatisfied if we appoint a special Select Committee for this matter. It seems to me that he now does not wish personally to serve upon such a committee.

I appeal to the right hon. member (Gen. Smuts) to be a sportsman and not to go sulking in his tent.

You are insulting again.

Is that an insult? You must be very thin-skinned. The right hon. gentleman’s own amendment did not contemplate the Native Affairs Committee, and he is now proposing something inconsistent with his own amendment. I am not objecting to that. It is no doubt in order to propose it, but I point to the inconsistency. To my mind it is fairly clear that the Native Affairs Committee was never constituted or intended to deal with this sort of work. The false premise from which hon. members spoke is that they regard this matter as purely a native question. What about the Asiatic aspect? What about the industrial and economic interests which are bound up with it? What about the interests of the white community? For the very reason advanced by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) that it is such a special matter, a matter of such outstanding importance, I think it demands and deserves a special committee. I am, therefore, sorry that I cannot accept the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman.

We withdraw the amendment.

Original motion put and agreed to.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to the refreshment room. We gave £500 last year as a contribution towards this. This time it is £850. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will give us some explanation.

It is due to the altered arrangements. The catering is now being done by the Railway Department. Formerly it was done by contract. Before it always used to cost £800. I think the wish was generally expressed last year that we should revert to the old practice of having the catering done by contract.

You never paid the Railway Department £850. I think they ought to be content with £500 for this refreshment room.

I think the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) saw in his day that the Railway Department paid very much more.

I would like to know what has happened in regard to a matter on which a committee of this House reported some little time ago in regard to providing additional facilities for members of this House. I believe the committee went into the matter and prepared proposals, plans, etc. I would be glad to know from the Government whether anything is being done or going to be done in regard to the carrying out of those proposals.

I would like to call the attention of the Minister to the faulty ventilation of this House. I find it very difficult to occupy this seat on account of the draught which comes from the ventilators behind. I already have a very bad cold, which I am unable to get rid of. I fear that if I sit here very much longer with this draught, it will be a very serious matter for myself and a much more serious matter for my party. My seat is not a particularly safe one. I wish that the Government would consider the advisability of so arranging the ventilation of the House that it does not interfere with or become dangerous to the health of members, especially young members like myself.

I understand that this vote is for special allowances to members. I do not understand it. I do not know any allowances that members get.

Members have great difficulty in carrying on their correspondence properly. Will it be possible to make some provision for rooms—

The hon. member may ask a question, but this does not fall under “Public Departments.”

I should like to suggest that rooms be provided and typists might be provided so that members could get their letters dictated and could do their correspondence more efficiently and more conveniently. I am sure that members would appreciate the convenience and would pay for the service.

Arising out of the question by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Kentridge), may I ask the Minister whether, in the event of the scheme which is contemplated for the alteration and improvement of these premises being abandoned, would it be possible to find other accommodation for members? As things are at present we have to meet in the Senate Room; there is no accommodation for party purposes in this part of the House. Further, if members on this side desire meetings there is no adequate accommodation at all. They have to meet in the Whip’s Room, which is very inconvenient. I would appeal to the Minister if it is not possible to carry out the bigger scheme to give us some further accommodation. In the same connection, my hon. friend has mentioned supplying us with typists. I would like to ask the Government whether they would consider supplying members with stamps in preference to giving us the right of franking our letters. I should like to say that there are members, not only during the time of session, but out of session, who have to carry on a considerable correspondence; and I understand that in other parts of the dominions members are granted a certain value of stamps during the course of a year. I think it would meet the convenience of members much better if you gave us stamps rather than the privilege of franking our letters.

The inconvenience caused to members by the present premises has been a long-standing grievance. It was so keenly felt that some two years ago a committee was specially appointed—a kind of small commission—to consult with architects in order to improve and re model this chamber, and also to get more accommodation for members. Very acceptable plans were prepared, and were agreed to by all parties, but I am sorry to say that it appears the scheme has been relegated to a pigeon-hole. I can assure the Minister of Public Works that the need for reform in regard to ventilation in these premises is a very urgent one. We have done our best to get technical advice in order to give temporary relief, but it is entirely impossible unless radical structural alterations are made, and until they are made we are going to suffer under these grievances. We sit here representing the people, doing our best for the country, and our health is in daily jeopardy through very bad ventilation. I would very strongly impress this upon the Minister of Public Works; he would make his name famous if he was to carry out the very excellent scheme recommended by that commission.

The unwholesome conditions under which members have to work in this House is a matter I referred to eight or nine years ago. The atmosphere of this House is foetid and unwholesome. I am often constrained by a sick headache to leave the chamber whilst I should be listening to the eloquence and wisdom of fellow-members. I make no secret of the fact that whenever I can possibly escape from the atmosphere of this House I do so. Of course, there is a class of individual that thrives even on stench; but this improvement of the chamber is a matter of such great importance that I hope the Government will find the money for the purpose. They must find it. Here we are living in a country where there is plenty of light and air, and yet we have to sit here boxed-up. Although there is plenty of light in this country we have, owing to the structure of the chamber, to work with artificial light. We are entitled to demand that we should at least be able to work under wholesome conditions.

I can assure the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that the report and plans to which he refers have not been pigeon-holed. They have received a good deal of attention from me during the time I have been in office. I realize with other hon. members that there is certainly room for improvement in the arrangements for the convenience of members. At one time we had the reverse position to what we have to-day; members will remember that at one time we sat in a current of cold air coming in underneath, and at that time we had cold feet, and perhaps hot heads. As the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) remarked, the position now is that our heads are cold and our feet are warm. It is just a question of expense. It is a strange thing that most Parliaments are very difficult to ventilate. The same thing is experienced, I am informed, in other parts of the world. The plans that were prepared and the alterations proposed, were going to run into something like £32,000. £32,000 or say £30,000 to £40,000. That is a pretty large item. Hon. members opposite seem to be very insistent on this being done. It is one of the things thrown upon us since we took office. But the loan programme has not been definitely decided upon and this does not come under the revenue vote, but under the loan vote on structural alterations. Only a few days ago I went round the buildings here with a view to seeing how I could relieve the congestion which now exists in connection with the Hansard staff. The reporters—newspaper and Hansard people—are all jammed in together, working under difficult and impossible conditions. In addition to the accommodation which we had before, which was very limited for our members, we have now to squeeze into that accommodation the Hansard staff, and the position is certainly congested and requires attention. I went round a few days ago and asked my department to report as to whether they could not relieve this congestion in the meantime. I will go further and say that I will submit to my colleagues proposals for the structural alterations of the House, which mean practically the reorganization of this Chamber; different seating accommodation and different gallery accommodation. It means the entire rebuilding of this building.

You had better rebuild in Pretoria instead.

I will submit it to them. So far as I am concerned I would be pleased to see sufficient alteration made to enable members to carry on their duties with greater convenience than to-day. In regard to the question put by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) I might say that the question of supplying members with stamps in lieu of franking facilities, during the recess, as is done in Australia and New Zealand, is a matter that has engaged the attention of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, during this session, and I believe they have come to some settlement of the matter in the meantime. The whole matter is going to be brought up next year in connection with other matters, and I am afraid we cannot do anything this session.

I am very glad to learn from the hon. Minister that he showed great concern about the accommodation given to Hansard, because we all know that the members of the Hansard staff have to work under great pressure and that their work is made very difficult if conditions are not made as easy as possible for them. I agree with the hon. member who said—even if at the moment it seems a little drastic—that the best alteration which can be made is to remove the Parliament to Pretoria. It seems to some hon. members, such as some here to my left, still a bit drastic now but I certainly think that in a short time they will find out that the atmosphere of Pretoria is better than here in Cape Town both for hon. members on the opposite side and those on this side of the House. But in connection with Hansard I should like to add this that I speak on behalf of all the members—especially those on this side of the House—when I say that an appreciable improvement has come about in the production of the reports of this House, especially with regard to the Afrikaans portion. About the reports of the English speaking I can, from the nature of things, not say much, because up to the present I have not had the good fortune to make a speech in English. But the fact that the reports of the speeches in Afrikaans are so good, is also probably because members on this side of the House hardly ever speak English. I will only say that we must not allow this vote to pass without specially thanking the gentlemen who are concerned with the work. I have personal experience of this work and I can assure hon. members that it is not easy work at all. I will admit that we, in this House, are all experienced speakers, and that we have not the least difficulty of expressing our ideas fluently and quite easily, so that the reporters need only write down like machines what we say, but I repeat that I think we should express our appreciation of the few men who, day after day, night after night, sometimes late into the morning, are busy working at our speeches, and the reports are so accurate that the few speeches which I have delivered were much better in Hansard than when I made them in the House. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, that I have had an opportunity—I think on behalf of everybody—to express my thanks to the members of Hansard and the pressmen.

Before this vote passes, I must really protest against the irregularity, I might say impropriety, of paid servants of this House absenting themselves from this House to take part in by-elections. It is a most reprehensible practice. This is a very strenuous session; there is also an influenza epidemic about; and but for the mercy of Providence we should have been deprived, perhaps, of your guidance, and there would have been no deputy-chairman of committees here at the time. The deputy-chairman is paid a very substantial salary for the work he performs, and I do not think it was the intention that servants of this House should, during a very strenuous time during the session, absent themselves, and possibly subject the country and the business of this House to great inconvenience. I hope the House will condemn this practice; otherwise we do not know where we are. If you should feel impelled—as I am sure you never will be—to leave the chair and go into the country, we would be in a very awkward position indeed, and if this precedent is established and allowed to continue without protest, that may happen. The Chairman of Committee may be away, and the business of the House may be seriously embarrassed.

I do not think the hon. gentleman who has just sat down is so much upset at the fact of a paid officer of the House being absent, but resents the result. Of course one can understand the feeling quite well. I think if the conditions were reversed we should have had no such protest as we have had this afternoon. I wish to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) as to the extreme difficulty members find in coping with their correspondence. The volume and importance of that correspondence is entirely due to the fact that they are members of Parliament. I agree that a stenographer should be supplied, but not with the suggestion that we should meet the expense out of our own pockets. It would pay the House and Country if shorthand-writers and typists were appointed to help us with our correspondence, which is, after all, purely official business. After all, Ministers have such assistance.

Why not be a Minister?

Fortunately, or unfortunately, we cannot all be Ministers.

The commission which sat the year before last brought up a report regarding this building. The main consideration which actuated the commission was that its recommendations were necessary from a health point of view. The ventilation is extremely bad, so much so that we are now running machinery in order to pump air into the House, and we are subject to the constant hum of that machinery. In addition, we have the trouble of lighting, nearly all of which is artificial, especially in the winter. The seating accommodation for Hansard, press and members is insufficient, and the accommodation for members who wish to do private work and also for Select Committees is inadequate. The report included two constructive plans, the lesser one being to alter the chamber so as to remedy defects in acoustics, lighting and ventilation and seating accommodation of this chamber. That scheme was to cost about £10.000, which is not very excessive when the eyesight, hearing and general health of the members are at stake. In the larger, the commission recommended, in addition, the addition of certain buildings on the south side of the new House in order to give more room for Select Committees and for members where they could meet their constituents in private, a thing which is now practically impossible to do. The only place at present in which you can meet your constituents is in the lobby, which is the best death trap in the Peninsula. The Minister’s proposals will only mean tinkering, and will not meet the case of the members, and although I recognize the importance of the press, the members should receive first consideration. Something should be put on the supplementary estimates this year to carry out the complete scheme.

Perhaps, because I am not used to such luxuries, I look upon the House as being one of the finest clubs in South Africa. I disagree, however, that the question of accommodation of the members should receive first consideration. The press and I are not bosom friends, but hon. gentlemen should go upstairs and should see the conditions under which the representatives of the press have to work. They have no chess rooms or billiard rooms, or any other rooms for the purpose of recreation, but they are penned up, and their lack of accommodation amounts to cruelty to dumb animals. I entirely disagree with the hon. member, and hope the Minister will get on with the work at the first opportunity. With reference to the attack made upon my hon. friend the member for Bloemfontein (North) by the hon. member for East London (North), the position is that if the member for Bloemfontein (North) has offended, every member of Parliament has offended. The principle is the same. Members of Parliament are paid so much per annum to come here and do their duty, and if any member goes to address election meetings he is taking part of his salary for doing work he should not be doing. Every member is paid a salary to sit here during the whole of the session. The deputy-chairman of committee is paid an additional £100 per annum for fulfilling additional duties. If the chairman of committees were not to come here for three or four months, the deputy-chairman would have to take on the whole of the work. I hope this will be the last occasion we shall have this sort of thing introduced into the House in order to obtain a cheap score over an opponent. If the hon. member can only hit the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in this poor way, then I have a poor opinion of him.

I agree that in some respects the facilities for the comfort of members leaves nothing to be desired. Our complaint is not the lack of social amenities but the lack of convenience to conduct our business as members. That is the grievance of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager). I have no complaints as to the facilities provided for our comfort, but it is a distinct grievance that in the conduct of business as members, we are not provided with facilities for interviewing the public and receiving deputations. If anybody called me out now, where Could I take them, except to the door or to a bench in the lobby? I have no room to take them to. If I want to do some clerical work or dictate to a typist, where would that work be done? Don’t let the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) labour under the delusion that we are asking for extra comforts for ourselves. We are only asking for facilities for the conduct of our business as members. I have again and again had the experience when people have called to see me—deputations sometimes of eight or ten or more—that I have nowhere to meet them unless I ask hon. members of the Labour party for the use of their room. We sometimes have a House committee on women’s suffrage or local option, or some non-party matter, and we have to go to one of the Labour whips and ask them for the courtesy to allow us to use their room. That is the only small convenient room where a committee can meet. A real grievance with members on this side, which we have only come to realize in the last twelve months whilst we have been in opposition—and it must have been a real grievance with members opposite for years past—is the smallness and inadequacy of our caucus room. Of course, if they have not been bold enough to mention this in the past they cannot blame me. Now we are in opposition, and have to meet sometimes with members of the Senate in that small room we find it impossible to do the business in comfort. We cannot get enough chairs. The Opposition, when it meets in caucus, is entitled to do so with a reasonable amount of comfort. Now, on this point of clerical assistance. We have an enormous amount of clerical work thrown on our shoulders. We are expected to be in our places, and we are expected to serve on Select Committees, which work is very heavy, and somehow we have to sandwich in a lot of correspondence. I find it extremely difficult, and if other dominions can provide clerical help for their members—the American Congress has a private secretary for every member—I am sure it would be a greatly appreciated privilege to members if we can have one or more stenographers to help us in our correspondence. My friend the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) tells me not to forget the draught. I share his opinion and his feelings about the draught.

I want to say something about the library.

Where is it?

The hon. member who asked the question is a frequent visitor to the library, and I do not know why he asks the question. The fact is that the library is doing such remarkable work, and is managed so satisfactorily that I would like to see the facilities increased to give members an opportunity of making greater use of it.

In reply to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) I should like to say that the alternative scheme submitted by the Commission includes the alteration for the press, so I am not against providing that. If the Government take one scheme or the other, the minor scheme also includes extra accommodation for the press.

I would like to ask the Minister whether we can get some reply to the questions raised.

I may say, shortly, that all these things are in the hands of hon. members themselves. They are matters to be considered in the Internal Committee, and the Government will consider them so far as finance is concerned, if they are brought forward, hut the recognized channel is the Internal Committee of the House.

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

The Minister of Finance very disingenuously told us before dinner that the matter is in the hands of the House. Various members of the committee were endeavouring to press upon the Government, not upon the House, these necessary requirements of the House, and the Minister got up in that calm, easy way of his, and said it was in the hands of the House itself. He knows quite well that that is not really the position. Theoretically, that is the position, but what actually happens is that the Minister, either by hint or directly, intimates “It is all very well; you may consider this matter, but, unfortunately, our finances are in such a parlous condition that we cannot possibly consider the question.” The Standing Rules and Orders Committee, taking its cue from the Minister, thereupon decides not to waste its time.

No.

My hon. friend had better be careful, as his own colleagues gave the game away a few minutes ago, because the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, when he was asked about a grant for the rearrangement of the accommodation here, told us quite candidly that the whole question was a matter of cost. We had a recent case in connection with Hansard, in which, after the House had resolved to have a Hansard and Mr. Speaker had gone to the length of signing a contract, the whole thing was quashed on the ground that there was not sufficient money in the Treasury. What I want to know from the Minister is whether he will back up the theoretical with the practical. Will he agree that, if the Standing Rules and Orders Committee this session passes these matters which the Committee has been discussing, he will not anticipate them by saying “We won’t have the money, if you do pass them,” and that if these alterations are passed he will not put a check in the way? Therefore, I again repeat that the Minister decides whether this House shall do its work in comfort and under healthy surroundings—he decides it either in anticipation or after the Standing Rules and Orders Committee has come to a conclusion. There are one or two other matters which I want to bring before the notice of the committee for the consideration of the Government. You have no room for the messengers, who, surely, are entitled to a little bit of comfort. I understand that the only waitingroom we ever had, bad as it was, near the Parliament-street entrance, is now taken up by the translators. To show you the inconvenience arising from the present accommodation, you need only see the conditions under which the translating is done. There is another matter which has got to be decided, and that is the question of the messengers’ pay. I am speaking of the temporary messengers; the others are all on scale. I do not think even those on scale are paid sufficiently, but the temporary messengers are not being paid in a way that this House should be proud of. Even the little body which is supposed to keep a check on hasty legislation in this House—the Senate—pays its messengers more than we do. It seems to be able to impose upon the Government a rate of pay which, though not in itself adequate, is certainly better than we are paying. I suggest to the Government and the House that the time has arrived when we should pay our servants in such a manner that we would not be ashamed to publish the money they get.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) took upon himself to lecture us on this side of the House towards the end of last session on our conduct in referring to him as the deputy-chairman. He described this as an impertinence, not fair, and in bad taste. I do not think he is entitled to take up such a lofty attitude. I find that we vote his salary, inadequate though it is—

Does the hon. member (Mr. Marwick) wish to attack the deputy-chairman of committees? If he does, it should be by way of substantive motion.

I am not attacking him in that capacity. I am rebuking the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) for his presumption in lecturing members on this side for what he chose to call bad taste in referring to him as deputy-chairman of this House. The vote is on the Estimates. We look upon him as in the line of succession, or the possible successor to a much higher office, and I am sure he would not demur to our taking that view of his reasonable ambitions.

Be as nasty as you can.

The hon. member (Mr. Barlow), I think, in absenting himself from this House during its sittings while the session was in progress, seemed to me to be disregarding the fact that he is by these Estimates, and by his appointment in this House an officer of Parliament. I should not mention this subject, but for the fact that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) has a somewhat bad pre-eminence for disregarding his duty to the House.

No, the hon. member (Mr. Marwick) is referring to him as the deputy-chairman. If the hon. member is referring to him in that capacity, I must ask him now to discontinue that kind of speech.

As I entitled to move the reduction of the chairman’s salary? I mean the deputy-chairman’s salary?

The hon. member may move a reduction, but he may not discuss the conduct of the deputy-chairman.

I bow to your ruling, sir.

A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Am I to understand from your ruling that in any vote upon the Estimates any member is not entitled to discuss it as he likes? If so, your ruling seems to be entirely foreign to any ruling that we have ever had in the House before, and if in a discussion upon the Estimates a member cannot move the reduction of a vote and cannot give any reasons he desires for the reduction of that vote, then I maintain you are going to curtail the rights and privileges of hon. members.

I may direct the attention of the right hon. member to a ruling given by Mr. Speaker in 1916 (V. & P., 1915-’16, p. 975), although it is competent for hon. members to move reductions in the salaries of the Speaker, the chairman and the deputy-chairman, members can only discuss the conduct of those officials on a substantive motion in the House.

I entirely approve of the statements you have read: and who the hon. member for Piquetberg can have been who moved such a reduction, I can hardly understand. The ruling you have now read referred to Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committee. I presume it refers to those two important officers when they happened to be in the Chair.

The hon. member heard very clearly that it can only be done by means of a substantive motion.

May I point out—

Order, order.

Am I in order, Sir?

Yes.

My hon. friend the member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was not discussing the conduct of the Deputy-Chairman while in the Chair, but his conduct when he was absent from the Chair—an entirely different matter. I am quite sure there is no hon. (member in this House more gratified at the conduct of the hon. gentleman while in the Chair than the hon. member for Illovo.

I must ask hon. members to discontinue that kind of attack.

The point to which I wish to address myself is the absence of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) during the recent Klerksdorp by-election, while his duties in this House might have necessitated his attendance here.

Is the hon. member attacking the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) as Deputy-Chairman or as a member?

As a member.

I am afraid I cannot allow that. Any hon. member may absent himself for fifteen days.

If any member as a private member is absent for more than fifteen days, he is fined at the rate of £1 a day. Was the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) fined a similar sum?

The point I wish to make clear is this, that considerable fault was found towards the close of last session by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) because hon. members on this side had referred to him as the Deputy-Chairman. He described that as impertinent, unfair and in bad taste. It seems to me that our relations with the hon. member, either as a member or as Deputy-Chairman, should be well defined, because we are likely to be long acquainted with him as Deputy-Chairman.

If the hon. member does not cease his attack, whether disguised or otherwise, I shall have to take other steps.

With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) I informed the House that the matters referred to were really matters which were entirely in the hands of the House. I do not refer to the suggested structural alterations in regard to the House itself; to that aspect my colleague here has replied. I refer to other minor matters, matters of privilege and also the salaries of the officers of the House. These are matters entirely in the hands of the House itself through its Internal Arrangements Committee. I informed the House last year that I did not think it was really such an urgent matter as to warrant that very large expenditure in view of the financial position, but even so the Government will very seriously consider the position when it finds it is the considered opinion of the House that any large expenditure should be incurred, in spite of the wish of every one of us that we should be very careful not to go in for very large expenditure.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 4, “Prime Minister”, £41.266.

Some time ago I asked the Prime Minister if he could give us any information as to the action of the Government or otherwise on what is known as the Geneva Protocol. He said there were reasons why it was not expedient to give information, reasons which we could quite well understand. Now that the matter appears to have been disposed of, I think it would be of interest if he would give us some information showing the attitude taken up by this Government, and whether that attitude is in accordance with the attitude of other dominions, and the reason for that attitude. I would therefore ask him if he would give us a little enlightenment on that subject. I should also like to know if we could have information as to the economic conference which I understand is being held or is about to be held in London. It has been stated in the press that the Union is being represented by one of the officials, and I think it would be of interest if we could have some information.

There are one or two questions I should like to ask. I want to ask what is the position now in South-West? Fortunately we were able to get out of that Rehoboth rising without bloodshed, but I should like to ask the Minister whether he intends to appoint a commission to go into matters. I should also like to ask what the position is now with regard to Lourenco Marques. I see from the newspapers that negotiations have been started. Then as to the question of the appointment of the trade agent in America. Perhaps he could tell us what the position is in regard to that. Then there is another point. Have any representations been made in reference to the fact of Asiatics being mentioned in the Colour Bar Bill?

There is an item under this vote which I should like to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister and the House. It is item (e) contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations. It is not the first time, I think, that this matter has been mentioned in the House, and we can perhaps understand why nothing in the past has been done in the matter, because the former Government, just like the rest of the world, certainly looked forward with great expectations to what the League of Nations would do. I think that we have to-day come to a point where we can ask the question if it would not be well for the Government to seriously consider whether we are justified in continuing to contribute an amount of £25,000 to the maintenance of the League of Nations. I speak here as one of the younger men, and it is certainly the younger section here and in other countries of the world who looked out with great expectation to the work of the League of Nations. But I do not think I stand alone when I say that we and others have been deeply disappointed regarding the work of the League of Nations up to the present, and this is not because the League of Nations has not had its opportunities of showing what it could do in the direction of the purpose for which it was appointed. There have been several opportunities in its six or seven years’ existence, and the fact exists that in all serious cases the League of Nations proved to be absolutely powerless for the purpose for which it was created. Now this year the question arises with us, if in such circumstances the League of Nations is powerless, what will happen when it really is faced with great difficulties? We have had concrete instances, and even recently when there were certain difficulties in Europe between powers who took part in the world war, one of the powers clearly gave out that if the matter was brought before the League of Nations it would not submit to any decision of the League. We are faced with the position that the League of Nations has very much disappointed us, and we ask ourselves whether we are justified in making any further contributions towards its expenses. There is another thing with regard to the League of Nations which we hoped for in the past, and that is the entry of America, which is one of the greatest and most important countries in the world. That has not yet happened; Germany also still remains outside, and with a view to the recent developments there it is absolutely necessary for the peace of the world that Germany should also join. It seems to me that in view of what the League of Nations has so far done, it will be nothing but an arbitration court, and we know from past experience that such a body without an organized force behind it is powerless. In our own country there are great problems awaiting solution, and to a large extent this is because our financial position does not permit us to tackle them. Here we are spending money which is devoted to a matter which has so far been a failure, and we now ask if we can go on voting the money. I know that it is a matter upon which other members think differently, but I think that every one who cherished great hopes of the League of Nations must be very much disappointed to-day. The only practical objection which has been taken is in connection with the position of South-West Africa. Speaking for myself, I wish to say that I would have no objection if South-West Africa came again under direct British administration. This is the only practical objection to our refusing further contributions to the League of Nations. I hope that in future years this vote will not appear on the estimates again.

I want to ask the Prime Minister how the arrear contributions to the League of Nations set out in sub-section E of this vote, come. My hon. friend, who has been addressing the House, stated that we contribute £25,000 a year towards the upkeep of the League of Nations. I see from the footnote that what we really contribute is £15,000 a year. There is an item of £10,000 for arrear contributions and a further item of £2,000 for expenses. I take it that is the expenses of the delegates whom we send every year to the labour conference. I want to ask, also, what principle he is acting on in choosing delegates to the International Labour Conference at Geneva. We have just sent the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), an excellent man to send to such a conference—there can be ho possible question about that—along with other representatives. But on what principle is that representative chosen? The question has been a vexed one for years past. Apparently the Peace Treaty provides that the nominee shall be appointed by the most representative labour organization. There has always been trouble as to what is the most representative labour organization. I see that the South African Industrial Federation, which hitherto has sent one of its nominees—the late Mr. Crawford—claims that it has been wrongly passed over this year, and that its nominee should have been appointed again. Frankly, I am not in a position to judge; but I doubt very much if that organization is the most representative labour organization, from what I know of it; but I want the Prime Minister or possibly the Minister of Labour, to tell us on what principle the selection has been made this time by the Government. I may say that I listened with regret to the speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. H. Louw), coming, as it does, from one of the young members of the House. Surely it would be a counsel of despair if we were to cease our contribution to the League on the plea that it failed to make good and failed to function properly. It is too early yet to say whether or not the League of Nations will fulfil all that is expected of it. It would be a grave confession of failure if we, in this country, were to take up the attitude that the League of Nations has failed in the functions it undertook. I admit that there have been grave failures in particular instances. Particular international crises have arisen that have not been effectively tackled by the League of Nations; but for anyone to state that it does not function at all or is not performing useful work in bringing the nations together and helping to solve international problems—that is a statement which it would be difficult to get hon. members in this or any other House to accept. Every two months, hon. members get this report on foreign affairs, which contains a report on the League of Nations, and I see in the last report that the Canadian Government, so far from discontinuing its support, has decided to appoint a permanent adviser and officer for League of Nations purposes who shall reside in Geneva, in order to establish and maintain as close relations as possible with the secretariat of the League and the international labour office, and keep his Government advised, generally, in regard to matters connected with Canada. And when one reads of the various activities of the League of Nations at the present moment: how it is helping to put Austria on its feet financially, and to promote the cause of disarmament, and how it is setting up this Court of International Justice and, generally, how it is seeking to promote goodwill and amity among the nations of the world, it would be an ungracious and unbecoming act if we were to do anything that would derogate from the importance and functions of that body. Just one other word to the Prime Minister: He is at the head of the Cabinet and is, in a sense, responsible for the Government. I want to mention a matter which I had occasion to mention yesterday. We, on the Opposition benches, sometimes find that some of the Ministers, when a discussion is raised that affects their department, do not trouble to remain in the House and reply to the discussion that takes place.

What about Ministers in the past?

I think the hon. member is wrong when he suggests any such failure on the part of any of the late Ministry; but even if there had been, what has that to do with the point I am raising? Yesterday afternoon, I moved a motion with regard to a three-judge court on the Witwatersrand; a matter intimately affecting the administration of justice in this country. The Minister of Justice was here when I moved the motion; got up to reply, and immediately left the House, and for an hour and a half hon. members addressed this House on that motion and on matters relating to it, and the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) moved an amendment, and the Minister was not here to hear it and probably did not know about it until he read about it in the paper next day. It will facilitate business in this House if hon. members feel that they are treated with due courtesy by Ministers. I do not make this statement in regard to all the Ministers. Some of them are mirrors of courtesy; but as long as we are members of Parliament, when we raise a point which we consider is for the good Government of this country, the Ministers should hear what is stated and not go out into the lobby and take no notice of what hon. members have to say.

In regard to the labour conference I might inform the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the item there is included in the labour vote and can be dealt with when we come to that vote.

But what is this £2,000 expenses of delegates?

Two very important statements were recently made in this House. They were of so much significance that I should like to satisfy myself of what actually the position is that the Government will take up in connection with the matter. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have stated that South Africa will consult Great Britain and the dominions before concluding commercial agreements with other countries. It seems to me that this statement was not so clear as we should like to have it. I do not wish to raise any doubt as to what was meant, but we know that ambiguous statements have often caused difficulties in South Africa, and to avoid this and to obtain clarity, I should like us to assume a plain attitude in that connection. It seems to me that one view is that whenever a treaty is signed, Great Britain and the dominions must in that case be consulted about the treaty itself. I take it that that is not meant. But if it is, then we lose the standpoint that we tried to maintain in the past, viz., that the first consideration must be South Africa, and then I say that we are not logical and that we are going to lay down a principle which will be detrimental to the future of the country and our development. The second possibility is that when a treaty is concluded with a country outside South Africa, Great Britain and the dominions will then be consulted with reference to certain goods or articles in which they are concerned. In the first place I want to compare our position with the principle of South Africa first. If we accept that principle that we must consult the dominions and Great Britain when we enter into agreements with regard to our produce and assets, this at once means a departure from that principle. I should also like to refer to the position of Canada and to compare it with the attitude that we fake up. I read from the Kingdom Papers by Ewart—

Further, I want to read what the same writer says in reference to the Paris conference of 1915, when various States were requested to bring their economic policy into conformity with the resolution of the Paris conference. Then, according to Ewart, the position of Canada was as follows—

1. (a) Canada’s economic policy must be settled at Ottawa, and not either in London or in Paris.
2. (b) Canada declines to ruin herself by adherence to the agreement “to conserve for the allied countries before all others her natural resources.”
3. (c) Canada will not agree to establish “a common economic policy” with the allies. That would be ridiculous and suicidal.

I say that if we sacrifice the position which we maintained in the past and the starting point that we had, we not alone will be illogical, but we should adopt a dangerous principle and take up a subordinate position. I think that the only self-respecting attitude is that of Canada. This is not intended to arouse enmity, envy, and suspicion between us and the rest of the Empire. But we must look after our own interests in the first instance. If we concede the principle that we must first consult the dominions and Great Britain we shall not only damage our own country and status, but we will make ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of other countries. I wish again to refer to the attitude of Canada. When Canada from time to time took up an independent attitude in the conclusion of treaties. Where one speaks of political treaties, I wish that we should in the first place keep in our minds commercial treaties. If Canada claims the right to conclude political treaties, then South Africa is at least entitled to conclude independent commercial treaties. I am disappointed with the position which was taken up during the imperial conferences of 1917 and 1918, which were certainly of little value. The position which was there taken up was that the assets and primary products of the dominions should be controlled by a certain body there, and which would be constituted in London. The produce should in the first place be used in the interests of the dominion itself. In 1923 we again took up a certain attitude as against the position in Canada. There was a talk of the creation of an imperial economic committee. Canada from the commencement said that it would not agree to that because its primary products in the first place belonged to Canada and not to the British Empire. Through Mr. Burton, at that time Minister of Finance, we took up the following position—

1. (a)In respect of this preference (imperial preference) we are desirous to adjust our duties in such a way as to give your British manufacturers and producers a more substantial benefit.
2. It may be quite possible …. so to arrange matters as to give really to those British industries which are in need of assistance, particularly at this juncture, much more substantial aid than we do at present.

The comparison speaks for itself.

In answer to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), I wish to say first, in regard to the economic conference, that we have appointed Mr. Diamond (the Trade Commissioner in London) to act as our representative. That conference has only to do with the question of marketing, so there is nothing very formidable, it seems to me, although it may be very useful. Mr. Diamond, knowing things as he does, was thought the best man to appoint to the conference. In the second place the hon. member asked what the attitude adopted by the Government was with regard to the protocol. I may say this, that this Government could not see its way clear either to adopt that protocol or to recommend it to Parliament, and I think the reasons are really very obvious to us all; in fact, I think they were so obvious that practically substantially they are the views as expressed to the British Government and the views that, later on, were expressed by the British Government through the Secretary of State to the Colonies at Geneva. It was very obvious, because it was very clear, that no nation and no Government feeling its responsibility over against the nations, much less South Africa, far removed from the immediate danger zone—if I may call it so—of Europe, could think of undertaking obligations the number of which, and the kind of which, nobody could foretell, and nobody ever will be able to foretell, nor could any Government foretell, indeed, what obligations the undertakings recommended in the protocol would rest on any of the nations. I must say this, especially being far removed from Europe, that we were called upon all the more to be very careful and wary as to undertaking any obligations which may really be, perhaps, very necessary in certain quarters, but with which we have no immediate concern, and if we possibly could, ought to keep ourselves out of. The position was also this. We took up the position that we were not prepared to extend our obligations under the convention of the League of Nations. As far as those obligations are there, we have undertaken them, and I hope we shall carry them out, but we were not prepared to undertake any new obligations, and it has been proved, I may practically say, to be very clear that the protocol, if it had been accepted, would have been for so many others forcing and enforcing obligations upon us. Under these circumstances we took up the position that we were not prepared to accept the protocol, and could not even recommend it to Parliament. I may here say that there were two viewpoints about which we felt, and I am glad to say that I found later on that all the dominions, and Great Britain also, found that there were great difficulties. In the first place, while America and Germany and Russia all stood outside of this League of Nations, it was very clear that the powers which the protocol intended to put in the hands of the League of Nations were such that if given, they would only have increased the difficulties which these nations, especially America, have so far shown to have against entering into the League of Nations. It would undoubtedly have made the League of Nations somewhat of a super State with a sovereignty above that of any of the nations of the world who are members of the League. In other words, the members of the League would have to part with their sovereignty to some extent, the very thing America, from the first day, agitated against during the Paris peace negotiations. It is very clear, if we to-day were to take up that position as members of the League of Nations, we could never expect America would think of entering that League. Let me say here, I have not the least doubt that with America outside the League, the League will never be able to attain the object for which it was called into life. Instead of being a League of peace, and for peace, I am afraid that, unless we are very careful, it will be a League which will differ in no respect from the old political alliances of which the nations of the world know only too much. In these circumstances our answer was as I have already related. I am glad to say that the answers from the other dominions are practically the same, and the answer given by the British Government to the League of Nations through the Colonial Minister was really substantially the same. With regard to certain questions from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), in the first place he wishes to know what the position is to-day in South-West, especially in regard to the Rehoboths. Since last mentioned by me in the House, a number of these natives and bastards, came before the magistrate and were sentenced to various fines. Practically the majority of them were put into gaol, as they would not or could not pay. Since then the Administrator has gone to Windhoek, and the day before yesterday I received a telegram with the result of what had taken place. It was so excellent that the spirit throughout the territory is a totally different one from the spirit of those very men who had been caught and put into gaol. It was such that he immediately released them all. As far as the fines are concerned, naturally, these immediately will go. I am assured by him that the spirit to-day is as good as we could possibly wish, and these men admit now that they were doing what was not right and have expressed their regret. I am very glad the position is very good. At the same time the Government is taking steps to send down to South-West—and I may say here we have approached Judge de Villiers of the Court of Appeal to go down as Commissioner and enquire into a few of these grievances, which they have always expressed were their grievances, and see what is in these grievances and report, so we can see what has to be done. With regard to that territory I am very sorry for what has happened. Because I thought—and I still hope it will be possible—if these men had really shown any capacity for self-government, it would probably have been one, of the finest opportunities of having such a community by itself, governing itself as far as it could, under the leadership of ourselves. Unfortunately what occurred interrupted that. I still feel we should not, on that account, depart from the desire to assist these men to take local government for themselves by themselves, and so educate themselves as to have their local administration and government as far as they can in their own country. I may say it is also with a view to that I want the Commission to go down there and tell us what can be done to put these men on the right line again, with guidance. It is clear from the incapacity they have shown for years past that they will require a good deal of initial leading. As far as the appointment of a Trade Commissioner in America is concerned, we have made no appointment although I believe, on the Estimates, there is a sum for the appointment of a Trade Commissioner in America. Then as to whether any representations have been made about the use of the word “Asiatic” in the colour bar. With regard to this (1) through the Chinese Consulate; (2) as far as India is concerned it, indirectly (no doubt, assisted in making representations to us for a round-table conference between us and them, but these are the only real representations which have been received.

What is happening to this proposal?

We only received that two or three days ago. As regards Lourenço Marques, all that has happened is, we received four weeks ago an intimation that the Governor-General has received authority to open negotiations with us. We are busy, of course, with Parliament sitting it has been difficult, but we have not sent an answer yet, although I hope to do so one of these days as to when or where we could have it. I hope we shall have it, but at this moment I can say nothing because nothing has been decided. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) wants to know on what principle representatives are chosen by the Government.

I understand it comes up on another Vote. I am speaking of Mr. Sampson.

We didn’t send him, oh—I beg your pardon, yes. My hon. friend, my colleague, the Minister of Labour, will answer that. Then the hon. member wishes to draw my attention to Ministers not having been in their places.

I am satisfied at having drawn your attention to it.

I now come to the question by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. H. Louw) regarding the League of Nations. I hope that my hon. friend has already noticed that the amount put down for the League of Nations is £15,000, the further £10,000 represents the debt of our friends opposite which we are paying for them. This year will be the last that we shall see this £10,000 on the estimates. £2,000 is, of course, for the representative which during the year is deputed to attend the meeting of the League of Nations. Now my hon. friend here has expressed the hope that this will be the last year that the vote will appear on the estimates. As hon. members know, I was never from the commencement very much taken up with the League of Nations, simply because it was very plain to me that the way in which the League of Nations is constituted was not the right way, and gave the body more the character of an alliance of powers to be ready in case a war broke out than to actually be (as I think was the original intention) a peace body, a body which was out to keep the peace between the nations, and when necessary by its influence, or if necessary by action, to see that the peace of the world was maintained. Now I must say that I am convinced that unless the League of Nations finally comes nearer to the object which I think it should fulfil, and nearer to the character of an actual peace body, it will assume more and more the character of an alliance between powers. Unless, then, its character alters, I feel convinced that the League of Nations will never attain its object. Provisionally, it can only do its best to prevent explosions between nations, and, as e.g., in the case of Austria, to assist countries and to assist humanity, but I am convinced of it that on its existing basis the League of Nations will only have a temporary existence and that its basis will have to be changed and not simply be, as I have already said, an alliance of nations against other nations. But I am, nevertheless, not yet prepared to say that the League of Nations must not be supported. The possibility exists, and even the same probability, that the League of Nations will really become a body of nations in the true sense of the word. It is encouraging to see how the nations of Europe who were in the first instance connected with it to-day begin to feel more that they must get away from the basis on which the League of Nations stands to-day. They must, in other words, get further away from the reliance on might and rather seek their power in moral force. The countries of the world must stand together as a League of Nations and promise on their honour that in such and such circumstances the peace of the world will be maintained, without continuing on the basis on which they stand to-day, and for which reason America remains outside. They must get away from the principle that they form a league to impose, if necessary by force, their will on other countries, in consequence of which America remained out of the League of Nations, and still remains, and will remain out-until the time that that body alters its point of view and declares that it is ready to take up another attitude. I felt from the beginning that the League was not what it should be. The League must not act as a State and impose its will on other countries. But I want to say that I feel that already today there is a movement on foot to alter the character and to bring the character of the body more into conformity with the idea that its influence rests on the moral power and not on force. If this object is attained, even if it is only after years, I think that it is worth the trouble to continue supporting the League of Nations. For this reason I hope that my hon. friend there will not continue to oppose the vote. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), if I understood him correctly, has asked if we are properly maintaining our rights with reference to the preference and the disposal of the means of production of our country, when we, as I explained the other day, consult Great Britain and the other commonwealths as to the conclusion of agreements with other countries. Well, I feel convinced of it that we do not in any way give up our rights. What we do is that we acknowledge that we stand in a particularly friendly relation to Great Britain in the first place, and it is further no more than right that when we enter into trade agreement with other countries that we should consult Great Britain and the other commonwealths, because it might be possible that they might be damaged by the agreement, and it is not more than right that we should find this out before we conclude contracts with “other countries. We therefore want to damage as little as possible the interests of the British Empire and the other commonwealths. In this instance we are not sacrificing our rights. It is the same case as when anyone goes to a friend and explains to him his schemes, because the possibility exists that his friend might be damaged thereby, and he then asks his friend if he has any wishes with reference to the scheme. And the matter does not apply only to our side. It is reciprocal. When e.g. England enters into similar contracts—we have had such instances since we took office—then it gives us notice of them and asks if we have any interest in the matter and if we have any interest that we wish protected in that connection. It is thus in the mutual interest that this understanding exists.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has said that the League of Nations helped Austria economically, but I wish to refer the Prime Minister and the House to conditions which the League of Nations wink at, namely, that France should be permitted to employ black troops on the Rhine. In my humble opinion nothing has happened in the past few years since the conclusion of peace which exceeds this enormity. It is not only a scandal to civilization but a very great danger generally, and also to our civilization in South Africa. A little while ago natives were arrested in Johannesburg because they had pictures of nude women in their possession. In the court it appeared that they got them in France. I mention this to show what terrible evils are spread throughout our country and the world. We talk of the “black peril,” but as a member of the League of Nations we have never yet allowed our voice to be heard against it. Nearly all the women’s associations in the country, amongst others the Nationalist and South African Party Women’s Parties, have already raised their voices on the subject. It was years ago my privilege and good fortune to spend a holiday on the southern Rhine. One of my sisters is still there. The German people are nearly related to us, and the girls and women are there exposed to the lusts of drunken French soldiers. It is our duty to protest to the League of Nations or direct to the French Government that we disapprove of it. It was bad enough that barbarians were used in the war, then Christians fought against Christians, Jew against Jew, and Mohammedan against Mohammedan. The whole world was then mad, but seven years after peace those conditions still exist. I need not go into the matter further, but it is a fact that bad houses are forced upon the German village Weisbaden, which have altered it into a hell. I hope that the Government on behalf of the South African people will protest against this in the interest of those unhappy girls in Germany and of the girls of the white race in the rest of the world.

I should like to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the misuse of a letter written by him to a native from Nyasaland named Clements Kadalie. This letter is being displayed by Kadalie to large numbers of natives at various centres in South Africa, and on the strength of that letter Kadalie is representing that he enjoys to some extent the moral and financial support of the Prime Minister. The letter in question is one which this man is making use of in all the large towns and it has certainly brought him a great deal of support. I should like to read the terms of the letter so that the Committee may understand how easily such a letter may be misconstrued by ignorant natives and might lead them to imagine that this man, who is to all intents and purposes a foreigner without right to a permanent domicile in the country, really had the support of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister wrote to him before he became Prime Minister as follows—

Can we imagine Kadalie as “good and great,” Sir?—

Let us pass to the pestilential and noisome stuff which this man Kadalie is circulating throughout the length and breadth of the land. He said, at Bloemfontein—

At the same meeting Kadalie also said—

In this he evidently differs from the Prime Minister. He also said, among other things—

He has made a considerable tour of South Africa, visiting every large centre. When Kadalie went to Durban I asked the Prime Minister, through the Department of Native Affairs, to endeavour to prevent the dislocation of the native dock labour at the Point in Durban, to avoid what would have been a calamity there, and I understand the Prime Minister refused to give his sanction to the meeting which Kadalie wished to hold, unless the Durban Town Council approved, for which I am grateful. As recently as April 10 last he stated, at a meeting in Johannesburg—

It has been announced, as a result of the recent congress in Johannesburg, that this man Kadalie and the African Native Congress have combined to declare a strike immediately the Prime Minister makes known any intention of enforcing the regulation relating to the carrying of passes by women. So we are apparently face to face with something in the nature of a deadlock, unless some firmness is shown in regard to the actions of this man. In speaking of pestilential nonsense, I should like to refer to what appears in a paper which is in some way connected with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? “The Guardian.” of April 24, 1925, in discussing Kadalie’s vapourings, says—

I think that completely outdistances anything one has ever heard in the way of irresponsible talk on this very serious native question, and I think it highly desirable that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs should spare some of his time to discountenance the publication of this trash in a paper that sets out to be a serious-minded organ. I ask the Prime Minister to say whether he did Write such a letter to Kadalie, and to let South Africa know whether his best wishes go with Kadalie in the kind of campaign he is carrying on, to the utmost concern of those of us who understand the true inwardness of the native situation in South Africa. I feel that this is a very serious matter indeed. I cannot too much emphasize the seriousness of the logical Outcome of what Kadalie’s actions portend. There can be only one end to this sort of thing, where a native goes on in the way in which this man is behaving, and is claiming the Prime Minister’s support in every portion of South Africa without apparently any sort of disapproval being expressed, or any sort of firm attitude being taken up by the responsible department, or any indication being given by the Government as to whether they approve or disapprove of this kind of conduct. This troublesome individual claims almost to have some political connection with the Pact. He says—

Unlike the Prime Minister.

What he said about the Englishmen being hypocrites is very offensive to a large section of the people of South Africa, and if this native is to be allowed to go round flourishing a letter signed by the Prime Minister himself, endeavouring to get support among the natives, and uttering offensive trash of this sort, it is time We protested very vigorously, and I do so.

Before the Prime Minister replies to the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) I should like the Prime Minister to consider that when sending his representative to the League of Nations, that he, along with representatives of other nations living on the same economic and civilized standards, are in a minority of 35 per cent. on that League. On the League as delegates you have Chinese, Japanese, Bulgarians, Roumanians, and people of all nationalities, and I want the Prime Minister to realize that if he sends a representative to voice his views he has very little hope of carrying those views when he is in a minority. I want him also to consider the advisability of not paying so much attention to the League of Nations as at present constituted, but to a league of people living oh oar civilized standard. I believe more can be done by having representatives sitting on a League with those nations representing nations living on our civilized and economic standard than having representatives on the League of Nations where our civilization are in a minority.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 5, “Treasury,” £71,543,

Have any representations been received from the Rhodesian Government with reference to the new tariff?

No, sir.

When is my hon. friend going to reduce the dumping duty on wheat and flour? The Board of Trade and Industries, which is his own particular child, recommends that these duties be removed in view of the high value Of wheat and flour and the Board further states—

These dumping duties have had the effect of increasing the price of bread at Durban. Is the Minister going to bring in any legislation dealing with elevator receipts? The general manager of the Land Bank points out in his report that farmers have not been able to obtain advances from the banks on the strength of elevator receipts as those documents are not negotiable securities. I also wish to ask the Minister how he is going to distribute the £500,000 for roads? Will he take into account the fact that the Cape has spent a lot of money on roads already, but for that reason it should not be deprived of its due share of the money. We have been waiting a long time for a statement from the Minister as to a State bank or is the Reserve Bank to be converted into a State Bank? It was made a great point of during the general election by the Fact, but now the subject is absolutely dead.

Do you want it?

No, I don’t; I think it would be a very great mistake. The Labour people want it, but they have not the pluck to ask for it; they are absolutely and entirely in the pockets of the Government. These promises were made—

By whom?

By my hon. friend the Prime Minister.

Quite wrong. All that was promised was an enquiry.

I hope it will stop with an enquiry.

I would much like to ask an old question and to bring it again to the notice of the hon. Minister regarding the perpetual quitrents in the districts of Herbert and Hay. The people there complain that they have to pay too heavy quitrents and it is not only now that this difficulty is experienced, but it has been felt for years and years, and under the former Colonial Government a commission was once appointed to investigate the circumstances and in certain cases a reduction in the quitrent was granted. At present there are still twelve farms as far as I know which must pay the exceptionally high quitrent and they have had to pay it for the last 40 years. I know the argument of the Minister of Finance that those who bought the farms knew that the heavy perpetual quitrent rested on the ground, but I only wish to bring to his notice that e.g., the wood which was on the farm at the time of purchase could be taken off by the first purchaser and that in consequence of that it becomes very hard for a subsequent purchaser to pay the heavy quit-rents. The farmers have from time to time to borrow money to be able to meet their obligations and this burden presses too heavily. There is only one solution and that is to go insolvent, because then the burden of the perpetual quitrent no longer exists for the following owner. Further, I want to point out how the value of the whole farming operations is paid over and over in quitrent. The quitrent ranges from £27 to £40 per year for farms of 2,000 to 4,000 morgen of ground. In the same division there are farms where the quitrent has been reduced and the existing distinction is objected to. Let me just give an instance: the farm “Geelkoppies” was sold in 1893 for £160 and has now already paid £1,189 in quitrent. On another farm £1,828 has already been paid in quitrent, etc. The owners are not unwilling to contribute their share to the Treasury, but they object to the great distinction which is made. I shall be glad if the Minister will have the matter looked into again. This will in any event give satisfaction and the owners will certainly rest content if it is impossible to make an alteration.

The Minister of Finance, in his budget statement, announced that the funds in the hands of the Custodian of Enemy Property were to be liquidated and a large sum of money representing the surplus was to be applied towards the liquidation of deficits in the Union. I would like to know whether in liquidating that fund he has made any allowance to persons whose property was taken into the hands of the Custodian for dividends which accrued on these securities prior to the time when certificates were given out to the owners. The Minister will know a large number of securities, in the form of shares in mines, were taken by the Custodian because they belonged to enemy subjects, and whilst in his hands dividends accrued in respect of these shares. Then in course of time certificates were given to the owners of these securities carrying interest at 4 per cent… in respect of the proceeds of the sales of these securities. I want to know whether any repayment has been made to the owners of these securities in respect of dividends accrued on these shares prior to the time when they were sold and the proceeds handed over to the owners. I believe a large sum of money was in the hands of the Custodian in respect of these dividends, and I want to know before he takes over this surplus for the liquidation of deficits in the Union, whether he made allowance for refunding the dividends to the original owners.

I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the rebate which is paid to co-operative societies with reference to the excessive advances which have been made on produce. According to law the land bank has the right to write off 60 per cent. of the debt. All the farmers concerned therein have accepted the gift with thanks. But I want to emphasize the manner in which the debt is written off. We know that the farmers obtain advances of 18s. on mealies. Subsequently only 8s or 9s. was paid out for the mealies and the farmers had to lose and pay in 8s. or 10s. per bag. The land bank met the people and the amount was spread over five years. But what happened was that the whole amount went to the credit of the co-operative societies and the bad debts are in that way written off. But there is a large number of farmers who suffer losses and who cannot yet pay them up. They want the Minister to go into the matter to see if a better settlement of the matter cannot be made. The man who had nothing and who cannot be sued is met by having his debts written off. But the man who still owns property is forced by the co-operative societies to pay and the money goes in the end to the reserve fund. In theory this is very nice but the object of the Act was not to strengthen the co-operative societies, but to meet the people, because if the Government had not stopped the export of mealies the farmers would not have suffered the loss. I do rot know whether the Minister has gone into the matter as yet but if he has not done so I shall be very glad if he will. Then there is another matter. I want to know if a commission has as yet been appointed to go into the complaints which have come in about pensions, and if an opportunity can be given to the people to make application.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is taking into consideration the question I raised on the Estimates, and which I see the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) raised, the question of the establishment of a State bank. Those of us who are supporting the Government and have been advocating a State bank are glad to notice that we have secured a convert in the person of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

No, you have not.

Then the hon. member perhaps asked his question in the hope of receiving a negative reply. I want to know if the question is receiving consideration. The Reserve Bank at the present time, we are given to understand, is taking steps to obtain premises in different centres of the Union. In view of what was reported by the commission appointed indicated that there was no scope for a Banker’s Bank in South Africa, I want to know whether he will now take into consideration this question and tell us what steps are being taken by the Government towards the definite establishment of a State bank. We have heard—and this is the point on which I would like information—that to some extent as the result of the report that has been issued, ostensibly the present Reserve Bank is beginning to enter into ordinary business transactions, but I would like to know if it is a fact that the conditions that are being imposed by the Reserve Bank on anyone who wants to try and secure facilities are so onerous as to render it impossible for them to compete with private banking institutions, and, if that be so whether that is really with the object of continuing purely as a bankers’ bank. I would like the Minister to let us know what steps he has taken or whether he has given the matter his consideration, as to the desirability of establishing at the earliest possible date a State bank instead of a bankers’ bank, particularly having regard to the fact that a large number of the supporters of the Government, every member on the cross benches and many members on the Nationalist benches, are not only pledged to the establishment of such a bank, but have for many years been advocating it.

I want to ask the Minister a question or two about the famous “nest egg” arising from the Custodian Fund. I have been reading again what the Minister said in his budget speech on the point. He pointed out there that the liabilities of the Custodian were something like £9 227,000, against which he holds assets to the total of £12,646,000. The first question I want to ask the Minister is whether these liabilities of £9,227,000 are liabilities at the moment or are they ultimate liabilities of the fund, that is to say, the nominal amount of the 30 years’ certificates which are bearing 4 per cent. interest? If this figure of £9,227,000 represents the ultimate liability 30 years from now, then obviously the present amount of the liability must be very much less, and this nest egg, instead of being £3,500.000 a present from the late Government, would be very much larger than that. The Minister says that he proposes to deal with the funds in the following way. He is going to make these certificates of credit a direct liability of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. How will that appear in our public accounts afterwards? Is the liability of £9 000.000 to be added to our national debt, or how is it to figure when we reckon up our financial position at the end of the year? Apparently what the Minister proposes to do is to take over all the money that the Custodian has and assume liability as a State for the ultimate payment of these certificates, that is to say, we are to have the cash now and pay the certificates when they mature, probably 26 years from now. The third question I have to ask the Minister is that apparently he is to take £700,000 and apply £500,000 of it to roads, and £200,000 to boring, land settlement and other matters. How is that £500,000 to be treated? Is it to be treated as loan money? Then I would like to ask what class of roads is the Minister proposing to devote this money to? Is it to be simply handed over to the provinces to spend as they are spending their money at the present time on roads with the regrettable lack of result which most of us think accrues, or is it to be spent in an effort to establish really national highways such as we need so badly here in South Africa? Then in regard to the amount of £200,000 to be spent on land settlement, is that to be included in our expenditure from revenue or is it to be added to the Loan Vote? Coming to the actual Treasury Vote I notice that the pensions office which last year had 42 permanent clerical assistants now has under the new estimates 50, and in addition there are 30 temporary clerical assistants, making a total of 80 clerical assistants. It is somewhat disappointing seven years after the war to find that, so far from decreasing, our vote for administration of pensions is increasing. One would have thought by now a certain amount of stabilization would have been reached. I think it is a matter which does call for some explanation, as to why, at this stage, even though they have pension troubles, it should be necessary to spend so large an amount on administration, and to keep up such a large staff. I see the chief pension officer gets a salary of nearly £1.000; the two principle clerks each get £775, and the two senior clerks each get £675 a year.

They have got to clear up the mess that you left.

These are the same officials that have been in office all along. Finally, who is this one ungraded officer to whom is voted a salary of £1,042?

I only wish to say a few words in connection with the land bank, because there are a few things that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. I think the management of the land bank is very good, and in many cases substantial help was given. But as the land bank was intended to help farmers I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to the interest that has to be paid. I think the promise was made that the interest would be reduced to five per cent. I would like to know from the hon. Minister if this is going to be done. There was I think half a million profit made by the land bank. This proves that the reduction of the interest can be made. Then there is another point. Loans are now only granted up to 60 per cent. of the value of the property. Previously it was up to 75 per cent. I do not know why this was altered, because I believe no losses were suffered in the past. It would be a great relief if loans could again be made up to 75 per cent. of the value of the property. A third point of still greater importance is that the class which ought to be helped are not helped by the land bank, because the previously existing system of sureties has been abolished. Previously if a landowner signs as surety anyone who had no land could obtain a loan of £300 to buy cattle. The provisions of the Act are now such that nobody can any longer be surety, and the man who badly needs it cannot get help. I should like the system of sureties to be again introduced. At the moment I think seven land-owners can sign for a sum of £14,000, or so, and then they can in turn lend the money. But in this way, as practice has shown, the people that I refer to are not assisted.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter under the Land Bank Acts Further Amendment Act of last year. The Minister will remember that when that Bill was introduced last year in connection with making provision for advances to limited liability co-operative companies, the Minister was under the impression that that Bill went further than the one I had drafted and left in my office, and even went further than I had asked for. There was an important provision in the case of agricultural produce belonging to co-operative societies to be exported, to make an advance against cost of packing, rateage and other charges of that character. And the hon. Minister will remember that the House then was under the impression that the Bill was going further than the proposal of making advances against the produce against which the Land Bank would have a lien when it entered into the possession of a co-operative organization. I believe since then it has been found that owing to the drafting of the Act of last year it is illegal to make an advance against co-operative agricultural produce unless it is going to be exported from the country. My hon. friend will at once see how detrimental that is to limited liability co-operative companies which it was intended to assist. I would like to ask the Minister whether this question has been gone into and whether the Government, during the present session, intend to carry out what was the intention of the Government in the drafting of the Bill. I have never asked for advances of a large character. We had the experience of large advances that were made against maize in which very often the maize farmer was as much sinned against as sinning, as he never should have been encouraged to get an advance up to 18s. or £1 against his maize on a speculative market. I have never asked for more than 60 per cent. wish to ask the Minister whether he will introduce the necessary one-clause amendment. We hope the Government, by law, will have a lien on the agricultural produce entrusted to the co-operative society or in the stores of a co-operative society, and that provision will be made to make an advance against the security of that product. There are large numbers of these companies. Where some of these societies are penalized is that they can get an advance against produce. By the amended Act of last year they can get no advance from the Land Bank against that produce if it is to be sold in this country. Surely the security of the produce is just as good if it is to be sold in this country as oversea. The result is that through getting these unusual credits they are being thrown largely into the hands of the speculator. I am perfectly certain that the desire of the Government is to help the farmers in every way, but as things are at present a damper has been put on the formation of these companies, and the small producer, especially, is being thrown into the hands of the speculator. I hope the Minister will meet these cases. I was under the impression that the Act enabled advances to be made by the Land Bank on the strength of these certificates, but, to my surprise, I find that that is not so. If what I suggest is done, maize and cotton growers will be helped.

I want to say a few words about the excessive advances and to support the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk). During the last election the matter was insisted upon and questions asked at every meeting by the farmers that we should meet them. The farmers were very glad that the Minister of Finance had written off an amount. But the application of the writing off considerably disappoints the farmers because they did not get what they expected. They still have to pay the deficits while the writings off go to the reserve fund of the co-operative societies. We think that it is unfair farmers who thought that the money would come to them, and who still have to pay it. I think it will be fair if the Minister of Finance goes into the matter to see if further provision cannot be made.

With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) I wish to congratulate the Minister on the fact that while the pensions have increased by £351,000 the salaries paid to the pension officers have decreased by nearly £1.000.

The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) points out the increase of £351,000 on the pensions vote and assumes the work has been increased pro tanto by that amount. The position is this. The fifty officials I spoke of are concerned in administering war pensions. If he looks at Vote D he will see £860 000 is allowed as against £840,000 last year, so that the increase is £20 000. The Minister will agree that the increase on the vote is due to two lump sum contributions he is making to the pensions fund and will not add anything to his office work.

He will find a decreased expenditure in the salaries, and when a Minister has to deal with a larger sum and yet decreases his administration expenditure then I think he should be congratulated.

In connection with the land bank I just want to say that it was never intended to make profits. There is now a fairly considerable accumulated profit and I think that the Minister of Finance should see that the rate of interest is brought down in districts, such as Vryburg and Mafeking, where the farmers have suffered heavily in consequence of droughts and other things. Most of the farmers owe money to the land bank and it is felt a hardship that the interest is 6 per cent. If a profit is made then the interest should be reduced.

With reference to the matter which has been raised by the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that members of co-operative societies cannot get advances on produce which is sold in the interior, I want to say this that the Minister must be careful not to answer the hon. member before he has gone into the matter thoroughly. Co-operative societies, with limited liability, that get advances must give larger securities than the paid-up shares of the society. If we do not obtain this then a limited co-operative society would be in a better position than a society with unlimited liability because the latter does not only give as security the goods that are in the warehouses but also the joint and several property of the members of the association. It will thus be unfair if the same rights are given to the members of the associations with limited liability, if they do not wish to call up their unpaid capital. I can understand it if the advances are given on goods for export, because then the goods are there as security.

I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) congratulate the hon. Minister on his saving. He is actually saving at the expense of the temporary assistants. In nearly every instance the vote shows that there were increases of salaries, but when we get down to the temporary assistants we find that last year the amount paid to these men was £8,250, while this year it is £5,732. That is where the saving comes in—at the expense of the temporary assistants. I would like to ask the Minister the reason for the reduction. It seems to me that the hon. member’s congratulation is rather premature.

Last year an Act was passed to reduce the interest to four and five per cent., and I understand it has not yet been done. I said to many farmers that I expected that it would be done quickly, because great profits had been made. I agree with the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer), that the land bank was never intended to make profits, but only to assist the farmers. I hope the Minister will see to it that the interest is reduced as soon as possible. Then there is another thing. I think that in all the principle villages of the country branches of the land bank should be established with the power of doing ordinary banking business. I think it is very necessary so that farmers should have an opportunity of borrowing money at a low rate of interest. It happens very often that a farmer requires money six months before he can sell his wool. At the ordinary banks he has to pay seven or eight per cent. interest, and he further often has great difficulties in connection with sureties, etc. If the Minister wishes the country side to develop then I think some such action should be taken.

I think that it is now a fitting moment to point to the way in which the pensions have been treated in the past, because I see that the salary of the chief pension officer appears here. We are glad that a commission has been appointed to investigate how things went on in connection with pensions. But I would like to ask what we are going to do to prevent the same persons remaining in office to deal further with the pensions, e.g., of the old burgers. On the first page of the report of the commission I read—

He is the person who from beginning to end has been unsympathetic towards the pensions of the old burgers of the second war of independence. On the following page I read—

I should like to know what the Minister is going to do in this matter in connection with the a ministration, and if he is going to take it out of the hands of the person who has shown that he has no sympathy with the case of the burger. On page 10 we read—that he attempted to mislead the commission of enquiry. We there read—

This official to-day still remains at the head of the administration of pensions, and I think that the Minister should make provision that Mr. Haussmann for the future should have nothing to do with the cases of the burgers, because he has in the past shown that he has no sympathy with them.

In regard to what has been said about land loans, every possible convenience is given to applicants for these loans, and there is no need to enter into the unnecessary expense of opening a branch in the principal towns. What I really got up to ask my hon. friend, the Minister, what he is going to do with regard to the Umvolosi sugar-mill. There has been a flood there which must have done an enormous amount of damage. I understand it is proposed to remove the building to a better site, and I should like to know what my hon. friend is going to do about it.

I do not insist that branches should be opened at the principal places to work at a loss. But the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) knows nothing of the country side, and the difficulties with which our farmers have to contend. The trouble is that a man in order to borrow money must first go to the magistrate and must pay interest for the time fixed. Say, for instance, that at Burghersdorp such a branch were opened then I could go there to borrow money just as I now go to the Standard of National bank, and I shall be able to give the same security, but the interest will not be so high.

What security?

The same security that I to-day give to the land hank, namely, produce that I have for sale.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the farmers. So long as the land bank makes advances against land, and produce, which is in the possession of a co-operative organization, it is about as much as we can ask at the present time. To make general advances on open accounts, without general security, would soon place the land bank in an entirely different position from what it is to-day. There never was an amount of £7,000,000 better invested than in the development of the country through State assistance to the land bank. The bank may have lost small amounts here and there, but its position is extremely sound. In this country the farming population are at a disadvantage compared with other countries. I understand that in Australia, so long as a man remains solvent for six weeks, it is possible for him to get an advance, even from a commercial bank, against the wool growing on the back of his sheep. In many ways this is a very good thing, as very often the farmers here have to pledge their credit and even their custom for the purpose of getting money advanced to them to tide them over until they reap their crops. Unfortunately, in this country the majority of the farmers are one-crop farmers, and have to depend on a crop once a year, and sometimes they pledge their custom often to the up-country storekeeper, for the purpose of the advances they get. It may be worth considering whether a system could be devised where by rural advances could be made at a, much lower rate of interest than at present, but I do not think that that is a class of business the land bank should be asked to do. In Australia they even make advances against clips.

As we are dealing with the land bank I want to ask the Government to consider if it is not time to increase the amount which the land bank can advance on fixed property from £2,000 to £3,000. In the northern provinces where the farms possibly are not yet so highly developed it may be sufficient. But here with us, where the farms are already highly developed, it often happens that the farmer requires £2,500 and the land bank cannot assist him. The consequence is that the largest portion of the advances of the land bank are in the northern provinces. For this reason I should like to ask the Government if the Act cannot be altered in this respect.

The land hank has done fairly good work and it is certainly one of the very best institutions which has been created to help agriculture. I have had a considerable amount of experience of the land bank and land board. When the Act came into force the highest amount which could be given to anybody was £2,500. This is too much to lend one man and we had very few of those cases. The largest amounts which are asked for were £1,000. and we must not by legislation fix the amount higher than that.

The hon. member must not now tell the Minister what he must do. The hon. member can ask a question.

I only wish to refer to it. I do not think that the hon. Minister would attempt any such thing as that suggested by the hon. member for Ladysmith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl). The Act is a good one and I do not think it will be sensible to make any amendment in it.

I should like to know from the Minister of Finance if he cannot bring about an alteration of the rule followed by the land bank at present that no money may be advanced for the payment of instalments to the department of lands The and bank advances about £200 to the farmers but then application is made for more money to pay the department of lands, but the answer always as that the land bank advances no money for the purpose of paying the department of lands. I have already spoken to members of the land bank about it, but they refer me to the Minister.

The hon. member must not now advocate legislation.

There is no legislation necessary. It is an order of the Minister of Finance. In some cases it happens that the money is actually granted where the man, e.g., would go insolvent if the money was not advanced. But the general rule is that they do not grant it. I would like to see the Minister of Finance giving instructions that the land bank may advance money in such cases.

With reference to what the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has said in connection with the land bank I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance if he intends to introduce an Agricultural Credit Bill this session because I understand that the loan provisions of the Art are such that advances can be made for produce in the warehouses of co-operative societies. This is a provision which is very necessary to make co-operation a success, which we all wish that it should be. The co-operative societies with limited liability have in the past not had sufficient working capital to carry on business and only the companies with unlimited liability were able to obtain loans from the land bank. If the above mentioned alteration is made it will mean a great improvement because if advances can be got on produce which are in the warehouses then the companies with limited liability will be in a better way of being a success in the country and of winning the confidence of the farmers. There is now a strong objection on the part of the farmers against companies with limited liability. The farmers do not like to join because they are afraid of their responsibility —

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m. and debate, adjourned.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.