I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

with leave, amended Notice of Motion No. II, and moved, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

objected.

I move—

In bringing forward this motion, asking that the House should give an instruction to the Select Committee that has been appointed in connection with the Mines and Works Act, 1911, Amendment Bill, I am aware that I am taking a somewhat unusual course; but I find it is the only means left open to me, and those who agree with me, to endeavour to obviate what I am quite sure—if no steps are taken in the manner I suggest—will constitute a very grave injustice to a very large section of the population. If the House will permit me, I will go back a little, in order to make my point quite clear. As hon. members are aware, subsection (1), section 4 of the Mines and Works Act, 1911, gives the Government power to issue regulations prescribing the manner in which certificates of efficiency can be issued to mine officials, mine workers, and such other persons employed in and about mines, works and machinery as the Governor-General may from time to time determine. It is well known, of course, that in terms of that sub-section, a regulation was issued by the Government then in power, which laid down that there should be, in effect, a colour bar as regards those occupations, prescribing that those certificates of efficiency should only be issued to Europeans. That regulation applied only to the Transvaal, and, in practice, though it might have been considered to apply to other industries connected with works and machinery, it was, in fact, only applied to the mines themselves, and possibly to one or two other industries directly connected therewith. A short time ago the matter came to be tested in the courts, and it was then found that this regulation was ultra vires, and therefore the colour bar instituted by that regulation no longer existed. Then we come to the Bill which has been before this House. This Bill not only proposes to restore the position which was believed to exist before the regulation in question was found to be ultra vires, but it goes further, and it proposes to enact that in such provinces or areas as may be specified certificates of efficiency shall not be granted to natives and Asiatics, bringing in Asiatics for the first time in the matter. It further proposes that regulations under any other paragraph of the same sub-section may restrict certain classes of work—and in this case there is no question of certificates—it may impose duties and responsibilities on persons other than natives and Asiatics subject to such proofs of efficiency as may be required, and generally may apportion the work as between natives and Asiatics and other persons in respect of mines, works and machinery. That obviously widens the scope which this regulation may cover, and that will be more apparent if I quote in detail the other paragraphs to which the matter chiefly refers. These paragraphs are as follows—

1. (d) The duties and responsibilities of owners, managers and overseers, and other persons engaged in and about mines, works and machinery.
2. (f) The storage, receipt, distribution, transport and use of explosives.
3. (i) The conditions under which machinery may be erected or used.
4. (l) The safety and health of persons employed in or about mines, works and machinery.

It is perfectly obvious that the application of this measure may be, or is going to be according to the views of the Government, exceedingly wide. The colour bar, as against Asiatics and natives, may be extended to any industry in which the use of machinery is involved, not merely in the Transvaal, but in any province or in any area in any province in the Union. It may therefore be enforced in the Cape Province, where nothing of the kind has ever been attempted before. I am not, however, going to discuss the principle of it; I am not here to say whether the principle involved is right or wrong, but the point is that a very great change is made in the position as regards employment, a change which may affect the rights—potential rights if you like—of millions of people who are citizens of the Union. It does not affect merely natives who may be deprived of the opportunity which they had before under the law of obtaining occupation, and of earning their living and of rising in the standard of civilization, but it also affects many Europeans engaged in the conduct of innumerable trades and industries, practically any industry in which machinery plays a part, and what industry is there in which machinery does not play a part? It is not too much to say that a strict application of the powers which it is proposed to give by this measure would enable the Government to dictate to any person who conducts an industry, the kind of labour he is to employ. That is a state of affairs which has never existed in this country before. Any uncertainty in that respect is going to be fraught with very disastrous consequence to all industries, and I should have thought it is a matter on which the Minister, who will be responsible, would be glad to have been relieved of some portion of his responsibility by suggestions made by the Select Committee to which the Bill has been referred after that committee has heard evidence and made careful investigations. One would have thought that the Minister would have been glad if the Select Committee had made those investigations and heard evidence, and made some recommendation as to the provinces to which this measure should be applied, as to the areas in which it should be applied, as to the class of work which would be affected, as to the duties which would be thrown on particular persons, as to the responsibility which would be thrown on persons, and also as to the proofs of efficiency which would be required. I think that when this Bill left the House and went to the Select Committee, most of us were under the impression that it was the wish of the House that that course should be followed. In support of that argument I quote what has been said by two or three members of this House on the other side, and I begin with the Prime Minister. This is what the Prime Minister said—

I think that speech may be taken to have indicated that it was in the mind of the Prime Minister that a searching investigation would be conducted by the Select Committee—not merely that the Select Committee should be expected to confine itself to suggestions for verbal alterations in the terms of the main clause of the Bill. I find further support for this view in the speeches which were made when the question of a reference of the Bill to a Select Committee was under discussion. Hon. members will remember that it was proposed from this side of the House by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that the Bill should be referred to the standing committee on Native Affairs, but the Prime Minister did not agree with that suggestion, and the reason given by him for differing from that suggestion is surely instructive. He said—

The Minister in charge of the Bill seemed to agree with the view expressed by the Prime Minister, because he said—

That surely shows that it was contemplated that the Select Committee would do more than consider the possibility of making verbal alterations in the Bill. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) said—

If the Bill is passed in its present form, and the application is given to it which may be given by the Minister, this Bill may affect practically every industrialist in the country, and it is quite natural that there should be people on the Select Committee who do know something about industrial matters. But what would be the good of putting such people on the committee if they were to be prevented from taking evidence as to the application of the provisions of the Bill, and to be limited to discussing the possibility of making purely verbal amendments? There was only one hon. member who took the other view, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who said that he saw no necessity for evidence on these matters. The hon. member is so thorough-going a socialist and democrat that he does not think it necessary to protect the interest of millions of people who may be affected by the application of this Bill. Everybody else indicated that the question of the application of the Bill must receive from the Committee the most serious consideration.

Is the hon. member in order in discussing a matter discussed in the Select Committee?

The hon. member must refrain from referring to details of what happened in committee. It is generally known that the committee decided not to call evidence on certain points, and the hon. member is entitled to give reasons why the Select Committee should call evidence; he must not go further than that.

If the committee had not refused to call evidence there would have been no necessity for this motion. It appears to me that it was contemplated by the House that the committee should take evidence and fully investigate these matters. The principle of the Bill, having been adopted and the Bill having been referred to a Select Committee for investigation and report, it is not merely competent for the committee to take evidence and make investigation, but it is the duty of the committee to investigate and report on the question of how, and to what extent, the principles should be put into operation. That applies to the matter mentioned in the latter part of my motion, the question of whether the principle of the Bill should or should not be applied to agricultural pursuits. It is competent to the committee to call evidence and in my judgment, having regard to the opinion expressed by the House on the terms of reference to the Select Committee, it is their duty to take evidence and make a careful investigation of these matters. If this is not done, there will be serious cause for complaint. There was a question asked this afternoon as to the attitude of the natives in this territory. In the course of the second reading, the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Maj. Ballantine) referred to the attitude of the natives and it is common knowledge that the natives applied for permission to be heard on this Bill at the Bar of the House. I understand they were refused permission. I don’t quarrel with that decision. Only once before has permission been given to appear at the Bar of the House, and that was in 1914, when a gentleman addressed the House on the question of the deportation of certain people, perhaps illegal, but, perhaps, for the good of the counter. I am informed that when the natives were told that they could not appear at the Bar of the House they were also told they would have an opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee to which the Bill would be referred. That has been stated in public, and. I believe, it is a fact. If that is so, what is the position of these natives? What do they think of the justice of their treatment when they are told that the committee has decided, in its wisdom, not to take evidence and not to make investigation of how and to what extent the Bill should be put into operation? Will they not claim that faith has been broken with them, and that they have been treated without any consideration whatever? Without any desire to say anything provocative in the present state of native feeling, it is a dangerous thing to give a vast body of natives, who may be affected, the excuse to say that their claim for proper representation on matters affecting them have been entirely disregarded. What argument is there in favour of the course so far advanced? I have heard it suggested that the committee is not competent to deal with a Bill on such a matter. I have a good opinion of the ability of this committee, of which I happen to be a member, and I believe it contains gentlemen fully qualified to deal with these matters. It is for the Government to say whether the matter can be removed from this committee and be referred to a commission specially appointed for the purpose. That will take time. If evidence is to be given, and a searching investigation to be made, a considerable time will elapse before this Bill can become law. I am not convinced that that will be a great calamity. The Bill is either to be a dead letter, or it is not. It may be that it is intended primarily to restore to the Band the state of affairs existing before the old regulations were declared to be ultra vires, and that it is not proposed to do anything more. There is little doubt that in practice the mining employers on the Rand, since the regulation was declared ultra vires, have not altered their procedure in regard to the proportion of natives to white men they employ, in fact, nothing has been changed. Then the question of urgency does not apply. If, again, the argument is that the moment the Bill is passed, its provisions are to be put into force throughout the length and breadth of the Union, to he put in force in the Cape where nothing like it has been attempted before, to be applied to every industry in the country and every employer has to be instructed as to the class of labour he has to employ, and the natives must be deprived of the potential right of earning their living, then, before it is done, the matter deserves the most serious consideration. How is that to be met, unless the committee takes evidence from people representative of those concerned; unless they are heard and examined, and asked to give their views? If that is not to be done, and the matter is so urgent, I would say to the Minister it is better to delay for a time, giving effect to this treasured policy, although I don’t know whether it is a treasured policy or whether it does not seem more like a pledge to hon. members here that has to be carried out. If it is going to involve the possibility of injustice then a little delay would not be a bad thing. It is far better to put off the application of the measure, even if you are satisfied that the effect of it is going to be good, for a short time, rather than bring it in without proper investigation and run the risk of alienating the confidence of hundreds and thousands and millions even of people throughout the country. I believe it was Mr. Gladstone who once said that—

In my judgment the bringing in of this measure in the form in which it now stands without proper investigation as to the manner in which it should be applied, would constitute an act of injustice to an enormous number of people, and I would appeal to the Minister before it is too late to alter the procedure, to rescind his decision that the committee shall not hear evidence, but to have proper evidence taken and proper investigation made, and then, only after that investigation has been made, to come back to this House and ask that the measure be passed through, and the application of it be made possible. I think if nothing of that sort is done, there is not one member of this House or at any rate, very few who, before many years have gone over our heads, will not seriously regret the decision which has been taken. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will take these matters into consideration, and that he will offer no opposition to the motion which I now have the honour to move.

I beg to second the motion. My concern in this matter is on behalf of the agricultural industry. When I spoke on the Bill I expressed the view that its provisions would apply to the agricultural industry and that it would tend to the unsettlement and instability of that industry and for that reason I urged that the most complete investigation was desirable before this Bill was passed into law. I am aware that the Minister did not agree with my view that the provisions of the Bill were applicable to the agricultural industry, but I believe he is inclined to modify his original view and to assent to the proposition which I brought forward that this Bill in its present form would include in its compass the agricultural industry in all its varying forms. The effect of excluding representatives of the agricultural industry from a hearing before the Select Committee will be a Very serious one. We know that agriculture includes in its scope a wide range of industry, from the simplest farming operations to the secondary industries, such as cheese making, bacon curing and dairying in its different forms, wattle, sugar and the other industries that are allied to agriculture. It will be quite impossible by the mere exclusion of farming operations to be certain that we are not inflicting a blow upon one of the other forms of industry that are dependent upon the primary agricultural industry of this country. I urge that we should have a very complete investigation of this matter, because the interests of the farmer and of the native are bound together in the conduct of the agricultural industry in such a manner that it is a most difficult question to decide where the colour bar is to be laid down, and, therefore, I maintain that unless you have representatives of the agricultural industry appearing in person and being subjected to the examination which will be fruitful of reasonable compromise it will be quite impossible for the committee to do justice to that industry. That was the point which I felt was a very strong one and one to which the committee had not given sufficient consideration. The interests of the natives are of a very special character. They are a people who are unrepresented in this House and, although the policy I have advocated over a number of years would be recognised to be the antithesis of that of a negrophilist, I do realize that any decision come to on this question would provoke a great deal of feeling amongst the natives unless their representatives were in some manner allowed to express their views to the application of the principle which has been embodied in this Bill. I hope the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) may be allowed to speak on that phase of the question. On behalf of the agricultural industry I do protest against the exclusion of representatives of the farming community from being allowed a hearing before the Select Committee.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and to deal with this question more particularly from the point of view of the natives of this country. I would like to read for the information of this House a copy of a telegram, the papers of which were laid on the Table to-day by the Minister, from the chief magistrate who sits as chairman of the Native General Council in the Transkei, where we have one million of probably the most enlightened natives in this country. The telegram reads as follows—

The following reply was sent by the Secretary for Native Affairs to the chief magistrate—

Well, may I put this point? If the only duty of the Select Committee was to try and twist words, if the duty of the committee appointed was such as to avoid the usage of these two words, “Asiatics” and “natives,” then I ask why it was essential to appoint members representing various industrial and agricultural interests to that committee. If it was only a question of phraseology it could have been done here in committee or been referred to the Parliamentary draftsman. I have just returned from the Transkei, where I was present at the reception of the Prince of Wales attended by some 25,000 natives, and where I met many prominent and influential natives and I can assure the House that the natives have followed the debate very interestedly. They are very keen on placing their attitude before the House and in view of the tremendous importance of the colour bar question to the country, the House would be committing a serious mistake if this Bill went through without further investigation. I would like to refer to a portion of the speech by the Minister of Mines when he was dealing with the native aspect of this question. He stated—

I think the colour bar question is one of the corner stones of native policy in this country. If we are going to tackle the native question of this country, without any reference to the natives themselves, without consultation with them and without allowing them to appear here as was promised, then it will be a breach of faith that this House can never justify. I would appeal to the Prime Minister, who is Minister of Native Affairs, and is responsible for native policy in this country, and who intends to bring forward a policy in the near future. He has promised that next year he is going to place a native policy before us. I say, without hesitation, that if this native policy is commenced in this way, no matter how favourable to the natives, how satisfactory from every point of view the forthcoming policy may be, the natives will look upon it with suspicion, and it will never have the support it should have from the natives as well as the Europeans to enable us to build up a native policy in this country that will be in the true interests of South Africa. I feel that the wishes expressed by the House should be carried out, and that this matter should receive the most careful consideration. The Minister should take all these matters into consideration; he should realize how important this question is; he should allow evidence to be taken so that when this Bill becomes law, no section of the public, more especially the native section, will be able to say that they have had no opportunity of making their representations.

I cannot congratulate the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) on the form in which he has brought this motion. He would have been well-advised if he had followed the ordinary procedure adopted in this House from time immemorial. What does he ask us to do? He asks us to agree to a motion amounting practically to a motion of censure upon the Select Committee, of which he is himself a member, before its report is issued. He comes into this House fresh from that committee and relates certain facts and incidents that have taken place and asks this House to make an unbiassed judgment. The hon. member in bringing forward his motion has tried to convince the House that something fresh has come to his knowledge which was not before the House when the matter was sent to Select Committee. I think the hon. member would have been well-advised if he had followed the ordinary course, that is, as a member of that committee to have pressed his objections in that committee to the utmost, and when he could not achieve that in Select Committee, to have reput his case before the House when the report came before us. He tells us certain questions that have been raised in Select Committee, but he does not tell us what the replies and what the decisions were of the Select Committee. I want to submit that if this principle is going to be admitted it knocks the bottom out of all Select Committees. What is the object of these Select Committees? It is to probe these questions to the bottom, and then a report is brought to this House; but in this case, before that is done the hon. member comes here and makes a statement. There was one statement of his to which I took particular exception. He said he took strong objection to the members of that Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, what I said was that I had the greatest opinion of the abilities of the members; and I said that in my opinion the committee was perfectly able to deal with the matter.

Well, I misunderstood the hon. member. I understood him to say that the only member he had any opinion about was himself. I was trying to explain, however, that if in future we are not to wait for the report of a Select Committee, but are to discuss it by way of motion, then it becomes absolutely futile so far as this House is concerned. I sincerely hope that the House will not accept his motion, but will go into the whole question when the Select Committee’s report is brought up. It seems to be becoming the custom to bring up, on the third reading, matters which have been turned down on the second reading, and so on; with the result that a great deal of the time of the House is taken up unnecessarily.

With regard to the lecture the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has read the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) on they enormity of the crime of interfering with the proceedings of a Select Committee while it is still sitting, may I remind him that last year, or the year before, he took exception to two hon. members of this House sitting on a Select Committee dealing with miners’ phthisis. He obtained Mr. Speaker’s ruling, and not satisfied with that, he brought the matter on to the floor of the House, while that committee was still conducting its deliberations. One of the members objected to was the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) and the other was Mr. Webber, the former hon. member for Troyeville. I cannot understand the bother and fuss that has been raised against allowing the Select Committee to take evidence. I remember when we had an infinitely less important matter than this before the House a year ago, namely, the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill, and when it was proposed to pass legislation which it was thought might infringe upon the prerogatives and privileges of certain persons, the cheiropractors, the proceedings of this House were held up for one or two afternoons, in an endeavour to get a special Select Committee constituted to take the evidence and consider the case of these gentlemen.

A special committee is not the same thing.

No, but we did it, because there was the question of infringing on the rights of a numerically small proportion of the community in a small and insignificant way. That Select Committee sat for several months; took, I think, about 300 pages of evidence, and there was a formidable list of witnesses. We gave these people a hearing; and yet, when you are proposing to affect 5½ millions of natives, you won’t even give them a hearing. Will they understand that for one moment?

We did not have a Select Committee in 1911 on the original Act.

Possibly the natives were not as vocal then; nor was it known what regulations were going to be passed, and might I say that the Minister of Defence knows that my attitude on this question of the colour bar has been that if the present Bill of the Minister’s only went so far as to make good the damage done in the judgment which declared the regulations ultra vires, I would be with him all the time. But this Select Committee is necessitated by the fact that the Minister is not doing that. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) accuses me of an egg dance. When I said I was going to vote against that Bill I did so, but I did not see the hon. member’s name on the list as voting against it in spite of all his protestations.

That is not an argument.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) is the recognized authority on the question of political egg dancing and has an unquestioned right to that position, since he made his famous speech in this House on the women’s enfranchisement motion. After that, no one would ever dare to question his right to the title of the South African egg dancing champion. The hon. member seems not only to be the champion egg dancer; but seems to be aspiring to the title of the South African Jack Jones as well. But I do not wish my speech to become a dialogue between myself and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North). I would have thought that there was no necessity for a Select Committee at all, had the Minister been wise enough to confine himself to stabilizing the status quo; but because this Bill goes beyond that in two very important particulars, it is necessary to have a Select Committee, and if that is so, that Select Committee should have the fullest power to conduct its investigation. What does this Bill do? It applies the colour bar to two provinces where it has not existed before. It is now proposed to apply it to Natal and the Cape.

It has been in practice in Natal.

But there has been no statutory colour bar in Natal.

I have to deal with deeds not forms.

Then why legislate at all? The Minister has been told by my hon. friend the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) who can speak with authority about the Chamber of Mines—and he makes no secret about it—that the Chamber of Mines are not departing from the position that existed before the judgment referred to. So if the Minister is dealing with facts, and not the law, why legislate at all? He is extending the colour bar to provinces where it did not exist before.

No.

I cannot answer two Ministers at once. The Minister of Mines and Industries has agreed that legislatively he is extending the colour bar to provinces where it did not exist before.

The same validation which validated the colour bar in the Transvaal would validate it in the Cape Province or Natal.

Will the Minister of Defence tell me that there is in any shape or form a colour bar in the Cape Province today?

The Act to validate the Transvaal regulations could as easily have validated regulations in the Cape.

No regulations were issued purporting to apply the colour bar to the Cape.

I am afraid hon. members are going too deeply into this matter.

It is difficult to carry on a solo with this continual chorus. The second objection I have to the Minister’s refusal to take evidence is that it is now proposed to give him a general power to set up a colour bar in provinces where it has not so far existed. If that is so, it is surely elementary justice that before you do that you must give the persons sought to be affected by the Bill an opportunity of being heard. This is so elementary that one hesitates to urge it at great length in this House. We are 135 white men in this House, elected mainly by white persons, and we have to govern five and a half millions of blacks. It is a lamentable thing that a telegram should have been sent to these natives telling them that they would be allowed to put their case before the Select Committee, and the Minister opposite, in ignorance of that wire, should be opposed to that.

I knew of the wire, and they were informed accordingly.

That makes it worse—it is a lamentable affair. Above all, we have to be scrupulously and meticulously fair in our dealings with the natives. They will not understand when they hear that not only are we going to agree to a colour bar, but that we are not going to give them an opportunity of being heard by the Select Committee. I want to follow the admirable restraint displayed by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), and I do say, even as one from the Transvaal who believes that a case could be made out for a continuance of the existing colour bar there, that we are making the gravest of errors in not giving the natives an opportunity of stating their case. Another point I would emphasize is this—there is no real urgency in this matter. My hon. friend has made that point very plain. I understand the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) and other members, have been sitting as members of the Mining Regulation Commission, and they have taken a great deal of evidence on the colour bar. I believe that commission has reported, but its report has not yet reached the members of the House or the public. That report will require very careful consideration by this House when it deals with the same matters as this very Bill, and I do not think the Minister is right in allowing this matter to come back to the House until we have had that very important report. If I am right in my surmise that the colour bar question was investigated by the commission, the Minister has no right to ignore the evidence taken by it, and to expect us to come to a decision on this matter until we have studied the report.

I agree with the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) that it is bad principle that, as soon as certain members of a Select Committee have been defeated on one question or another, they should come to the House and try to get the decision of the Select Committee altered. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has said that the hon. member for Vredefort at that time objected to certain two hon. members sitting as members of the Select Committee. But that was quite another case. If anyone thinks that according to the standing orders of the House certain members have no right to sit on the Select Committee, then it is the duty of such a member to call attention thereto, but the method of the hon. member for South Peninsula is a horse of a different colour. Our great difficulty is that he makes a proposal in connection with the work of the Select Committee and yet we have not the right to state what has happened in the Select Committee. If I could tell what was heard in the Select Committee then the arguments would have to be quite different even the arguments with reference to the natives. Perhaps I may not even say that evidence was taken.

The hon. member must keep away from that.

There you have the difficulty. If I could say what had happened in the Select Committee then we could fight the matter in quite a different way, and I think it is very unfair of hon. members opposite to introduce such a motion before the report of the Select Committee has been made. Let them wait until the report is laid on the table, then we can go into the matter. In my judgment, the whole point of hon. members opposite is to postpone the Bill indefinitely by instructing the Select Committee to go into every small detail.

Nonsense.

Yes, the hon. member can say nonsense, but it is so. We must not forget that the principle of the colour bar has been adopted. I cannot here refer again to what happened in the Select Committee, and why it was not thought necessary to subpoena the natives. No, I think it is un fair to bring the motion up and to criticize the work of the Select Committee before the report is issued.

The papers laid on the Table are, to my mind, absolutely conclusive as to the justice and necessity of calling for further evidence. Here we have the Prime Minister’s own promise to the natives; he said, in so many words, “I regret you cannot appear at the bar of the House, but you will be allowed to appear before the Select Committee.” The extraordinary thing is that the Minister of Mines admits that he knew of the telegram.

I did not know on what they could give evidence, and told them not to come.

I would be sorry to have to justify the attitude of the Government to the natives when we have a definite promise from the Prime Minister that they should have the right to appear before the Select Committee, yet the door has been banged, barred and bolted to them. I know of no Bill in which such far-reaching and drastic powers are going to be conferred on a Minister as are being asked for in this measure. If there ever was a Bill on which the very fullest information should be obtained it is this Bill. We have the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) telling us that the function of a Select Committee is to probe into every aspect of the matter submitted to it from every angle. Has the Select Committee in refusing to take evidence carried out the ordinary functions of a Select Committee? Can it be said they are probing into this matter? It is possibly the most important which has ever come before the House and one with complicated ramifications. If this Bill is reported from the Select Committee without their having taken evidence I don’t think that the Minister, or any member of the House, could say honestly they were satisfied that the House had adequate information before it. The Minister of Mines has told us that he admitted this Bill was closely co-related to the wider aspect of the native question and he said it was a portion of the Government’s segregation policy. The Prime Minister has told us during the present session that since he has come into closer contact with the question he is himself groping in the dark on the native problem and that he is trying to get more evidence on the subject. In both his recent statements he says that if ever there was a subject on which more evidence was required it is this one. I ask the Minister why they are afraid of taking evidence. As far as my experience goes on Select Committees it is very rare indeed for a single member to ask for evidence without the committee agreeing to take that evidence. I do not know a case where a committee have ever turned it down and passed a resolution saying they would not have it. We cannot avoid the feeling that the Government is afraid of taking evidence. The plea that it will postpone matters so long seems to be a weak one. If it means postponing it a month or two, let it be postponed. It is a very serious matter to find a Government burking the issue. Why should not evidence be taken? I have sat on select committees on infinitely less important subjects and the committee have always agreed to take evidence. In this case there is all the more reason to take evidence and I hope the House will give instructions to the Select Committee. If they do not we shall be justified in telling the country that the Government are afraid of this measure and afraid of taking evidence. The Prime Minister made an appeal on the second reading asking us not to treat this matter on a party basis. He asked us to “come in” and we thought he was going to refer it to a Select Committee before the second reading. Apparently we misunderstood him, but he did make a powerful appeal to him to assist him in investigating this Bill. He said they had an open mind and that they were not bound to any principle and he asked the South African party to assist him. I don’t know how the voting went when the request for evidence was made in the Select Committee, but I am sure every member of the South African party on the committee is anxious and desirous to get more information. How does this fit in with the Prime Minister’s desire to treat it from a broad national standpoint? It seems as if the Minister is treating it from a narrow sectional point of view. We have tried to treat the matter on a high level and from a broad point of view and from a non-party point of view, and this attitude, if it is going to be the attitude of the Minister of Mines, cannot be characterized as a broad point of view. It is essentially a narrow party policy to refuse to take evidence. It is not only 5½ million natives whose future is at stake but the entire white community. We are just as much pledged to ask for evidence from the rural community as to whether or not they should be included in this Bill. From every point of view it is not only going to be useful to have the evidence, but a matter of primitive fundamental justice to give all sections of the community the right to appear before the committee and give evidence.

I quite agree with members on this side of the House that it is a wrong principle that when a Bill has been read a second time and referred to a, Select Committee the hon. member should then come here with a motion such as this to give more elbowroom to the Select Committee. There is practically nothing before the House. Nobody knows what took place in the Select Committee and what the report of the committee will be. We are not permitted to go into what has happened there, and we wait until the report of the Select Committee is handed in. Then all are in the position to express their objections to it. Five million natives have been mentioned. What have we to do with Basutoland or Swaziland. They do not belong to the Union. How can we drag natives that have their own governments into this matter. The principle of the Bill has been adopted, and it is not a new principle and Bill. It has already worked well in the Transvaal and the only difference is that it is extended to the other provinces. Everyone knows how it has worked. And what is it that actually requires to be investigated now? There is something behind this motion and it is to delay the acceptance of, or to wreck, this Bill. A telegram has been read out by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). Heaven help us if we have to allow ourselves to be governed by the natives. The whites have made South Africa what it is. We have brought civilization so far and we cannot permit ourselves to be governed by uncivilized people. The House has felt that such a measure was necessary because otherwise it will be all up with the white race. I know what happened on the Witwatersrand. My hon. friends who are pleading here in this way are pleading for cheap labour. Natives there are taught the elements of their work and then they are put in the places of the white men. If things go on like that the white men will not be able to make a living in ten or 20 years. Even to-day the native is the cause that many of our people are un-provided for. I rejoice that the House has adopted this measure. I make an appeal to the Minister not to accept the motion because I am certain that the object thereof is to wreck the measure.

The House is now dealing with one of the most serious matters of principle that can be brought before Parliament, and one does not like to give a silent vote on matters of this kind. We do not know, of course, what has happened in the Select Committee, but it seems to be quite clear from those who have spoken that neither the natives nor the Asiatics have had a chance of stating their case before the committee, and those are the only two classes of people affected by this Bill. They are the only two classes against whom this repressive legislation is to be applied. That is exactly where I disagree with my hon. friend. It is no good waiting until the report is here, because then it will be impossible to rectify the injustice. The only chance of rectifying the injustice is before the report is brought in. I would appeal to hon. members, whatever view they may take of this question, to put themselves for a moment in the position of a man who belongs to the native or Asiatic races, and to suppose for a moment that in the Parliament in which they are voiceless—they cannot have their direct representatives in a Parliament representing four provinces, in three of which they have no votes at all—legislation was to be put on the statute book in which every member of those races, whether he was civilized or uncivilized, is going to be branded, and told that he cannot engage in any except the most inferior kind of work, no matter how skilled he may be, and how far he may have advanced in civilization. Then let hon. members reflect that in the Parliament representing the people of the country, and deciding upon this matter, they are not even to get an opportunity of stating their case before the enquiry that is being held. Let us try and look at it from the point of view of the people who are affected, and surely you must come to the conclusion that to fasten this very serious brand upon these people, without giving them a chance of being heard, is a most serious injustice. The hon. member who has spoken (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) ought to realize that there is nothing in the Act of 1911 about a colour bar. It was under the section which said that different regulations may be made in respect of different provinces or mining districts, contained in section 4 of the old Act, that the regulations were framed, and those regulations, so far as they introduce a colour bar, have been held to be ultra vires in the courts. So far as the Act of 1911 is concerned, the courts have held that you cannot impose a colour bar under that Act. Now it is sought for the first time to fix a colour bar as against natives or Asiatics by statute. My hon. friend refers to the Transvaal Republic again. I do not know what law he is referring to, but as far as the practice was concerned the natives did their share of the work in the country in the olden days.

It applied only to engine drivers.

It applied to certain classes, but, at any rate, if there was such a provision, of which I am unaware, it was not carried to the extent that it is now sought to be carried under this Bill. I say that it is introducing into the Cape a revolutionary idea, that you are going to treat a man, not according to the skill of his right arm, but according to the colour of his skin. There are people in the Cape who are going to have the stigma put upon them for the first time, whatever may have been done in the Transvaal and the Free State. In the circumstances, ought not the people of the Cape to have a chance of putting their case before the committee before the stigma is put upon them? There have been people to see me on behalf of the Asiatic community, on behalf of the Chinese community, and on behalf of the native community. They all want to put their case before the committee. Why should they be denied that? One must not forget that it is a matter of the most serious moment to these people, and it is not a matter of urgency so far as the white worker is concerned. Hon. members who come from the Transvaal and the Free State know that, so far as this colour bar is concerned, there is tremendous feeling among the white workers of the north, who are afraid that a more liberal policy towards the natives will be their undoing—a most mistaken idea, because there is no better way, in my opinion, by which the white trade unionist can undermine his own position, than by maintaining a colour bar against the native and coloured man. The white worker must realize that it is by a civilization test, and not by a colour test, by better skill, by better competency and by no other way that he can maintain his position. In my opinion, the more civilized a native becomes the greater asset he is to this country. Surely it is better for the white trade unionists of this country that the native, instead of walking about the country with a blanket, should become sufficiently civilized to wear boots and socks and a suit of clothes. Surely it is better to have civilized men than uncivilized barbarians in the country. Civilized non-Europeans are going to demand a rate of wages equal to that of the white man. They are forming their own trades unions and they will want the things that can be manufactured here, and elsewhere, and they will spend their money in the country. I have never been able to understand how the white man’s position in South Africa can be advanced by keeping a number of people in a state of barbarism. I do say that when the men concerned ask to state their case before the committee, they should be allowed to do so. This Parliament is representative of people who have a vote but must also look after those who, unfortunately, have no vote. I would give every man a vote who is civilized enough to exercise it, and I would not determine his right to vote by the colour of a man’s skin; that is an absurd policy to adopt. It seems to be suggested that civilization is possessed only by persons of a certain colour. No one race can claim a monopoly of civilization. The only sound test arising from experience throughout the universe, is to treat every man according to his merits. Under these circumstances I wish heartily to support this motion, because it seems to me mere elementary justice to say that before you lay down a statutory bar by which certain persons will be excluded from doing certain tasks, although they may be quite fitted for those tasks, simply because they happen to be black or belong to the Asiatic race, I say it is only elementary justice that these people should be allowed to represent their views. The least they can ask is, “Before you put the stigma upon us that will be felt not only by ourselves but by our children, and our children’s children, surely you will give us the right to be heard before the Select Committee that is going into our case.” Supposing you cannot legislate until next session because of this motion—what harm is going to be done? The force of public opinion, the power of trade unions, in the Transvaal, prevents these men from doing any of these particular jobs. You cannot impose this fresh bar upon people without giving them the chance of being heard. As far as the Transvaal is concerned, it seems that the position of these people will be exactly the same without a Bill as with a Bill. This is a motion which should be passed by this House.

Those hon. members who have taken up the case of the natives have really missed what is of the greatest importance to the native. The native is not concerned so much with the advancement of his opportunities to attain to certain reserved positions with regard to mining, but what he is interested in, and what the hon. member for Peninsula (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has missed in his motion, is what is of vital consequence to the native, namely, his rate of pay. There are 180,000 working in the mines in the Transvaal, and what they want is not this fine distinction of the action of a colour bar—what they want is 6d. a day more. Why did not the hon. member say that these natives are not so much concerned with this colour bar, taken up for particular reasons.

What reasons

What they really want is 6d. a day more so as to live as more civilized men. When they put that claim forward shall we find the hon. member for Peninsula (South) advocating their case; Shall we find hon. members wanting them to be heard at the bar of the House? When the native miner says he requires 6d. a day more to live under civilized conditions, then we shall find where his friends are! The real object of all this fuss about these natives is to get cheap labour and put it in the place of the more highly paid labour. I am going to move an amendment to the motion by the hon. member, which I want him to accept and, indeed, warmly welcome, so that he can say “We are out for better conditions for the native, and for his higher pay, because we are so concerned that the native should have opportunities of rising to the higher requirements of civilization that we will also take up the position that we think he is underpaid.” That will be a true test, and when it comes, when the native asks for 6d. a day more so that he may adopt some of the advantages of civilized life and take them back to his family, how many of the hon. gentlemen opposite will be on his side? I move—

I have no doubt the S.A. party will welcome such an addition to the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin), as they so sincerely desire that natives should rise in the social scale, and know that this necessitates increased means for securing the result so desirable in their view.

I am afraid an amendment of that kind is quite out of the scope of the Bill or of this motion, so I cannot accept it.

I wish to say that, in my experience as a member of Parliament, it has very seldom occurred that, when the House of Assembly has given power to a Select Committee to call evidence, that Select Committee has passed a resolution, against the special request of Parliament, that evidence should not be called.

How do you know that evidence has not been called?

No doubt that power is left to the committee, to refuse to call evidence, but in my experience that power has never been exercised. If a committee erred, it always erred on the side of calling too much evidence, but I have never experienced a case where a committee has passed a resolution not to call any evidence upon an important subject matter referred to it, and especially upon a subject matter of the gravest importance, because could there be referred to a Select Committee a matter of greater importance than the principle incorporated in this Bill? The principle and the dangers underlying it have been fully discussed at the second reading, and we cannot discuss them now, but in all my Parliamentary experience, no matter of graver importance has ever been referred to the consideration of a Select Committee than this question. That being the case, this Select Committee has decided to call no further evidence.

How do you know that?

I judge from the resolutions before the House.

Where does it say “no further evi dence”?

The committee has passed a resolution that no further evidence be called. Is not that so?

Of course, it appears from the motion.

Here we have a Minister of the Crown, dealing with the highest rights of people, who comes here and quibbles upon an important matter of this sort. Not only natives, but also the other industrial people, the farming community, are all barred by the resolution passed by the Select Committee.

Why didn’t they give evidence in 1911?

Here sits the great democratic Minister of Defence, who is supposed to be the leader of a great democratic party. Last night he was the instigator of the muzzle.

The hon. gentleman must not refer to the closure as the “muzzle”.

It is incorrect, anyhow.

I admit I have been transgressing.

Ex-Speaker!

If you find the leader of a party that pretends to be democratic, defending a Select Committee in muzzling the rights of people, I have no respect for such democracy. But I go further, and say that these natives and Asiatics, who are principally affected by this measure, are debarred from appearing before the Select Committee. Their rights are sought to be infringed by this measure, and the Minister’s Pact party upon that committee have decided that these people should not be heard.

The hon. member is now referring to something that is not before the House. We do not know what took place before the committee.

I conclude from the fact that the motion has been moved by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) that he did not vote for that motion—he and those who think with him. If I am wrong, the Minister can put me right.

I cannot refer to what has been done.

The natives and Asiatics will have no opportunity to appear before that committee, to submit their case, under this Bill, we seek to curtail their rights as ordinary citizens of this country.

Are you against it?

I am surprised at the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh). Apparently he is now awake, and he, who represents a large number of coloured people in Malmesbury, puts a question to me of that nature. Do I understand that he is a supporter of the colour bar?

Of course.

Well, that will be a revelation to the coloured people in Malmesbury. The natives have this Parliament to look to whenever they have a suspicion that their rights are sought to be infringed. I quite agree that the natives cannot appear before the bar of the House, on a question of this sort, because the practice, as I understand it, is that the members sitting in this House are capable of protecting the interests of those people, but this House appoints a committee, and refers to that committee a Bill specially dealing with this subject, and the Prime Minister of this country, the Minister in whose hands the native affairs are placed, gave the assurance to the natives that they could come to this particular committee and there submit their grievance against the proposed measure, and enlighten the committee as to their view of the proposals; but now we find that the Government, of whom the Prime Minister is the head, refuses the right to these people to appear before the Select Committee. I would say, in conclusion, that in this debate a grave responsibility rests upon this House. We, as a guardian of the rights of the people, whether coloured or white—

Native, not coloured.

We have to see that justice is done, and I submit that if we were to refuse the request contained in this motion, we would be doing a grave injustice to the masses of natives and also to the Asiatics, who will be prejudiced under this Bill. The fact that the Prime Minister who is in charge of the Native Affairs Department and is the protector of the natives is not in his place, must come home to all hon. members. I hope when we come to the division that the House will show its magnanimity by voting for the motion. I see that the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) is here. I know he feels deeply on this question, and speaks with conviction on it, but he knew what the policy of the Pact was regarding the colour bar and segregation all through the last general election, when he did his utmost to support the Pact in the Western Province. That is to me inexplicable on the part of an hon. gentleman who conscientiously holds the views he does. I hope we will pass this motion and make it an injunction on the Select Committee to call for evidence.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has made such a very clear and moderate statement of the position that I will not deal further with that aspect of the question. There is, however, one point I wish to emphasize. A Bill of far-reaching importance was brought before us and the House sent it to a Select Committee. The House expected from that Select Committee a report, not merely of the personal views of the members of the committee, but a report which would carry some weight and be of some value to those interested in the measure. Surely, with a Bill of such vast importance, not only to the two races in this country, but to the thousands of industrialists—a Bill affecting some 80.000 farmers and hundreds of thousands of natives, surely the House anticipated that some value would be attached to the report from the fact that the Select Committee, before drafting it, would have elicited information regarding the desires of all the interests concerned.

Two striking facts have emerged. The first is the great inconvenience caused by the introduction of a motion like this owing to the fact that we are precluded from stating to the House what occurred in the Select Committee and, of course, that handicaps us very materially when we reply to the speeches of hon. members opposite. The second fact that emerges from this debate is that we have virtually had a repetition of the second reading debate; in fact it is very difficult to distinguish between what has been said here from what was stated on the second reading. I am sorry I cannot accept the motion urged by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin)—urged, I admit, in very temperate terms. A temperate way of speaking is characteristic of the hon. member, and it certainly tends to make things more pleasant in this House. The simple reason I cannot accept it is this, that we should have interminable evidence simply repeating the arguments adduced during the second reading debate. I was surprised at the remarks of the ex-Speaker, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). The hon. member says that the Select Committee has decided not to call evidence. Where does that appear? The hon. member does not know what transpired in the Select Committee Surely it is self-evident that every Select Committee must have discretion, and a very large discretion, as to calling evidence at all or to what extent. You will find that the applicants who are anxious to appear before a Select Committee are very numerous, and Select Committee have constantly to refuse the requests of the many applicants who want to become witnesses. This House has no right to infer that no evidence was called, and assuming that evidence has been called by the Select Committee, by what right can hon. members say that the Select Committee ought to have called other evidence? That is a matter pre-eminently within the discretion of the Select Committee. The Act of 1911, which was piloted through this House by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, never, apparently, necessitated a Select Committee. Why not? And yet that was a very far-reaching Act. It went so far as to repeal the undoubtedly valid Acts and regulations of the various provinces, or I should say, rather, of the Transvaal and the Free State. I will assume for argument’s sake that the Natal Act did not, strictly speaking, cover the regulations which were used and in force until the passing of the 1911 Act. Why was no Select Committee constituted to go into that? You had section 4 of Act 12 of 1911 dealing with a number of important factors. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) says he has never heard of a precedent for a refusal to hear evidence. I ask him in turn can he adduce a precedent of a Select Committee on a clause of the Bill authorizing the issue of regulations, taking evidence on all the possible circumstances that may arise under which the regulations by virtue of that clause might be applicable? I am almost inclined to defy any hon. member to produce any such evidence given before any Select Committee in the past. This Bill, after all, embodied in general terms the kind of regulations contemplated by section 4 of the Mines, Machinery and Works Act (No. 12 of 1911). It would have been equally open to the Select Committee to have called evidence with regard to the possible circumstances under which these various regulations would be applicable, as it would have been to call evidence after an elaborate second reading debate to go into all the details of possible regulations under this Bill. It was obvious that if evidence were attempted to be taken we should have had to take the evidence of Chinese, Asiatics and natives, and I believe that evidence would have been countered by evidence from the miners’ unions and all sorts of organizations. The thing would become utterly impossible and interminable. For that reason it is not desirable there should be a direction from this House to the Select Committee to take evidence or further evidence. We are not frightened to pass this Bill, and there is no fear as regards the regulations to be issued. I have already dealt with these points in my second reading speech and in my reply, and I will not take up the time of the House in repeating what I said. When regulations are contemplated in regard to the Cape Province, these people will be given an opportunity of being heard by the Government. I defy hon. members to give instances where this House, a priori, laid down details to be issued. This is a matter of regulations. I inform the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), that whatever may have been the legal position in practice in Natal, one Free State and the Transvaal, the colour bar has been applied. I have made it clear, and he agreed, we are not prepared to be thrown on the mercy and indulgence of the Chamber of Mines. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) says there is no urgency, no need for hurry, that the position is assured by the strong sentiment in the Transvaal, but we have the fact that the Chamber of Mines ignored that strong sentiment, otherwise we would never have seen the regulations tested in the courts. Now I come to the assurance the Prime Minister gave to the natives from the Transkei, that their evidence would be taken before the Select Committee. That statement in the telegram to the chief magistrate of the Transkei, was to the effect that the Bill was before the House, a Select Committee would be appointed, and they could give their evidence before a Select Committee. Again I am precluded from saying what occurred, and hon. members are therefore precluded from fully understanding the position. When the Report comes up, I will explain the position fully. I am debarred now from explaining what passed between the chairman of the committee and the chief magistrate of the Transkei, but it is clear the Prime Minister’s telegram could never have been construed into justifying evidence being called, dealing with a matter this House has already disposed of. Even the Prime Minister cannot do that. Then the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) said I had made a point that this Bill was a part of the segregation policy. It does not follow from that that the committee should take evidence. It was a matter fully dealt with at the second reading of the debate, in so far as the general principles of segregation were concerned, and so much light was thrown on this Bill during the very instructive speeches of hon. members opposite, that the Select Committee came to the Conclusion that further evidence would not throw any further light upon it. You would simply have a repetition. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has again stated what is incorrect, namely that the bill goes further than the existing previous legislation. The fallacy he commits is this, in thinking the Act of 1911, assuming that it justified colour bar regulations for any province of the Union did not include the Cape Province. Obviously it justified such regulations being issued for the Cape Province as well as for other Provinces. The fact is that the previous Government refrained from issuing them for the Cape Province. The Government was under the impression from 1911, onwards, that they had the power and it was competent for them to issue regulations also for the Cape Province. That is where the error lies in the argument of the hon. member. It was stated by me that I knew of the telegram of the Prime Minister to the chief magistrate of the Transkei. Of course I knew of it, but I am precluded from following it up and showing what followed on the telegram, and therefore the House is not in the position to judge of the true state of affairs.

What will the natives think as a result of your sending them a wire and then not taking their evidence?

I am precluded from telling you what I did further as chairman of the committee.

You are not precluded from telling us what the natives will think.

I can only say what the natives will think of the communications plus other communications when completed. For these reasons I cannot accept the motion, and as I have said it is obvious that if the evidence was taken this Bill would not become law during this session. It is also clear that any evidence could not now throw further light on this Bill, and if the evidence were once allowed it would prove interminable.

I regret very much the decision to which the Government has come in this matter, because, if ever there was a case in which evidence was necessary, this is one. The hon. Minister has stated some reasons why he thinks evidence is unnecessary, or why it should not be called, and his principal reason is this, that the evidence would be interminable and the Bill might not pass into law this session. That surely is no valid reason. I do not see, even if evidence is called, and that extensively, from people interested, why the Bill should not become law this session. We have still months before us, and I must tell the Minister he will find himself in the position that this Bill will probably come back to the House, it will take weeks before it is dealt with, or if it is dealt with, it will take many weeks before we are at the end of the session, and all that time could have been used in hearing the evidence of interested parties. I can imagine more evidence may be tendered to the Select Committee than the committee would like to take, and at a certain point, the calling of evidence will have to be stopped. This is a case which is most serious, a case where rights are being taken away from certain sections of the community, deliberately taken away, clearly and in set terms by this Bill, and they are not going to be heard. I think this is a situation which calls for the strongest protest from the House, and this House ought not to pass it without the gravest consideration. Rights are being taken from people who are not directly represented in this House. If it were the Chamber of Mines whose views were smothered or any other section of the community represented in the House the position might be different, and yet a wrong might be done in such a case. But the wrong can be righted, it can be punished, it would not be irremediable. Here we have a case where you have sections of the community who are not represented in this House and who will be deprived of their rights without having the opportunity of putting their case before this House. I think that is really an intolerable situation, and I am very sorry that for whatever reason this sovereign court of the nation should be reduced to that pass. I am very sorry for the decision that the Minister has taken. I think a weight is being put on the conscience of this country—a very heavy weight—and the Minister will be responsible and his Government and his party also will be responsible for what is being done here to-day. I am sure that a couple of weeks of evidence taken from the interested parties, especially from the natives and the Asiatics who are not otherwise represented, would not jeopardize the passage of this Bill, but it would ease the conscience of this country. It would make people feel that these sections of the community have been heard before their rights have been taken away. But there is another aspect of this matter that I wish to refer to. I am very glad that the Prime Minister has come in and that he has heard the statement given by his colleague, because the Prime Minister is undoubtedly placed in a very difficult position now. The Prime Minister, when this Bill was before the House at its second reading, was appealed to by the General Council of the Transkei. It is not a case of individuals merely; it is the great organ of native opinion and native organization in this country. They appealed to the Prime Minister in a loyal telegram to be heard at the bar of this House and the Prime Minister answered and told them that that would not be feasible, but that they could state their ease before a Select Committee of the House which was to be appointed. That was an assurance of a definite character. It was given by the Prime Minister of this country; it was given by the Minister of Native Affairs, and for the Minister of Mines and Industries to have made it impossible for the Prime Minister to carry out that assurance is a matter which we cannot pass over lightly in this House. The Prime Minister is really placed in, I won’t say merely an invidious position, but he is placed in an impossible position. If there is one man in this country whose word vis-a-vis the natives should be the law, should be absolutely reliable and dependable, it is the Prime Minister of this country. But not by his action, I am sure, but through the action and, it now appears, the considered, the intentional action of his colleague, it is placed beyond his power to carry out that assurance which was given to the natives. This is intolerable: it cannot be permitted. I wonder what the feelings of those dumb millions in this country must be when they get the impression that not even the word of the Prime Minister of this country is good enough. Nobody will accuse me of any negrophilistic feeling. My feeling is only for bare justice in this case—that we ought to mete to others the measure which we would have meted to us. That is the golden rule which we ought to hold in this House, and it seems to me that when the Prime Minister of this country has given an assurance like that to these people, it should be respected, and I would go out of my way and ask the Minister of Mines and Industries to go out of his way to stretch every rule of law and of procedure, in order to carry out the assurance and the promise given by the Prime Minister, instead of that a very narrow view has been taken of the situation. The Minister says that there surely can be no idea of carrying out the promise of the Prime Minister if it means that the decision come to by this House is to be reviewed, or that evidence is to be tendered and accepted which is in conflict with the decision already arrived at by this House. I would say this, in a case like this, which is not a case of party politics, which is away from the ordinary plane of party politics, which affects the fundamental relations of the peoples of this country, let the word of the Prime Minister be carried out—the word spoken to the natives of this country, spoken to the most authoritative native assembly and organization in this country. I think that those witnesses from the Bunga ought to be heard. I do not want to go into the other aspects of the case. This is not a proper occasion. My point is quite simple. The issues seem to me to be perfectly simple and unanswerable. They are two, as I understand. One is that rights are being taken away from sections of the community who are not going to be heard in respect thereto. I think that ought not to be allowed by this House. In the second place, through the procedure which has been adopted, the Prime Minister is placed in this position, that that telegram which he sent to the chief magistrate in answer to the request of the Bunga, is not to be carried out either. Those are both very serious matters, and I hope, even at this late hour, and in spite of the answer which has been given by the Minister of Mines and Industries, that evidence will be taken. Impose a time limit, if necessary, even if it is only for a couple of weeks, but do not let us create an impression in this country which will intensify the evil affects of this Bill. The Bill is going to have very far reaching effects, not alone in its actual consequences, but in its effect on public opinion, and the relations of classes and colours in this country. But those effects will be immensely deepened and intensified if there is to be the impression that the word of the Prime Minister is not to be carried out, and that the Parliament is not going to give a hearing to these classes whose rights are to be taken away. Don’t let us make the inherent injustice of the case still stronger and worse. Let us give time, even if it is only for a couple of weeks, for evidence to be taken, and let us take this bitter sting out of an Act which we know in this country is an Act of very grave impolicy, if not worse.

Actually again the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)! He is always ready to take part of a matter and to exaggerate it and to enlarge upon it if it can supply him with a moral pedestal on which he can come to rest, to publish his high ethical feelings.

No.

Yes, it is so, and I will at once say why, and why he should realize it immediately. Since I came into the House this afternoon the Minister of Mines and Industries has been speaking and he has made it clear that what members opposite know or pretend to know is only the answer which I sent at that time to the natives of the Transkei upon their request to appear here at the bar of the House. The Minister said expressly that more had been done by him, that further answers had been sent to the natives but that in consequence of the ruling of Mr. Speaker he was now prevented to bring the further correspondence before the House. At once the hon. member for Standerton goes and only takes one side of the matter and gives a long sermon. The influence and the consequences thereof he, as well as every other member of the House, knows must be most deleterious. He knows that he based his speech only on half information and he makes use thereof although it must necessarily influence and operate injuriously on the relation between natives and whites. Now I just want to say something in connection with the statement of the hon. member for Standerton that I find myself in an impossible position. No, not in the least, and I do not find myself in an impossible position for the simple reason that there is the other side of the matter, and that the natives actually were told that they could give evidence, and that they replied “no, we will now no longer give evidence.” That is the whole position. What was my answer to the natives at the time? It was that it would do no good to come here to the bar of the House but that when the Bill had passed the second reading there would be a Select Committee and that they then could come and give evidence. When this was referred to a Select Committee I also said that they could now come. But it was very clear in my reply to them after the second reading that they would not be permitted to give evidence before the Select Committee about matters touching the general principle which had already been passed by the House, and they were clearly told that they could come and give evidence to say what would now be the best way after the acceptance of the general principle of so settling the terms of the Bill that it would as far as possible protect their interests. Thus they were given the fullest opportunity to give evidence but they informed me later that they could not see that it was necessary to come here. Of course I must add that it is also clear to me why they did that. In the first place we have the Native Affairs Commission, a body appointed by this House by statute, as the body to look after the affairs of the natives thoroughly in all parts and to advise the Government. I do not know if I may say whether the commission has given evidence before the Select Committee or not.

You may not.

Now just imagine that. It may not even be said whether the Native Affairs Commission has appeared before the Select Committee. Well, that makes the position impossible and notwithstanding the impossibility the hon. member for Standerton has the temerity to rise here and while representing (I accept this) that he does not rise only to stir up natives, to make his speech with the partial information before him. Even if that is not his intention then he must surely see himself that he does much harm by what he says. It is something that must be challenged, because anyone in the position of the hon. member for Standerton, as Leader of the Opposition speaks outside or here in the House with an authority to which the natives and others feel more value attached than to what comes from ten or twenty others. But if he actually wants to look after the interests of the country he must not make such a speech on half knowledge. I am astonished that the hon. member for Standerton has got up in the circumstances while we may not even make use of what has happened in the Select Committee. With what right does he say then that the interests of the natives are not being taken account of properly? With what right? If the Native Affairs Commission which is the body that must act on behalf of the natives and look after the interests of the natives cannot give the necessary information, who will give it then? The individual natives of south, north or west? Are they going to give more information than the Native Affairs Commission? Certainly not. But the hon. member for Standerton does not bother about that he merely acts as if there were no Select Committee and as if no one had come to give evidence before the Select Committee. We have seen here how the debate was carried on at the second reading. It is no secret that hon. members opposite, at any rate the majority of them, resisted the Bill from the first day it came before the House. It is no secret either that they fought the Bill every minute that they could and thus it can also not be the least secret that they intended in the Select Committee to fight the provision step by step. I can quite understand that hon. members opposite have thus wanted to get evidence from the length and breadth of South Africa to in that way make it impossible to have the Bill passed this session. Then when I hear the hon. member for Standerton I feel that he is more disappointed that they are not allowed to get evidence from all parts and about all kinds of points, than about anything else, because if the motion now before the House is passed where will be the end to the taking of evidence? I wanted to say this in connection with my position and my promise to the natives. Let us now just for a moment examine the motion. The motion is—

I do not mind how many natives are called, but is this actually a subject about which more information can be got than what the sound common-sense of the members of the committee tell them, seeing there is further the Native Affairs Commission? Why then still further evidence? I think the members of the commission are sufficiently competent to decide about these matters. They know the conditions in South Africa and know the differences between the provinces of South Africa. The second point in the motion is the territories; whether the regulations shall be applied only on the mines or to what other industries. The Select Committee will be able to decide on this point also without having further evidence. In the first place, it is something which will be fixed later by regulations and the regulations are a matter about which the Government will have to decide. No one can get up here and say what shall be put into the regulations. It is a matter of policy and administration for the Government and the Government will be responsible to this House and to the people for its decision. All that the law contemplates is simply to give power to the Government to, if they consider it necessary, make regulations for certain areas or industries. With what right can the hon. member for Standerton now say that rights are taken away from natives? Under the Bill not a single right is taken away, not even a single right limited. At the second reading, it appeared clearly that all the authority the Government asked for was that in certain circumstances certain regulations could be issued. Only when the regulations are issued will the rights of the natives be touched, but not before that time. At the second reading. I emphasized the point that we here simply give the Government that right and the Government will remain responsible to the people and to Parliament for the regulations that will be issued. The object of the Bill is, therefore, only to issue regulations, and the Bill takes away no rights from the natives. If this is so, then I ask why all this shouting?

Why then the Bill?

Well that question shows exactly how little members on the opposite side grasp the position. We want the Government to be able, if it thinks it necessary, to intervene. But the Government is responsible to Parliament and the people, and when those regulations are issued then it will be time for the hon. member for Standerton to get up in the House and to show how unfair, inhuman and unjust the Government are to the natives. But before that time has come he has no right to talk as he has done this afternoon. The only right that he now has is to oppose the powers and represent the danger of granting the powers which are placed in the hands of the Government, but he has not the least right to talk of the natives being deprived of their rights. It is an untruth and an untruth which, unfortunately, will have a dangerous influence for our whole community in the highest degree. In my opinion, all that has been said is not a present-day question. All the points that have been raised are points that should be raised when the Government eventually proceeds to the issuing of regulations. To-day we have only to do with the granting of power to the Government to issue regulations and with (he extent of that power.

We have often listened to extraordinary statements from the Prime Minister, but I do not think we have ever listened to a more extraordinary statement than the one he has made this afternoon. The Prime Minister, as I ventured to point out some time ago, on this important question does not seem to be master in his own house, End it is to be regretted that, when a question of such importance, of which notice has been given, was brought before the House, in the admirable manner it was done by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), the Prime Minister—who is also the Minister of Native Affairs—was not in his place to hear the arguments that were adduced, because the Prime Minister, as Minister of Native Affairs, has got far more responsibility to the natives than the Minister who is charge of the measure, and who is chairman of the Select Committee that refused to hear evidence. The Prime Minister has referred to the second reading debate. I was one of those who, having a large number of natives in my constituency, knew how enormously disturbed these people were on account of this measure. More especially were they alarmed, because the Bill would be applicable to the Cape Province, which never before had made any distinction between the rights of all classes of people to take up any work for which they were competent. The Prime Minister has said that these things must be left to the Government. But what is Parliament for, the Government by besluits are going to carry on the whole administration of the country? In that case what would be the use of bringing a Bill of this character before the House and sending it to the Select Committee? No matter how good the Prime Minister’s intentions may be, surely he knows that people are not prepared to give the Government power to take away the rights from the people without Parliament knowing what those rights are and without the people having an opportunity of giving their opinions on the subject. All the mover asks for is the right that has always been conceded of allowing people whose privileges are in danger, of expressing their views before a Select Committee which has been appointed for the purpose, not of reporting only, but of enquiring and taking evidence.

On what?

On the whole scope of the Bill. Hon. members opposite must realize that everyone has an inherent right of expressing his opinion, and if he thinks an injustice is going to be done to him or to any section or class of the people, to have the fullest opportunity of appearing before a select committee. The Prime Minister at the termination of the second reading debate, when I appealed to him to agree to the discharge of the order for the second reading, was prepared to concede this, but the influences behind the Prime Minister—

That is not true.

The Minister of Mines says you cannot wish to discuss the matter after the second reading. We do not want a loud speaker in this House, but when the Prime Minister was prepared to concede to our reasonable request, the murmur ran along the benches opposite “The Minister must stand fast.” The Minister of Mines says that the Bill takes away no rights and that the Select Committee is perfectly competent to report without taking evidence. If that is so, why was the Select Committee given power to take evidence? Does not the Prime Minister realize that what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said is absolutely correct? Does the Prime Minister imagine that natives of this country will go into the niceties of the explanation he has now made?

Quibbling.

It is more than quibbling. The Prime Minister is responsible for 5½ millions of people who look to him as the mouthpiece of the State, and their only security for liberty, justice and fair treatment. The Prime Minister must realize that these people, having received a telegram from him, in which they were told it was impossible for them to appear at the Bar of this House, but that they would have the fullest opportunity of stating their views before the Select Committee, the Prime Minister must realize that no amount of quibbling or prevaricating will ever disabuse the minds of these people, that a grave and gross injustice has been done them. No matter what hon. members opposite may say, this is not a party matter. If it gets into the minds of the natives that the Europeans are going to trample on their rights and liberties without any desire to do justice to them, and without the fullest enquiry which, I believe, was promised by the Prime Minister in other directions when he said that no legislation of any sort would take place which interfered in any way with the rights and privileges of the native races, without their being given an opportunity of expressing their opinion, a serious position will be created. Under these circumstances, I appeal to my hon. friend to throw aside party questions, and to realize in his responsible position as Minister of Native Affairs, that the natives are looking to him for justice, and to prevent what I believe may be, if not immediately, but in the immediate future, grave consequences; I appeal to him to reconsider his decision and agree to the motion. We have an extraordinary position in this country, I speak more particularly of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, and I say that under its wise native administration, there is no country in the world where such a large number of people—some of them only emerging from barbarism into civilization, have been kept in order, and have respected the laws so much as has been the case with the natives of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. There is no other place in the world, no place in South Africa, where such a body of people have been kept for so many years with such a small police force, as the natives of the Transkeian teritories, and why? Because the natives of those territories, and God forbid they should take any other view, had at the back of their minds the idea that the fullest rights and privileges will be accorded them. Surely the Prime Minister has read the Bill, which is being introduced, and he knows he is incorrect in saying—

Why? Even in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, if the desire of the Minister of Mines and Industries is carried into effect, by a stroke of the pen, or a few words in a resolution, you could prevent any native in this country assisting in any way in connection with any farming operation in which machinery has been brought into use. I believe, if we don’t agree with the proposal of the hon. member for Peninsula (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin) to allow these people to be heard before a Select Committee, the harm this Bill has already done will be a thousand times intensified, by allowing the natives to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it will tamper with their rights without giving them the opportunity of being heard. On the Prime Minister rests the responsibility, and I would, at this eleventh hour, because I believe he recognizes the responsibility, express the hope that he will reconsider the position and by allowing these people to give evidence, remove, to a large extent, the effect of a measure of this sort, especially on the natives of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, of whom I can speak with some knowledge.

I congratulate the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) upon the agility with which he has devised a method of having another debate on a subject we debated a few weeks ago. His motion is nothing more or less than a motion that the subject matter should be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading, and that the whole matter should be enquired into before the House affirms the principle. That is the effect of the hon. member’s motion. If you read the terms of his motion he wants that Select Committee to take evidence from every conceivable person who might have any interest in the matter, precisely the same evidence and range of witnesses which it might be right to call when the subject matter was referred to the Select Committee, but obviously once the House affirms the principle of the Bill, it is merely a blocking method to prevent the Bill coming into law this session. The Select Committee exercised its rights in using its discretion to limit the evidence to a small compass. I now come to the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I can understand the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), and others whose careers in Parliament have been brief, being under a misapprehension with regard to this Bill, but I cannot understand the right hon. member for Standerton saying in this House “This is a Bill taking away rights of the natives.” I would ask him this; in issuing these regulations in the Transvaal, did he or did he not think he was acting within the authority the law gave him.

Certainly.

What was the authority? It was contained in sub-section 4 of the governing clause allowing differentiation in the different provinces, which allows different regulations to be made in respect of different provinces or mining districts of the Union. It was clearly contemplated the issue of the regulations imposed a colour bar in one province, and did not impose it in others. Am I correct?

Yes.

If the then Minister considered it was his authority for being able to make a colour bar in the Transvaal, then equally under the same law he would have had the authority to make a colour bar in the Cape Province if he desired. It is misleading the public to say the Bill my hon. friend has introduced does anything more in effect than what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) did when Minister of Mines, and which sub-section (2) of clause 4 gave him power to do. When this original Bill was before the House there was not even a demand for a select committee. They were willing to place in the hands of the right hon. member for Standerton and his colleagues plenary power to issue separate regulations for separate provinces, including the right to issue colour bar regulations in one province and non-colour bar regulations in another. I agree with the right hon. gentleman there is nothing we can do more calculated to lay up trouble in the future than to instil in the minds of the native population that something unjust is being done towards them and an innovation being made that had never been made before. But I say that is just what hon. members opposite are instilling into them. Any time before November, 1923, it would have been just as competent for the Government of the day to have issued colour bar regulations under the Mines and Works Act in the Cape Province as it will be when my hon. friend’s Bill becomes law.

This goes further.

Not one iota further. The same regulations that had been issued in the Transvaal, which were current in the Transvaal until the Hildick Smith judgment; if this law enabled the Government is issue those regulations in the Transvaal and. Free State, that same law enabled the Government to issue identical regulations in the Cape. Province, but we never heard from hon. members over there violent exclamations and tremendous slogans of the natives’ rights being taken away. No, hon. members are sitting over there now and they do not feel the same responsibility that they felt when they were sitting over here. The leader of the Opposition has admitted frankly that this clause was inserted precisely for the purpose of enabling those regulations to be issued. The right hon. gentleman has admitted that it was under this original law that these mining regulations were validated, that the same law which enabled them to issue mining regulations of that character in the Transvaal was the same authority which, had they desired to do so, would have enabled them to issue similar regulations in the Cape Province.

But this goes much further.

We have heard enough from that side. They have put forward their case; we are now putting forward our case. I am not going further than the right hon. gentleman. The difference between his Government and ours is here, without mentioning it they took power to do something that the public did not understand. Either he is correct now or he was correct then. If he says that he is taking away rights, and he says that under this law which he passed he had the power to do so in the Transvaal and the Free State, and that that power would have enabled him to do the same thing in the Cape Province, if he was not taking away rights then it is not taking away rights now under the present law. The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) fell into the same pit. He complained that the Prime Minister was not in his place when a Bill applicable to the Cape Province was introduced in this House. Does he contradict his hon. friend, that under this same validating Act, if his Government had been correct, he would have been able to extend this to the Cape Province?

What I said was that it was a pity the Prime Minister was not in his place when the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) moved his motion.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort spoke of a Bill applicable to the Cape Province in a way that no Bill had been applicable before, and, as for my hon. friend the Prime Minister not being in his place when the hon. member for South Peninsula moved his motion, I think my hon. friend showed a very wise discretion in anticipating that this motion was purely for the purpose of raising a debate as to whether the Bill should be sent to Select Committee before second reading or after. That is all it is; we know that perfectly well, and I congratulate the hon. member on the fact that he is developing the power of delaying measures. I think with a few more years in opposition he may even get to the same pitch of dexterity of a few of us who were on the cross-benches in those days.

Tell us why you are afraid of the natives giving evidence.

Tell us why you have always opposed the colour bar until you got a Wages Bill.

Excuse me, if you look at the Votes and Proceedings of 1920—

The hon. Minister must not allow himself to be led away from the point.

I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members over there find it so difficult to listen with patience when their sins are being exposed that it is a little difficult sometimes to keep to the point, I find in this motion merely a repetition of this parrot cry that rights are being taken away by this Bill. The right hon. member for Standerton himself has admitted that under his own Bill in 1911 these rights were equally able to be taken away by an act of Government by regulation.

Your Bill goes much further.

It does not go one whit further. At least it goes further in this respect, that it says what powers you want to take and it does not adopt the method of the previous Government, that is, inserting something looking innocuous but not having in it the specific purpose to which the Government proposed to give effect. This is precisely the same thing as the Immigration Act of 1912, when a very innocuous little clause was put in and it was said from the Treasury bench that it was going to be put in purely to prevent Asiatics from coming into the country, but we must not say Asiatics. I hope the House will support the Government in resisting this motion, because it will be a sorry day for this House when it appoints Select Committees and does not allow them to judge of the range of evidence required in order to report intelligently to the House on the matters at issue. I will conclude by saying that I hope the country outside, and the native population, will not be misled by these clap-trap parrot cries which seek to make them believe that the powers sought by this Act are any greater than the powers which for 14 years the right hon. member for Standerton and his colleagues believed they had already had under the Act of 1911.

I have not much to say on this debate but there are two things that have been raised lately which, I think, demand some comment. One is the argument which has just been addressed to this House by the Minister of Labour, of all people, that it is absolutely wrong to say that any rights of the native people are sought to be taken away by the Bill. That is his argument addressed to a population of five million natives: That, because there was just as legal authority under the Act of 1911 to put a similar regulation in force for the rest of the country, and because we are now legislating specially to do so, therefore, there is no difference whatever between the Act of 1911 and the Act now passing through this House, and no rights are being taken away. When you are dealing with matters affecting a large population like the natives, you must not deal with high and dry questions of law and logic. You must deal with the facts of history. You must ask what they understand by the law, and what they have had the right to understand by the law was that this restriction on their working, which they have always understood and had the right to understand, dealt with their rights to work in certain capacities on the Witwatersrand, and which they knew had been in force right back to the days of the South African Republic. That was the restriction on their work, which they knew, and I say, if the Government of the day—whether that Government or any Government—had ventured to put in force, under cover of the Act of 1911, regulations such as are now going to be put in force under this Act—

How do you know?

Hon. members on the Government benches have told us so; but I daresay their statements on that point are as unreliable as others we have had. If any Government had sought to pass, under cover of the Act of 1911, regulations of as wide compass as this Bill foreshadows, they would not have been justified in doing so without a similar enquiry to what we are asking now.

Where are these regulations passed?

There have been no regulations passed, but this Bill, in terms, asks Parliament to give the Minister authority to deal with this matter right through the country, and we have been told, not only in this House, but on public platforms, that they are going to do that.

You have not been told that they are going to be put in force throughout the country.

The whole country was told by one of the Minister’s colleagues in Klerksdorp. My point is this, that it is useless, foolish and misleading to tell the native people in this country that no new inroad is sought to be made on their rights to what they suffered before.

It is merely the truth, that is all.

I cannot understand the Minister of Labour; unless it be that he has changed his outlook with his position in this House. I would like to have seen what he would have said when he was in another part of the House. Parliament is the guardian of the rights of the citizens of this country, and for Parliament to hand over a certain section of the community, in respect of its rights to work and earn its bread by its own capacities, to the Government, and say: You can make what restrictions you please in regard to this, that and the other matter is an inroad on their rights. It is no answer to the complaints of those native people to say that the same thing might have been done before. The history of this kind of legislation justly led these people to believe that laws limiting their rights to work in the mines would not be passed without the fullest and most searching enquiry. Another point is in regard to the undertaking given by the Prime Minister. He says he has not broken faith with the natives. What did he tell them? He told them that they could not be heard at the bar of the House, but that they would have an opportunity of giving evidence before the Select Committee. I think that promise must have been made to them at a time when it was in his mind that the Select Committee should sit before the Bill was read a second time. Now, however, the Prime Minister says to the natives “You can give evidence, but only if you accept the principle of the Bill.” You have got to say to the natives something you are going to stand by, and you have not, above all, to give them an undertaking and then get out of it by being right in the letter but wrong in the spirit. If you give these people a promise you have to stand by it in the spirit in which they understood it. I cannot understand the Prime Minister taking up the attitude that he has kept faith with these men, when he has not given them an opportunity of placing their evidence before the Select Committee. We are treading on dangerous ground. We have a right and a duty as the Opposition, to call the country’s attention to this, and if, by our protest, we can secure nothing in the way of concession, then we can warn the Government that in dealing with natives on these lines it will create a feeling of injustice which is going to do harm that no amount of legal argument, no question of fine shades of meaning, will ever help us to obviate. The Government is going to abandon what is its most precious possession in dealing with the natives—that is the confidence that they ought to feel and have a right to feel and it is our duty to maintain, that they will receive justice and fair dealing in the fullest and amplest sense of the word. For these reasons, I regret very much indeed, that the Government has taken up its present attitude.

At this late hour I do not propose—

I am sorry, the hon. member is not allowed to reply. On a motion for an instruction to a Select Committee there is no right of reply.

Motion put; and the House divided:

Ayes—41.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

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.

Louw, G. A.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

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

Noes—59.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers. F. W.

Brink. G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer,

I. van W. Reyburn. G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Swart from service on the Select Committee on Crown Lands and had appointed Mr. M. L. Malan in his stead.