I move—

1. (1) until this House shall otherwise order proceedings on a motion by a Minister for the allotment of time on specified business shall not exceed three hours;
2. (2) for the purposes of this resolution “specified business” shall mean any business specified in the notice of motion for the allotment of time;
3. (3) at the expiration of three hours on a motion for the allotment of time any amendments, other than amendments proposed by a Minister, which have been moved but not disposed of, shall drop. Mr. Speaker shall then proceed to put forthwith, without debate, any amendments which have been moved or may be moved, by a Minister and thereafter the motion, as amended, or the original motion, as the case may be;
4. (4) when the question has been put from the Chair at the expiration of the period of three hours the application of Standing Order No. 26 (eleven o’clock rule) shall be postponed until the proceedings on the motion have been completed; and
5. (5) at not time during the proceedings on motion for the allotment of time shall Mr. Speaker receive a dilatory motion for the adjournment of the debate or of the House unless moved by a Minister, and such motion shall be put forthwith without debate.

I regret the necessity of my moving this motion, but I have no choice really in the matter. Attempts were made to get consultation between parties, and agreement if possible which might regulate the business of the House during this short session on which we are now engaged. Unfortunately those attempts failed, and it has thereupon become necessary for me to move this motion with a view to controlling the length of debates and discussions during the remainder of the session. I should have preferred some agreement between parties. One is very loath to interfere with discussions in this House if it is in any way avoidable.

You have other remedies.

But things being as they are it has not been possible to adopt any other course. I may point out that this motion only seeks for general authority. It is not a specific guillotine motion yet. What is provided in this motion is that a special guillotine motion will be moved in regard to any particular measure where the Government proposes to ask for its application. These special guillotine motions may have to be moved later on during the session, but they will have to be moved in each particular case. All that this motion provides is that these special guillotine debates on these motions shall not be carried on at inordinate length, but that they shall be limited and the limitation proposed to be imposed in this motion is three hours. That all special guillotine motions that may be proposed by the Government in the course of this session shall be limited to three hours.

Even a motion to guillotine the whole Opposition?

My hon. friend had better wait and see what they will be.

That would be a very popular motion.

Such special guillotine motions will then have to provide a particular time table for the measure concerned. That is not done here. Each measure will have to be dealt with on its own merits, and it may be that in some cases considerable more time will be allotted than will be allotted in regard to other measures. I may say, however, in advance, that it is not the intention of the Government unduly or unfairly to limit the debate on particular measures.

Then what do you do it for?

It is a rule of fairness. I do not think when hon. members are faced with any special guillotine motion that they will have much reason to consider the action of the Government unfair or unreasonable.

What about last session?

Last session is the warning which the Government has before it. Hon. members will recollect that last session the most important measure of the session was simply smothered with an inordinate almost limitless number of amendments each of which could be discussed at any length.

And how many of these amendments were accepted?

It is because of what happened last session that this House was driven to adopt the guillotine procedure and in the absence of agreement between the parties we have no security whatever that the same may not happen again in regard to any measures which may be brought forward this session. In those circumstances we are bound in the interest of the House, in the interest of the country, to limit, or rather to curtail the debate by way of a guillotine motion, but I say in advance that there is no intention on the part of the Government unduly to curtail the debate or the rights of members to express themselves within reasonable limits of time on the measures that will be introduced. Yesterday when I gave notice of this motion, the objection was at once raised that the procedure was undemocratic.

Hear, hear, so it is.

Well, I do not agree with that. I admit it is an unpleasant procedure, and that it is an unpopular procedure which should be resorted to only as a special measure, but even democracy requires discipline and control.

You should tell that to some of your troops.

And you should tell it to some of the students at various institutions.

Stellenbosch and Potchefstroom.

Even democratic institutions can be abused and are being abused and one of the very reasons why democracy is to-day unpopular and ineffective is because of the abuses that are made of its free and easy institutions. No, I do not plead guilty at all to an invasion of democratic privileges by introducing this motion. I am sure that democracy will benefit if members in democratic assemblies ….

That is something new ….

Members in democratic assemblies and in parliament will have to show some restraint in debate. I think it is hardly necessary for me to remind hon. members that this gillotine procedure has its origin in the most democratic assembly of the whole world, the House of Commons. It is because of the abuses of debate, the inordinate length to which debates were carried for obstructive purposes, that this procedure was invented. It is not an undemocratic procedure—it is a democratic procedure intended to safeguard the rights of democracy. I say that in view of our experience of last session and the absence of an assurance that the same may not happen this year, the absence of agreement between the parties which we have invited, but which we have failed to achieve, no other course is left to the Government. But we hope to apply it in a very reasonable way so that there shall be no undue limitation of debate on the various measures which we shall have to introduce, and in regard to which we may have to apply this procedure.

I second.

The rt. hon. the Prime Minister very innocently asked the House to grant him certain powers to curtail the debates, and he tells us that he is asking for the guillotine, not in order to apply it at once, but to enable him to apply it later on if he thinks the time has come for it to be applied. This side of the House has had experience of the manner in which the Prime Minister, during the last session, made use of the closure in order to shut the mouths of hon. members on this side of the House and that being so we are not prepared to grant the Prime Minister the power of the guillotine and to allow him to apply it as he thinks fit. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister referred to the British House of Commons and he told us that the powers of debate had been curtailed there, but the Prime Minister refrained from telling us what the position is there; he refrained from telling us that the Prime Minister of England causes Parliament there to sit practically throughout the year, and that he consults Parliament in connection with the war which is being conducted there, while our Prime Minister is acting in a totally different manner. Whenever Mr. Churchill makes a speech our Prime Minister is very keen on having that speech broadcast throughout South Africa the same evening, but the Prime Minister will recollect that the Prime Minister of England told his House of Commons that he would do everything possible, even if an invasion should take place in England by Germany, in order te keep Parliament in session and to keep in touch with Parliament. Our Prime Minister told us only yesterday that Parliament must hurry up and finish the business as he wanted to get back to Pretoria because it was impossible for him to be away from the administrative capital during this time of war. The soul of democracy is the will of the people, the free will of the people, and that will of the people must be interpreted by us in this House as the representative of the people. We must have the right and the opportunity to give expression to the feelings of our constituents. During the recess we go to our constituents and we keep in touch with them, and we receive instructions from them, and then we come here to the House to interpret what they want to be done. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister has not got that contact with the people, and that being so he should, in connection with the measures that are being proposed here, grant us the fullest opportunity of putting forward criticism, and of discussing those measures. If the Prime Minister makes use of the powers which he is now asking for, it means that he is engaged in smothering the will of the people. I again wish to refer the rt. hon. the Prime Minister to his friend whose example he is so anxious to follow, the Prime Minister of England. At the time of the collapse of France the Prime Minister of England said that the reason for that collapse was that the French Government had not kept in constant touch with the representatives of the people, and that he had not kept Parliament in constant session. What is taking place here in South Africa? When the Prime Minister calls Parliament together here, he tries to take all possible steps in order to get Parliament prorogued again as soon as possible, and in order to curtail the discussion of the various measures as much as possible. He does not want to give the necessary time to the representatives of the people in this House to enable them to discuss the various measures on their merits, and to enable them to express their opinion in connection with those measures. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to listen to the opinions which are expressed—we cannot tell him that he must do so—then at any rate let him give the representatives of the people the opportunity during these critical times, when the people are in the dark, to interpret the opinions of the people here. We have the right in a democratic country to interpret here what we feel is going on in the heart of the people, and it is because the rt. hon. the Prime Minister wants to prevent us from doing so by means of this resolution that we cannot support him.

If we look at the motion proposed by the Prime Minister it seems that the object behind that motion is further to curtail the rights of the Opposition in this House. The motion which is now being proposed is to form the basis for a further curtailment of those rights. The Prime Minister holds out the prospect— that is how I understood him—that later on further guillotine steps will be taken, and this motion only aims at the curtailment of the discussions in this House—the discussions are to be smothered. We already have the position that private members’ days have been taken away for a long time—I do not know for how long. This motion aims at a further curtailment of our rights. In addition to that we see this morning the way in which questions put by members of the Opposition are being replied to—and questions are the only means by which the Opposition is able to take the initiative. Questions have to stand over, and we do not know until when. You will pardon me if I refer to the speech of the Minister of Finance made at Orange Grove a little more that a week ago. He said it appeared to him that it rested with the Opposition to uphold the dignity of Parliament. The Government is now engaged on doing the very opposite thing. The Government is not going to uphold the dignity of this House if it is going to carry on in this fashion. The Government has from its side, in connection with one of the greatest happenings which recently occurred in this country, already ignored this House, and now again it wants further to curtail the rights which we still enjoy; it does not want to allow the indignation which exists in the hearts of the people to be given expression to here. That is why the Government has come along with these guillotine proposals from the very first day of the session. We would be neglecting our duty if we failed to give expression to our indignation and to the indignation of the people in regard to the attitude adopted by the Government. The Government pretends that it is still standing up and fighting for democracy and for liberty. I have in mind the words used by the Minister of Justice when he referred to a speech made by the Prime Minister a few years ago in Scotland in connection with democracy and freedom. If we bear those words in mind then we must say that the attitude adopted by the Government amounts to a farce. I am not speaking now of the freedom of our country as a democratic country towards other countries, but I am now speaking of the freedom of the individual in our country itself. Here again we have an instance of the domination displayed towards the Afrikaner. If we, as an Opposition, want to raise our voice against the actions of the Government, we are to be stopped. We are to be stopped from doing our duty towards our people, and the Government tramples on the democratic rights inside and outside of Parliament in a way unparalleled in the history of South Africa.

The rt. hon. the Prime Minister spoke about democracy, but has not democracy in South Africa become a farce? The Prime Minister has developed into the greatest dictator in the world’s history. This House of Parliament is the mouthpiece of our people. We have to interpret what is going on in the soul of the people and if the mouthpiece is smothered how is the Government going to know what is going on in the hearts of the people? We are to be silenced on every possible occasion, our mouths are to be shut, because the Government is in a hurry to get home. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) rightly pointed out that the Prime Minister of England keeps in constant touch with his Parliament, but we here are to be systematically silenced, and I say that it would be a crime on our part if we failed to protest against this action of the Government. The people in the country are in a terrible state of mind, and they are looking to this session of Parliament and seeking for a lead, for guidance. We have a strong and powerful Opposition here, and that Opposition is now being silenced. I feel that the Prime Minister is making a fatal and serious mistake, and he will find out that a reaction will set in from outside, and later on he will have to use violence in order to silence the people. He should allow the people to let off steam and he should allow the feelings of the people to be interpreted here. I also wish to lodge my protest against the proposal of the Government.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister once more, in his usual sweet way tried to make us believe that this motion, of his is very innocent. We are accustomed to that. We had the same experience during last session. Then he was also very anxious to make us believe that it was the desire of the Government to meet us and to suit our convenience. But we know what happened afterwards, and how during last session the closure was applied time and again, and how time and again we had to sit through till the next day, right through the night, and we were not afforded a proper opportunity to discuss the important matters appertaining to the war. The hon. the Prime Minister told us yesterday that the reason why he had to come, forward with this motion—and I take it that it is still his reason—was that it is necessary for him to return to Pretoria. Well, there is no reason why he should not return to Pretoria. If he wants to go, there is nothing to stop him. Possibly we will have less of a dictatorship in this House then. He has the Minister of. Finance, the second man in the Cabinet, to look after matters here. The Prime Minister should return to Pretoria and to Irene, from where it is his custom to broadcast his S.O.S. appeals to the nation from time to time. Then the House can go on with the work. Give us this opportunity, in view of the seriousness of the position, to discuss the measures brought forward in connection with the war. We will be asked to vote another £32,000,000 for war purposes. Let the House have an opportunity of discussing this matter. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to what took place during the previous session of Parliament in respect of amendments which were moved by us to the electoral Bill. But the hon. Prime Minister forgot to tell us that a very large number of amendments, I do not know how many, were accepted, and as a result of our endeavours in connection with this measure, the half-baked Bill of the Minister of the Interior was improved considerably. Therefore the hon. Prime Minister should not refer to those amendments as an argument and a reason for this measure, and for the passing of the guillotine motion. I noticed the other day how the local Afrikaans S.A.P. rag said in discussing this session, that we as the Herenigde National Party had asked for this session of Parliament, and they expressed the hope that we would avail ourselves of this opportunity, and would act in a responsible manner. The men who are acting irresponsibly now are the hon. Prime Minister and his Government. They want to curtail the rights of Parliament, want to smother our freedom, and they do not want to give us sufficient opportunity to discuss matters relating to the war. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) pointed out that we are told continually that this is a war for democracy, and for freedom, and the hon. the Prime Minister is the man, par excellence, who is stressing this point. Yet he came forward with such a proposal. When troops were leaving Durban the other day for the North, he called them crusaders.

Well, we saw some of these crusaders when the Australian troops were here. And the Prime Minister told us that they are going to fight for freedom as crusaders. But here we have our parliamentary institutions, and Parliament is a symbol of freedom, but the hon. the Prime Minister comes along, and whilst talking about freedom and democracy, he is killing that freedom by means of the guillotine motion. This is hypocrisy and cant, typical features of the British propaganda from the beginning of the war. They always talk about freedom and democracy, but as soon as Parliament meets, a motion like the one before us is introduced. We are told in a pious manner, that it is not the intention to curtail our rights unnecessarily, but we know this pious talk from last session. After voting £14,000,000 last session, the Minister of Finance now comes along and asks for another £32,000,000, quite apart from other amounts in the estimates, and he will be able to smother discussion when we want to discuss this matter. We protest against such a violation of the parliamentary rights and privileges of our people.

The hon. the Prime Minister always gives one the impression that he is sweet and reasonable when coming forward with such measures. To-day he got up and told us, in a sweet and reasonable and unctuous way how there was no intention on his part to move the guillotine measure in this House. No, he wants to make us believe that he is opposed to such measures. He told us: “One does not like to interfere as far as the discussions in this House are concerned.” He disapproves of such measures, but at the same time he moves this measure. He comes along and informs us that from now on he is going to apply the guillotine measure step by step. When the right hon. Prime Minister informed us of his intentions in his sweet way, he reminded me of the mother who had to give bitter medicine to her child, and she told the child: “Be good, and take this medicine, and if you take it like a good child, you will get more later on.” That is the impression made by the Minister. He asked us to swallow the guillotine measure slightly sugared—and once we have swallowed this measure like good people, we will get a second dose. The hon. Prime Minister comes along and says that it is not his intention to smother discussions, but what else is going to be the effect of this measure? He poses as a champion of democracy, and in the meantime he is undermining democracy in this House and destroying the very foundations of democracy. The hon. the Prime Minister is curtailing the rights of hon. members of this House. I want to venture a prophesy, and I hope the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member on the other side of the House will take notice of this prophesy. They want to make us believe that they are champions of democracy, but once more we will have the spectacle, as was witnessed during the previous session, that hon. members on the other side are not allowed to participate in discussions. Silence is imposed upon them. Important matters are discussed, matters of life and death to their people, the possessions of the constituents are at stake but they will once more remain silent as the grave, and will not take part in the debates. Why do they remain silent? Because in a typical democratic manner silence is imposed upon them by the Prime Minister, and they obey. We do not object if he imposes silence upon them, but we do not want him to act as a dictator as far as hon. members on this side of the House are concerned who want to champion the interests of their constituents. We protest against such a procedure. There are two ways to uphold democracy. On the one hand it is possible to point out to the people what the position is. That can be done by public meetings, and each side can put its case before the tribunal of the people. Democracy demands that the people should have the opportunity to give expression to their feelings, that matters should be discussed in public, and then the citizens can decide who is wrong and who is right. The Government and its supporters, on the other hand, do not possess the moral courage to put before the public their war policy, the measures they take, and the manner in which the policy is carried out. That is the reason why during the recess we had the position that only one side convened meetings. Why are they not prepared to submit these matters to public opinion? Why are they not prepared to accept the decision of the people? That decision is not tested, because they cannot face such a test. Then there is the other channel. Expression can be given to the will of the people in this House, but the Prime Minister comes along and says that he is going to prevent such an expression of the will of the nation. And yet he dares to stand up in this House and to tell us that he is fighting for democracy. The hon. Prime Minister, when introducing this motion this morning, told us that the application of this motion in each individual case will be considered on its merits. Now I want to put a straight question to the Prime Minister, namely, if he is prepared to allow a discussion of these measures on their merits, why does he curtail the rights of this side of the House? He told us that each measure would be considered on its merits, but will that be possible after passing this motion? I think I understood the Prime Minister correctly. He said that the various Ministers will have the right, during the present session, from time to time, to judge whether a matter is of sufficient importance to allow unrestricted discussion. Therefore the Prime Minister is going to leave it to the discretion of any of his Ministers. That gives one the impression, and one is entitled to come to that conclusion, that as soon as a Minister is faced by difficulties and cannot stand the test, and cannot face up to the attacks made, then such a Minister is going to apply the closure because his case is weak. That will be the effect of this motion. I do not think it will serve any useful purpose to appeal to the Prime Minister. In a dictatorial country it usually does not serve a useful purpose to appeal to the dictator, and in a democratic country it is of less use to appeal to a dictator who, under the cloak of democracy is exercising dictatorship. But I object to the fact that the hon. Prime Minister, since he came into power a year ago, and since he decided that the people of South Africa should swallow the bitter pill of his war policy, is acting in such a way. He reminds one of a doctor who prescribes medicines, and says, “I know the medicines are bitter, but I prescribe that you should take a drop a day in water until the whole bottle is finished.” That is the attitude of the Prime Minister. In connection with this guillotine motion he tells us that he does not intend to apply it, but from step to step he curtails our rights and under this motion he will continue to do so. Any of his Ministers will be in the position to curtail discussion, and to prevent an expression of the will of the people. We represent the constituents, and this is an important session. For that reason I want to lodge my protest against this extraordinary measure at the beginning of the session. This session is the beginning of an ordinary annual session. I asked the Prime Minister yesterday, by way of an interruption, why a special session was not convened. His reply was unsatisfactory, and he has failed so far to tell us why this could not have been a special session. We are now at the beginning of an ordinary session which will be continued next year, and the ordinary procedure is not followed, because at the beginning of the session private members’ days are taken away, and a guillotine motion is introduced. I predict that it will be applied from time to time by Ministers. We have to protest against this systematic undermining of democracy. I do not want to repeat arguments which have been deduced already. I only want to tell the hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues that but for the constructive criticism coming from this side of the House, an Electoral Act would have been passed last year which would not only have been a monstrosity, but which could never have been carried out. In numerous cases our amendments were accepted, and in that way the measure was improved. To-day again we want to give expression to the feeling of the people, and to point out to the Government what position the country actually is in. The Government should abide by the will of the people, and should first get authority of the people for acting. This Government is in power without having been placed there by the people of this country, and when we ask for an opportunity to bring to the notice of the Government the will of the people, we are prevented from doing so, and in that way the interests of the country are undermined. We are at the beginning of an important session, and matters of the utmost importance will come under discussion, matters of life and death. Where the stakes are so high, and whilst the voice of the people is so silent, and whilst hon. members of this House are prevented from telling the Government what is in the minds of the people, we have to protest vigorously.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not also lodge a word of protest against this procedure. To me it is quite clear that the Prime Minister has got totally out of touch with his people. What we on this side of the House feel is that at the back of this motion there is only the idea of domination. The Government wants to dictate to us what we can do and what we should do, but I can give the Prime Minister the assurance that the people are not going to tolerate it. This is the only opportunity we have of giving expression to the feelings and sentiments of those whom we represent, and now the Prime Minister comes along and says that he has to take these steps against his own wish, and he contends that negotiations have taken place between the Government side and the Opposition, but that those negotiations have failed. I only want to tell him that we have tried to negotiate but we find that the Government side always adopts the attitude of domination and we are not going to allow ourselves to be sat upon. We have just as much say here, we have been elected in exactly the same way by our constituents as any of them, and we demand the right to give expression here to our feelings and to the feelings of the people whom we represent. The idea at the back of this motion is this: “You do not want to negotiate with us, now we are going to show you, we are going to rule and we are going to apply the steam roller, and we are not going to give you the opportunity of giving expression to that feeling.” We are prepared to negotiate, but if they always want to boss us and prescribe to us what we shall do, we are not going to stand for it. If we have to negotiate then let us do so on a basis of equality, and not on a basis of the one bossing the other. We shall always be prepared to be reasonable in our negotiations. Now the rt. hon. the Prime Minister comes along and says that it is not his intention to curtail the discussions. Not at all. Well, if that is his intention, why this motion? The standing rules which have been in force for hundreds of years provide that if arguments are repeated Mr. Speaker may be appealed to, and if the debate is carried on at undue length, they are in a position to apply the closure. They have the opportunity under the existing standing rules of curtailing unnecessary discussion. If they have that right why then do they come along with this motion? They only introduce that motion with the object of saying to us: “We are the masters, and we shall put you in your place.” If the Prime Minister knows his people he should know that the people are prepared to take off their coats whenever it is necessary to do so for the sake of the country, but if we simply try to force the people into carrying out the behest of the Government, all sorts of difficulties will be created.

If we look at this motion it would appear that at any rate a few hours will be available to enable us to discuss serious matters; but if we carefully study the proposal, we find that the motion is very much more serious that what the Prime Minister wants us to believe. At the utmost three hours will be allowed for a discussion. If the Prime Minister wants to do so he can decide to curtail the debate to half an hour—if he were to do so he would still be within the provisions of this motion because the motion reads that the discussion shall occupy at the utmost three hours. If we look at what one of the previous speakers has stated, and also if we look at the replies given to the questions put here to-day, the Government, as soon as it feels that it is getting into difficulties in connection with some matter or another—and during this session it will often find itself in difficulties if it gives us on this side of the House the opportunity of speaking—the Government will simply put a damper on the discussions at once, and it may possibly curtail such discussions to half an hour in connection with a specific matter. But let us even take a discussion of three hours, and let us divide those three hours among members on this side of the House and members on the Government side. We shall find that at the utmost two or three members on this side will be able to take part in the discussion, and that out of a powerful opposition of almost seventy members. This clearly shews us the dictatorial nature of this motion and that it is dictatorial for the Government to come along with a motion of this kind, allowing only two or three members the opportunity of expressing their views. It is further stated in this motion that all amendments will drop after a time limit has been placed on the discussion. In other words there may be amendments of outstanding value proposed by private members, but those amendments will drop immediately. Is that sort of thing beneficial to the country and to the people? Can we be expected to submit to anything of that kind? The Prime Minister yesterday stated the reason why he is in a hurry—he said that he could not carry on the war while he is one thousand miles away from Pretoria. But the Prime Minister is fighting a war two thousand miles or three thousand miles on the other side of Pretoria, so what difference can it make if he is another thousand miles away from the scene of battle? It really seems to me as if that is not an argument at all. So far as the supporters of the Government on the other side of the House are concerned, the Prime Minister has already told us that none of them are allowed to go outside the Union. What difference does it make, therefore, whether those people are in Cape Town, or in Pretoria, seeing that in any case they are not going to the scene of battle? That reason for our not being allowed to express the feelings of the people has therefore no foundation. Let us give a serious warning here to the Prime Minister. Whether he wants to admit it or not we are here to-day as the mouthpiece of the people. We heard it stated that hon. members opposite were also going to hold large meetings throughout the country; their Press was full of it. I was pleased to hear it, because I felt that it would give them an opportunity of getting to know what the feelings of the people were. But nothing of the kind happened. There was only a bubble. We on this side of the House held meetings day and night, and we know to-day what the people feel. We can tell the Prime Minister that he is blocking the spout of a boiling kettle, and science teaches us that if that kettle bursts it may do a considerable amount of damage. That being so I want to make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister. Do not curtail our rights here. The people are expecting something of us; they feel that matters cannot be allowed to continue in this fashion, and if our discussions are to be curtailed and to be closed down in this way, and things happen in the country, nobody but the Prime Minister himself will have to take the responsibility. Let us take heed of what is happening across the ocean. It seems that Parliament in England is sitting every day. I have even read a statement in the Press that the Prime Minister of England had given instructions to his fellow Ministers that they must sleep in the Houses of Parliament. We, however, are not allowed to be together, and we are not given a reasonable time for the discussion of matters. We are to be allowed a debate of three hours at the most; after that, the closure is applied and we are not allowed to speak. If I may avail myself of this opportunity, I want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister and to his supporters. I want to ask them this; I want to ask them to bring pressure to bear on the Prime Minister to give us a reasonable opportunity of discussing matters, even if this session should last two months; give us a reasonable opportunity to enable us to bring the real interests of the people to the notice of the House. There are people in this country in this democratic country, who are starving as a result of the steps which the Government has taken to put an end to soil erosion works and things of that kind in order to apply the money for the purpose of carrying on the war. We should be given a reasonable opportunity of bringing these matters to the notice of the Government, of the Cabinet, and of members opposite if they do not know what the conditions of the country are today. If these matters are taken into account, then I want to express the hope that these happenings which took place during the last session will not take place again; that is to say that the guillotine will not be applied often, and our mouths shut in order to allow the Government to have its way. They may score a tempory victory, but it will be a very brief victory, and when the day of settlement comes we shall be sorry for the Government for having silenced us in the way it is now proposing to do.

The Prime Minister mainly tried to justify his case by stating that this motion was introduced for the purpose of protecting democracy. By insinuation he tried to make us understand that he had introduced this motion because we on this side of the House had, during the previous session of Parliament, abused the privileges of Parliament, and that we, in dealing with the emergency Act, wasted the time of the House, and abused democracy. That contention has been made in this House on previous occasions, and it has also been put forward outside this House since the last session. The Prime Minister again repeated it here to-day. We have often denied it, and we have in the country outside proved that that was not the case, but unfortunately we are not yet able to get our arguments and our evidence into the Press which is read by the supporters of the Prime Minister. I therefore want to avail myself of this opportunity in order to show briefly that that presentation of the case is both unfounded and unfair. Let us look for a moment at what happened in connection with important measures introduced by this side of the House when we were still at the head of affairs, and when the present Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition. Most of the people who are to-day seated on the benches opposite were in those days his followers in this House. I first of all wish to refer to the debates which took place during the consideration of the Flag Bill. If we take into account the time spent by members opposite in the discussion of that Bill—as I said they were in the Opposition in this House at the time—without the guillotine being applied to them and even without the closure being applied, we find that the contention of the Prime Minister is totally unfair. If he compares the time devoted by himself and his party to the discussion of the Flag Bill with the time which we spent last year in the consideration of the War Emergency Bill, he will see that he has no right to contend that we wasted the time of this House. The Flag Bill was introduced in 1926. The present Prime Minister on the motion for leave to introduce the Bill—that is on the first stage of the Bill—opposed that Bill and made a long speech. The Bill was thereupon withdrawn, and it was reintroduced in 1927. In the Hansard Reports we find that the Opposition alone made no fewer than sixty ordinary speeches on the introduction and on the second and third readings of the Bill. During the Report Stage they made no fewer than twenty speeches and during the Committee stage they made seventy-six speeches. Those were the speeches which came from the Opposition side only, and if we take the time taken up by the Opposition side—we are not taking into account the time taken up by the supporters of the Government—we find that in connection with the Flag Bill the Opposition alone took up sixty-one and a half hours during the debates on that measure. If we take an average sitting day at about six hours it means that no fewer than eleven days were taken up by the Prime Minister and his party in order to combat that measure. Last year this House got exactly the same amount of time for the discussion of the War Emergency Bill, but with this difference, that we got eleven days, including the speeches of the Prime Minister and members on his side of the House.

It would appear to me that the hon. member’s speech would fit in better with a specific guillotine motion when it is put forward, than on this particular motion.

I mention these details in order to show that the charge made by the Prime Minister in his speech to-day—that he has to protect democracy against abuses by the present Opposition—does not apply, and that it is unfair because we did not last year, in connection with the debate on the War Emergency Bill, abuse the privileges of Parliament. If his argument were applicable to the attitude adopted by us last year, if we had on that occasion abused democracy, then he and his party to a much greater extent abused the rights granted them under a democratic system on the occasion of the debate on the Flag Bill. I further want to point out that the present Prime Minister as Leader of the Opposition at the time of the consideration of the Flag Bill made no fewer than eighteen speeches on that particular subject. He made six speeches averaging forty minutes each, and twelve during the Committee stage. If we take into account the time that was taken up he alone spent six hours on that Bill, which amounts to an ordinary sitting day. That being so, is it fair for the Prime Minister now to want to create the impression outside the House that we are abusing the rights of democracy, and that it is that abuse which is forcing him to take the steps which he is to-day proposing to take. I further want to show what a contrast there is between the attitude of the Prime Minister in those days, and the attitude which he adopts to-day. Take the consideration of the Status Bill. At that time there were six Dominion Party members in the Opposition, and they made one hundred and sixteen speeches. The Minister of Mines —I am sorry he is not here to-day—made no fewer than twenty-eight speeches. We did not apply the guillotine in those days. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) who is not here either to-day, made no fewer than forty-two speeches on that Bill. They had no fewer than three full sitting days to oppose the Bill, yet we did not resort to the procedure which the Prime Minister is proposing here to-day. In view of those facts I contend that the charge made by the Prime Minister, that he is compelled to take action as the protector of democracy, because we want to abuse democracy, is absolutely unjustified and unfounded. We did not during the consideration of the War Emergency Measures Bill abuse our privileges, and no steps were taken so far as we are concerned which can be interpreted as an abuse of democracy. The boot is on the other foot. Hon. members opposite talk very largely, and very beautifully about democracy. The Prime Minister has told us that democracy has become less popular because of the manner in which it is abused. I am convinced that since the 4th September of last year democracy has been subjected to greater abuses in this country than ever before, but that abuse cannot be laid at the door of members on this side of the House. That abuse took place by the Prime Minister and his party opposite.

I cannot understand the Prime Minister coming along here before us with a motion of this kind. I cannot understand his thinking of curtailing our rights in such a way that we shall practically not be allowed to say anything on matters which may be raised here. Surely this is the only opportunity we shall have to express our views. Outside the House we are not allowed to say anything. Nor are we allowed to go to the Prime Minister’s office. If we go there with a few thousand women he does not want to meet us, and now we are not to be allowed to say anything either. If I am not allowed to say anything here what have I come for? I and other members have made sacrifices to come here, and if we are not to be allowed to talk then I want to know what we have come here for? Have we come here to look at the faces of members opposite? My people have sent me here to protest against the £46,000,000 which are being spent on the war. If we come here to ask for something on behalf of the farmers we are told that the Government has no money to provide for their needs. But for war there is ample money, and now we are not to be allowed to speak for those things. We are to be given three hours for the debate, and if we divide those three hours among all the members then everyone gets five minutes for a speech, and what can he say in five minutes? And then we are told that we are fighting for democracy. I have got tired of that sort of talk. We are supposed to be fighting against Hitler, but here in our own country we have a dictatorship which is much more serious than that of Hitler. I wanted to say these few words because I feel that it is a disgrace that we should be curtailed to a few minutes. Outside the House we are not allowed to say anything, or if we do we are put into internment camps, and here we are not given the chance. The Prime Minister says that he has to be in Pretoria to carry on the war. Well, let him go there. So far as I am concerned they can send him to England to carry on the war there. He sits here as the commandant general of our troops and from here he carries on the war in North Africa. He is a commandant general who sits at Irene and talks over the wireless. That sort of thing is not fair, because over the wireless we are unable to talk back at him. Here where we can talk back our mouths are shut. I protest against this and I want the Platteland to know that I have protested against this action on the part of the Prime Minister which prevents us from having our say here.

Last year at the end of the session we shewed reasonableness, especially towards the Minister of Finance, by not carrying on a lengthy opposition against measures proposed by him. The result was that when the Minister of Finance arrived in Johannesburg he boasted that they had fought the Opposition in Parliament to such an extent that in the end they kept quiet. Now his Leader comes along here and tells us that last year we wasted the time of the House and he uses this as an excuse for depriving us of certain facilities. There is no sense of gratitude among members opposite. After we had granted them every possible facility at the end of last year’s session, we find that they axe abusing our reasonableness, and the Minister of Fnance especially made such statements about our attitude. What, however, is most peculiar so far as members opposite are concerned, is that they are unable to face their own people on the Platteland. The Minister of Lands wanted to hold a meeting in my constituency, and he had to hold a bioscope show in order to get people to attend the meeting. He was unable to find out what the requirements and the needs of the farmers in the constituency were. Everyone of us on this side of the House went back to his constituency and held meetings, and found out what were the feelings of the people there. Now we have come here in order to interpret the feelings and the views of our constituents, but the Prime Minister denies us the opportunity for doing so. Latterly, large numbers of people have been dismissed by the Government, especially by the Minister of Lands. We have to come here and find out what is behind all these things, but we are not to be given the opportunity for doing so. I have never yet come across such an autocratic body as the present Government has developed into as a result of the attitude of the Prime Minister, who tells us that everything he does is done in the name of democracy. Let die Prime Minister tell us clearly that he wants to rule on his own, without any obstacles being placed in his way by the representatives of the people. Why does he not simply carry on his Government, borrow money, and do everything by means of proclamations? Then he can come along with an Indemnity Act again. It really does seem to me as though the institutions of democracy are nothing but a burden so far as he is concerned. Let him be honest and tell us openly that he does not want to hear the Opposition. To-day the Prime Minister is in a position to be able to carry through his views by legislation and by measures with the aid of the guillotine, but as members of Parliament in a democratic country we are entitled to air our views, and we are not without protest going to give up those rights and privileges which we have to-day.

This side of the House made a gesture yesterday. That gesture clearly said to the Prime Minister that if he displayed the same spirit he could expect us to co-operate in the maintenance of the highest tradition of this Parliament, and that we did not intend in any way to obstruct the work of the House. The Prime Minister moved yesterday to curtail the rights of private members, but after he had informed us that a reasonable opportunity would be given for a discussion of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition we withdrew any opposition which we felt against the motion proposed yesterday, and the Prime Minister’s motion was passed. The full time of the House is at the Government’s disposal. I had thought that after yesterday’s gesture the Prime Minister would have felt that it was necessary for him to display the same spirit and that he would encourage that spirit. I had thought that the Prime Minister would have realised that this motion of his was unnecessary, and that he would have felt that it was a motion which was defiant in its nature. A motion of this kind is not going to help in fostering a good spirit in this House. The Prime Minister may say what he likes, but this motion constitutes nothing but a fist ready to strike a blow. He says that he has tried to negotiate. How can he expect us to negotiate if he places the pistol to our heads and says: “If you do not behave yourselves as I want you to do, we shall shoot.” Cannot the Prime Minister see what he is asking us to do? Is it right to ask Parliament to forego and to throw aside those rights and privileges which have been built up over a period of centuries? I want to say this to the Prime Minister, and to the Minister of Finance. They tell us so often that Parliament must maintain its dignity and its authority. The dignity and authority of Parliament are vested in the maintenance of its traditions. One of the traditions of Parliament is to be found in our Standing Rules and Orders. Those Standing Rules and Orders are the product of the experience and wisdom of all democratic countries over the course of many years. Those Standing Rules and Orders have been found to be the best for Parliament, not only in normal times but also in abnormal times, and in fact it is with a view to abnormal times that those Standing Rules and Orders have been compiled in the way they have been done. For the Prime Minister to come along immediately there is a condition of emergency and to propose that the Standing Rules and Orders shall be suspended, is asking too much. I am not prepared to take that step in the dark, and together with other hon. members I raise my voice in protest against this motion.

This eighth session of the Union Parliament will most surely become known in history, if we look at the motion before us now, as the “hurry-up” Parliament. Everything has to be done in a hurry. Parliament is as a rule given the opportunity of discussing matters exhaustively. But in this “hurry-up” Parliament everything has to be pushed through at once. The guillotine has to come into operation from the very commencement of the session. We have to agree by means of that measure to enslave the people throughout the country. We as their representatives are not to be given the opportunity of discussing the conditions of starvation and misery, and now the Prime Minister comes along and says to us, “Look here, I am not going to allow any matter to be discussed for longer than three hours, because,” so he says, “in the British House of Commons it was found necessary to accept a measure of this kind.” If the Prime Minister wants to follow the example of the British House of Commons, why does he only follow it in so far as it suits him? Then he wants to go back to Pretoria to run things from there. The British House of Commons sits almost continuously, and they even sleep in the House of Parliament, so that they shall be close at hand in order to discuss matters of importance. The Prime Minister’s object with this motion is merely to avoid criticism, and not to hear the feelings of the people. The only object he has is to try and get away from the criticism that will be levelled at him by the platteland which is represented here by us. He has only one object in view with this motion, “Shut the mouths and enslave members of Parliament; leave it to me to rule on my own in this country and I shall decide what has to be done, and what shall not be done to the people of South Africa.” I only want to say this to the Prime Minister, that that sort of thing may go on for a certain length of time, but it cannot last. He speaks about discipline being needed for democracy. The type of discipline which he wants to apply is the slavish discipline which is experienced in the Russian Army, and the Prime Minister may possibly have to undergo the same experience which Russia had at the time. I want to express the hope that even at this eleventh hour the Prime Minister will withdraw his motion. He said this morning, “It is not the object unduly to curtail debates.” If that is not his intention, why then did he introduce this motion? Are we to be deceived in this way? The right hon. the Prime Minister has been trying to mislead us all too often, and that is why we can no longer rely on his word. I should very much like to discuss other matters, but I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will not allow me to do so. I therefore want to lodge a strong protest to the Prime Minister wanting to apply a measure of this kind to this house. Several hon. members have already shown that in the past the time of members, of Parliament was never curtailed and that the Prime Minister himself availed himself of his opportunities when he was in opposition. If he were in opposition to-day and a motion of this kind had been put forward he would have described it as an act of the devil, but to-day he considers it the right thing to restrain this powerful opposition of sixty-eight members to three hours for the discussion of certain matters, and it is being left to the discretion of the Minister to stop members in their discussions. Has the right hon. the Prime Minister ever reckoned out how many members of the Opposition —even if no member of the Government were to talk—can take part in a debate in three hours? Only four of them will be able to speak for a full forty minutes, and all the others will have to remain silent, and the Government will say to them, “You have no say; the matter cannot be discussed any further.” And then Mr. Speaker will simply have to conclude the debate. Is that fair? Is the Afrikaner people to be trampled on by the Prime Minister and his conglomerate majority? I want to warn the Prime Minister. That conglomeration will not always sit behind him, and the day may come very much sooner perhaps than the Prime Minister expects when a settlement will take place. And when the day of settlement comes he will be responsible for the feeling of malice and hatred which has been caused by motions of this kind through which the mouths of the people are shut. The people of South Africa will not tolerate it. I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister will give the necessary time for the proper discussion of matters. I do not wish to take up any more time, but I want to make an appeal to him and ask him to withdraw his motion. We on this side of the House do not unnecessarily want to take up the time, and we shall not hold up the business of the House, but when matters of the greatest importance come before the House we want to have the right to interpret our feelings. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has already shown how we proved yesterday that we are not out unduly to protract matters, and that we have given up the privileges of private members almost from the first day of this session. But no notice is taken of the fact that we meet the views of the Government. The Prime Minister gives the impression that whenever anyone goes out of his way to assist him he deliberately and maliciously wants to curtail our rights and privileges still further. I consider that he is not reasonable in the attitude he adopts. The supporters of the Prime Minister can naturally be silenced. They are simply ordered to remain silent, but one cannot dictate to the people in that way. A worse dictatorship than we have to-day under the present Government cannot be found anywhere, and I wish to express my strongest disapproval of this motion. We are going to vote against this motion. I know that the majority will overwhelm us, but the people outside will judge and will judge fairly of the Government’s attitude. Surely the Prime Minister with his ripe experience should realise that this sort of policy does not pay, and will not result in quietening down the people in the country. He referred to certain negotiations and he said that we did not want to negotiate. We are prepared to negotiate, but we want to be treated on a basis of equality, and we want to have the right to take part in the debates here, and we are not simply going to accept everything the Prime Minister wants to dictate to us. I therefore express my strong disapproval of this motion, and I want to warn the Prime Minister that he may perhaps much sooner than he imagines regret ever having introduced a motion of this kind.

I feel the right hon. the Prime Minister cannot take it amiss if we raise our voice of protest against the infringement that is being made on our freedom and privileges. By tradition it is Parliament’s right to make its voice heard and to express its opinion in respect of the affairs of the country. The position in our country is very serious, and although the Prime Minister comes here and asks for co-operation we find that the Minister of Finance has stated in this House that the Government does not need the Opposition, that it does not require any understanding or anything of any kind with the Opposition. Is that right? Does the Prime Minister consider that that sort of thing tends to bring about co-operation from this side of the House? Will it help to promote cooperation if the Minister of Finance adopts an attitude like that? The Minister of Finance left Cape Town and, I believe, speaking at a women’s meeting at Johannesburg, said that the Government side had knocked out the Opposition, and that once the Government had made up its mind and pushed its decision through Parliament, the Opposition could not make its weight felt.

Is he already addressing women’s meetings?

The Prime Minister, however, has made an appeal to the Opposition for co-operation, and when, just before the end of the last session, the war condition overseas took a serious turn, the Opposition proved that it was prepared to meet the Prime Minister and make it possible for him to go to Pretoria in order to carry on with the business; yet the Minister of Finance at the first meeting addressed by him, makes the insinuation that we have been knocked out. It may have been a good thing for us to have been given that warning so that we shall not assist the Government again. We are going to fight this proposal until such time as the guillotine cuts off our heads, and in that way they will be able to get it through. We do not regard it as being in the interest of the country that we should surrender the rights and privileges which we have. In these times of emergency we require time to point to the dangers created for the country by the Government’s war policy, and we also require time to draw attention to the precarious position in which the farmers find themselves as regards the marketing of products in consequence of the Government’s policy.

That is a question which does not belong to this debate.

My argument is that we must have time in order to discuss the consequences of the Government’s policy.

The hon. member can raise all those arguments when the guillotine is actually proposed in connection with these matters.

Very well, I shall do so, but I look upon this proposal as a twin brother of the guillotine. If we give in here, the other one will come along automatically. We give the Prime Minister credit, however, for having the wisdom of knowing how to put matters.

May I, as a matter of information, ask what the position is? If we are able to wreck this proposal of the Prime Minister, cannot the guillotine be applied?

I assume that if this motion is negatived, proposals can still be made for the application of the guillotine in connection with any matter that is introduced here, but in such a case the discussion on a motion for the application of the guillotine will not be subject to the restrictions proposed by this motion.

The Prime Minister’s proposal, inter alia, reads as follows—

1. (3) At the expiration of three hours on a motion for the allotment of time, any amendments, other than amendments proposed by a Minister, which have been moved but not disposed of, shall drop. Mr. Speaker shall then proceed to put forthwith without debate, any amendements which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister, and thereafter the motion, as amended, or the original motion, as the case may be.

In my modest opinion this means that we as an Opposition will not be able to move the necessary amendments.

Hon. members do not seem to understand what the effect of the motion is. The motion which is now under discussion has no relation to any matter which will be discussed by the House. The motion is only to curtail the discussion on a motion to apply the guillotine, and not to curtail the discussion of a matter which will come up for discussion.

I am grateful for your correction, that is not how I understood it. Then I want to say that I feel that the attitude adopted by the Government in the past year has not been such as to make it advisable in the interests of the country for the Opposition to surrender one iota of its rights.

I heartily wish to associate myself with the protest raised by this side of the House. We are definitely dealing here with a matter of principle because the freedom and the privileges of this House are being interfered with. The question arises for what purpose the Prime Minister has called this House together if he is not prepared to give the Opposition the opportunity of acting as an Opposition? For what purpose then has this House been called together? If we cannot do anything here what are we here for then? Are we simply to come here to sit and listen to certain legislation without being given the opportunity of discussing and opposing the measures introduced? An opposition is an asset to any country, and I feel that our country should be grateful for the fact that there is an Opposition to criticise the policy of the Government, and to be able to see matters from both sides; that is the only object of this Opposition. The Opposition has come to this House with a view to levelling sound criticism and not with a view to obstruct the Government in any malicious manner, nor have we come here with the intention of taking up unnecessary time. We want to compel the Givernment by means of sound criticism to act more discreetly and more carefully. What is the use of our being here as an Opposition if the steam roller is to be applied to us in its most ruthless manner? If that is to be done the Opposition will be prevented from being an asset to the country, such as it has been in the past. If that is done South Africa will be placed in an unenviable position in comparison with other countries where they have an Opposition which is, and enabled to be, an asset. The world is of the impression that the Prime Minister is a great man. Is this motion really evidence of his greatness? Does not this proposal make the Prime Minister look very small, not only in the eyes of the Opposition, but in the eyes of the country, and even in the eyes of the world? Is not this a cowardly action? If this is not a cowardly action, what then is cowardice? It is cowardly to prevent the Opposition from levelling sound criticism. Those who agree with this proposal on the side of the Government are nothing but a group of cowards, including the Prime Minister.

The hon. member must modify his language.

I say that this is not an act of greatness, it is an oppressive motion which we have to condemn in the strongest language. If the Opposition in a few years time is at the head of affairs, and if it were to come forward with a motion of this kind, what would the Prime Minister say about it? He would damn us and condemn us and he would use very strong language, stronger than the language I am using. Is he afraid of the Opposition? We are not so dangerous. We want to take up a moderate attitude for the welfare of our fatherland, and we are prepared to co-operate for the welfare of our country. For that reason we expect the Prime Minister to amend his motion. It is childish and beneath the dignity of this House to restrict us to three hours. It is ridiculous, and I feel that if this motion is passed we may as well take our hats and go home and do better work at home than sit here as a lot of wooden dolls and listen to the arbitrary attitude of a dictatorship.

I am only rising to remove a misunderstanding which apparently prevails in the minds of a number of hon. members who have addressed the House. The hon. member who has just spoken became tremendously eloquent and I may add that he also became tremendously insulting, and all on account of a misunderstanding. I thought I had made the position clear and that I had explained the motion very clearly, so that everybody could know why the restriction of three hours was proposed. That restriction is not imposed on measures which will come before us here for discussion. Not at all. It is only imposed on any guillotine proposal which may be made here. Say for instance the Minister of Finance comes here with a motion for the imposition of taxation which he will naturally have to do under the notice already appearing on the Order Paper. The restriction of three hours will not be applicable to the discussion of the taxation proposals. Not at all. A number of hon. members are under a misapprehension and believe that the discussion of such a measure will be restricted to three hours. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne), and the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) are apparently under a wrong impression. I agree it would have been small-minded and stupid to have made such a proposal. That is not the proposal. The proposal only relates to the debate on any guillotine resolution which may be put forward. The time table for the discussion of any measure will still be fixed, and I can give the House the assurance that proper time will be given for the discussion of the various measures.

Is it not possible that you may propose that the guillotine shall be applied for instance to the discussion of the Estimates?

Surely we must give the hon. member credit for a little bit of common sense. Nothing is fixed here except a time limit on a guillotine motion which may possibly be proposed, and hon. members have the assurance—and they can see it if they read this motion—that the restriction to three hours will only apply to a debate on a guillotine motion and not to a Bill which will be introduced. I only want to repeat this explanation in order to remove any misunderstanding, and I feel there should be no further objection to the adoption of the motion under discussion.

Motion was put and the House divided:

Ayes—78:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bains, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christoper, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hirsch, J. GHofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, F. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—59:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Quinlan, S. C.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. H. Viljoen.

Motion accordingly agreed to.