brought up the report of the Committee of Supply, reporting the Estimates of Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds, the Estimates of Expenditure of Capital and Betterment Works and the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds (including the Defence Endowment Account) without amendment.

as Chairman, brought up the fifth (final) report of the Select Committee on Crown Lands. [Votes and Proceedings, pages 777-783.]

After looking carefully into this question, I do not think there is any doubt that legislation would be required to make it legal. I would have said to the Committee—

but, unfortunately, I do not think that the Department will be in a position to prevent it, especially after the attention of the country has been drawn to the illegality, because you will always find one man in the community who will make himself objectionable. Under the circumstances, although I would have liked very much, in order to facilitate the establishment of these councils, to have had the resolution of Parliament, I think we would act wisely if we withdrew this paragraph and rather brought in a short Bill of one section simply giving power under the original Act for the purposes of councils of this kind, to look upon such areas as native areas. Under the circumstances I wish to withdraw paragraph (7).

The Committee may simply negative it.

I would like a little further information from the Prime Minister. Does this mean that these councils will not be established this year or that councils will only be established for that particular area which is within the limits laid down under the Act of 1920 ? I would like to inform the House that when this resolution came before the select committee I raised the point that has now been raised by the right hon. member for Standerton, and with which the Prime Minister has just dealt, and it was fully debated in committee. I and other members then considered that the resolution would be ultra vires and of no legal effect, but we were given the assurance that the matter had been considered by the law advisers and was in order, and it was for that reason that we duly approved of the resolution, although I personally stated that I disagreed with the legal opinion. This attitude has now proved correct. If the establishment of these councils has to be postponed for another year owing to legislative difficulties, I think it is a great pity, as I know the natives in these districts have been striving for councils for the last three years.

From the information before me, in all likelihood the council cannot be established, because it will be too small, and I think, from what I am told, that it will be somewhat of a hardship to half of those who ought to fall under the council. I do not say that it won’t, but from my information I think there is every likelihood that it will have to stand over until we have brought in the necessary legislation.

Paragraph put and negatived.

On this clause I should like to say that the evidence we took in committee has not removed many of my difficulties as to the possibility of this institution working. It is a new experiment, one certainly not tried in this country before, to combine in one institution a college to be managed at once by the State and by the university. I do not know how it is going to work ; we will have to wait for the future to show that. This clause contains the principle of the Bill, which was adopted by the House on the second reading, and therefore we were not free in select committee to deal with it. What we did in select committee was to try and make the institution as workable as we reasonably could. I only want to say that I feel considerable doubt as to whether this institution is one which is going to flourish in this country, but now it has been started I hope every effort will be made to make it a success. Personally I have very grave doubts in the matter, but Parliament has set up this institution. I do not want to vote against this clause, because it embodies the principle of the Bill, but I only want to say that my apprehensions as to the wisdom of founding an institution like this in South Africa have not been by any means removed.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

On amendment in lines 58 and 59, proposed by select committee,

I move—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

On amendment in lines 21 to 23, proposed by select committee,

I move—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

On new par. (f), proposed by select committee,

I move—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 16, preamble and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed :

Bill reported with amendments ; to be considered to-morrow.

I have considered this matter and I now beg to move, as an amendment—

Hon. members will see I confine it to investments made prior to the passing of this Act. It is altogether impossible to extend it to future investments of this nature, because that would be going counter to the policy we laid down in order to encourage the establishment of a taxation-free local investment market. We would be putting the investments of Rhodesia in a very much better position than our own, but I agree, in view of the terms of our Act of last year, it would be reasonable to exclude from the operations of this Act investments entered into before the passing of this Act.

I am very sorry my hon. friend has not seen his way to go the whole way in this matter. My idea is that we should have the closest possible relations between ourselves and Rhodesia, but I suppose we will have to be content with what the Minister proposes.

I notice that the two versions which you, Mr. Chairman, have just read are not the same. In the English it says—

Yes, we can’t say “this Act” because “this Act” means the Income Tax Act. It will have to be altered.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I still want to urge the Minister to exempt from the tax students over eighteen years. I consider that where children over eighteen years, for whom their parents are still responsible, are at school a concession should be made. The child is possibly at a university, here or abroad, and it costs a considerable sum, but the parents have no right to a deduction on that account. I do not think the State will lose much by it.

Much.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9 and title having been agreed to, House Resumed :

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading to-morrow.

I move—

The problem of Senate reform with which this Bill deals is to this House certainly not a new one—the subject was one with which the House dealt, or dealt to some extent, some years ago, and the House at that time considered the matter of so much importance that it was referred to a Speaker’s conference. I may say that this problem of Senate reform—the eventual reform of the Senate—was contemplated even by the South Africa Act, and according to that Act, the Senate, as it is constituted now, shall remain unaltered for the first ten years after Union, and thereafter power was given to Parliament to alter the constitution of the Senate ; and pending any alteration which might be made in Parliament, the constitution for the Senate was laid down after the first ten-year period, which evidently was intended to be only of a temporary nature. As a matter of fact, there is much in the present constitution of the Senate which is evidently unsatisfactory, but though that was the case, and though Parliament considered the matter of Senate reform of such importance that it was, as I say, referred to a Speaker’s conference, the matter so far at least, was never considered to be very urgent, and the reason for that was that the whole system as it exists to-day was working smoothly enough. The reason why was that certainly this circumstance—that the political complexion of the Senate, on the one hand, and the House of Assembly on the other, was the same. In the Senate, as it was constituted originally and as constituted now, the previous Government had for its general policy the majority of the elected members, and that majority, which was secured at the election of Senators by the members of the House of Assembly and of the provincial councils was reinforced by the eight members who were nominated by the previous Government, and nominated, as we all know, from their own supporters, Under the circumstances, the Senate fullfilled its function of being a house of review and being a check to a certain extent on the legislation passed by this House ; but the Senate, as it was constituted, and as it is still constituted now, never took upon itself to frustrate the policy of the previous Government. Until recently it never took it upon itself to challenge the policy such as laid down by this House. As a matter of fact, during the fifteen or more years of its existence, apart from what happened recently, the Senate never so much as once rejected a Bill which was passed by this House. It did so only on one occasion—when it rejected the Wage Bill of the previous Government, and I think that we all agree that this rejection was not unwelcome to the previous Government.

Nonsense!

That Bill was introduced shortly before the general election, and after the general election had passed, the previous Government did not think its own Bill of such importance that it took it up again, and it was dropped, and to such an extent and in such a way that when a similar measure was brought up by this Government it was opposed tooth and nail by the supporters of the previous Government. Under such conditions—the political complexion of both Houses being the same—any system will work smoothly enough, but the present position of serious conflict between the two Houses arose only as the result of the last election when the political complexion of the two Houses of Parliament became diverse. A serious conflict has since that time arisen, and the Senate has taken upon itself, not only the task of reviewing and delaying legislation passed by this House, but has most decidedly challenged the policy of the Government of the day, and the policy as laid down and approved of by this House. If we do not, under these circumstances, dissolve the Senate now, wholly or partly, then we have the task, the duty in any way, of legislating in such a way that we obviate such a difficulty in the future. Now evidently the easiest way of dealing with the situation as it exists to-day would be to dissolve the whole of the Senate, but if we with the existing legislation dissolve the Senate that would affect only the elected members of the Senate, and not the nominated members, that is to say, those eight members of the Senate directly representing the previous Government with its policy, will be unaffected by such dissolution. Now there is another way of dealing with this difficulty, and that is to introduce legislation declaring vacant the seats of the eight members of the Senate alone. As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, this will meet our case and our difficulty, because where the position in the Senate is that the Government has sixteen supporters and the S.A. Party 24, if the seats of the eight nominated Senators become vacant, and we from our side should nominate eight party supporters, the position would be just reversed. The Government would have 24 supporters and the Opposition 16. But if we follow that course, then it would be quite clear that we have in our mind party considerations, in the first place ; that we place ourselves merely on the party standpoint. As far as that is concerned, we are not going to follow the example that has been set us by the previous Government, because in making their nominations for these seats in the Senate, they and not take into consideration primarily, as the Constitution lays down, the interests of the non-European section of the population ; but they simply proceeded on the supposition that these eight members in the Senate, nominated by them, must be in all respects party supporters. If we had dealt with this whole situation in this way, that we simply introduced a Bill declaring vacant the seats of the eight nominated members, and should to meet our own difficulties, nominate in their place eight supporters of the present Government, we would follow the bad example set us by the Opposition. The Bill which I am introducing is not a radical one. We do not deal with the whole question of Senate reform in its wider aspect. There are a good many people in the country, and I should say the vast majority of our supporters, who would wish us to go a great deal further than we do go. But, as I said on a previous occasion, we have laid down here the general principle that we are going to confine ourselves to the minimum of legislation in this respect, and if the Senate is to be reformed further, then we are going now in that direction ; then we must leave further reform for a later occasion. The Bill, as introduced by me, now leaves, for instance, altogether untouched, the basis of the representation of the different provinces in the Senate. It also leaves untouched the basis on which Senators are now elected, namely, indirectly by the members of the House of Assembly, and the members of the provincial councils, however unsatisfactory that may be from a democratic point of view. It also leaves untouched the principle of nomination itself, against which I should say very much can be said. I think I am stating my case, therefore, correctly, when I say that this Bill, dealing with Senate reform, is certainly not a radical measure. I think there are two opposite extremes, when we determine the position of the Senate, and of individual Senators, which ought to be avoided. In the first place the Senate and individual Senators must, in the fulfilment of their task, not be, too dependent on the Assembly, or upon the Government of the day. The Senate must evidently not be a mere reflex, a mere registering machine, of the House of Assembly. That is one extreme which, I should say, ought to be avoided, and the other extreme which is also to be avoided is that the Senate shall not be placed in a position to be able to frustrate the will of the elected House and the will of the people as expressed in a general election. In other words, that while the Senate and while individual Senators must be left a large measure of independence, the Senate as a representative body must at the same time be kept in close touch with the feeling of the country, and with the will of the people. From this point of view I think I am right in saying that the present position of the Senate is most unsatisfactory. The Senate certainly does not any longer represent any of the constituent bodies electing members of the Senate. The Senate is out of touch with the Assembly. The majority of the members of the House of Assembly are supporters of the present Government. The majority of the Senate is against the Government. As far as the provincial councils are concerned, who also have a say in the election of Senators, everybody knows that there is only one single provincial council—that is of Natal—where there is not a majority supporting the present Government.

What about the Cape?

As far as the Cape is concerned, the majority is on our side.

When you buy votes.

The position is evidently this: That the Senate is altogether out of touch with all the bodies by which they have been elected, the majority of the House of Assembly, the majority in the provincial councils, and with the nominating Government. We can see to what an extent the Senate is out of touch with its constituent bodies when we think of it, that, if the Senate should be dissolved now, the present position will be altered to this extent, that the present Government will have in the Senate 27 supporters and the Opposition only 13. That is to say that the present Government, if the Senate is dissolved and reconstituted, would have a more than two-thirds majority. Under the circumstances, whether we do not dissolve the Senate, or whether we do not propose to declare vacant the seats of the nominated members, it does show a very large measure of restraint on the part of this side of the House. Members on the other side of the House, in defending their position, and in criticizing ours, take refuge in the contention that the Senate is not a party body. I do not think that anybody, with a view to recent happenings in the Senate, and with a view to practically every division that has taken place in the Senate, will be able to say that, with any measure of justification. Practically every division in the Senate takes place on party lines and, not long ago, when we had a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament, it was evident, even by such a small matter as the taking of seats by hon. senators on the one side of the House or the other, than the Senate was, as much as this Assembly, a party political body, a body where members take sides on the side of one political party or the other. The Bill proposes to leave the Senate, as it is at present composed and constituted, untouched and, as such, the independence and stability of the Senate, as it exists to-day, will be maintained ; but at the same time, the Bill proposes to create such a position that it will be insured for the future that the will of the popular House and the will of the people, as expressed in a general election, will ultimately prevail.

It does that now.

As hon. members will see, the Bill proposes, in the first place, to alter the provision in the South Africa Act relating to the dissolution of the Senate. As that clause, clause 20, of the South Africa Act, stands now, it is provided that the Senate can be dissolved, but that it shall be dissolved simultaneously with the Assembly. Now it is quite clear what the intention of this particular provision is. The Senate is not, and was never intended to be, a sort of House of Lords for South Africa. It was intended to be, in a certain measure at least, a representative body. It was intended that the Senate should always keep in touch with the will of the people and, therefore, this expedient was introduced into our constitution, of dissolution of the Senate, which is the ordinary expedient to keep all representative bodies in touch with those who elect them. As the clause stands now, it must be quite evident to all hon. members that it defeats its own object. A dissolution of the House of Assembly naturally can take place only on the initiative and by the decision of the Government existing at the time. If there is to be a change of Government to follow that, as a result of the general election, then we must see that only the outgoing Government has a chance of dissolving the Senate. If the Senate approves or has approved in the past, the general policy of the outgoing Government, it is very unlikely that, in dissolving the Assembly, the outgoing Government will also dissolve the Senate. If the general election takes place after that, and a change of Government results, then the incoming Government will have lost its chance of dissolving the Senate, and they will be in the same position as we find ourselves to-day, that they will be saddled with a politically hostile Senate, frustrating their measures. Under the circumstances, it is altogether impossible to bring the Senate into, and to keep it in close touch with, the House of Assembly, and the expressed will of the people. For all practical purposes this provision, which we have in section 20 of the South Africa Act is, therefore, useless. It is now proposed, in the first section of our Bill, to maintain this position that we have had, namely, to have a dissolution if that is resolved upon, of the Senate, at the same time as we have the dissolution of the Assembly, that is to say, in future, if this Bill becomes law, the Senate will be able to be dissolved only in conjunction with the dissolution of the Assembly. In that way we maintain the Senate’s independence and its stability, and by altering the provisions of section 20 in such a way that, not only the outgoing, but also the incoming Government will have an opportunity shortly after the result of the election of the Assembly is known to dissolve the Senate, but also the incoming Government will have an opportunity to dissolve the Senate, and an opportunity will also be afforded the new members of the Assembly to cast votes for members of the Senate. In that way also the Senate will be kept in touch with the will of the Assembly and the people. And in that way agreement will be established between both Houses of Parliament. The second provision of the Bill affects the position of nominated members. As matters stand according to the South Africa Act the nominated members of the Senate are in a better position than the elected members. The elected members of the Senate are affected by dissolution, but the nominated members are not affected at all. Why this provision should have been introduced into the South Africa Act will always be a mystery to those who study the Act. The National Convention was undoubtedly a very wise body ; by some it is considered so wise that nothing in the constitution which they drew up has ever to be altered at all. But in this particular case in putting the nominated members of the Senate in that privileged position, their wisdom is so profound that it is impossible for any body other than themselves to see it. What is now proposed in regard to the nominated members is this: If they are nominated by a Government they shall remain in office for ten years, or until the next dissolution of the Senate. That is to say they will be placed, as far as that is concerned, altogether on an equal footing with the elected members, or they shall remain in their positions until there is a change of the Government.

What is a change of Government ?

When there is another Prime Minister. The third provision affects the part of the Senate as far as the legal effect of legislation goes. The power of the Senate is at present limited to some extent ; it is limited under section 33 as far as money bills are concerned. If there is a disagreement between the two Houses on a money bill it is provided in the South Africa Act that there shall be a joint sitting, which may be held during the same session as that in which the disagreement arose. As far as that is concerned, our Bill leaves the present position unaltered, but the power of the Senate is also limited to-day in another respect. If the Senate should reject, or should vitally amend any Bill which has been passed by the Assembly, and the Assembly abides by its decision, then that measure has to be passed in the same way again by both Houses the next year, and only after that a joint sitting may be held, and then the Senate in that joint sitting can prevail if they succeed in getting a majority of both Houses. Under existing circumstances where the present Government has a large majority in this House and has a majority in a joint sitting of both Houses, the difficulty is not so great. The difficulty only arises in the delay which is occasioned by following the present procedure. But it is quite conceivable that we might have a Government which has not such a large majority in this House, and under those circumstances it is quite conceivable that, in a joint sitting, the will of the Senate will be able to prevail—that is to say the will of that House which is not elected, and which does not directly represent the people. Certainly that is not a position which ought to be tolerated in a democratic country.

That has not happened yet.

Under these circumstances the only possibility of dealing effectively with this position, not so far as the present Senate is concerned, because they are left untouched, but in the future is to limit the power of the Senate to one of delay merely. Therefore, what we propose to do is that, if a measure passed by the Assembly and rejected by the Senate, is passed in the next succeeding session by the Assembly again, it becomes law.

You make the Senate into a rubber stamp.

I think from what I have said it must be quite clear that this measure does certainly not go so far as it might have gone—it certainly does not go so far as our supporters want us to go. It does not affect the position of the Senate as it exists to-day, and therefore, it cannot be said with justice that we have placed ourselves on a party standpoint. We don’t look in the first place for party advantage. On the contrary I should say that seeing the provisions of the Bill will really come into operation, as far as the dissolution of the Senate and the position of the nominated members are concerned, after the next dissolution of the Assembly, and seeing that members of the other side of the House think that, with the Union Jack in their hands, they are going to sweep the boards, this Bill must be considered to be a measure for the relief of the South African party. If the South African party oppose this Bill, then they oppose their own salvation. It has been said that this measure is not very urgent. It is urgent in this way, that we must take cognisance of the fact that there is a possibility that this Bill although passed by this House may be rejected by the Senate, and if that is the case we must, to put the Bill on the statute book, follow the procedure laid down by the law as it exists. Then we should have to wait until next year to put this Bill on the statute book.

Why not the year after the general election?

This is a Bill for the relief of the South African party. If we are going to put the Bill on the statute book before the next general election the sooner the better. I wish to move the second reading.

At the risk of being guilty of gross ingratitude I rise to express opposition to this Bill. Even although it is going to be a measure of relief to the party to which I belong we are quite confident enough of our own future to be willing to go on as we are at present in regard to the constitution of the Senate. We have had from the Minister of the Interior a very interesting address on the constitutional relations between the two Houses, mingled with some gleams of humour, both conscious and unconscious. It is quite clear what the object of the Government is. They want to have in the Senate an independent body, but it must never go against the Government of the day ; independence up to a point, but the Senate must never take any decision which is unwelcome to the Government of the day. It reminds me of an anecdote of some ancient English monarch who, when approached by the Commons and asked for the right of free speech, replied: “Freedom of speech you shall have, but if you meddle in matters above your concern, look out !” Yes, the Senate shall be independent, but if it registers a decision contrary to the Government of the day, off with their heads.

That will never be the case with your nominees.

It is going to be the case with the whole lot.

What about Section 63 of the Act of Union ?

The object of Section 63 is to allow the Government of the day to have its way if it is strong enough to carry it at a combined sitting of the Senate and the Assembly, not to thwart the will of the people, but to interpose a certain delay between the decision come to by the House of Assembly which is regarded as undesirable by the Senate.

The delay is safeguarded here.

No. It is safeguarded in a way, but it is taken away in reality, because the Government of the day is going to get the Senate constituted as regards its politics like itself. The object of this Bill is perfectly clear. They are not going as far as they might go, as the Minister said, but they are going as far as that in reality, though not in name. Anyone who knows what happened at the National Convention knows that this question of constituting a second chamber was a matter of the greatest difficulty. Everybody, I think, there was agreed that there should be a second chamber, but the great difficulty was to constitute a second chamber which should be able to exercise an independent judgment, and yet should not be put into a position to thwart the will of the elected House. That was the problem. You must look to what has happened in other parts of the world. In Canada the Senate is nominated by the Government. Any vacancies that fall due are filled by the Government, and the members sit for life, not for ten years. That constitution has gone on in Canada for 60 years. I do not say that it is a desirable method of constituting a second chamber.

It will be preferable to your nominee system of to-day.

No, I cannot see one particular point in which

These may be the minions of the Government of the day.

Perhaps the Prime Minister is thinking of that as a radical reform for our present Senate. That was the problem that was before the convention. It was a matter of the greatest difficulty to constitute a body which should not be a mere reflex of the elected House to bring to bear upon the business of the country different points of view, and yet not be in a position to thwart the will of the elected body if the elected body thought to to go on. You might have circumstances where that joint sitting might have a result contrary to that of the elected House. That would only be an extreme case of what the second chamber was intended to do, and that is, not to thwart, but to delay. The need for a second chamber is felt in most civilized countries, in most democratic countries, but here in South Africa a second chamber has in some ways a more important function than an ordinary second chamber in other countries. The second chamber of this country is, jointly with this House, made the guardian of certain entrenched clauses in our constitution. There are certain clauses in the constitution which were regarded as so important that they should not be subject to alteration by an ordinary Act passed by this House, but that the two Houses should sit together and that the Hill should only become law when carried by a majority of two-thirds of both Houses sitting together. It is true that this Bill does not affect that particular provision, but it profoundly modifies the constitution of the Senate because it is going to give you a Senate reflecting politically, as far as it can be made to do, the political constitution of this House.

What has happened during the last 16 years?

During the last 16 years only two such questions have arisen.

Has not the Senate up to now been in accord with the Government of the day ?

That may be, but that is because of its constitution. The point I put to the Minister is a bigger one, and that is that the constitution of the Senate as it stands now is a greater safeguard against hasty legislation by the party which may be in power for the time being, than the one which they are trying to create. This is one that is simply going to reflect the political constitution of the House of Assembly, and that, I say, was not intended by the constitution, and it is a grave departure from the constitution. Hon. members opposite feel it keenly that, by the fortune of war, the Senate, as it is now to a large extent in regard to some of its later acquisitions, was constituted when a Government differing from theirs was in power. That was one of the contingencies that was contemplated when the Senate was formed—that it would have that effect, that a change of Government would not be instantaneously reflected in the Senate, and therefore you would have, possibly, a greater measure of delay in getting measures through which were wanted by the new Government, than if the political constitution of the two were the same. But that is not a reason for dashing into changes of constitution. That is a fact which is going to tell both ways. If you come to facts, what has this present Senate done that can justify an accusation against it that it is thwarting the will of the people and acting purely in a political sense? What facts has the Minister there to substantiate a charge of that kind ? The only striking fact that the Minister gave us in support of that charge was that at a joint sitting the members of the Senate ranged themselves on different sides of the House. What have they done to thwart the will of the present Government which showed that they acted merely from political considerations? If the Electoral Bill had been voted upon on purely party lines, that Bill would not have been passed. The Senate made a small amendment which the Minister, in a moment of miscalculation, I think, refused to accept. He withdrew that Bill because of the little amendment which the Senate made. Next year when they sent it up, the Senate passed it. I challenge the Minister to prove a well-founded accusation against the Senate of having acted purely on party political lines. The Bill that they have thrown out since the present Government came in is the Colour Bar Bill, and I ask the Minister to consider reasonably whether that is not a Bill which demands scrutiny and even rejection by a second chamber so as to give the country time to consider its provisions. After the Senate threw out that Bill, the Prime Minister himself said—I do not say he went so far as to give his approval to the action of the Senate—he said that that Bill was more in place in the general policy which be had in mind than in the form of an isolated Bill. That is exactly what the Senate said. If the Minister thinks that he is going to get a Senate consisting of men who have no party ties, who have no party allegiance of any kind, he is looking for the millennium. You will never get men taking part in public life—

Have we to take it that the National Convention was looking for the millennium ?

The National Convention never thought, as far as I know, that it was going to get a Senate constituted of men of no political ties, but I say that the National Convention have been justified in their ideas of what a Senate should be. They have not exercised their power on party lines, they have acted as a chamber of review and they have thrown out Bills which they considered that from the interests of the country they were justified in doing. They threw out this Bill that was referred to by the Minister which was put before them by the late Government, that is the Wage Bill. They threw it out because they said it was too important a Bill to be thrown at them in the last days of the session.

That was a Government Bill. If that Bill had been thrown out by this House the Government would have had to resign. The Government were just as much committed to that Bill as to any other they bring forward. I think it was a perfectly justifiable and valid reason. They threw out the Colour Bar Bill because they thought that was a Bill where the second chamber should intervene. I do think it is a deplorable thing that this Ministry of short cuts should come along, and because the Senate have acted contrary to its will in a Bill of the magnitude and importance of the Colour Bar Bill, they come along and put a knife into the constitution.

It all presupposes a dissolution of the Assembly.

It presupposes more than that. It means when there has been a general election the new Government can dissolve the Senate and get it elected according to its own views. A great deal has been said about the right of Government nominations. That nomination was given in order to provide to a certain extent for the representation of people who have no other representation in Parliament. That I think is a principle which it will be very inadvisable for the Government to depart from.

As it happened they were all South African party men. That was an accident ?

It is an accident that is apt to happpen.

When your leader declared three years ago that he was going to appoint no one but South African party men ?

I do not remember that declaration. I know that governments in power are always apt to appoint people who hold their own particular views, and I should be very surprised if this Government is going to be an exception. In spite of the high-flown sentiments of the Minister this Government and most other Governments will do the same thing. That is part of the intention of the constitution of the Senate, that there should be a nominated element to represent in part certain sections of people who have no representation in Parliament ; to give people a chance of coming to the Senate who are not likely to be elected in the ordinary way by Provincial councils or by members of this House, and to give a wider field of choice. I challenge the Minister to say that that right has been abused, that any of the men appointed to the Senate are men not worthy to be there. If they happened to vote for the Government which appointed them I expect the nominees of our friends over there will do exactly the same. That is part of the balance which this element in our constitution is intended to provide. But what is going to happen to these nominations now ? When we get a new Prime Minister, so the Minister tells us, out they go. What kind of constitution-making is that ? I see nothing to justify the introduction of this Bill and nothing to commend it to this House or the country. It is a method of rendering the second chamber practically impotent. It is a method of getting from them a mere confirmation of party action in the House of Assembly. We hold it should do more than delay ; that it should be in a position where if the Government of the day is trying to force something on the country by a narrow majority it should have the power to hold that up so as to force the Government, if necessary, to go to the country. That is the constitution of the country as we have it. That is the constitution that was drawn up by the National Convention. Although I agree with the Minister that there is no reason to credit the men who sat on the National Convention with anything like inspiration, or to say that anything they did should never be altered, at any rate those men were sitting in a very different atmosphere from that in which we sit here, and the things they laid down, looking as far as they could with a single eye to the future good of the country, should not be rashly tampered with by a body affected by political considerations, which is swayed by party passion, which, because it has had a check, wants to put a knife into one of the most fundamental parts of the constitution. That is a step that ought not to be lightly taken, a step which nothing has happened in the history of the Union so far to justify. It is the step, like many others the Government have taken, of the short cut. They must have their will ; there must be no delay. I warn them they are doing a very serious thing. They are doing something which some day, before long, they may regret. The constitution was not drawn up to serve one particular Government or one particular set of circumstances, but to last at any rate for a very considerable period, beyond the ordinary span of human life. I think it has served its purpose well and it will continue to do so. Do not let us, in a moment of haste and impatience, because something has happened to prevent the Government getting its way, do not let us disturb this important part of the constitution and render impotent what is a most important safeguard not merely against hasty legislation, but for those parts of our constitution which were regarded as so sacred that they required more than usual protection against change. We are doing something to weaken the stability of government in this country: to break down what in South Africa we above all require, and that is a barrier against hasty legislation. Therefore I would ask the House to pause before it accepts this Bill and as far as I am concerned I shall vote against it.

I think the fairness of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was conspicuous in his speech. He could not make too strong an attack upon the Bill because his fairness showed him that the provisions of this Bill are eminently fair and reasonable, and so we had from him a very weak attack upon it. I may be in a somewhat different position from some members, but years ago I held the view very strongly, and I hold it to-day, that your Senate is not a necessary body and the Senate as a whole should be abolished. What is more, I am quite certain that if that matter were put to the vote in this House the majority would vote in favour of the retention of the Senate, but there would be dozens among those who, in their hearts, are against the continuance of the Senate. I do not want to accentuate that. Your Senate is a body which will either have the same view as the House of Assembly or a different view. If it has the same view there is not much point in its continuance ; if it has a different view it can only delay the proceedings for about a year, and the will of the Assembly will prevail in the end. In 999 cases out of a thousand you can say your Senate is an unnecessary body. I am not going to urge that, but at the time the late Government was in office that was my view and I have seen no reason to change it. Holding that belief, of course, it may influence my views on this Bill as a whole. Now we come to the position under the South Africa Act. I quite admit members of the Convention were sitting in a very different atmosphere from the people who are dealing with the ordinary political rough and tumble. I admit that at once. But what was their idea in regard to the nominated senators who would hold office for 10 years, or for a longer period than your ordinary senator whose office terminates with this dissolution of the Senate? You would expect that your elected people would have a longer term of office than nominated persons. What is the reason of that? Either, sitting in that political atmosphere, they thought that the Government of the day would appoint eight men who would roughly correspond to the political complexion of parties in the House of Assembly, or secure the stability of that Government beyond the term of its office. It is obviously wrong, of course, that your nominated senators should carry on the spirit of that Government into the future.

They were appointed to represent the natives.

That is a palpable fiction. In what way does Brig.-Gen. Opperman represent the natives? I will be glad to know, because I have been trying to solve that problem for years without success. How that power has been used, and how it has been abused does not enter into the matter. When it comes to the present Government to appoint senators, it is our duty to carry out the policy of the past, and appoint eight senators from the Pact. Would any hon. member say it would be a right position, if we were to vacate office, that our nominated senators should remain in existence, and exercise, I will not use the word “thwarting,” but a hampering influence on any successive administration? This Bill does not look to the past but to the future.

Where have you been hampered ?

I am looking to the future, not to the past.

What is the urgency now ?

You should not worry about this ; it is not an urgent application to court.

Why bring it forward now ?

Because the principles are small and narrow.

Why “narrow”?

I am using the word “narrow” in the sense of the law. The flamboyant attitudes of the right hon. member for tort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) are not suited to a legal atmosphere. As a matter of fact, it is fairer and more sporting that, when a Government goes out of power, the nominated senators of that Government should also go out of power. Is that not a sporting and a fair view ? Is that not the way that anybody that has a knowledge of fair play would take? You do not give weight to a football match to get a majority against the other side?

Do you regard politics as a game of football?

I regard politics and everything we do in this life as very largely a game—a very serious game in many respects—but unless we see it as a game, we cannot enter into that sporting spirit which we should enter into. I am not talking about bowling greens at present. I am not certain whether the people who play bowls have the real proper sporting spirit. But, as I say, there is this narrow point, and I have to use this word “narrow” because it expresses the position we take up here—a narrow point for discussion and decision, and it is that our nominated senators are not in the same position as elected senators. You must sooner or later do something that is unfair, because it is unfair that the nominated senators of one administration should be allowed to hamper another administration. We must look to the following general election. I am not one of the persons who think that the Senate has hampered us unduly in the attitude they take up. I do not take up that position and in that I differ from a large number of members on the Government benches, and people in the country. They are always obsessed with what is going to happen in the future. This Bill makes a change in the direction of fairness. It is a fair position, and it assists any administration which comes into power, and I do not see any reason whatever why a future administration should be hampered by a legacy from a past administration. It is also an important improvement in the direction of fairness and justice. I can understand hon. members of the Opposition taking the view they do—they have an advantage in the present position, and that advantage may be taken away, and therefore, they say, we are going to oppose this strenuously. If they look to the future, no hon. member of the Opposition is going to say that the provision is not a fairer one. I appeal to all sections to support it. As to the second section, I cannot see any real, trouble with regard to that. After all, it only puts the position, in this country, of your House of Lords to-day in England. Where the House of Commons passes legislation, in two succeeding sessions, in the second session I think it becomes law.

They must reject it twice.

That may be ; but in the end it is passed without a joint sitting. I admit there is this difference between the position of the House of Lords and the Senate, and that is that the House of Lords is, in no sense of the word, an elected body, while the majority of the Senate is elected— indirectly by the provincial councils and the House of Assembly. But if the argument is used against this on that count, it rather strengthens the argument on the other points. If you are going to treat this body as an elected body, your nominated senators should not have greater rights than your ordinary senators, who are placed in the Senate by an elective vote. But I also admit one matter that the hon. member for Yeoville ( Mr. Duncan) put up against this side of the House. He said we are in a hurry, and that we are trying to put measures through so fast that if anything happens to hold up the progress of measures, we wish to remove it. I quite admit that. My feeling has always been—I may be entirely wrong—that the proceedings of the House of Assembly and Parliament are too slow, and I am rather in favour of hurrying up these proceedings as much as possible without impairing efficiency, and making this more and more a business institution. For instance, if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) were to run his commercial business in the same way as we run the business of the country, I would be very much surprised if at the end of the year he was solvent.

Why not legislate by proclamation altogether ?

That is to abolish parliamentary institutions. Surely there is a via media in these things. Surely things can be accelerated a bit, without frightening everybody, short of Government by proclamation. There is a good deal to be said for that, too, but I am not going into that aspect of the question to-day. There are a number of instances where one sees things you would like very much to do at a moment’s notice ; but I am not advocating that course to-day. But there should be some acceleration, and anything that can do that properly is something to which I would give my wholehearted support. One argument which I think I have dealt with was brought forward by the hon. member for Yeoville, who said that the Government wants simply to reflect the position of the Government of the day in the Senate. I might give the other view and say that the view of the Opposition is that the Senate should reflect the policy of the Government of the past day. It is better that they should reflect the policy of the Government of the day rather than of the past. That seems to be a more sensible view. I have no complaint to make as far as the Senate is concerned. They did to a certain extent wreck one of my measures, but they were entitled to have their view on that point, and I hope I shall come to the fray with renewed strength next year, and I hope I will have the wholehearted support of the Opposition on this point, as I had this year. We are looking to the future. I have no information on the point ; but I have no doubt that your nominated senators to day attend party caucuses, and will do so in future, whether their offices terminate at dissolution or not, and it may be that at a future stage one will feel there should not be nominated senators at all. For reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the proceedings of the present Senate, I have felt for years that there is no need for that body. On the ground that the first provision is fair, and the second accelerates the business of Parliament, this Bill should commend itself to all members of this House.

The Minister of Justice has made a very ineffective attempt to defend this radical change in our constitution.

It is not radical.

The Minister of Justice has looked upon this subject, as he said himself, as part of the game.

I did not say that either.

I do not propose to look at it in this light-hearted manner ; but as it affects the representation of people in Parliament. The fact of this Bill being brought in, in the last hours of a dying session, only proves the Minister’s assertion that the Government is treating the serious matters of the country in a very flippant and light-hearted manner. In the last few days we have had brought before us the Flag Bill, which I consider should be called a Bill to curb the control of public opinion. Then we have before us the Fruit Control Bill and the Ocean Freights Control Bill, and now we have before us the Senate Control Bill. The Minister of the Interior is again in charge of this important measure. He was in charge of two other important measures this session, the Class Areas Bill, from which he had to abdicate—

Shame.

I say the Minister has withdrawn from that Bill. The Minister did not force the Bill.

That is not a fair statement.

Do you want us to force Bills through ?

No, but the Minister of Justice knows that he told the whole countryside that whatever happened, the Class Areas Bill was going to be forced through.

I told them it would be made law.

And that, even if it would cost millions of pounds, every Indian would be removed from this country.

The hon. member must not discuss the Class Areas Bill.

I am only discussing the conduct of the Government. The Minister very wisely did not press that Bill, owing to public opinion, not here only but elsewhere. The Minister has then been in charge of the Flag Bill, which the people are still being told is a matter of vital and urgent importance. That important Bill, in the last days of the session, has gone by the board. I see the press which supports the Government says that it was a painful retreat amounting to defeat ; but the Minister is still there. He is in the unenviable position of the shellfish which we see sticking to the rocks. He is quite prepared to sit where he is notwithstanding that in all matters of policy he has got to mane painful retreats, under promise that the same thing will be enacted in the next session. He did not stick to his guns.

What has that to do with Senate reform?

The hon. member should stick to the Bill before the House.

Now we come to the Senate Control Bill, for which the Minister of the Interior is responsible, and I am certain that if the Senate has any self-respect, the Minister will have to run away from this Bill also ; because I am certain that the Senate will never commit suicide and emasculate the constitution in the way in which the Minister now proposes to do. The Minister of Justice has said that the nominated Senators should not remain for ten years. Perhaps there is something to be said for that. Then he has made an onslaught on the Senators nominated in the interests of the natives and the coloured people, specially singling out Senator Opperman.

I did not make an onslaught.

General Opperman has more practical knowledge of the natives than the Minister has.

I don't want to be a nominated Senator.

Does the Minister mean to say that Senator Stuart has no knowledge of the natives of the Free State?

He has none whatever.

He is a born Free Stater. The other two nominated Senators are Col. Stanford—did ever anybody suspect him of being a party politician? He was an honourable State servant up to the time of his nomination—and Senator Roberts, who was nominated because of the bona fide interest he took in the natives. Yet this is the kind of argument the Minister uses in order to take away the system of nomination.

I said we must retain it.

The amendment to section 63 virtually takes away all the rights the Senate at present has. It now has the right to reject a Bill twice. After that there can be a joint sitting, when the members of the Senate have another opportunity of expressing their views on matters of vital importance. The Minister proposes that if the Senate takes up an adverse attitude on any Government measure and throws it out, or amends it radically so that Government withdraws it, in the next session Government can then place the Bill before the Assembly and if the Assembly passes it it becomes law.

In the meantime you have had automatic delay.

Is that not a radical departure from the constitution? Why is such an important proposal brought in in the last days of the session, when the people of the country have had no opportunity of discussing it? Has the Minister given a single instance of any demand for such a proposal ? The intention of the constitution was that the Senate should be essentially a house of review. Under Section 63 of the constitution if a measure is introduced into the Senate before it is introduced into the Assembly there can never be a joint sitting. That is a clear intimation that the constitution intended the Senate to be a house of review.

Does the Senate not get an opportunity or reviewing legislation in this Bill ?

The Bill takes away that right in a very remarkable degree. In future there will be no joint sittings of Parliament, for the Senate will never arrogate to itself the right to reject a financial measure. In future the Senate’s political power will, for all practical purposes, entirely be removed. Why does not the Minister of the Interior be logical and carry out the views of the Minister of Justice and abolish the Senate? If this Bill passes the existence of the Senate becomes entirely unnecessary.

What about the House of Lords ?

Look at the question as you like, it is a matter which gravely concerns the representation of the people in Parliament. Is it right to deal with a question of this grave importance in this perfunctory, flippant manner ? In 1920 the late Government with the unanimous assent of the members of the present Cabinet, agreed that there should be a conference sitting away from the press gallery and debating in the form of a miniature National Convention this question. That conference was composed as follows: Mr. F. W. Beyers, the present Minister of Mines and Industries; Mr. J. H. H. de Waal, the present Deputy-Speaker ; Senator I. W. B. de Villiers ; Mr. R. Feetham, now Mr. Justice Feetham ; Senator Sir John Fraser ; Mr. N. C. Havenga, the present Minister of Finance; Mr. J. W. Jagger; Mr. Hills, a member of the late Parliament; the right hon. F. S. Malan ; the right hon. J. X. Merriman ; the hon. J. W. Moor ; Senator Robinson ; Sir Thomas Smartt ; Mr. W. J. Snow ; Senator Stuart; the hon. H. C. Van Heerden ; Senator Peter Whiteside ; Mr. Tielman Roos, the present Minister of Justice, and Senator A. D. W. Wolmarans. That conference had the confidence of the country and it was decided by fifteen votes to six that in the interests of the country there should be a second chamber. The only people who voted against that were the present Minister of Justice and the Labour members.

A miniature Pact.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended I was dealing with the bi-cameral system. In my view, the vast majority of the people of this country desire the bi-cameral system. I think the people generally recognize that a measure of reform is necessary in the system, especially in regard to the Senate, but what I think they will disagree with is the mode in which the Government proposes to deal with this very important subject. That is really my complaint against the Prime Minister—that a matter of such vital importance is thrown here into the party arena and has got to be solved here on the floor of this House. If ever there were a question that ought to be solved, if it is soluble, in a detached manner apart from the political arena, it is a question of this magnitude. There is no doubt that the people realize that the bi-cameral system is an additional safeguard for their rights and interests. That is the reason why a long tenure of office, ten years, was given to the Senate, so as to give stability and a sense of impartiality in dealing with important public matters. Now we come along and sweep away what was brought about in the convention and afterwards incorporated in the Act of Union. This Bill lays down that within three months after a general election the Senate can be dissolved. I would ask the Prime Minister why he departs from the system laid down in the Act. According to the Act, there must be a simultaneous dissolution, but it seems to me that the Government is so anxious to see how the cat will jump, that it is not prepared to take the responsibility of adopting the system laid down at present in the Act of Union that there must be a simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the Assembly. We have got to encroach in this manner upon the established rights of the people. For what reason ? For the reason that once in 16 years the Senate has dared to reject an important Government measure, rejected by a House in which, special and direct representation is given to the people mostly affected under that Bill. They, naturally, took a grave view as a House of review, and the Bill was accordingly rejected. If the Senate should adopt that line of action, the constitution provides a remedy, and the Government has, in its wisdom, appealed to the higher right given under the Act of Union in order to get this measure through Parliament, and has succeded. The constitution has worked well so far. Why should we in this perfunctory—I had almost said flippant—manner, endeavour now to radically alter the existing state of things ? I had the honour to preside over the conference of 1920, and if there were one thing which was brought home to our minds, it was the great difficulty of altering the system laid down by the Convention. We found very great difficulty, for instance, in regard to altering the constitution of the Senate. We eventually decided to adopt a system of partly elected and partly nominated—partly direct election and partly indirect election—for senators. In regard to the indirect system of election, I only want to instance one particular difficulty we had. I have had no time to refresh my memory, but, as far as I remember, in a country like Belgium or France the Senate is practically elected in an indirect manner. I think in Belgium even the big town councils have a vote in the election of the Senate. The Senate has tremendous powers in Belgium and France, and also in America. A fact brought home to us very clearly was that, especially in extremely democratic countries, the only protection that the people have is an indirect second chamber with fixity of tenure and stability. Many countries have abolished the second chamber, but after years of experience have had to go back to it. To my view—I may be wrong—if this Bill becomes law, all the protection that the people of this country have in their second chamber will disappear.

Don’t talk nonsense!

Yes, I dare say I can respect the views of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) on many subjects, but I must tell him plainly that on questions of constitutional history and constitutional law I do not think he is an expert.

You are an authority.

I was saying that to my mind, if this Bill passes, then, whatever protection and safeguard the people of the country have at present vested in the second chamber, will be removed. I would like to know really what respect the Prime Minister would have for a second chamber constituted under the terms of this Bill ? I say that we are not only taking away the safeguards of the people, but we are depreciating the prestige of the Senate if we pass this Bill. My hon. friends on the cross benches are against the second chamber. That is a logical line that I can understand, but I would ask hon. members how they can support a Bill of this nature to keep up nominally a Senate which in actual practice would have no power. It would become an unnecessary expense. There would practically be no check, the old power of the Senate would be taken away, and whatever confidence the people have in the Senate will be destroyed if this Bill becomes law.

I must begin by expressing my surprise at the juncture at which this Bill has been introduced. One would have expected, if the Government thought the time had arrived to make a serious constitutional change, that they would have introduced it earlier in the session, in order that the country would have had an opportunity of discussing that proposed change, and that this House, with fresh minds, not jaded as we are, would have had a full opportunity of considering and discussing it. From time immemorial it has been the practice in this House to devote the last week of the session to the necessary financial measures of the Government. I have not known of an occasion when an important constitutional change has been brought forward as this has been in the very last week of the session. It was only on Monday last that leave to introduce the Bill was granted. Then we did not know what the Bill was all about. It was only on Tuesday that we actually saw the Bill, and yet a matter that was thought of sufficient importance to engage a sitting of a special Speakers’ commission five or six years ago, is flung into the arena of this House at two days’ notice, and I have not the slightest doubt that there are not a hundred people, not even ten people, outside who have the slightest idea of the nature of the proposed change. Why is that done ? Is it hoped in a jaded House to get a Bill through without proper attention that should receive full attention? I should have thought even this Government, which recognizes at last that the sands of its time are running out, and that the cup of its iniquity is gradually filling, would have hesitated to treat Parliament in this manner. We had an illuminating revelation from the Minister of Justice this morning. There is no doubt that the hon. gentleman aspires to become the Mussolini of this country. He has never hesitated to tell this House and the country of the contempt he holds for Parliament. I say this, with my knowledge and respect for the hon. gentleman, that of all the admirable qualities he has, the least admirable is his entire contempt for parliamentary institutions. It is only a Government which he has managed to imbue with a similar spirit of contempt that could think for one moment of introducing a Bill of such magnitude and importance at this juncture. We have a confession of the reason, or the partial reason, from the Minister who introduced the Bill. He wants to steam-roller it through this session in order that he may steam-roller it through a joint session next year, because he knows this may be his last chance. It may be his last kick, and if recent events are any sign-post I believe it may well be the expiring kick of the present Government. There was a time when the Minister of Justice went round telling people that the Pact Government would be in power for ten years or more. I have not heard any speeches of that sort recently.

I still say it.

Judging by the tone of some of my hon, friends, particularly on the cross benches, such speeches would be received with derision by the people of this country. We are asked by a dying Government in a dying House

And a dead Opposition.

To put through this legislation. Some of my hon. friends on the opposite side seem rather like little boys on a dark night whistling to keep their courage up.

It is your swan song.

Well, I have sung a good many swan songs, and I shall live to sing a good many more. I say that it is a scandal of the very first magnitude that a Bill of this sort should be introduced at this juncture, apart altogether from the merits or demerits of the proposals. I say the country has a right to declare that no important fundamental constitutional change shall be made in a hurry. A Bill of this sort should in the first place be sent to a select committee. I do not believe that those gentlemen who met together to frame this Act of Union ever contemplated that in the last two or three days of the session this House should be invited to make an important constitutional change, involving, as it does, a fundamental change in the relationship between the two Houses. That is my first point. I shall now endeavour to show that clause 2 of the Bill permanently and definitely sets the Senate in a position of inferiority in regard to this House.

So it should be!

It should be abolished.

The hon. member for Umbilo says it should be abolished. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of such a proposal, you ought not to make such an important constitutional change as this Bill in the last few days of this House. I say it is treating this House with contempt for the Government to attempt to bring forward this Bill at the present time. A curious feature about these proposals is this, that side by side with a Bill the effect of which fundamentally is to cut down the Senate, so that it will cease really to function at all, a Bill is introduced to increase the emoluments of the members of the Senate. If this Bill is passed, I would suggest that in future the vote for the Senate be put under Vote 22, Printing and Stationery, because the senators will become a set of rubber stamps. I would say to the members on the cross benches, treat the matter fairly ; if you do not want the Senate, abolish it ; but if you do want the Senate, let it be a Senate, and not a collection of rubber stamps paid £700 a year. I think it is insulting. I would say, if I were a senator—

I have no doubt the majority of members of the Senate will view the matter in that light. I do think we have no right to strangle the Senate in this particular way. If it is the considered opinion of the majority of members of this House, if, as the Minister hinted, it is really the feeling of the majority of members behind him that the Senate should go, let them adopt that as their policy, and let the country decide. But to say—

then that is absurd. If you have a Senate, let it be an effective Senate. Rather than have an ineffective Senate, I would prefer to see no Senate at all. My main objection to this Bill is to Clause 2, because up to now, under our constitution, there has been absolute equality between the two Houses, except in the matter of finance. Following the constitutional precedent of England, we have said that as we are directly representative of the body of taxpayers, we shall have control of finance, and the Senate may not amend a money Bill. But, apart from that, we have said there shall be absolute equality between the two Houses, and now it is proposed to say to the Senate—

It is the same in the House of Lords.

I will deal with that at once. The House of Lords is not an elected body. In any case, the House of Lords must throw out a Bill twice, and then it can be passed by the House of Commons and become law. The House of Lords does not profess to represent the people of England. The Senate of South Africa, except for eight nominated members, is just as much an elected body as we are, with this difference, that it is elected indirectly through members of this House and of the provincial council. If it is not a body representative of the people, then abolish it altogether, but do not deprive it of its present rights, that is, equality with this House. To pass Clause 2 is to make the Senate an absolute mockery and an absolute sham. Rather than see Clause 2 pass, I would almost agree to the abolition of the Senate. To keep a Senate which is told that, it may only once refuse to agree to legislation of this House is to perpetuate a body which is absolutely useless. I beg the Government not to do it. Even if they wish to proceed with the other portion of the Bill, I ask them to pause with section 2. The Minister of Justice gave away the Government case completely this morning, when he admitted that the Senate had not hampered them unduly until now. This is a complete give-away of the Government side on Clause 2. Such a clause could only be justified by circumstances such as possibly justified the English legislation which led to the curbing of the power of the House of Lords. That arose there through the throwing out of Mr. Lloyd-George’s People’s Budget in 1909, and the administration of that day found themselves up against a brick wall. Whatever measures of social reform they put up, they could not get them through the House of Lords. They went to the country and, having got a mandate from the country on that point, they put through that particular measure which limited the right of veto of the House of Lords to three sessions. But this Government, without any mandate, and not having been subjected to the same trial, comes forward and asks us to agree to this important and fundamental change during the last few days of the session. I say it is a scandalous thing to ask, and when we have the deputy leader of this House admitting that there has been no hampering up to now—which we know is a fact— where is the case for Clause 2? If this Government had been subject to persistent persecution and hampering by the Senate, some case might have arisen. We are justified in our opposition to it, and the Senate will be justified in throwing it out. Since this Government have been in power with what they call—

in the Senate, on how many occasions have they found themselves in conflict with the Senate? I can think of three—one, over the Electoral Bill, where they disagreed with a particular clause, whereupon the Minister withdrew the Bill altogether; the second, the Colour Bar Bill, one of the most fundamental pieces of social legislation up before the House ; and the third, the Immorality Bill of the Minister of Justice, when what he considered a fundamental clause was thrown out by his own followers. The gentleman who was successful in throwing out the Immorality Bill is the gentleman who owes his election to a matter to which I do not want to refer—what is known as—

As to Clause 1, I want to say quite frankly that I cannot see any great objection to the provision that the eight nominated senators should go out with the rest of the Senate. I cannot see any reason now, at any rate, whatever may have been the case at the time, why they should remain in office when the rest of the Senate is dissolved ; but I do find the greatest difficulty in following what is meant and intended by the provision that they should go out when there is a change of Government. The Minister of the Interior said this meant—

when I interjected this morning. That is a futile provision. It reminds me of the practice in some eastern countries under which, when the king dies, they bury his concubines with him. Let me remind hon. members what happened in this country in 1912, when the Prime Minister resigned and reformed his Cabinet with the omission of two members from that Cabinet, If this Bill passes into law, on the resignation of the Prime Minister, ipso facto out go eight unfortunate senators who have to take the chance of being renominated by him. If this Bill goes into law, and he has eight senators who prove refractory, all he has to do is to resign, and these eight go out. It is reducing it to a mockery and a farce. If they enacted that the eight go out with the rest of the Senate, a great deal could be said for this Bill. If they drop from it the other clauses, which are extremely contentious and absurd, this measure will have a greater chance of passing through this House this session.

I find from the report of the Speaker’s conference—I have not got the Dutch text before me now'—that, in a letter of November, 1920, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) who was Speaker at the time, to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who was Prime Minister, it is said—

Those are the words of the hon. member for Standerton, as expressed on the 19th of May, 1920 (we are now living in 1926). The hon. member for Standerton says, further, on the same occasion—I am taking all this from the letter of the then Speaker to the then Prime Minister—

It went with that matter as with many of the promises and expectations of the hon. member for Standerton.

Your colleagues said yesterday that the report was stillborn.

Yes, because no action was taken on the report. There was no difference of opinion about a reformation of the Senate being necessary. Then he mentions further, the then Speaker, in his letter to the Prime Minister—

Further the question of the two chamber system is discussed here. It is taken in this report as common cause for the present, at any rate, that the principle of the two chamber system is admitted. The letters says—

That, in the opinion of this conference, a second chamber is not necessary.

That is a proposal which was rejected by fifteen to six votes.

The hon. member should give me a chance. I will quote what is necessary. The hon. member knows that I am not unfair with my quotations. I read further—

Here the question does not arise at all because as I say the whole Bill proceeds on the assumption that we shall still respect and maintain the two chamber system. Then I read under the head “constitutional change” that ‘the hon. member for Caledon says in his letter—

And the following resolution was passed—

And on page 15 I find that the following amendment was proposed by no less a personage than the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt)—

Then I go further and I find that it was further resolved—

And further it is said—

That is one of the very points for which we are providing here, and I find on page 6 of the report the page on which the resolutions are formerly collected the following resolution No. 4—

Read the whole paragraph.

I am dealing with resolution No. 4 which stands by itself and was passed by the conference. Then on page 7 I find the treatment by the hon. member for Caledon on behalf of the conference of the view of the conference. He talks there of a continuing system, that is, the continuance of the Senate, and he says—

And to-day the hon. member comes here and asks why we are opposed to the simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of Parliament—

And finally this resolution was passed—

Now I come to one of the chief arguments, viz.: what is the necessity for the Bill. I find here the answer on page 9 in the letter of the hon. member for Caledon under paragraph (k)—

and—

That is the conference which the hon. member himself describes as remarkably representative.

Read the Bill now under discussion.

I will come to that. The last quotation I want to make is the following, where something is said by the hon. member for Caledon—

Now the Bill in Clause 1 certainly proposes no radical alterations. It proposes that at the next dissolution of the House of Assembly, the seats of the nominated senators shall automatically become vacant. That principle is respected in the report referred to. The position to-day is foolish and illogical. The constitution in Clause 20 makes provision for the simultaneous dissolution of the House of Assembly and the Senate. It creates an illogical position in the light of experience since 1910. We had an instance in June, 1924. The South African party was absolutely smashed at the ballot box. That was acknowledged by them at the time. The were completely beaten and can we imagine anything more mad than to think of the possibility of the dissolution of the same House of Assembly after such a defeat within two or three months after the election of 17th June, 1924 ? That would have been madness. What was the result? The hon. member for Standerton himself surely sees that under the constitution to-day with the provision of simultaneous dissolution advantages are given to the outgoing Government and a positive disadvantage to the incoming Government. That is the great difference between the two. It is therefore no more than fair that the constitution should be altered so that the incoming Government should not be injured in that respect. The only object of Clause 1 of the Bill is to improve the position and in addition the Clause can be defended on principle. As regards the nominated senators there is no difference of opinion. I do not think the Opposition object to the principle that nominated senators just as elected senators should fall out when the Senate is dissolved. As regards the second part I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Caledon, that it is fairly comprehensive. But again we can defend the whole matter on principle and hon. members must not forget— it has been repeatedly referred to but cannot be done sufficiently—that the Bill looks to the future. It is quite true that there is strong pressure on the part of our supporters to remedy matters at once, to immediately remove the result of the absurdity, because it causes the incoming Government much damage. We, however, said that we would deal on principle with the future and if hon. members of the Opposition are so convinced that they are going to win the next election they can have no objection to this state of affairs being altered, and the position will no longer exist if their Government gets into power at the next election for the House of Assembly. That shows only how little confidence the Opposition itself has in it.

What becomes of the position of the legislative power of the Senate?

I want to point this out, and I appeal to my learned constitutional friend, the hon. member for Caledon, that the life of the Senate is nowhere fixed in the constitution. The time of service of the nominated senators as such, and of the elected senators, is indeed stated to be at most ten years, but the life of the Senate is nowhere laid down.

In the first instance it was ten years.

All that is said in the constitution, and the hon. member for Standerton who is just as good a constitutional lawyer as the hon. member for Caledon will admit it, is that the Senate shall not be dissolved for at least ten years. But it may last twenty years and we know that it has lasted up to the present, i.e., for sixteen years. The life of the Senate is nowhere fixed, and all the constitution says is that the Senate must not be dissolved under ten years, and that is just the period of service of the nominated and elected senators who are limited to a maximum of ten years. What is the great objection taken in all countries to the two-chamber system ? It is that either the second chamber is just as democratically composed as the first chamber, and then there is no reason or necessity for the existence of the former, or it is not so democratically composed as the first chamber, and then the decisive power should be given by the first chamber—the popular chamber. The other arguments in favour of the two-chamber system are that there ought to be a second chamber to cool down the first chamber where it is necessary, where the first chamber, the council of the people, in times of crisis and of public excitement possibly pass laws in a hurry. Then there must be a second chamber to call a halt, and to say to the first chamber—wait. Are we now making any encroachment on that principle ? On the contrary, no. In Clause 2 of the Bill, which proposes to repeal Clause 63 of the South Africa Act, we meet both objections. We meet the difficulty which is raised against the second chamber in so far as it is not a democratic institution, and we say that when the House of Assembly—after that the Senate has rejected a Bill in a certain session—has had time up to the following session to calmly and coolly deliberate upon and consider the matter, passes the same measure again, then the House of Assembly must bear the responsibility, because it is chosen directly by the public, and because it is the body which has been placed there by direct election to give the final decision upon the legislation. The second objection is also met, viz., that there must be a cooling-off time. That meets us because we say that, in the second session, after the Senate has rejected the Bill in the first session, if the House of Assembly passes the Bill again, then it is no longer necessary to have a joint sitting of the House of Assembly and the Senate. To put it before the Senate a second time after the Senate has rejected a Bill is an undemocratic step. Nor is there over hasty legislation because this Bill meets the two objections. In all respects this Bill can be defended on principle. As regards the second advantage of the Bill now proposed to replace section 63 of the constitution, there it is common cause between us and hon. members opposite. In the case of financial Bills there must, in the same sitting, be a joint sitting of the House of Assembly and the Senate, and then an absolute majority shall be binding. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) made a great point of it that we should see that the Senate remained independent. Yes, my hon. friends opposite were so concerned about the independence of the Senate that they took every means in their power to make the Senate independent and keep it independent, but at the same time they never lost sight of seeing that the majority of the Senate should belong to their party. I want to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville that section 63 as contained in the constitution to-day is actually not consistent with his statement of an independent Senate, because the decisive vote is still finally given, even by the majority of one at the joint sitting. The joint sitting does not even require a two-thirds majority at the second reading, where there is a conflict in the Senate and the House of Assembly. Therefore, the hon. member must admit that his representation is untrue. It is improbable, but it may happen that the quorum at a joint sitting is only 30, and the one side need only have a majority of one over the other, but such a comparatively small number of members can finally decide the matter. Therefore, I cannot follow the hon. member for Yeoville when he says that the independence of the Senate under the constitution to-day is better maintained than under the proposed legislation. I want to go still further in answer to the arguments of the hon. member for Yeoville. I may say that I always respect his arguments in the House if only he would always be true to himself and be consistent. If the hon. member wants the Senate to be independent then he must see that in the future—we actually have only two big parties—that the two in the Senate are more or less equal. We know that the Labour party in the Senate mostly votes with the Nationalist members and the Nationalist members with the Labour members. The hon. member must, therefore, see that his supporters and the supporters of the Government parties are equal in strength. He will have to do that, but he knocked in the bottom of his whole case by admitting that, in appointing senators, the former Government was quite human, and in accordance with party practice, took advantage of the opportunity to appoint their own supporters. I am not going to condemn it. I admit that there are in the Senate persons for whom I have the greatest respect. I do not want to be personal, but I have every respect for Senators Stanford and Dr. Roberts. They are moderate men. Men of conviction and principles, but hon. members must not take it amiss if we do not hide the fact, but say that we are not satisfied about the matter. I cannot help repeating the reproach against the hon. member for Standerton that when he had the opportunity to reappoint one of the few remaining historical figures of South Africa, he intentionally did not take advantage of it. The appointment of Senators was manipulated in that way. I do not wish to speak about the matter further. It is very important, but I agree with what the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has said in the report he wrote to the leader of the Opposition, viz., that the time had already come in 1920, and that it was then necessary to alter the constitution by legislation, and it is not necessary for me to adduce further arguments in favour of the Bill. I am convinced, and the Government and the country is convinced, of the necessity for it. As I say, the people in the country wish us to go still further. We are convinced that an amendment is very necessary and we are also convinced that in all respects it can be defended on a basis of principle fairness and justice, and I want to say this: That, if it is a sword, it will, in any case, be double edged.

The Minister has made a great point of the fact that the South African party recognizes that some change in the constitution of the Senate is necessary. The change proposed by the Bill, however, is only an alteration to suit the present purposes of the Government showing that they have no wish at all to reform the Senate, but just to change it to suit the purposes of the party in power. If the Minister is really in earnest about reforming the Senate, why does he not take the advice given by the conference of which the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) was president, or appoint another conference to draw up the scheme? No, that does not suit the purposes of the Government. I do not call this Bill a reform of the Senate. I call it a jerrymandering change—a change for a special political purpose, and not introduced with any idea of improving the Senate, but simply to facilitate the passing of certain legislation by the present Government. It is proposed to make an important change in a part of the grondwet—a word which I like better than “constitution ”—which part was drawn up with infinite pains by the National Convention after over a week’s consideration. Now, at the very tail end of the session, when we are all pretty well tired out, and many members have left for their homes, we are asked to make an important amendment to the constitution. This proposal shows the enormous change which has come over the principles of the Nationalist party, through, I presume, the influence of the labour allies. Suppose, in the old Republican days, it had been proposed to make an important change in the grondwet of the Free State or the Transvaal, would not the change have had to be published months before and fully discussed throughout the country?

It was discussed.

I have seen no discussion in the country. Hon. members opposite have changed and their principles of consulting the people first have been thrown overboard.

No.

If it were discussed before, why was the Bill not brought up earlier in the session ? We have been sitting now for four months. Why could it not have been published long since? All these old conservative methods, which are said to be the characteristic of the people the hon. members opposite are supposed to represent, have been thrown overboard.

It was stated publicly outside by Ministers long ago that the Bill was to be introduce!

Why then did not you bring in the Bill earlier ?

Because we could not do everything at once.

This Bill could have been drawn up in a day. Ministers have made up their minds that they must have a change, and this Bill is rushed in without any previous discussion, so far as the country is concerned. There is just one reason for this Bill—it is hurry, hurry, hurry, every time. You want to get it through this session. As I have said, if you are really sincere about wanting to make a change in the Senate, you might have published this Bill, and given notice that you are going to appoint a commission to draw up a scheme for the reform of the Senate. We admit that one is necessary, but this is the way of revolutionaries. I agree that members on the cross benches would like to abolish the Senate altogether.

Hear, hear.

Exactly; revolutionaries never want any check on their legislation. Most countries in Europe and in the new world have second chambers. Why ? Because they want to act as a chock on democracy.

What about Russia?

There is only one man in power there at present, as far as I can see. Take two states where certain changes have been projected recently. Take Queensland. Because the upper chamber there have resisted certain revolutionary changes—confiscatory changes, let me say—which have been brought forward by the Labour Government there, they have been abolished. Take New South Wales. There is a Labour Government there. Because the upper chamber don’t fall in with the ideas of the Labour Government, it is sought to abolish them. Let me warn hon. members opposite that this will be a precedent when hon. members on the cross benches get the upper hand. Hon. members opposite, who are supposed to represent the most conservative section in this country, are following a very dangerous course. These hon. gentlemen on the cross benches won’t have the slightest hesitation in doing away with the Senate altogether. I have not the remotest doubt that hon. members opposite will live to regret the policy that they are now pursuing. The object of the National Convention, when this question was discussed, was to give the Senate less power than the upper House of the Cape had. It was not placed in a position, and we did not intend to place it in a position where it could fully prevail against the wishes of the popular Assembly. We did that of set purpose, because of an incident which happened some little time before in the Parliament of the then Cape Colony. We avoided any question of a collision with the popular Assembly by the device of a joint sitting, which exists at the present time. At the same time, we secured delay on any question which was highly disputed, such as it would naturally be when the Senate throws a thing out. It cannot be said that the Senate really unduly hampers the Government or this House. It is working exactly as the idea of the National Convention was—that it should not have the power to defeat, to hamper permanently the action of the popular chamber. And it has succeeded. As has been pointed out already, there has been no case vet in the 16 years in which we have been in existence where it has permanently stopped any legislation which this Chamber or the majority of this Chamber has determined to see through. The necessity for a change of this kind has not been shown. The Minister of Justice gives as one reason for the change that he wants to accelerate legislation. That is not the method of experienced legislators. It was not the idea of the National Convention, because it has always been the object of legislators of experience to give ample time for discussion and for reflection. That is the reason why in this House we have several readings of Bills. Many nations, most nations in fact, have not only provided for ample discussion in the lower House by this series of readings of Bills, but they have provided a second chamber as a further check. Among continental countries, I believe that Greece is the only one without a second chamber. I myself, and I hope this House, will strongly oppose doing away with the Senate. The second object of the convention was this. There was an idea that we ought to provide for the admission of certain gentlemen who would never go through the turmoil of an election, and who should be members, say men with judicial experience, etc., and, more especially, men with experience of native questions. We had to recognize that, as we had refused to extend the franchise to the natives through-out the Union, it would be only fair and just that by some means or other there should be some representation of the natives, and we provided for four members being nominated with a special knowledge of native affairs, and, more or less, to represent the interests of the natives. That has, to a large extent, been carried out. Take Senator Stanford. Was he appointed for any other reason? Take Dr. Roberts,. Are they politicians ?

There you stop.

Still, they are an influential part of the Senate, my hon. friend will admit. Take Senator Stuart. Does he not make a study of native affairs, and, I believe, follow pretty well the same principles as the late Senator Schreiner? So that, on the whole, the object which the convention had in mind that the natives should get some representation, somebody to speak for them, has been attained by this method. As far as I can see, no cause has been shown why this change should be brought about now. I appeal to the Minister again. If they are so anxious to reform the Senate, have it submitted to another commission. Where is the hurry at the present time? What we do not understand is why you should be is such a hurry and bring it in at the tail end of the session if it emanates from an honest desire to reform the Senate. I do not think there has been any ease made out. It has never yet defeated the object or the will of this Assembly in its existence of 16 years. I must confess I do not see the necessity for this Bill at this particular moment, and I shall vote against it.

I think the Minister has hit the nail on the head in saying that a large part of the people think that the Bill does not go far enough. I have myself reason to be convinced that if a referendum were to be held about the position of the Senate, there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of abolition. As for the Senate itself, I think that the Free State senators will agree with this. I have tried to investigate the two chamber system in the various countries of the world, and I cannot find one where satisfaction with it can be discovered. The view is everywhere coming into vogue that it would be best to abolish the second chamber. The experiment of a second chamber has nowhere been satisfactory. It is felt that the second chamber is a creature either of the Government or of the Opposition. To-day our Senate is on the way to becoming a creature of the Opposition. Provision is made in the Bill for the avoidance of so many opportunities of conflict between the House of Assembly and the Senate, and therefore the Senate here again is becoming a creature of the Government. Everyone, however, will acknowledge that it is better for it to be a creature of the Government than of the Opposition, because the former represents the will of the people. I cannot understand how the hon. members for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) can slate that the two chamber system meets with the approval of the world, and that it has been the experience of centuries that it is the best way of governing a country. We know that the origin of the two chamber system has nothing to do with the work that the second chamber does. We know that the second chamber in England owes its existence to the conditions that prevailed before the Parliament was a legislative body. The origin of the second chamber must be ascribed to the division of classes during the Middle Ages, when the various classes met to advise the king, thus before there was proper legislative power. After the legislative power of Parliament was definitely acknowledged, certain functions were given to the second chamber to justify its existence. It serves especially to revize laws and to be a brake in the event of hasty legislation. The fact that the two chamber system was taken over by European countries proves nothing, because we know that parliamentary institutions in England served as examples for the institutions on the continent of Europe, and even later in Japan. We know that the European countries took the English system over holus bolus with some small alterations.

Do you know the history of France in this connection?

France tried all kinds of experiments, and there was not only a two chamber system, but even a three chamber system. France reverted to the two chamber system, but not because of the prevalence of the view that a second chamber was necessary to revize the legislation of the first chamber. The two chamber system was resorted to after 1871, but if one looks into the history you will see that it must be credited to the political struggle between the monarchists and republicans. The second chamber then became the stronghold of the monarchists. Take, e.g., the case of Ireland. There is in the Irish Free State, and also in Ulster, a two chamber system, but they were imposed upon the Irish Free State and Ulster. Sir Edward Carson clearly stated that Ulster did not want a second chamber. It was, however, considered necessary to have a second chamber in the Irish Free State, not as a revizing body, but to protect the Protestant minority. Because a two chamber system was given to the Irish Free State, Ulster also had to take a second chamber. In general, the English system was taken over, a system which originally was not so intended. It is important that there shall not be over-hasty legislation, and legislation which is full of innaccuracies. If it is necessary, therefore, that there should be no inaccuracies and hasty legislation, it is fair to ask if it cannot be avoided otherwise than by a second chamber. I personally am not convinced of it that the Senate can do thorough revizing work, because the members are people who on the whole cannot work so hard, and we see that Bills which are discussed for days and weeks in this House slip through the Senate. It is very circuitous for a Bill which has passed five stages in this House (if it is complicated, it is further referred to a select committee) thereafter to have to be revized.

What of the amendments which the Senate makes to improve Bills ?

It is true that the Senate here and there makes small amendments, but if the House of Assembly knew that it alone had the responsibility there would be much less danger of the slipping through of mistakes than what there is to-day. To-day some of the responsibility lies on the Senate. With the circuitous system of five stages in this House, I think Bills can be satisfactorily gone into here, and I do not think that there is any necessity for the existence of a revizing body. There is sufficient opportunity of doing that in this House. I think that the experience of the Free State and Transvaal—the Free State with its one chamber system was always called a model republic—can teach us that we have no need to be afraid of the one chamber system. Then it is said that the second chamber acts as a brake in case of over-hasty legislation, and that it is necessary in the case of important and fundamental legislation. It is certainly important that the House of Assembly shall not have the right of altering the basic principles of the constitution in a hasty manner, but I think that even there we can manage without a second chamber. I feel that it will be a more democratic method of going to work if we abolish a second chamber. I wish we had had a constitution, because the South Africa Act is not a constitution.

Why not?

A constitution lays down basic principles and not small regulations, and no constitution can be altered by a bare majority in the House. In the constitution we want to have the basic principles on which the whole society in South Africa rests, and those principles may not be altered unless the people first of all have expressed their views on the matter. I think it was that which we were striving after in the northern province, that the clauses of the constitution should not be touched by Parliament if the people had not had an opportunity of expressing their views on the matter. If we have such a constitution in which the basic principles can be laid down, then the Government will not go and make a vital alteration amending the whole national existence. A constitution is a law in which no alteration should be brought without holding a referendum about the matter. Matters can be quite well disposed of in the various stages in the House of Assembly. There is plenty of time. It is found necessary to impose certain restrictions to debates. In England, in the House of Commons there are more restrictions that we have here. We have the closures, etc. In England they further have what is known as “kangaroo” and the “guillotine.” We do not go so far. We only have restrictions in committee in the budget debate. I certainly think that restrictions will sink more and more into disuse. The people consider it unsound to restrict a debate. If the Government cannot convince the people that it is only necessary simply to prevent obstruction, then it will not remain in office long. There is, therefore, sufficient time in this House for discussion, and it is my conviction that just as good and democratic legislation can be passed in our country meeting with the approval of the people if the other House no longer existed. Although I will support this Bill heartily, I feel, and many with me, that it does not go far enough. I think the Bill is merely a little medicine for us. As I said in the House the other day, I am convinced of it that a large part of the people would rather that we performed the whole operation at once and abolished the Senate

There seems to me to be an air of unreality about this debate. It almost seems as if the Government is not in earnest about this Bill, and certainly the House seems little in earnest about it. I have never seen so little interest, in a Bill dealing with what is really a fundamental question, on the part of the House. It is a fundamental question, because we are dealing with the powers of one of the legislative bodies of this country, and if hon. members, who were members of the National Convention—I do not know that there are many in the Chamber at the present time—will cast their minds back, they will remember that the powers of the Senate were discussed in the convention for days on end, and all kinds of suggestions were made, just as have been made here, and put aside one after the other, until the present provisions, which you are now seeking to alter, were adopted almost unanimously. I am sorry that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has gone out. I would have liked to mention in his hearing that the Senate was looked upon as being a safeguard to the two smaller provinces. It is known, of course, that all the provinces, irrespective of their size, have the same representation in the Senate, and when you begin to whittle away the powers of the Senate it means that you are attacking indirectly the position of these provinces which thought their interests were safeguarded in the provisions relating to the Senate. I do not think there would have been the same unammity on the part of some of the smaller provinces on entering Union, if it was thought that by and by, by reason of a chance majority in the House, their safeguards were to be attacked in this way by this Bill

Safeguards of what ?

I do not think the Minister really intends to attack the safeguards which the smaller provinces thought they had, but that is the effect of the Bill. I have never heard such weak reasons put up for bringing about a fundamental change as have been stated this afternoon. The Minister, in very eloquent language indeed, talked about the Senate as having hampered the Government, having flouted the will of the people, and having stood in the way of useful legislation, but when he was interrupted with the question—

he was silent, and we are left to infer that some very strong reasons existed in his mind to which he could not give utterance. His colleague, who has probably had as much to do with the Senate as the Minister of the Interior has had, said quite frankly that he was bound to admit that the Senate had not unduly hampered the House of Assembly—so that we have an acute difference of opinion between two leading members of the Government, and we are asked, notwithstanding that difference of opinion, to pass this Bill. The strongest possible reasons should be given for amending the constitution. The people of the country consider that Parliament should not lightly agree to a change in the fundamental law of our Union being brought about, and I may say that if the constitution is to be amended from time to time, for such slight and trivial reasons as were mentioned by the Minister of the Interior, there is no continuity in our position and no security for the future. The Minister of Justice has stated that in this case we are legislating for the future. If that is so, it must be because we see that the present position is unsatisfactory. Has anything been said from the other side, in the course of this debate, to show that the present position is unsatisfactory or impossible? I am opposed to changes in the constitution unless we have the strongest and best reasons given. I was sorry when that Speaker’s conference was appointed to suggest changes in the constitution, because I thought that the constitution had not been sufficiently tested ; had not broken down in practice, and although it was thought at the time by a good many members of the House of Assembly that it might be improved, second thoughts were best, and on presentation of that report, on all sides of the House it was practically resolved to let the matter drop, and nothing has occurred since then to warrant a change in the constitution, except the one thing, the action of the Senate in connection with the colour bar Bill. One of the Senate’s special duties is to look after the native interests, and if there was any Bill which the Senate has considered from its inception till now, on which it had to fix its attention and scrutinize very carefully indeed, it was that colour bar Bill. The Senate was doing no more than its duty to delay, that Bill in order to give the country and Parliament time to think over the matter and make up its mind as to its course of action. The Senate was doing its duty in throwing out that Bill, because it was affecting the vital interests which the Senate were called into existence to protect. It cannot be stated that the Senate has stood in the way permanently of the will of the people, as expressed by members of this House. This House has had its way, and nothing has happened to justify the Government in saying that the Senate must have its wings clipped ; must be made to dance to the tune of the Government pipes. But we cannot have the Senate a re-echo of the House of Assembly. The constitution of the Senate was specially devised in order that it might be a chamber of review ; in order that it should give an opportunity to the country, and to the House of Assembly, to think twice and thrice over the intended legislation, and it will be a bad day for this country—

The country can think twice under our Bill now.

Yes. And apparently the Minister does not want the Senate to think twice, and I think that is the weak part of his Bill. The Minister says he does not want the Senate to be a party machine ; to be composed of party politicians. I think that is a counsel of perfection. I do not see how you are going to get the politicians who form the electoral body to choose senators to make the laws of the country and formulate a policy unless they have some confidence in their policy and their political views. Once a party man has been appointed to the Senate, he has a tendency to take up an independent view, and not to be a mere echo of the views of the party in power who put him there, and that was the reason why, about 1920, there was some dissatisfaction with the Senate. It was thought that the Senate was inclined at times to be too independent and that it was not in touch with the public as much as it ought to be, but the views of the powers of the Senate and the proceedings of the Senate have undergone a change since then, and I submit that party politicians, once they become members of the Senate, are just as likely to take up an impartial view of questions as a politician, when he is elevated to the bench. I do not say in every case, but that is the evolution which goes on in the mind of a senator once he has a secure seat in that chamber.

It is rather significant, with the new Government coming into power that the senators took their seats on the Opposition side.

It was a matter of convenience. The Minister of Mines and Industries was not a member of this House in 1910, otherwise he might have seen all the Natal members sitting on this side of the House, but going across to vote with the Government. It was a matter of convenience, and no doubt it was the same with the Senate. I do not think it is advisable to have frequent dissolutions of the Senate, because then the Senate tends to become more and more a party machine. It becomes more of a popular House, and you do not want it to become that in the same sense as this chamber is. It is a cooling chamber ; a chamber of review.

Cold storage.

It is quite wrong for the Minister to think that the Senate in the past has always said, yes—yes to everything the late Government suggested. I can remember time and again when we had our Bills amended and cut about, and we had to come back here and beg this chamber to accept amendments to prevent a Bill being wrecked just as the Minister of Justice had to do the other day. It was a frequent occurrence, and I have often heard complaints from my colleagues as to the treatment they received in the Senate. But if the Senate is to be of any use, it must have a mind of its own.

Surely this Bill does not provide for more frequent dissolutions. It only extends the periods within which that one dissolution can take place.

There was one remark that the Minister of Justice made, and it was that it is surely a more sporting thing for Parliament to give Government the power to dissolve the Senate after a general election, so that it may have nominated senators of its own choosing. Is it not a more sporting thing to dissolve both Houses at the same time and take your chance from the electors ?

Why did not you do that in 1924?

It was not necessary, but if the Government does want to get at the real will of the people, let them carry out the provisions of the constitution as it stands, and dissolve both Houses at the same time and take the consequences. The Minister of Justice said he wanted to accelerate business and said he was quite sure that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), in the conduct of his business, would not submit to the delays we have to submit to in this House. Is there any analogy between selling goods and making laws ? It is so vital that there should be delays in connection with law-making. In making laws time is the essence of the thing. We must have time to discuss matters in this House. We have all the different stages in this House and then in the other chamber and it often happens that opinions change when a matter is ventilated, and when time is taken to re-consider matters. I hope the Government will not press this matter. I do not think that any real case has been made out for the Bill. I do not think the Government has been unduly hampered and that they can go to the country and say: We were driven to make this change in the constitution because the Senate were opposed to us and threw out our Bills one after the other. Suppose Clause I—which I am against—is passed and it gives the Government power to dissolve the Senate and appoint eight new senators, what is the necessity of the second Clause, as the Government have all they want in the first clause? If the first clause is passed it seems to me that the following clause is totally unnecessary, because it will make such an inroad on the powers of the Senate that the Assembly will be placed in the ascendancy. At present Acts of Parliament state that they are—

It is now proposed to pass bills without the consent of the Senate. We always thought that the Senate had co extensive powers with the Assembly in all matters with the exception of money Bills, but now the Senate is to be wiped out by the Government of the day. I feel the Government is making a very great mistake, and it would be very well advised to allow the Bill to drop low down on the order paper. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) apparently is strongly opposed to the second chamber, and devoted his time, as far as I understood him, to showing the need for the abolition of the Senate. But I do not think we need follow that argument, because the universal experience is that a second chamber is necessary in order to allow a breathing time to prevent sudden waves of public passion being able to put laws on the statute book which are not for the real good of the people. I am strongly of opinion that we ought to drop this matter, and that the Government ought not to be petulant over the actions of the Senate.

I really cannot see why such a great fuss is made about this Bill. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that it was being introduced by a dead party in a dead House. It seems to me there is one thing that hon. members opposite cannot understand. Have hon. members opposite heard the story about the Irishman who cut off a fowl’s neck ? When someone asked the Irishman why the fowl was still jumping about he replied—

It seems to-me that hon. members opposite do not know that their party is dead because they still want to govern and tell us what laws to make and what not. The sooner they come to appreciate this the better, because then they will not come to us and tell us what to do. Take, e.g., the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I came down the street the other morning and read a placard which said that the hon. member had said that their holiday was now over and that they wanted to take over the Government again. If they really mean that they are going to get into power at the next election why are they making such a noise now about this Bill? They would then of course be able to nominate their eight senators again. It is unnecessary for such a fuss to be made in the House. Do they not know that it costs money if they talk unnecessarily in the House? If the hon. member for Standerton honestly thinks that his party is again coming into power he would not permit his party to talk in this way. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that the constitution was being violated. Does he not know that he voted in favour of only four senators being nominated? Did he then violate the constitution ? The people outside of whom the hon. member talks so much wants this Bill to be passed as soon as possible and it does not even go as far as the public wish. Hon. members opposite must understand that it is a good Bill, both for us and for them, and if they get into power they can keep the South African party senators in the Senate. It is best that the will of the people should be done. The people put us into power with a large majority and do not want the party opposite to continue making laws.

I feel that it is extremely unfortunate that an important Bill of this kind should be brought in at such a late stage of the session. I want to look at the matter from the standpoint of the natives who have always considered the Senate to be one of the safeguards that they have under the Act of Union. In 1910, when the Convention sat, the natives felt that an attempt was being made to deprive them of franchise which they had enjoyed for many years in the Cape, and they sent a deputation to England protesting against any rights being taken from them. It was then pointed out to them that their rights were protected under the section of the Act of Union which provided that they should have four representatives in the Senate directly appointed to protect their interests. The appointment of members of the Senate for this purpose from the Cape has been a very satisfactory one. Col. Stanford, who had been chief magistrate in the Transkei for many years, was welcomed by the natives as they felt that in him they had a man who would safeguard their interests. Then later we had the appointment of Mr. Theo. Schreiner, also a man who interested himself very much in native affairs. On his death the Government appointed Senator Roberts, who is intimately acquainted with the natives and native questions. I do not think he was a politician. In Senator Stuart the natives of this country have always realized that they have a friend. I think, seeing that the interests of the natives are directly assailed under this Bill, the House should ponder at this late stage before passing it. We know that the Government intend introducing measures into this House next session which will vitally affect the natives. I feel that if each Government that comes in has the right to nominate eight members of the Senate, four of whom should directly represent the natives, that takes away the spirit of the Convention from that point of view. I do not want to say that I consider that it is impossible for the Pact Government to appoint four men who could and would honourably represent the natives, but I do feel that with each change of Government coming about and, say, next car the native question comes to the fore and the election is fought on that particular issue and if the Pact Government is again successful and later on proceeds to appoint eight members of the Senate, the natives will not have the confidence in the members of the Senate who are really appointed to represent their interests that they should have. If you want to retain the confidence of the natives of this country, you must let them realize that their interests are properly and adequately protected in the tipper House. We have the admission from the Minister of Justice that so tar the system has worked well. We have also the admission of the Prime Minister that on this question of the colour bar Bill the Senate were justified in what they did. I do think that the Government is ill-advised in bringing forward this Bill at this late stage. The Minister of the Interior seems to be dissatisfied with the Senate chiefly because they threw out the colour bar Bill. Does he not honestly, sitting there in his capacity as Minister, feel that the Senate were justified in throwing out that Bill ? Does he not feel, considering the responsible position the Senate are in and considering the course, the debate took in this House and the feeling which was shown in the country, that the Senate were not only justified in throwing out that Bill, but that it was their duty to throw it out ? I am one of those who feel that alterations are necessary in connection with the Senate and I have often wondered whether the expense of maintaining that body is justified by results, but I do say that when legislation which fundamentally affects the country is brought forward, we should, at any rate, have an opportunity of studying the subject and the reports which have been issued bearing upon it and of becoming thoroughly acquainted with what has taken place in this House in former years. In these circumstances, I feel that the Government will be wise in holding this Bill over until next session, especially in view of the fact that there does not seem to be any particular urgency or any necessity for it at this stage.

I have always held a high opinion of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), especially when speaking on questions which pertain more particularly to his province as the representative of a native constituency, but I think he has over-reached himself in saying that the nominated members appointed by the late Government are the only members in whom the native population can have any confidence.

I spoke of the three.

The hon. member said that the natives will not have confidence in members appointed under the new system which we are proposing to-day. I am very glad if I am mistaken, because I certainly take umbrage at that statement.

I did not say that.

I am glad to hear that. It would have been a very serious matter to think that only members from that political party are able to nominate members in whom the natives can have confidence. We, on this side, feel that the Senate is a body which is there to revize the laws which are being made by this House, but it is not a body which should be representative of one particular political party and dominated by one political party. I concur that the Senate should be a body partly composed of members of one party and the other, and partly composed of members above any party, but from the remarks which have been made by hon. members on that side, one would come to the conclusion that we are bringing in a Bill which has as its object to take away the safeguards of the Senate. What dangers are there lurking ahead which these members are afraid of when (hey talk about taking away the safeguards I Safeguards against what ? One would think we had a Government to-day which is a danger to the State or some portion of the population.

You are a danger to everybody.

This Government is a Government elected by the popular vote of the country.

No.

It is elected by the great majority of the people, and if we are not able to look after the interests of the country, then no party will ever do so ; and to say that members nominated by those political pundits, sitting on the opposite side, are the only people who can nominate members of any sense or ability, well, I think that is far wrong. We, on our side, say we are quite capable of reforming the Senate with members to be nominated by the Government who at the time have the popular vote behind them, and the strength of the country behind them, and not by a party which has not the majority of the country behind them. What is the position of the Senate to-day ? Go out into the country, and they will tell you that the Senate is to-day ruling the country. They have thrown out a Bill which was against the S.A.P., a Bill which made for the better enfranchisement of the people in Cape Town, and why? Because the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and other members of Cape Town constituencies were afraid they would lose their seats, and they used the machinery in the other place to throw out the Bill.

They did not throw out the Bill.

Is that a House which can have the respect of the country behind them? They threw out the Bill last year, and they were afraid they would throw it out this year.

They did not throw it out.

The Bill was not thrown out, but that particular article was thrown out which was the essence of the Bill, and which the S.A.P. objected to. They altered other Bills this year which were in the interests of the country. There are Bills which the country wants to-day which the Senate has been holding up. When we talk about the Senate, we want a Senate which will carry out the will of the people as we do, and who are, in a certain way, responsible to the country. These people are not at all responsible to the country. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) talks about the strongest reasons which must be shown why this Bill should be passed. If the reasons which were given by the Minister do not carry weight with the Opposition, then no argument will do so. I do not want to be personal, but I think, as far as the other provinces are concerned, a great improvement could be made in the representation of the natives in the Senate. As far as the Cape is concerned, I agree that the best men the Cape can produce have been placed in the Senate. Our hon. friends on the other side always say we are in too great a hurry ; they have not had time to read the reports. Why don’t you read the reports?

Have you read the report ?

We come to this House to study the Bills and to study the blue books. I can only say that we are getting tired of this obstruction day after day. It is not ordinary argument, but obstruction. We have had the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) standing up on any mortal subject coming before the House, and time after time wasting the time of this House by objecting.

Is the hon. member in order, Mr. Chairman, in charging the Opposition with obstruction ?

I did not understand the hon. member to mean wilful obstruction. If he said wilful obstruction, the hon. member must withdraw.

No, I never said wilful obstruction. I said that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and several others have been obstructing every Bill brought before this House.

I rise again because he used the word “deliberate.” He said the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was deliberately setting up and obstructing every Bill that came before the House.

I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. member, and I must confess I did not hear him use the word “deliberate.”

I can only say I am not one of those who whisper their speeches. I am perfectly frank and open. If I did say anything against the rules, I would withdraw. I did not accuse hon. members of wilful obstruction. I said members of the Opposition have been obstructing every Bill which we have brought forward the last week. Here we have a Bill which ought to have passed in the ordinary course hours ago, and here we are still discussing the principles of it.

Put on the closure— put on the gag!

Why attempt to introduce important Bills like this at the end of the session ?

When the Opposition was on these benches, we had to sit it out. When we bring forward good legislation, my hon. friends over there have to sit it out. When we brought in legislation early last session, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) stood aghast, and said they did not have time to study the Bills. We must, at some time or another, have to bring in Bills, and if we cannot bring them in in the middle of the session, we must bring them in on the first day, and then my hon. friends opposite will say that they have not the time, or seen them. Hon. members have had ample time to study the Bill, and I hope it will go through.

We could not get the hon. member, who has just sat down, and urged the reading of blue books, and who supported the Minister of Justice in his advocacy of a unicameral system, to say whether he had read the report of the conference on this question.

He has done so.

He did not say so. On page 71 of that report he will find in Clause 7 that the only countries in America which have the uni-cameral system are Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama ; in Europe, Montenegro, Serbia, Luxemburg and Monaco ; and in Asia, Siam. The hon. member does not mind if this country should go down in its parliamentary institutions to the level of these very “important” States I have mentioned. If it were not for our membership of the community of nations to which we belong, we might sink to that level in the eyes of the outside world. I am not holding that the Senate is a perfect machine—it is not—but this conference, which went very carefully and thoroughly into the matter in 1920, brought up a report which, I am sorry to say, has not been acted upon, and it would have been wiser to have acted upon it when it was fresh. Why the Government should have considered it urgently necessary to make what it calls a “minor alteration” to the functions of the Senate I cannot see. Why not bring in comprehensive legislation based on that report, which should have the earnest attention of all members of this House? With regard to the nominated senators, I want to see provision made, in view of our vast native population, who have no direct representation, for four nominated senators as especially representing the interests of these people.

Shame!

What is the shame in that ? It would be a shame, indeed, if these people had not representation in some form in this House and in the Upper House, through men who can be their mouthpiece.

It is a shame that the Opposition appointed them.

The Opposition has no reason to be ashamed of appointing these four honourable men. I do not want to mention names, though the Minister of Justice mentioned Senator Opperman. I know that Commandant Opperman knows as much about the natives of the Transvaal as any man in that territory. It is a question of principle. These four nominated senators should not be at the whim of party. Beyond these four, who are nominated for a specinc purpose, I do not want to see any other nominated senators. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) will see on page 6 of the report a suggestion for a constitution and election of the Senate which will commend itself to nearly everybody in the country. Other countries have tried to do away with the upper Chamber and have failed. They have found it necessary to have an upper Chamber specially divorced from party politics. The history of the Senate has shown that it is an extraordinarily impartial body, taking all things into consideration, and is one it need not be ashamed of. Yes; it threw out the colour bar Bill, and the hon. member who has just sat down, and objects to that, does not seem able to distinguish between a minor matter and one of vital, fundamental importance, as was that measure. Everybody on both sides expected the Senate to act like that—in a broader way than could have been expected in this House. After careful and mature thought the Senate considered that that Bill was not in the best interests of the country, and for those reasons rejected it. We were told by the Minister of the Interior that the Senate was a purely party political body. I would like to point out that one Bill passed by this House, the Fruit Export Control Bill, was passed by the South African party members of the Senate in the face of strenuous opposition from the Government benches. The Senate also passed the Wage Bill, knowing that it was a measure we had opposed in this House, although we opposed it, not because of the principle, but because of the method of approaching the subject, and the implications of its application. Then they passed the Electoral Bill, although there were many objectionable things in it, some of which were amended.

For party purposes.

Did the eight nominated men meet in caucus with the South African party?

I can only tell the hon. member that I am not aware that any caucus was specifically held on that Bill at all. We were told by the Minister of Mines that—

but you can have that without an appeal to the electorate, or any fundamental change. I think that is a conveniently loose interpretation of what a change of Government means! Then we were told it was not a radical Bill. I consider Clause 2, is a very radical change indeed. The machinery we have now may be clumsy ; but its very slowness is one of its recommendations. It is only on an important matter that affects the vital present interests and future history of this country, that the Senate will adopt the measures they have done within the last two years. The two years’ delay that has occurred in the case of the colour bar Bill has not been too long. There is another matter. As the Bill stands now, there are certain clauses of the South Africa Act which are liable to be infringed, namely, Clauses 137 and 35 in regard to language rights and franchise qualifications respectively. Certain clauses in the Act of Union are entrenched, and a majority of two-thirds of both Houses sitting together is required before an alteration can be made, but it seems to me that, according to this Bill, if a measure on either of those two fundamental subjects were passed in this House, and rejected by the Senate, and passed by this House again, it would become the law of the country. The issue is not such a narrow one as the Minister of Justice tried to make out. I take it that this is a very fundamental issue indeed. We have already altered the Act of Union in many regards, and when we come to an important change of this sort, I think it should be approached in a different way. I think a considered measure should be brought in to deal with the whole question of the composition, and constitutional position, of the Senate, and that we should not tinker with the question. Instead of an impartial body, as the Senate is at present, we are going to make it a purely partial one if this Bill is passed. Where it should be a calm body to review legislation and delay measures, passed in the heat of party controversy, which might be dangerous to the welfare of the country, it is going to be used, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said, as a purely registering machine. I think, if the Government and this House would consider the report of this conference quietly and fully, and then if the Government would bring in a measure, which I wish had been brought in by the late Government, based on this report, it would be better. I think action should have been taken as soon as possible after the Speaker’s conference report was issued. Here is a carefully considered report which is a ground work on which we can build. The Senate itself would welcome certain improvements in its composition and in the machinery under which it now works, and a comprehensive measure dealing with the whole question, as indicated, would be almost unanimously supported both in this and the other House, to secure those improvements.

Which?

There are several. In the first place, to do away with the nominated senators, except those nominated to represent the natives ; also the method by which, and period for which, they should be elected: then that the Senate should be dissolved under certain circumstances. There are many recommendations that commend themselves to anybody who studies this report, but I shall not go into them in detail, as the Government benches would then say that I am “obstructing”— their favourite charge in the face of criticism! Members opposite may protest, but I repudiate any suggestion that we have been obstructionists on this side of the House, since I have had the honour of being a member. We have offered honest criticism, fought strongly what we considered to be wrong, but never offered captious obstruction.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has been accused of deliberate obstruction. I think the last thing he could be accused of is doing anything deliberately. If he did obstruct it would be impulsive but not deliberate. I share in the regret that the Bill should be brought in so late in the session, because the matter is very important and deserves every consideration. The Minister said he did not introduce the Bill merely from a party standpoint. That gave me a start. Then the Minister of the Interior said the measure would be a benefit to the South African party. That made me more suspicious—

Then he said that when the Government had the nomination of senators they would not merely nominate from, its own supporters. The Minister really professes too much. Even in the matter of the public service he has told us that he will bring party considerations to bear.

All things being equal.

He is to be the judge of—

If that is to be done in the case of members of the public service, what, can be expected when they appoint the senators? Then he assured us that if this were a radical Bill it would have gone further—presumably in the direction of abolition. It may not in the opinion of the Minister he a radical Bill, but it paves the way for him to bring in a radical Bill as he will have a majority in the Senate.

This will not give us a majority in the Senate.

You are hoping so. If the Minister did not think the result would be to give his party a majority in the Senate he would never have introduced the Bill. The Minister also stated that in his opinion it was not the proper thing that the Senate should be a mere reflex of the Assembly, tut this Bill is designed to that end.

Independent within certain limits.

The Minister also observed that the Senate should not be able to frustrate the will of the Government of the day. I feel the Bill will rivet the chains of party on the Senate. I did hope that we might get back to the National Convention atmosphere, and be able to loosen the chains of party not only from the Senate but the provincial councils. The original idea was that the provincial councils should be free from party and the Senate should be a house of review, and that when there were fresh elections to the Senate there would be elected to it gentlemen who had held judicial positions, or high public offices, and retired men of that sort who would not look at things from a party point of view. Then the Senate would be a real house of review. At the first meetings of the Senate that was the idea which prevailed and there were senators who declined to identify themselves in any way with party and they did not sit on opposite sides. I am told that it was only lately at the request of senators who belonged to the Government side of the House that they now sit opposite one another in opposing parties. That that spirit should prevail has been one of the disappointments of the National Convention.

We have to recognize the fact that the Senate has not come up to expectation.

So because certain people do not live up to a high ideal you must come down to a lower level.

You had the same in the provincial councils; you had to recognize facts.

I don’t think that is a sound way. Even if you cannot get people to live up to high standards it is as well to have those standards, rather than deliberately come down to a lower one. The Government has lowered the standard, and their appeal is to prejudice and not to principle. There was still an opportunity of dealing with the matter which might have taken us back to the high ideals of the National Convention. At the Speaker’s conference it was suggested that there should be a panel so as to get away from the party atmosphere.

That was never intended to be acted upon.

You are wrong.

We might have been able to get back to something in the shape of what prevailed in the Upper House of the old Cape Colony, which was divided into circles, each circle returning three members to the Legislative Council, electors having the right to plump for any particular candidate. This gave a minority which might have no representative in the Assembly an opportunity of being represented in the upper House. This system kept alive interest in political affairs in districts where the minority had no hope of returning a member to the Assembly. That would be particularly desirable in the case of the Free State which returns to this House members of one political complexion only. Under such circumstances minorities are bound to lose a real live interest in the affairs of the country. But that is a bad thing for the country. If the Free State were divided into circles with the right of the cumulative vote, they could feel that they had a real live interest and that they were really being represented in some way. I regret that this Bill has been brought forward at this late stage, when we cannot go properly into the matter. I do not think it is a Bill which is in the interests of the country, and I shall vote against it.

There has been a good deal of feeling thrown into the discussion on this Bill, and we have had shouting from one side of the House more particularly. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) made one statement here which, I think, ought to be challenged. He stated that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) took an attitude with regard to the Electoral Bill which was specially for their own benefit. The hon. member for Harbour took exactly the same view that I did on the Electoral Bill. I spoke in this House and took up an opposite view from most members on this side, and I voted with the Government on this Bill. Another statement which the hon. member made was that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was guilty of obstruction. He did not use the words “wilful obstruction ”. I think that although the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) opposes many of the things which I am interested in, it will be a bad day for this House when it loses the services of that hon. gentleman. There is no question of obstruction in the criticisms that he brings to bear upon the measures placed before this House. A great deal has been made of the attitude of the Senate towards the Electoral Bill. I have stated in this House that the Senate in passing the press clause swallowed the camel and strained at the gnat on that Bill. Then there was the question of the Immorality Bill. That Bill has been withdrawn. Surely the Government are not going to blame the Senate for that. It was one of their strongest supporters in the Senate, Mr. Tod, who moved that amendment to the Bill. He “toddled” off home after he gave his vote and has not appeared since. With regard to the present Bill, I think this is a question which can be discussed calmly and without any feeling. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Sir William Macintosh), I consider, put the position quite correctly when he said that the system you are proposing is one that will for ever make the Senate a political body. Anybody who looks at the names of the members of the Senate must realize that they are amongst the best men that each of the various provinces could produce. There is no doubt from what we heard when this question was discussed in the Houses of the old states, that the idea was to have the Senate and the Provincial Council entirely free and devoid of politics. The very fact of making your first elections for the new Parliament run concurrently with the elections for the provincial councils, was the first step, so far as the Cape was concerned, towards making the provincial councils political bodies. If you admit that the Convention were guided by a desire to make the Senate a success and to try to avoid political bias, as far as possible, in its constitution, I am sure the Minister of the Interior must admit that they would not adopt this system, for this system that he proposes lends itself more than any other to political partisanship. I can understand that there might be something in the argument that, as far as the Government nominees are concerned, they should have the control of those nominees, but the Government should never forget that so far, at any rate, as four senators are concerned, they are not their nominees. They are only the nominees for the purpose of protecting the natives. They are a trust imposed upon you, and, if you abuse that trust in the appointment of those nominees, you are sacrificing one of the greatest principles that can be entrusted to you. To use the trust for the protection of natives for the purpose of your own political party ends will be bringing down Government to the lowest possible ebb. I submit—I care not what. Government you have —that the persons nominated so far as the Cape is concerned—I do not know what their politics were—arc such that you would find great difficulty in finding better men. The representatives of the natives are in a different position entirely from the representatives of any other class. The question we have to discuss is, are they true to the principles for which they are sent there, namely, to look after the interests of the natives. I submit that the names of Stanford and Roberts stand out as friends of the natives and other things one could mention. When it was under discussion in the old Cape House I moved that the life of the Senate should only be seven years. I felt ten years was too long. I did not get any support and perhaps rightly so. In America I understand—and this is a point which the Minister should say is a fair point—that when the legislature has passed a law it can only be amended after a general election. The Minister must consider that if you are passing a Bill this year and re affirming it next year, you might just as well have affirmed it in the first year, because it is the same party ; it is the same people. Take the case of the House of Lords. In the House of Commons they cannot do what the Minister suggests doing. If hon. members will read up the history of the House of Lords and the House of Commons they will find (hat the struggle between the House of Lords and the Government commenced as far back as 1843.

Times have changed.

Yes, they have changed, and for the worse. Any question of putting the House of Lords in contrast with this cannot for a moment be considered. All through the Victorian period up to the ’70’s, the House of Lords was continually checking things. You are not getting a fresh consensus of opinion by this Bill. A plebiscite would be better. This system, the Minister must surely see, is not just. Secondly, your nominating members after every election is passing it on to a body to criticize your legislation whom you nominate for that purpose. Can the Minister quote a single public meeting or resolution that has asked to take this step ? It is no use having a Senate which is only a Senate in name, and not in reality. The history of almost every country shows that the double chamber system is the system most beneficial for the country, but if the second chamber is only to be a chamber of nomination, that chamber cannot exist as a body which will have any weight with the country.

The principle of the Bill is clear, viz., to assure a democratic representation of the people. The two chamber system exists everywhere in the world to-day to represent as far as possible the ideal of having a democratic Government of the people. And it seems to me that the question to-day is how far this Bill is an improvement in that direction. The mere fact that we have two houses is not a guarantee that we possess a democratic Government. I think everyone will admit, members on this side of the House and of the Opposition, that the present system is capable of improvement. Now I think that many hon. members on this side and also in the Opposition, if I must judge by their acclamations, agree with what the Minister of Justice said about the superfluousness of the Senate. There are certainly strong feelings in that direction, but it is certain that this Bill is a great improvement in the position. If we want to consider the matter on its merits, it is necessary that our arguments should be quite clear from the beginning. I do not think that any hon. member opposite agrees with the speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), and I think I can, on behalf of nearly all members of this House, condemn the dragging into this discussion by the hon. member for Caledon of the Asiatic question. It is quite an irresponsible action of the hon. member. What he said concerns a most complicated matter and embraces a most difficult policy and is outside of party politics, and for an hon. member to drag it in in a discussion of internal concerns —because that is what we are dealing with today—is unworthy, and irresponsible, and not what we expect from a responsible member, especially not from a member who has occupied such a responsible position in this House in the past. Apart from that, it is disappointing that the point under discussion is confused instead of made dear by various speakers on the other side of the House. Most of the members have not discussed the subject matter of the Bill, but use general arguments. And that in connection with a point of view which they have supported for a few years. But what is the use of their favouring the view that alteration is necessary if year after year they do nothing ? The longer they favour that view, the better it will be for the country for them not to come into power again. If we look at the amendment which was supported for years by the other side, then we must feel with the Minister of Alines and Industries that the amendment proposed by us does not go nearly so far as that contained in the report subscribed by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), and which he not only subscribed, but about which in the report he gives the meaning on behalf of the conference. We can, however, find no explanation of the attitude of the Opposition in opposing this Bill. The whole point is, without doubt, that certain benefits arise from the existing circumstances, and it is only human for them to try to keep the benefits. Then it is not a national matter with them, but a party matter, and we have the right of differing from them. We must remove the absurdity which exists to-day. The first point in the absurdity is the consideration that the Government chosen by the people is hampered in its work. The interests of the party seem in this matter to outweigh the interests of the people with the party opposite, because otherwise the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) would not be able to approve of the existing position. The second point to be borne in mind is the carrying out of the will of the people. We want, by this Bill, to make it more possible for the will of the people to be executed. These are two points of importance which have been fogged by the opposite side. We cannot sufficiently condemn the tendency “to raise a false issue,” and it is too often done on the opposite side. It has repeatedly been said that the Bill means the destruction of the influence of the Senate and practically its abolition. It is not actually the objective of the Bill and the matter under discussion. It is a matter of self-interest and party interest with hon. members opposite. It is clear, from the clauses of the Bill themselves, that the steps which are being taken express the principle to better fulfil the people’s will. Clause 2 deals with two important points, viz., firstly the power of the Senate in respect of general legislation, and secondly financial legislation. How far is the existing power of the Senate with respect to general legislation restricted ? All that is taken away is actually the joint sitting in the second session of the House of Assembly. If it is the object of the Senate to hold up hasty legislation, it is attained if the Bill is held up until the second sitting. With reference to the second point, viz., financial legislation, I want to refer hon. members opposite to the English Act which lays down the power of the House of Lords in this respect. The English Act of 1911 shows that our Senate has more power in financial matters than the House of Lords has. The Act of 1911 lays down that if a financial measure is passed by the House of Commons within a month of the end of the session, and is rejected by the House of Lords, then it can, if the House of Commons thinks fit, be sent to the King for his approval, even if the House of Lords does not approve of it.

Here the opportunity is given to the Senate, together with the House of Assembly, to have a say in financial legislation while that power is not given to the House of Lords. I feel, however, that the Bill has certain weaknesses. This does not mean that I do not heartily agree with the Bill. In the first place, it is left to the Government to dissolve the Senate within ten years if it wishes. I repeat that the object of the Bill is to make the fulfilment of the people’s will easier, but it would be more effective if the life of the Senate were shortened rather than to leave it to the Government to dissolve the Senate or not. The second point I do not mention as a weakness, but it does not tally with the first point. It is provided in the Bill that the nominated members shall cease to be members if the Government ceased to exist. I approve of that because then they no longer represent the Government, but I should prefer that the first point I mentioned were placed on the same basis as the second, viz., that the life of the Senate should be shortened, and should not depend on the judgment of the Government. The third weakness has already been mentioned, viz., that the Bill is not radical enough. With reference to the fact that certain senators represent certain native interests, I think that no one is opposed to that provision of the South Africa Act continuing. If I am to give my own opinion, it is that there should be additional and better representation for the natives. Where the Bill, however, falls short is that when a certain number of members for or less or more represent certain interests, then the special representatives ought to confine themselves only to those interests, and should not further exercise any function except in case of the legislation for which they have been specially appointed. According to the South Africa Act, these senators are nominated to look after native interests, but if the persons are specially qualified in one direction it does not say that they are able to decide about other matters. The work of those members ought to be limited to the matter in respect of which they are appointed, although I have mentioned the few points which I regard as weaknesses and shortcomings, I feel that this Bill is a step in the light direction, and I therefore welcome it.

As an old member of the Senate, I have been waiting, impatiently or patiently, for some words of wisdom to fall front the predominating members of the Pact—I mean the Labour party—on this important question. They have been silent on a matter they profess to have deep at heart. I hope we shall be illuminated by their wisdom before the debate is over. I have been struck by the absence of any case for urgency in regard to this Bill. Why, the Minister himself, in introducing the Bill, said the only difficulty that arose with the present position of the Senate, and the present method of electing them, was delay. That was precisely why these provisions were put into our constitution, and the Minister has no right to complain if these safeguards function and, on the whole, they have functioned admirably since the beginning of Union. In a matter of such vital importance as changing, and radically changing, our constitution, it is surely strange that no mention was made of it in the Governor-General’s speech. I have been to some trouble to look through the election speeches of prominent ministers of the ministry, including those of the Prime Minister, and I did not succeed in finding a single word from him, in his manifesto delivered in Smithfield, saying that the matter of the reform of the Senate was one of great urgency and one which would be tackled by his Government. We find, too, that perhaps there is more than meets the eye in this. When we have a most powerful section of the Government, for the moment at all events—the Labour portion—committed to the abolition of the Senate, and when we have the predominant partner in the ministry, the Minister of Justice, saying he is also in favour of its extinction, we are not unreasonably justified, I think, in coming to the conclusion that this is paving the way to the abolition of the bi-cameral system in the constitution, and to having only one chamber in our legislature. The circumstances under which this Bill has been introduced are unfortunate, too. When a constitution has to be changed, undoubtedly it should be done under circumstances of great circumspection. An endeavour should be made to create a proper atmosphere, and during the National Convention, when delegates were selected from the various provinces, they to a large extent tried, and succeeded, in leaving behind purely local and party politics, in addressing themselves to the great task of changing the constitution. And again, when, after the expiration of ten years’ life of the Senate, under the Act it became possible and desirable to review the method of reappointing and constituting the Senate, advantage was taken of the recess to appoint that committee so ably presided over by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), which made important recommendations for the guidance of the public and of hon. members on this subject. There is very little to show from the speeches which have come from the Government side that hon. members over there have even read this report. At any rate they have paid very little attention to it. Although the full spirit of the National Convention could not have been reproduced in 1920, many valuable recommendations were made by Mr. Sneaker’s conference. The introduction of this Bill should not have been made at the end of the session, when members are tired, and strong party feelings have been aroused ; at all events, it is scarcely possible at this late stage of the session to debate the matter in that spirit which would enable us to arrive at a correct solution of the problem. Whatever weaknesses the Senate has, there is no indication that this Bill will remedy them. In fact, it would seem to perpetuate any existing weakness. As an original member of the Senate, I remember that when we first took our seats, there was an honest endeavour to keep the Senate as far as possible from party politics. We did not seat ourselves according to our political views, and for a long time there was no such thing as a party whip, but all that has now disappeared. If the members of the Senate have not been able to maintain their high ideals, that is due to causes which need not be recapitulated. If the Minister was correct in stating that the seats of the nominated senators might be vacated on a dissolution of the Senate, that will make the Senate purely a body dependent on the Government of the day. It will, in fact, secure what the Minister states he is anxious not to have—a second chamber which will be a faithful reflex of the political proportions of the lower House. We have to take into consideration that not only is it proposed that the Senate shall be reformed now, but there is good reason to expect that this Bill merely paves the way for the total abolition of the upper House. That would be a great pity. Practically all modern constitutions, and not only throughout the British community of nations, have second chambers. They are found necessary for the proper working of government, and I am sure that the most ardent democrat would admit it is sometimes necessary for a country to be saved from democracy. Democratic feelings are apt to ran very high at times, and they do not always run wisely. People are swayed by impulses, moved by strong feelings and by the eloquence of their representatives, and they are not always guided in the best permanent interests of the State. Second chambers have a very valuable work to perform in insuring the true stability of the country by keeping the coach of State from rushing too rapidly downhill, and to apply a legislative brake to enable the people to reconsider the position in calmer moments. I should greatly deprecate anything which would tend to deprive our constitution of that great safeguard—a second chamber which is removed from the most potent party feelings, and can guide the legislative coach safely through dangerous circumstances. The Minister said there were a good many people who wished to go a good deal further. I suppose the Minister means that there are a good many people who would like to see the Senate abolished altogether. There is ample justification for us to be very concerned indeed about this Bill. I am not one of those who think that what the Assembly does is necessarily invariably wise. When a Government reintroduces a measure which has been rejected by the Senate, this shows that there is very often good reason for a period of calm in order that the provision of any measure which has been rejected may be reviewed and modified.

Assuming, as we are entitled to do, that at all events a certain section of the hon. members of this House are in favour of doing away with the second chamber, it may be interesting to recall that, at the Speaker's conference which investigated this matter very thoroughly, such a motion was rejected by a large majority, 15 to 6, and among those who voted in the minority were Mr. Roos. Mr. Snow and Senator Whiteside. That throws some light on the debate to-day. I do not think the country, as a whole, is at all willing to do away with the second chamber. I am sure that the most sensible body of public opinion in this country feels that ministries and majorities often lose their heads, and that it is most desirable to have some machinery in our constitution that will enable public attention to be focussed upon the point at issue, and that there shall be time for quiet reflection before the matter comes up again. Looking into the provisions of this Bill, especially section 2, it seems that the gravamen of the change will consist in the abolition of joint sittings, except as regards money bills. What the object of that is, I am unable to discern. It cannot save time, if that be the object, and I would point out that, should this Bill become law, it will be necessary for a Minister to present a Bill that has passed this House of Assembly once, to the Senate a second time. We have a case in point. Supposing the Minister of Justice is very anxious to put the Immorality Bill on the statute book, if this present Bill passes the Assembly, he can introduce it next session into this House and virtually defy or ignore the Senate.

No; the Senate did not throw out that Bill.

I am taking that as an illustration. Supposing that Bill had been rejected, if this Bill becomes law, it will be possible by passing the measure through this House in one session and pasing it through again to put it on the statute book, and it will not be necessary to refer it to the Senate a second time. If this Bill becomes law, this House, can ignore the other place.

That is the very purpose of it.

It is good to be clear. The Minister will admit that the Minister of the Interior, when introducing this Bill, did not make that quite clear. There are such things as etiquette and courtesy in parliamentary life, and you, sir, very rightly—and we all support you—insist upon that. I would suggest that it would be more in accordance with parliamentary practice if this Bill had originated in the Senate. I am fortified in that opinion by May. In May 13th edition, at page 378, these words will be found—

That is the practice, and it would be more in accordance with our practice and with the traditions which we have if the Government had taken that course in respect of this Bill. I would ask those in charge of this Bill, and who support it, what they expect will happen to this Bill when it reaches the committee stage of this House. Every line of it bristles with difficulties. There is hardly a phrase or a sentence in it but which ought to be debated at full length. The implication of this Bill is very far-reaching. There is another point. Supposing this Bill passes this House, there is some reason for thinking that it will not pass another place, at all events this session. Under our existing rules, apart from this Bill altogether, we cannot amend it in this House next year. The Minister will have to present it again and pass it in the form in which it leaves this House this session. The Minister made a strong point about this Bill being intended to ensure that the will of the people, as expressed in a general election, will ultimately prevail.

Hear, hear.

I wonder if the hon. member who said “hear, hear” has studied the full effect of this measure. It would seem to be the impression, in that corner, at all events, that after a general election the will of the people, as expressed by the number of members returned to this House, representing various parties, will decide the composition of the Senate. Nothing of the sort. The members of the Senate are selected by the members of this House for each province acting together with the members of the provincial council for each province. There are in all more members of the provincial council in the Union than there are members of Parliament, and it is quite possible that a general election will take place when a provincial council is almost three years old, a long time, indeed, after these men have been elected on the points which were engaging public attention at the time. In the Free State and Natal there are actually more members of the provincial council than there are members of Parliament for those provinces. That is an important point. It shows, amongst other things, that this measure has not received the consideration that its importance deserves, and which the country expects from those who have introduced it. This matter of a separate dissolution engaged the attention of legislators in this country under the old Cape constitution as long ago as 1853, when the suggestion was made that the Upper House should be dissolved separately. After 57 years of experience, it was never found necessary to put such a measure upon the statute book.

They were elected by the people in those days.

Yes, but it was felt in the Cape that it was not altogether wise to go by the results of the last general election. This other body, the legislative council, was devised as a second chamber to keep some check on hasty legislation. Even more strange than the silence of Labour members is the silence of the Prime Minister. One would have thought that a measure of such far-reaching importance, involving as it does radical changes in our constitution, would, if not introduced by the Prime Minister himself, at least have received his vocal support, and that we should have had the benefit of his views on this important measure. I do not know what the reasons are. Perhaps he considers it a minor matter. We are entitled to form our own reasons. It seems that the introduction of this measure at this inopportune time, at the tail-end of the session, has been done for some other reason. Perhaps it is to cover up certain regrettable incidents in the career of the Ministry this session. I think it was very ill-advised, and scarcely courteous on the part of the Minister of Justice to allude to the qualifications of Senator Opperman. One has only to know Senator Opperman to know that he is a gentleman of the utmost conscientiousness. I feel sure he has brought that wisdom, industry and experience to bear upon the native problem that he has brought to bear upon other matters. We do not retaliate. We might. We might ask: What are the particular qualifications of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk), for the important position to which he has been appointed? We know that he has many great and good qualities, but there is no evidence before us that these include a reasonable knowledge of the reasonable needs and aspirations of the natives. It is a great pity that this method is being taken to alter our constitution. The framers of the Act of Union took a very long time over the consideration of this matter. They were aided by expert advisers. They took a very long time over it, with the result that they drafted these clauses, notably, section 63, which I submit have, on the whole, well stood the test of time and opinion. The introducer of this Bill cannot claim he has devoted the same time and thought or has had the same assistance as the framers of the Act of Union. We are not impressed by the circumstances under which this Bill is introduced. There is no evidence that the country has been consulted A spasmodic attempt has been made by certain of the Government organs to create a little excitement, and I submit, on the whole, they have failed miserably. I submit it is most unconstitutional and most unwise to introduce a measure of such far-reaching importance under the particular circumstances under which this Bill has been introduced to the House.

I do not want to go into the matter very deeply, but there are a few points I should like to call attention to. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) said this afternoon that the Senate had been established to serve as a safety valve. I agree with that if that is actually the intention of the Senate. The Senate must preserve safety between what ‘Parliament does and the people think, and must serve as a safety valve when the existing Government does anything carelessly and in a hurry. We have already seen in this country that legislation is passed hurriedly and that the Senate sends it back amended. That is a proof to me that it is not so desirable that the Senate's powers should be reduced. We know that the Senate has done first-class work since the beginning of its existence. In 1915 various measures of the previous Government were rejected. We never regarded the work of the Senate in the sense that it had always to do what the House of Assembly wished. That would create an impossible position if the Senate always has to approve the measures of the House of Assembly. Where will our democratic system be then ? The Senate exists as a cooling chamber to consider all the hasty legislation coolly and calmly and to point out the mistakes if there are any to be found. We see regularly that amendments are made. Sometimes the alterations of the Senate touch the principle of the Bill but one cannot expect when you have a body consisting of highly placed people that they will always agree with the Government. The Senate to day is composed of people who enjoy the greatest respect of the people and the Senate to-day is highly thought of by the people. If this Bill is passed the result will be that the Senate will be despised by the people who will then shout for its abolition. Is it desirable to create such a feeling? I think it is desirable that we should have such a body to consider hasty legislation of the House of Assembly and to prevent its being passed. We have heard from the Minister that he does not want to make a mere machine of the Senate. I agree that we should not do that, for it would then automatically approve the Bills of the House of Assembly. The Senate must express its own opinion and not merely that of the Government. We cannot make the Senate into a footstool of the Government. It cannot always agree with the Government just because the Government has been put into power by the people. We must not forget that the people regard the Senate as the highest body in the land, because we, as the House of Assembly, are in a certain measure subordinate to the Senate.

Who elects the senators ?

The Constitution says that there shall be a body to consider all legislation coolly and calmy. Why is there so much fighting to take away the power of the Senate? The Senate has its power under the Constitution, and the Government ought not to alter the constitution so lightly. During the past two years we have been inclined to alter the constitution if it stands in our way. We must be careful to not drag the constitution over the floor of the House continuously. The people are beginning to feel that we are doing this too much and the result will be that we shall have the whole people against us. The hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) said that we could get on just as well without the Senate. Why then is it not suggested to the Government to abolish that body by the Bill ? So long as that body exists we ought to assist it to be able properly to carry out its duties. We must not break down what has already been built up. The Minister of Justice has made it plain from what quarter the wind blows, and it was when he was speaking about the representation of the native population. He mentioned the name of General Opperman. Senator Opperman is a man who is known not only in the Transvaal, but throughout the whole country. A man who is frank and just and who has done much in the past in the interests of the country. The question of patriotism has been mentioned as compelling the Government to take this step. I should like to know what that patriotism is. Is it patriotism to compel a body to give you your way and to reduce its powers if the body says that the Government is doing something wrong? I think we shall make a great mistake if we reduce the powers of the Senate. It is said that if possibly we were to come into power again in two years that it would then be beneficial to us also. I am not at all of that opinion. The body must give its own opinion, and not only be a machine to put through the legislation of the Government. We should like to have had a few words from the Prime Minister about this important matter. We should like to know from him why there is so much haste about this Bill. The people have been talking for a long time about the alteration of the Senate, but no one knew how far the alteration would go and none of the voters have been able to consider the matter properly. We are dealing with an alteration in the constitution too lightly. If in the old Transvaal an alteration was effected to the constitution then it created quite a fuss in the whole of the Transvaal. But to-day it is quite simple. The Parliament meets and with the assistance of a majority the Government altered the constitution, and if the Government cannot get its way in the Senate, then it alters the Senate. We are busy on something which is dangerous and I suggest that we should first allow the people to judge whether it can be done.

I do not understand the Opposition. They spoke of us as a dying party, but it looks very much as if the Opposition were afraid that at the next election they would have no chance. The alteration with regard to the eight senators is not now being put through, but will come into force at the next election. If the Opposition then is so certain that it will come into power it will only be for its benefit. I should like to ask a question of hon. members and of the hon. member for Witwatersberg ( Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). Who is responsible for the legislation which is passed in this House? Is it the Opposition or the Senate or the Government ? It is surely the Government which decides and the people hold neither the Opposition nor the Senate responsible but this side of the House. We are quite prepared to take all the responsibility on us but we can at least expect that we as the governing party which has to bear the responsibility shall not be saddled with a South African party Senate. I speak frankly. We are not altering the Senate to-day, but we wish if the Opposition thinks that it is coming into power again at the next election to give it a chance of preventing its being saddled in the same way with a Senate in which the Nationalists have a majority. Which of the hon. members will deny that the light senators appointed by the former Government attend the caucus of the South African party, and are instructed by the party what attitude to take up in the Senate. Hon. members with a sense of honour on the opposite side of the House ought to remain quiet. We heard before the election that if the Nationalists came into power their first work would be to tear the constitution to pieces. We altered it twice last year. It is only sensible people who can amend and regulate. We are often obliged, to amend the constitution and we have long appreciated that the people are not were for the constitution but the constitution for the people, and that it must answer its purpose. We have amended the constitution twice in the previous session, fortunately with the support of hon. members opposite. In the first case we acknowledged the name of the Almighty in the constitution and in the second Afrikaans was acknowledged as an official language. According to what hon. members opposite say we were then tearing up and breaking the constitution, but is there one of them who will go to the country to-day and say that the Nationalist Government acted wrongly in amending the constitution in those respects? No, they dare not do it. We are also willing to take the responsibility of the present amendment upon us. I am surprised at the South African party making such a fuss. If we, however, regard the Opposition from the correct point of view we can say that they see then-own danger in it, because after the dissolution of this Parliament they will not be able to baulk the legislation of the Government, by telling South African party senators how to vote.

If we were in any doubt at all what attitude to take in regard to this Bill, the remarks of the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) afford the most convincing proof that the view we have been putting forward on this side of the House is the correct one. It must have been an intense pleasure for the Minister to listen to the contradiction in the speech to which we have just listened to the spirit, in which as he indicated this morning, he approached this Bill. The Minister excused the Bill on the ground that it was expressing the will of the people. The hon. member for Bechuanaland is much franker, and hopes when this Bill goes through that he and his party will extract some material benefit therefrom at the polls. Is it possible that the lofty principles to which we listened from the Minister of the Interior, reminiscent as they were of that Confucian philosophy—and other systems, as I am reminded—of which he is an admirer is nothing more than a bare, naked election weapon, and that the Minister’s fine words are in reality so much fustian? I hope, when the Minister rises, he may endeavour to explain how it is that these high principles he has expounded to us, when translated by a member of his party, come down to this electioneering plane? No, sir, I would prefer to believe that the Minister realizes the importance of dealing with this question in a way which will appeal to the country as a whole. I agree with him that, before such a radical alteration in our constitution could receive the assent of Parliament, he should make a case for that alteration in that fundamental law as an expression of the will of the people. The Minister himself accepted this viewpoint, and made that the basis of his argument ; and if he is logical, unless he can show that he is giving expression to some well-defined wish of the country as a whole, he has failed to make his case, and if he has failed to make his case on that point, it falls necessarily to the plane on which the hon. member for Bechuanaland has just addressed us. When in 1909 the four colonies now forming this Union decided to effect a radical change in their constitution, it was not done on two days’ notice in the last days of an expiring session of Parliament, hut it received consideration in all the four Parliaments of those colonies, and in private and in public received the attention of the most prominent statesmen that this country could produce ; and eventually the instrument that they had drawn underwent the same process of attention and revision at the hands of the representatives of the people. The decision they came to is one that should not be lightly interfered with, and for that reason the Minister makes the admission that, if they have to justify the measure at all, it must be shown to spring from a demand of a united people. Where is this proof of the will of the people? Where is the record on which the Minister relies? I do not know how the will of the people can be expressed, except by an appeal to that people. If the Minister in referring to the express will of the people refers to the expression given in June, 1924, I remind him that then there was a considerable majority vote for the party on this side of the House. I well remember the leader of the Labour party, I think on the 15th April, 1924, at the opening speech of his campaign, waving a flag in his one hand and with a big bludgeon, for “big finance,” in the other —

I have never waved a flag at a political meeting.

The point I want to make is that throughout the whole of that campaign he and his lieutenants were careful to make this point, that the Pact would die on the evening of 17th June, and consequently those who supported the party on the other side never contemplated that subsequent to these, events that in place of this sudden death there was to be this alliance now called the Pact. No indication was given that the Minister or his party sought to bring about this change in our fundamental law. I do not think that the Minister of Defence at any of those meetings which he addressed at that time, ever sought to obtain from the public a mandate which would entitle him to join hands with the Minister of the Interior and endeavour to effect this radical change in the constitution. What then becomes of the theory of the will of the people? I wonder if the Minister, perhaps, instead of calling to mind these facts, is thinking of the events of the last few days. It may be he is under the delusion that there has been a manifestation of opinion in favour of the Pact, but if that is so, he must be save mistaken. The hon. member and his followers in this House are forging a weapon with which they think that they may be able to advance their purely sectional interests in the eyes of the country. Is it a sound principle that the constitution of this country should be tampered with by a temporary majority in this House? When the Minister tells us that he is giving expression to the will of his countrymen, why does he not tell us lie is prepared to go to the country? No, he is not prepared to do so, until, with the assistance of this Bill, he perhaps improves the platform on which he expects to stand. It seems clear from speeches such as that of the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) that this is to be a mere electioneering weapon. But is it right that the second chamber in our constitution should be so framed and so devised as merely to give expression to the temporary popular will of the moment? I notice that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) pointed out that the experience of the democratic world had been that second chambers were useless, and that if it meant, as a result of this measure, that the second chamber became a “rubber stamp,” he could see nothing serious in that. That is just the opposite of the experience of the world of democracy. In the United States, where I suppose democracy has been tested in every form, you have a second chamber in the federal constitution, and in each of the forty-five states. It is unsatisfactory to constitute, side by side, two legislative bodies elected on the same franchise. It can do, at times, a permanent injury to the whole of the State. The Old Cape Parliament was elected by a simultaneous election, upon an identical franchise, except that the qualification for the legislative council was based on a higher property qualification. The working of that system was not satisfactory. That was the considered opinion expressed at the National Convention so far as we have access to its records. It was because of the unsatisfactory nature of that particular experiment that the fathers of the Union, it seems to me, devised a system where there would be opportunity for reflection before the will of the people might be carried into effect by legislative enactment. The whole object of the Bill is to give to the Minister and the Government a means of giving effect to what they conceive at the moment to be in the interests of the country. I should like the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), who has just interrupted me, to rise and tell us why he intends to support this measure, which intimately affects the Cape Province. Can the Minister point to the fact that at any time he has introduced the matter to the attention of the public ? Has there been any demand from the public that this measure should be brought info law ? Is he able to point to any misuse on the part of the Senate of the powers committed to them which would justify the change proposed to be brought about ? Only last night we had a striking illustration of what I think is the true function of the second chamber. This House sent up to it the Companies Bill, containing a clause which was one of the most remarkable creations ever seen in a Companies Bill, which the Minister of Justice had allowed to be incorporated in his Bill, and it was discussed in another place, perhaps in a calmer atmosphere. The Minister of Justice was seemingly convinced of the error of his ways, and we find him coming back charged with these arguments of, our elder statesmen, and prepared even to fight with his colleague (the hon. member for Liesbeek) and demonstrate to him how utterly ridiculous his proposal was. There was another illustration. This House sent up the Usury Bill to that other place. Not one member was found to rise in this House and object to its clauses. “When it was sent to another place an amendment was made, which ran counter to the whole scheme of the Bill. The Minister, despite that he was committed to the Bill, carried through an amendment on what was practically a party vote. And yet this is the second chamber which it is proposed by this Bill to sweep out of the way, the chamber which is supposed to stand in the way of the legislative programme of the Government. It must be remembered that there is a very real danger that if you constitute both legislative bodies so as to reflect the opinions of the moment, there is great risk of irreparable injury being done. After all, we have heard of the effect of majorities which are moved by the passions of the moment. We have seen sane indications in the past few days on the opposite side of the House of the passions of the moment. You might have a majority so utterly indifferent and inconsistent, and so regardless of the business of the House, that it might be possible for an eloquent Minister, or a philosophic Minister, to pass measures through the House, the full effect of which was not appreciated at the time. This debate opened with a plea by the Minister of the Interior for the immediate passage of the Bill, but the Minister of Justice, who has his ear so much closer to the ground than has the philosophic Minister of the Interior, said it was not, after all, a matter of urgency, and he thought on the whole that what had been done by the other place in the last two years could hardly be objected to, but the Bill was intended to provide for the future. There he stopped short in that sphinx-like manner we are accustomed to associate with the Minister of Justice. One or two instances which have occurred in recent weeks make us wonder what this purpose may be. I will not refer to what has occurred in the House in the last week ; I will not refer in detail to the debate which has stirred the people of South Africa into a real spontaneous expression of opinion, which must have startled the Government. [Laughter.] I would like to contrast this levity on my left with the solemn faces and the weeping and the gnashing of teeth which we saw and heard a few days ago. This levity is particularly interesting, for when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) addressed the House on the Flag Bill, he appeared to be against the measure, but voted for it.

The hon. member cannot refer to a previous discussion.

I was going to say something posterior to that debate. I was going to say the next

The hon. member must not discuss what took place in a previous debate.

The next day a deputation waited on the Minister in regard to the flag, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) was at its head clad in a Scots plaid and waving a Scots flag. There is another matter upon which I would like to ask the Minister for the Interior for an expression of his views. We were told at Stellenbosch a couple of weeks ago that we would shortly be faced with the question of a declaration of the international independence of South Africa; we were told that very shortly, at an Imperial Conference, a statement would be made on behalf of the Union that the time had arrived for each dominion to declare that internationally it was a sovereign power, internationally independent. And if that opinion was not shared in by the other dominions, South Africa would feel it incumbent upon her to make that declaration alone. Should that declaration be made, no doubt it would require at least the legislative sanction of both chambers. Is that the future that was spoken of by the Minister of Justice? Is there some connection between this Bill and that important step which touches the very heart of our constitutional rights ? If there is no connection between the two, what is there in the future which makes it so important that this Bill should be passed this session ? After the disturbance which has been created by the vagaries of the Government in the past few months, it seems to me that we should have some steadying statement by the Minister. If he regards the interests of the people and is anxious to express their will, he will tell us what is this mysterious action that is to take place in the future. The opposition that we have shown to this Bill is very necessary. We may for the moment be bludgeoned by the Minister and others who carry a flag in one hand and a bludgeon in the other, to submit, but not without uttering our protest. We do not regard our obligations to the constitution in the light and airy way of the Minister of the Interior, nor do we take it upon ourselves lightly to alter the constitution which was settled for us at the time of Union by the statesmen of this country. We do not desire to interfere with that at the mere dictation of a party majority, only to serve party interests, and I hope the country will take note of this attitude of the Government, which dares in this hasty manner to make a fundamental and radical alteration in the constitution of the Union.

The hon. member is known as the great constitution lawyer of the Opposition. We remember the blunder he made last year. He then said that we did not have the right to create our own customs tariff. That we did not have that right as a colony of England, and he could establish that from a hundred and one books. Nevertheless, the Government created the customs tariff, and I have not yet heard of a resolution as a result of it, nor that we have had any trouble with the British Empire. To-day he has made a long speech, but not on the Bill itself. He has spoken about the Bill on the flag and about independence and about a hundred other little things, and made cheap jokes, but the great constitutional lawyer did not get to the subject itself. He had—I speak with all respect for a Capetonian—the impudence of certain persons who live at the foot of Table Mountain and cannot look any further, to say that the people outside did not want the Bill. The hon. member has never been further than Salt River. He confines his gaze to Table Mountain. What does he know about the country ? It is a striking example of that conceit. The hon. member says that we have not the right to introduce the Bills, that we have received no mandate from the people. What right has the hon. member to come and speak of the people outside? He has no connection with them.

Whom do I represent?

A group of the Sons of England in Cape Town (Gardens). He only touched on the Bill once, and then the great constitutional lawyer made another big mistake. He said that we must look to the United States and the Senate there. That mistake is still greater than the one last year. Just imagine! The United States have a Senate which is elected by the votes of the people. Each State elects its senators at an ordinary election, therefore, it is a democratic body. Every member is elected by the people itself, and not like our Senate when one-quarter of the members were nominated by the former Government. The Senate of the United States does not sit like our Senate, quiet, waiting until we put wheelbarrows of Bills before them for approval. The Senate there is a live body which introduces Bills itself and has to do certain work. It deals, e.g., with foreign affairs. The Senate has to approve every treaty made by the President with another people. The Senate does all the work in this connection. Thus, where he speaks here about the great success in the United States he is hopelessly wrong, that wonderful constitutional lawyer. He said, as did also the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), that we had no mandate for this Bill from the people, and that we were trying to force the matter through at the end of the session. My experience, and that of other hon. members on this side of the House during the recent recess, certainly was that, when we returned to our constituencies, the first question put to us was: What are you going to do with the Senate? At nearly every meeting in my constituency that matter was touched upon, and I can assure you that the people demand an alteration with regard to the Senate, and to be no longer governed by the dead hand of the dead previous Government. At our latest Free State congress we took a resolution to make alterations. A large number of constituencies were in favour of the Senate being abolished, but the following motion was adopted after discussion—

A large number of constituencies from all parts of the Free State proposed that, and unanimously adopted the motion. There is an urgent demand to amend the constitution of the Senate and not to permit the will of the people being defied by it. Now the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), who lives under Table Mountain, says that we are not expressing the views of the public. What does the hon. member know about it? I advise him to go to any country constituency, and he will find out what the truth is. I wish he would come to my constituency to talk about the Senate. Then he would be asked what moral right the Senate has to govern the people, and whether it is a sensible thing for the Senate, whose majority consists of eight nominated senators, should have the right to go against the people’s will. Long before he got to De Aar, on his journey through the country constituencies, he will have decided to return. There is undoubtedly a great and urgent demand in the country that the constitution of the Senate shall be altered because it is felt to be unsatisfactory. I do not think that there is one hon. member opposite who will say that he thinks the present constitution of the Senate is actually satisfactory. Why, otherwise, was a Speaker’s conference convened in 1920 to discuss the matter and to make recommendations ? The necessity for an amendment is felt by hon. members on both sides of the House. In this discussion not a single member opposite has mentioned an argument why eight senators should be nominated by the Government, and should remain in office for ten years without the people or the Government of the day having anything to say about them. I, therefore, take it that even hon. members opposite must admit that an alteration is necessary as Regards the eight nominated senators.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) mentioned the matter.

He never came to the Bill. I would agree to the Government entirely abolishing the system of nominated Senators. I do not see why in a democratic country persons should be nominated as members of a legislative body.

Propose it.

If the hon. member proposes it, I will second it. I do not know anyone who would cry about it except the eight nominated Senators, but the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) will cry with them. It is now said by hon. members opposite that there is no party politics in the Senate. Can any sensible person who is still in possession of his senses Bay that there is no party politics in the Senate ? The whole election of Senators is entirely held on party lines. Whether this is desirable or not the provincial councils are purely political bodies, and the members of the provincial councils are elected on party lines. The members of this House are also elected in the same way, and then we, and the provincial councillors, come together to elect Senators, and the election always takes place on party lines. As for the nominated members of the Senate, is there one hon. member opposite who can state that they are not appointed for party political reasons ? Is there one who will say that the former Government ever nominated a Nationalist? Do they forget that one of the most honoured figures in our country Senator F. W. Reitz was kicked out by the previous Government ? I am aware that some of his friends and connections were assured by the former Government that he would be appointed again, but yet he was kicked out and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) approved of his father being kicked out.

That is low.

You lie.

I do not think the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) ought to have said that, but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) must not use those words.

It is a family matter, and it is absolutely untrue. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) should be ashamed of himself, and he has much to learn yet.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said it to me personally.

The hon. member must not say that.

Well I must say what he said to me personally.

You lie. I want again most strongly, to protest that a young member

I ask whether the hon. member should not withdraw his words.

I say that it is not true that I approved of my father being put out of the Senate. I would never do that because I have too much respect for my father.

I think the hon. member for Ladybrand must accept the word of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) and I ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) to withdraw the word “lie.”

Then I say that it is untrue. I say it with great indignation because I have too much respect for my father to say such a thing.

I accept that but in explanation I want to say I am sorry if I wrongly accused the hon. member, but he used certain words in my presence which led me to the conclusion that he was not sorry. I was dealing with the point that it is alleged that there is no party politics in the Senate and in the appointment of senators. Why did the previous Government, of which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) shortly after became a member kick such a noteworthy figure in history as President Reitz, whom the Government itself had nominated, out of the Senate ? It was purely for party political reasons. They did not consider the feelings of the people in that matter and insulted the people. To come here to-day and say there is no party politics in the Senate and that the senators are elected and nominated without party considerations is more than I can believe. Then I want to ask whether the nominated members and the four that are specially representing native interests do not attend the S.A.P. caucus. They are purely South African party members. I say nothing against the character of the senators who have been nominated to represent native affairs but it is a fact that they sit in the S.A.P. caucus. There are hon. members on this side of the House who are prepared to go much further than this Bill. I am one of those who agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that we might easily abolish the Senate. Although we take up this attitude that we might go much further I want to assure the Minister that he has a large majority of the people behind him. Although I will not say that the feeling in the country is strongly in favour of the abolition of the Senate, I can say that it is in favour of the reformation of the Senate so that it shall interpret the feelings of the people and not exist as a whip in the hands of an effete Government.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) whose feverish and somewhat breathless address has certainly kept this House appalled at his want of taste will doubtless give us a vainglorious account of it under his non-de-plume in the "South African Nation,” showing how the young member for Ladybrand shone in this particular debate. Sometime ago we had a description of his performance in a debate “interlarded with loud laughter,” and here the members laughed—written by the hon. member himself, about himself. The hon. member has seen fit to make an attack upon the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz).

The hon. member has accepted the word of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) has substituted other words for those he used. That episode must be considered as closed.

I bow to your ruling. It is certainly a very painful incident. The matter of surprise to me in this debate has been the attitude of the Labour party. Not a single member of that party has spoken on such an important question as this is ; in fact like sheep before the shearer, they are entirely dumb. The Minister of Labour and his colleagues entered the Cabinet as representatives of the English-speaking section of the population, but are betraying their position as honest brokers to barter away the principles that belong to that section. They are in mat Cabinet posing as honest brokers, but trafficking in the principles that those whom they profess to represent hold dear. Here they are consenting to an alteration in the constitution that is going to render easy the most far-reaching changes in our constitution which not a single soul in South Africa has ever authorized. The whole of this Pact has been recently exposed by one of the most prominent and honoured labour leaders in this country, Mr. Coleman, a member of the provincial council in Natal, who was at one time a member of this House. Mr. Coleman at a mass meeting in Durban dealing with the position of the Labour Ministers in the Cabinet said “he was surprised that some of his colleagues, whom he had loved, had without any mandate from their party or their province had the audacity to link themselves with the party with whom the Minister of Labour sits opposite. He is bound hand and foot and gagged while these alterations to the constitution of this country are put through.

I think they do not go far enough.

I can quite believe it is immaterial to the Minister how far his allies go. The introduction of this Bill constitutes an attempt by a party without a majority of its own and relying on a party which is discredited in the eyes of its own electors to effect a far-reaching change in our constitution, and without any mandate from the people and without a shred of justification, as was shown by the Minister of Justice this afternoon. He frankly admitted that nothing had occurred up to the present to justify the conclusion that the Senate was acting on party lines or that this was a reprisal for anything that had been done, but he spoke of what might happen in the future. It is precisely these happenings in the future that we are concerned about, and that the Labour party would be concerned about if they had not completely surrendered themselves. Those of us who fought in the last election had it dinned into our ears ad nauseam—

What happened ? The Pact was founded upon deceit. The Pact majority in this House was won by falsehood ; in Durban there were even accusations of murder against our leader, in which the Minister of Labour was one of the foremost to give the lead.

Quite light.

I am glad to have confirmation from such a pinacle of truth as the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn). The Minister of Labour was amongst those who stood on the front of the town hall and timed the cheers whilst a band of people were carrying round a coffin supposed to contain our leader, dead, and about to be thrown into the bay. I was there myself and saw the Minister taking part in these proceedings.

I have no more to do with that than the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). You might as well say he was responsible for it as he was there.

The Minister was on top of the town hall portico cheering and timing the cheers while this body of choice spirits was parading up and down with the coffin.

The Minister denies that. The hon. member must accept it.

In regard to the Pact, we have the testimony of a man whose word is entirely above reproach, Mr. Coleman, whose words I have quoted. By this sleight of hand the majority of the Pact was won. Having assured every audience that the Pact would end on the 17th of June at 8 p.m. the members entered the Ministry, and to this day evidence is abundant in every constituency that they entered the Cabinet against the wish of a considerable number of the people who sent them to Parliament.

I think the hon. member is wandering rather far afield.

I am indicating as a background to my argument how unauthorized these particular hon. gentlemen were when they claimed to be entitled to enter the Cabinet as representatives of the people for whom they professed to speak, but on whose behalf they are utterly dumb to-day. The constitution they are altering was passed under circumstances which are unique in South Africa. No document received wider attention and consideration than the Act of Union. In the province which I represent the whole question was submitted to a referendum. The Labour members representing Natal sit strangely dumb and depressed —I sympathize with the cause of their depression—“ flagitis,” I believe is the scientific name for it.

Payment of members.

They go hand in hand.

No song, no supper.

Not a single word of protest is raised by any of these hon. members when the whole basis of the Act of Union is being whittled away.

We are in favour of it.

I am glad to hear anything from the hon. member as to his reason for giving his allies a free hand to do as they think fit.

We are hearing you, too.

He will hear me on many unwelcome occasions. By sleight of hand they have managed to ally the Labour party to the Nationalists, and are now pledging them to art alteration of the constitution which, in its effect, is going to do away with the voice of the Senate in regard to any important Bill. Under this Bill a Minister may introduce a Bill to the Senate which has passed this House, and if it does not meet with the approval of the Senate, as was the case with the Immorality Bill the other day, the Minister may withdraw that Bill, as was done with the Immorality Bill, and it may never again be submitted to the Senate. The mere expression of an-adverse opinion by the Senate may be taken by the Minister as a rejection of a Bill, and he may forthwith employ the machinery of the present Bill against the Senate. What is the object of Clause 2? If it is to save time I would point out that no time will be saved. The process under Clause 2 will be of the same duration as the present process, but what is of great importance to the framers of the Bill is the avoidance of public opinion. The whole object is to avoid the focussing of public opinion dodging publicity, and the opprobrium which follows on action of a wrong and misguided kind. The consenting parties to this sort of procedure which may sap the foundations of our constitution are the Labour party. They are the people who are willing to barter away the safety of the country for whatever consideration is coming their way out of the Pact.

What public opinion does the Senate represent ?

The Senate represents a public opinion which is far more important than that represented by the Minister of Labour, who, being disowned by his constituents, represents nothing at this particular moment.

That does not answer my question.

Another misrepresentation which is being put forward is with regard to the desirability of having the term of the Senate and of the Assembly to end at the same time. That was made the subject of enquiry by Mr. Speaker’s conference, and they gave expression to the following view—

It was held to be a good thing to avoid a complete reflex of popular opinion, and to obviate Senate elections being simultaneous with those of the House of Assembly. There is scarcely a thinking man in this country who does not hold the same view. Whatever party is in power, you should have a brake on the wheel—a restraining influence upon the lower and popular body. I can understand the view of the red flagger, who is out for the abolition of the Senate—out for anything that stands in his Bolshevistic way. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) was a fellow-conspirator with an individual who suitably chained himself upstairs with a donkey chain and attempted to address the House. They and others ejected the Mayor and Town Council of Durban and took charge of the municipality.

The hon. member must confine himself to the question. These personalities should not go on.

The discussion of the Senate provisions when the Act of Union was passed showed that throughout the whole of South Africa the Senate provisions were regarded as among the most essential features of Union. Without the safe provisions laid down in regard to the Senate I venture to say that we should have had no union. Every right-minded man who represented a constituency in those days, recognized that that was the bulwark of our safety ; that no hurried legislation could take place and that the protection and right government and the safety of both races rested upon the constitution of the Senate, and also the protection of minorities, as an hon. member reminds me. At the end of this session, we have the Bill forced through in circumstances which nobody can deny, savours of very hasty legislation. We are to have this Bill, possibly, passed through a night sitting and followed soon afterwards by pressure to get the Bill through Committee. What is going to be the effect ? The Bill goes to the Senate, and unless the Senate are prepared to do hari kari, they will undoubtedly reject it. Though the Government’s unwisdom of the present moment may be succeeded by a sense of mistake, and they may wish to revise this Bill, the same Bill without a dot or dash altered, has to be returned to the Senate. So that this Bill, with all its mistakes and crudities, once it has been forced through in its present form, has got to go through again in exactly the same form in the next session of Parliament. That seems to me to simply perpetuate all the faults of hasty legislation and all the faults attached to the precipitate methods of the Minister will be enshrined in this Bill. Apparently we are to be butchered to make a Roman holiday, through the passing of this Bill under present circumstances. All authorities combine in pointing out the importance of the Senate provisions in our form of Government, and Professor Keith, who deals with this subject in his volume on “Responsible Government and the Dominions” points out, that in regard to the Union of South Africa, the Senate represents such a small ratio to the numbers in this House that the joint sitting is a safeguard which any Government could reasonably agree to, and surely when you have authorities upon constitutional government, pointing out the road in these matters, it is wisdom to pay some heed to them and not simply to be blinded by party prejudice and push through a Bill in the circumstances in which the Minister is endeavouring to have this Bill put through this House. I understood from the Minister, during the course of his address, that he even contemplated the alteration of the representation in the Senate. I hope I misunderstood him. But if it is proposed that the smaller provinces are in any way to forego the number of Senators which they have to-day, I warn the Minister that that would be taken as a serious infringement of the terms upon which the smaller provinces entered Union. Mr. Speaker’s conference dealt with this question very fully and very effectively. Another valuable public document on this question is the report of the Select Committee of the Senate in 1918 which I have perused, and which contains the same sound counsel which Mr. Speaker’s conference has offered to us. The Government, on the other hand prefer to be guided by the counsels of unwisdom, and bring forward a Bill which is simply going to perpetuate strife and unsettle the feeling of the public and the confidence of the public in the constitution which we enjoy through the wisdom of the framers of the Act of Union, I deprecate the rash efforts of the Minister in embarking upon experiments in constitutional law, such as he is introducing here. J resent the manner in which he spoke of the framers of the Act of Union. He finds it in his heart to jeer at those who framed the Act of Union, and to cast doubts on their wisdom.

On that particular point.

We on our part might quite well be goaded into the retort that it is open to us to question the Act of Union, and to say that in certain points it is defective, but we have not done so. This Government has been more busy with the shears cutting up the Act of Union since it came into power than all the Governments which preceded it for 15 years. Now we have the Government cutting away the very liberties of South Africa, and preparing for any eventuality. As the hon. member for Gardens has pointed out, all sorts of doctrines are being preached at the present time—the most absurd and bad doctrines—in regard to the constitutional position of South Africa in relation to Great Britain, and we might at any time find—with the consent of the Labour party—these doctrines being translated into practice, and the country might be thrown into a seething turmoil owing to our having weakened constitutional position by this Bill. [No quorum.] I have very little further to say, except to urge the Minister to turn back from his ill-doing and to consider whether he is likely to achieve any party advantage, or any advantage to South Africa, by continuing the course on which he has embarked. I feel sure that nothing but harm could come to the country from such ill-advised legislation as the Minister is endeavouring to push through the House, and I in all sincerity ask him not to continue on a course which is bound to arouse suspicion and resentment in the minds of the people. The Act of. Union is a protection to people which they value and cherish. I agree that legislation should have been introduced at an earlier date to deal with the difficulties arising out of the constitution of the Senate. If the Minister brought in a new measure dealing with this subject on broad lines, he would obtain considerable support on both sides of the House, and his task would be rendered easy instead of being the difficult one with which he is faced at the present moment.

My hon. friend the member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) often makes me think of the longwinded locusts we have in the Free State. I do not know whether you know what kind of animal that is, but we who live there and have experience of the long droughts, listen whether we cannot hear the longwinded locusts where there is a drought. It is a certain sign of rain. So it goes with my hon. friend in the House, because when the Opposition want to put a spoke in the wheels of the Government he is always kept in reserve, and when he gets up to speak we know that the end of the debate isnear. I have listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member but I could not make head or tail of it. He wandered about so much that one had trouble in finding out where he was wandering. What surprised me most is the South African party logic which we hear here from day to day. [No quorum.] Hon. members opposite one day use the arguments that the Labour party pushes us where they like and then the next day they argue that the Labour party are prevented by the Nationalists from acting as they would like to do. Those are precisely the arguments of the hon. member, and the only point he tried to make. He is, however, absolutely wrong, because it appeared plainly from the minutes of the Speaker’s conference in 1920, and the hon. members for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) acknowledged it, that, the representatives of the Labour party at the conference were solidly in favour of the total abolition of the Senate. Thus the hon. member is hopelessly wrong when he says that the Labour party is gagged by the Nationalist party. I do not only want to support the Bill, but I want to express my disappointment at the Government not going further with the Bill. I make bold to say that 90 per cent, of the Free State population will be in favour of the abolition of the Senate if a referendum were to be taken on the matter.

The Transvaal, too.

I do not doubt it. Provision is made in the Bill for the eight senators to vacate their seats as soon as a change of Government takes place, so that the new Government is given a chance of having eight new senators in the Senate. Hon. members opposite say every day that if we went to the country they would get a majority again, but their arguments in connection with this Bill plainly show that they have not much confidence in the future of the South African party, because if they had confidence in themselves and their party they would know that it is to their advantage for the constitution to be amended in this respect. If the alteration is made and they come into power again we have opened the way for them to get a majority in the Senate again. That is the South African party locic we get. Hon. members opposite are only putting their foot down to baulk the measure. I say that even if we sit eight days on this Bill the Government and its supporters are willing to see the Bill pass. As supporter of the Government I am not willing to bear the responsibility if the Bill is withdrawn, because the Nationalist electors will say that although they have put this Government into office the Senate remains unchanged. I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will admit that this Bill is not only to the advantage of the Government, but that it is a fair alteration. It is a two-edged knife. If the South African party comes into office again it makes provision that they can easily get the majority in the Senate.

During the debate the discussion has been a good deal round the subject but not on it. Many points have been discussed, and fully discussed, which, in a certain sense, hang together with the Bill, but yet finally do not have too much to do with it. There is, e.g., a subject much discussed during the debate, the question whether or not the Senate shall be abolished. If there is one thing which on the introduction of the Bill and again now, in moving the second reading, I want to emphasize, then it is that the Bill is the minimum legislation, that there is a good deal in connection with the constitution of the Senate which we, and possibly all of us, would like, but for which we consider the time is not yet ripe. Therefore the question whether it is desirable to abolish the Senate is not now in question. A lot of time has, however, been taken up with it, Then a great deal has been made of the question whether we, as a Government, before introducing legislation of this kind should not first go to the country. It has been alleged that we ought to have had a mandate from the people for its introduction, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) especially, devoted a large part of his speech to it. As, however, I have shown, this Bill does not affect the existing Senate, but has only to do with the future. The alteration which is made is the minimum, and is not a large alteration. If we were to go from the standpoint that the Government could not introduce vital legislation before it has received a mandate from the people on the subject, I think we should effect very little in Parliament every year. I think that the people at every election say whom they want at the head of affairs, and people in power are there on account of the general trend of their policy, and their attitude on outstanding questions. They are given the power and the people in general trust them, with reference to other matters which are not at the moment under consideration and on which the election is not directly fought. This side of the House obtained the confidence of the people and they trusted us to such an extent that we may consider that we are permitted to introduce legislation of this kind. One of the speakers, I think the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) said that there was not so much interest shown in this debate as he expected there would be. It certainly looked so for a long time this morning and this afternoon. Some members opposite express their disappointment that the Prime Minister had not spoken about the matter. Seeing that in the opinion of hon. members opposite it is such a deep and important and constitutional problem that the Bill touches upon, I want to ask why the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) was not in his place more during the morning and afternoon, and did not take part in the debate. I must say that if the country is before such a terrible constitutional crisis and a vital alteration in legislation, that surely the leader of the Opposition should at least make his criticism heard. The hon. member for Standerton has neither said year nor nay. That is another proof to me that it cannot be, as hon. members opposite want to represent, viz.: that the alteration effected by the Bill is of such a terribly deep and important nature. In the debate a great deal has been dragged in which actually has nothing to do with the matter. It was said, inter alia, in passing by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) (I also wish to answer it in passing) that I am going to run away from this Bill in connection with the reformation of the Senate just as I did from the Asiatic Bill. I just want to say in passing that if ever there was a remark made in this House which I should call scandalous then it is that one. The same thing was previously said by his leader, the hon. member for Standerton. I ask what the policy of the hon. member for Standerton is with regard to the holding of the conference about the Asiatic question between us and the Government of India? Was he or his party opposed to the holding of the conference. He has never yet said he was opposed to it.

You refused in the first instance to hold a conference.

If he was opposed to it then he did not represent his party, because all the representatives of his party on the select committee were in favour of it. If it is said that there is a running away by us or that we are afraid of the Indian Government and of feeling in India, then I say he must consider the representatives of his party either as cowards who run away or as deceivers who took up that attitude in the select committee to induce the Government to take it up and later to say to the country—

I have permitted the Minister to go so far, but I think it is unnecessary to go further into details.

In my opinion also I have gone far enough. The criticism made in connection with the Bill is not consistent and does not agree. There is one section which continually hammers on the point that it is legislation of an important nature and that it goes too far, while there is another section represented by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who says that we do not go far enough, and that legislation in connection with the Senate ought to go much further, and that the Bill for that reason ought to be postponed until the whole matter has been considered. It is said that we should postpone the Bill and deal with the matter in all its issues. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) called this legislation “jerrymandering.” He alleges that we do not go as far as we ought to do, but that as far as we were going we were doing it for party political reasons. That is the attitude he took up. If that is our point of view then I must say that in that respect we must be the worst party politicians that ever existed. Why do we allow the present Senate to continue under this Bill until we go to the country some day ? If we aimed at party benefits we would not leave the Senate untouched for the whole time of our period of office till the next election. I repeat what I said this afternoon that as regards the dissolution of the Senate, we are not providing for ourselves in clause I. As we are allowing the present Senate to continue I may ask the question whether in this respect we stand on a party political basis. That is as regards the general criticism. On clause I for the amendment of section 20 of the South Africa Act, no criticism of any value has been made. I think that it ought to be quite clear to the House that as the constitution as it exists to-day makes provision in section 20 for the dissolution of the Senate together with the House of Assembly, it is to bring the Senate into agreement with the House of Assembly and with the people’s will, which is given expression to at the time of an election. That is the only object of this clause. Any hon. member of the House must say that the section as it stands to-day does not attain its object and moreover renders the object futile, because only the outgoing Government has the power to dissolve the Senate. The outgoing Government will, however, not do so if the majority in the Senate supports its political views. The new Government coming in does not have the opportunity under the section to dissolve the Senate. There ought to be an agreement between the Senate and the House of Assembly and between the spirit of the Senate, and the spirit of the people. It has long been necessary that section 20 of the South Africa Act should be altered on that point, because it did not attain its object. This is a matter which must be put right by Parliament as soon as possible.

Why was not the Bill introduced sooner ?

With regard to clause 1, and with regard specially to the point I have just mentioned, I may say that clause 1 provides that the Senate must be dissolved within 90 days of the dissolution of the House of Assembly. On further consideration it is clear to me that 90 days is too little, because three months may elapse under the electoral law as a maximum between the dissolution and a reconstruction of the House of Assembly. One month may elapse for the fixing of the nomination day, and then three weeks between the issue of the proclamation and the nomination day. Then there may be another month between the nomination day and the election, and then you can reckon another week for getting in the results. Thus three months have passed, but there is no new Government in power as yet. Ninety days is therefore too little, and I hope to move for a longer period than ninety days in the committee stage. There can be no question about the alteration of the constitution in this respect, and everyone in the House will admit that it is necessary to alter it. The Opposition have for a long time been prepared to agree with us. It is therefore not a matter of further studying the question and adopting a line of action. They have long since notified in considering the reformation of the Senate that they are prepared to co-operate, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) not the least of all. I want to refer to a few resolutions which were discussed at the Speaker’s conference. On page 37 it mentions that the nominated element of the Senate ought to consist of four members, and that persons should only be nominated on account of their knowledge of Native affairs. Then it says further that they must be appointed for the same period as the elected senators, in other words that they must be effected by the dissolution of the Senate. Then we have another resolution that the eight members elected by each province should be elected directly by the people. As represented by the persons who proposed it, hon. members opposite felt that the Senate was not representative enough, and that something should be done to bring it more into touch with the people. It was a motion by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). Then there was a motion by ex-Minister F. S. Malan that the duration of the Senate should also apply to the nominated senators. The proposers of these resolutions were at least so far representative at that time that they were the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and the late Minister of Mines and Industries. They went much further there than this Bill does. As to clause 2 of the Bill, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and other members have said that it is not necessary to go so far as to reduce the power of the Senate, and that the power of rejection is taken away and the Senate is only given the power to impede legislation. It is said that the second chambers in other countries possess the power of rejection, but that in the legislation that we are introducing that does not appear. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) referred to Canada. Why does he only refer to Canada? There are other Dominions as well, as e.g., Australia. In Australia there is a Senate, but the second chamber in the Commonwealth of Australia is elected by the people as a whole, as well as in the different States. As regards Canada, I can assure the hon. members that if the Canadian Senate were to oppose the policy laid down by the people at a general election and the policy of the Government in power, it would not exist a day longer. The country is democratic enough not to tolerate such a Senate. The House of Lords has also been referred to. We must not forget that in that case provision is actually made for the body being in agreement with the will of the House of Commons, and indirectly with the will of the people as regards legislation, because the English Government has two safeguards in connection with the House of Lords. The first is that as soon as they exert their power against the policy of the Government the Government always has the right of creating so many Lords that it shall have a majority in the House of Lords. Secondly, if that is not enough to secure a majority, then according to the Parliament Act of 1911 the House of Lords can be passed by, and the King directly gone to to put a Bill on the statute book. In spite of the appearance the powers of the House of Lords in England are more encroached upon than what we intend doing to the Senate. The hon. member for Caledon said further that if the Bill is passed the position of the Senate would be made untenable. I think the hon. member has gone too far in this because what we propose is to leave the Senate as a revising body just as it is to-day. The Senate does, and can still do, very good work in this respect. Bills which are considered here are again considered in the Senate, and it can suggest useful amendments, as has constantly been done. After consideration of the amendments by this House the Bills can be passed. That system is remaining. Where the Senate does not agree with the principle of legislation it can reject it during the first session, and therefore delay it for a year, so that the people shall have the opportunity to consider the legislation and express its views on the matter. That power, and it is a very important power, the Senate will retain, and if the House of Assembly has had the opportunity in the following year of going to the country to express its views, if it persists in the legislation we can take it as a clear indication that the people are satisfied with it. If the people are not satisfied it has the remedy in its own hands, because the House is responsible to the people, and can be called to account at the next election. The hon. member for Caledon said that the Senate had been for fifteen years a house of revision, and had never abused its power and thrown out legislation of the House of Assembly. If the change which we are making here makes the Senate unnecessary then I say that the Senate in those fifteen years did nothing else than revising legislation. Where legislation has never been rejected, it only shows how unnecessary the Senate was in that respect. Then there is another point mentioned by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). He said this Bill meant that the protection which the small provinces had by their equal representation in the Senate was now being taken away by us. My reply is that this matter of representation of the various provinces in the Senate is left absolutely unaltered by us. Every province will still have eight senators just as before, and, further, I ask in what way are the interests of one or other province of the small provinces looked after ? Or how are they protected by the fact that a separate province has eight out of the forty senators in the Senate? If, then, the provinces are not protected under the existing Act they will not be protected if this Bill is passed, and if they were indeed protected under the old Act they will, in the same way, be protected under the new Bill. I cannot see how this matter touches the safety of the provinces in the least. The same can be said with reference to the argument of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) who said that the natives feel unhappy about the Bill we have introduced and that they alone would suffer as a result. My reply is that as far as the present Senate is concerned this Bill makes no alteration. The same members who have hitherto represented the natives will continue to do so as long as the present Senate exists. The hon. member further assumes that only the South African party Government can nominate people who are able to represent the natives in the Senate. I cannot see where he gets the conceit to assume that. I think that this Government has shown with reference to the appointment of the Native Affairs Commission that it very thoroughly bears in mind the interests of the natives, and in such a way that if there are good men who were nominated as members of it by the former Government they keep them on it and do not consider party interests. That shows how far this Government is prepared to look after the actual interests of the country, and that against its own party interests. I think that hon. members of the Opposition ought really to be glad about this Bill because what we are doing here is not to assist ourselves out of the difficulties existing to-day. We can get ourselves out of the difficulties because we have a majority in the House and also in the joint sitting of both Houses, but we have introduced a Bill with a view to the future, and as regards the future we give to each party an absolutely equal chance of appointing nominated members of the Senate, and as for the natives when we appoint people to the Senate we shall do so in the interests of the natives. If we do not do so then as soon as we are put out of office and another government comes into power it will be able to appoint other people, because, ipso facto, the seats become vacant on our resignation, and the new government would, therefore, have a splendid opportunity of appointing people according to the idea of the hon. member for Tembuland who actually represents the natives, and stands up for their rights. His view is quite wrong, and he ought to welcome this Bill in the interests of the natives.

Motion put, and Dr. de Jager called for a division.

Upon which the House divided: