as Chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Liquor Bill, as follows—

I move—

seconded.

I understand that no recommendation has been made by the committee.

No, there has been no time to go into the matter thoroughly.

I do not know what the procedure is in a matter of this kind, but I think it is the duty of the House to send this report back to the committee for their recommendation. What is the purpose of the committee, if they simply take evidence and do not submit a recommendation to the House? What is a select committee for ? Any shorthand writer could have recorded the evidence, and possibly done it in a much less time. We want something more than a mere record of the evidence. I do not know what course one should take, but I would like to see this matter sent back to the committee.

The hon. member can move next session that the report be referred to a select committee to consider the evidence.

I would like to suggest that the hon. member should allow this matter to stand over until Monday, and in the meantime one would have an opportunity of considering what is the best course to take in accordance with the rules of the House.

The hon. member forgets that it is already printed and it has only to be issued. I am surprised that the hon. member does not know that.

Can I object to this being taken as an unopposed motion in order that we may have a little time to consider what course should be adopted in the circumstances ?

I wish to point out that this is quite the usual way in which to bring up these reports. If the hon. member, next session, considers that the matter should be further considered, he can then move for it to be referred to a select committee, and he can submit the same names. I want to point out further, that the chairman of the committee has already replied and that there can be no further debate.

May I ask a question bearing on this matter? Will the evidence, as printed, be at the disposal of members of this House ?

Of course.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is possible for him to give us any indication now as to the balance of the work that we shall have to deal with this session. We are very near the end now, and the general expectation is that we will see the end next week, but we have a very formidable programme still before us. It would ease the minds of members and would meet their convenience if it is possible for the Prime Minister to tell the House what are the Bills the Government does intend to proceed with this session. It is quite clear that quite a number of these measures have to be jettisoned. They are contentious and are raising a great deal of trouble in the country, and even with the best will on our part to meet the convenience of the Government and the House we are bound to discuss these matters. I think it would be very helpful if the Prime Minister would give us some indication to-day which of these Bills the Government are going to drop and which they want to see through. Then I want to raise another point, and that is in regard to the Imperial Conference. The Prime Minister told us at an earlier stage that if anything further emerged he would give an opportunity for further discussion as to the work of the conference and the policy which the Government are going to pursue there. Since then the Prime Minister has made a very important statement on the constitutional position of this country, not in this mouse I am sorry to say, but on an outside platform, and in a speech made at Stellenbosch some weeks ago he discussed this very important question and made a speech which I consider of nrstclass importance. Much of it is contentious; much of it is open to dispute, but the Prime Minister wound up with the following conclusion as reported in the press—

I should like to know from the Prime Minister how far these passages I have read represent the policy of the Government. Is the Government going to raise at the next Imperial Conference this question of dominion status and the external sovereignty of the dominions ? Is the Government going to raise this question at the Imperial Conference, and if there happens to be no unanimity at this conference on this point, as the Prime Minister seems to fear, is it the policy of the Government then to carry out this doctrine which the Prime Minister has laid down, and so far as this country is concerned to issue a declaration of external sovereignty to the rest of the world ? Does this statement simply mean an academic exposition of the questions which affect our status or does it represent the Government policy, and is it going to be acted upon by the Government? If there is no unanimity at the conference on the question of the declaration to the world is the Government going to act on its own and issue such a declaration? We should like to know, because it is a matter of very far-reaching importance from every point of view. If it is the intention of the Government to take action in this sense then I would like to ask this further question. Will this House and will Parliament have an opportunity to discuss the question and go into it fully before such a declaration is made to the world ? I do not want to go into the merits of the question today, because it is a large question, a difficult and important question, and unless the Prime Minister is going to take action in the sense of his speech I look upon the matter as not one which we should discuss at this moment. I want simply to elicit information, for the House and the country, from the Prime Minister whether that speech represents the Government policy and whether it is going to be acted upon, and if so whether the House will have an opportunity to discuss it before the Government takes action ? I should appreciate it very much if we could have this information from the Prime Minister. If from his answers to my questions it becomes necessary to have a further discussion at a later stage I hope the Prime Minister will, in accordance with the undertaking he gave earlier, afford us such an opportunity. Naturally on his answer a great deal would depend, and if it is to the effect that these steps are to be taken by the Government then I hope we will have an opportunity before the prorogation of Parliament for discussion of this matter so that the House may know and the country may know what is the position and what is the attitude the Prime Minister is going to adopt at the conference.

As regards the first question of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), with reference to the balance of the work still to be done by us, I hope to give the hon. member the necessary particulars on Monday. As regards the Imperial Conference, I am sorry that the hon. member did not think it necessary to give me a little notice of his question. Then I should possibly have been able to answer him more fully. In the meantime only the following. As regards the work of the Imperial Conference, I can say no more than when some time ago a question was put to me in the same connection. I cannot give any further information about the matter. As regards policy I can also of course say little at present, because it must be considered in connection with the special problems which will be discussed at the conference. Now, however, the hon. member has brought up my Stellenbosch speech. I want to say at once that the words quotea by him are quite correct. He asked me whether the status of the dominions would be discussed at the next Imperial Conference. I have not the least doubt that that will take place, and it must necessarily occur, because hardly a single question of importance can be solved to-day without a decision being taken as regards the general question of the status of the dominions. I repeat that I think that not a single question of any importance can be solved properly by any person without taking up a standpoint in this connection, and that no responsible statesman of any of the dominions can have a correct view about these important matters unless there is agreement as regards the status of the dominion. In this respect I must say that I thought the status of the dominions as far as the hon. member for Standerton was concerned was a matter long since cleared up.

I only want information about the policy at the Imperial Conference. That has nothing to do with my view.

As for me I take the same view as the hon. member for Standerton, viz.: that we are free, that the dominions are independent and equal with Great Britain and with each other as dominions. We all have a similar status. The misfortune, however, is that the question has arisen what is meant by all the freedom and especially by all the equality. That question is of the utmost practical importance to-day, not only as regards ourselves but for all the dominions and Great Britain itself. What is meant by the equality of status? The hon. member for Standerton possibly knows better than any of us that the work done at the 1923 conference has recently been collapsing a bit. The hon. member for Standerton has I think thought that the work then done would serve as a standard to work to on the basis of equality. It appeared, however, that the basis laid down in 1919, and further elaborated in 1923, seemed inappropriate. Consequently in the matter of the Locarno Treaty a method was adopted which in my opinion is totally in conflict with what was formerly intended and laid down as to how the dominions and Great Britain should act in such cases, and ought to act according to the arrangement at that time made by them. It is therefore clear to me that at the next Imperial Conference we must go back and consider whether the method followed since 1919 or rather that was tried to be followed but which was actually never followed can be followed any further. I believe that in the short time the policy then laid down has appeared in about four or five cases to be ineffective and impracticable. It is clear to me that at the next conference it must be considered how far that line should be further followed, or whether another line should be taken. I have always maintained, and still maintain, that if the dominions are going to be subordinate to England and to the English Government—as we formerly often alleged but in which since 1919 as the hon. member for Standerton has also always said, a change has come—or if the line is to be further followed which was adopted after 1919, then there can only be one result and that is, that nothing remains of our equality. I think that the matter should have our serious attention, and I think that the feeling here and also in other dominions, is that we are not going back to the status of subordination. I think that the hon. member for Standerton in this respect will fully agree with me. We are not going back again, and it is clear to me that not one of the dominions is ready to give up again one jot of what they have got. I want to add that I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate than that anything of that sort should take place. The result is that I continue to think that instead of that intimate heartfelt and lasting co-operation which was aimed at in 1919 when at that time the principle was accepted in England and Paris of an entity which would be inviolable and would at the same time be superior to the individual dominions and to Great Britain, it leads us to nothing else than subordination, to something whether Great Britain or an imaginary entity which is a legal fiction. It is clear to me that what we ought to have if we want good co-operation and if we want to retain the unity which is aimed at it is necessary to make the outside world feel that we are equal to each other. It must not only be said amongst ourselves but we must really make it felt that we are actually equal and that we are equal not only when we sit round a table and talk with each other and say that we are all equal and reciprocally free but also when we come into relation with foreign nations. The foreign nations must know it and must acknowledge that one is the equal of the other. I know that the fear of the dismemberment of the empire led to the adoption in 1919 of the decision which was actually taken. As I have already said it is clear from what has happened that if we continue along those lines then we have reached a period when that proposition will lead rather to dismemberment than to cooperation. That is not only clear to me but also to the leaders and responsible people, both in the other dominions and in Great Britain. As I have said the question will therefore arise at the next Imperial Conference what action should be taken to prevent that happening. In my opinion that can only happen if the dominions and Great Britain are not alone regarded as an entity among themselves, but if the fact that the dominions and Great Britain are equal is admitted by the Governments of other foreign powers. If we are going to follow that course I feel convinced that we shall be taking a much sounder way, a way which will be much more lasting for good co-operation in the future than the way which has already been tried. That has always been my view and if the point is discussed I will lay it before the conference as such. Of course other questions will arise out of it which will have to be regarded from the most practical point of view. Undoubtedly it is in the interests of all for us to have the best co-operation on the most effective basis for the future. The hon. member for Standerton asked whether what I said at Stellenbosch was the policy of the Government.

About the international statement.

I can only say that what I said there was my fixed personal conviction, and as regards my colleagues I have no reason to think, at any rate as far as my Nationalist colleagues are concerned, that they do not agree with me. As to my Labour colleagues in the Ministry, there is also no doubt in my mind that they agree with me. As to how far this is the official feeling of the Government, we have, of course, not yet got so far as to deliberate about it in detail. Before I go to the Imperial Conference they will let me know how far that is a policy with which they also agree. I repeat again that as regards the policy I have not yet had an official discussion with them, but that I have no doubt that they are in entire agreement with me. The hon. member for Standerton, however, particularly wants a statement about the last portion of my speech at Stellenbosch. He wants to know if the Imperial Conference rejects the proposal what my attitude, and that of the Government, will be, whether we shall then on our own account issue a declaration to the outside world. No. I want to reply immediately, No. I think that would be very wrong and stupid. If there is one thing which in my opinion is necessary it is that if we wish to attain our object of good and hearty co-operation then we must endeavour to get what we want in consultation with each other. If we cannot get to-day what we think is right, very well, because the other side may also be right. Then we shall have to wait and see whether it cannot be got later. Just as the line adopted in 1919 by the hon. member for Standerton and those who were with him in London at that time appeared not to be right. Just as little may what I am proposing be right. I may say that I actually think that this is the correct way along which we shall have better co-operation, which will be more lasting than along the other way which appeared not to be practical and effective. It is clear to me that the dominions and Great Britain all agreed that the one was not subordinate to the other, but that they all stood on an equal footing. Experience has taught us, however, that that was only a mutual agreement and that although we say so, the outside world officially knows practically nothing about it, except in so far as—and I think the hon. member for Standerton will admit this—by signing the covenant we notified it to the outside world. The outside world does not acknowledge us as an international State, and it is practically only under the League of Nations and by the League of Nations that we are today recognized as an international State. For the rest it is not so. I think the time has come that it should not only be the case that we amongst ourselves should say that we occupy this or that relationship, but that the relationship in which we are will also be acknowledged by other nations. When that happens, it is clear to me what the relationship in the future will be. We are going to stand as all equal under the same Crown joined to each other by the history of the past, but, above all, bound to each other by the unquestionably friendly goodwill which will exist in each of us to do the best in hearty co-operation and working mutually for each other. But we shall not obtain that as long as there is a big source for suspicion and evil thinking. The great source of suspicion and misjudgment does not only exist here, but from what I have already remarked I can assure you that the suspicion and misjudgment exist to a large extent in some of the other dominions. The reason is that our position is only known to ourselves and that hypocritical fear exists to make our position known to the world. Each one is afraid that she might do something or that England herself might do something by which some of the freedom obtained would be surrendered, and that very fear is the great source of suspicion. I assure you that if that way is followed any longer, then the very thing which everybody always wanted to prevent, viz., the dismemberment of the empire, will happen within a comparatively short time. In my opinion, and I say it in all seriousness, this can be averted, and it will be averted, but it can only be done and it will only be averted when the source of suspicion is removed, and that will only be removed when the dominions know that they are acknowledged, and if our status is also acknowledged by the outside world, and agreed to by it. Then we shall have a far healthier condition than exists to-day. I am convinced that many of the things that to-day threaten to cause disunion will then cease to exist. The declaration which I had in my mind is that the outside world should be notified what our position is, and that the outside world should also notify that in future each one of us will be acknowledged in our true position. From reports received from almost every side, it appears that on account of that not being said, difficulties are constantly placed in the way, even by unmannerly officials, of our getting into touch with the outside world. Because this takes place, we and the other dominions as well find that there is a difficulty to-day in exercising State rights as soon as we have to deal with foreign powers, and this is all a constant source of friction and disunion and suspicion, and lack of that cooperation which everybody insists on. If that is taken away, then it must be done after mutual deliberation, and in that way the steps must be taken to make it known to the world, and this, of course, can only happen in one way, and that is that Great Britain should notify all foreign powers what our position is. That has never been done. With what result ? That when it is asked why this or the other Government acts in one way or the other towards us, the answer is, and it can only be: Yes, it is indeed true that you want to be treated in this way or the other, but you must not forget that we as a friendly foreign state cannot act towards you as you wish, because officially we have never yet been informed of anything, and until we are officially informed what your position is, we can, of course, not treat you as an international state. And let me say this, that the position so taken up is not so taken up by hostile states, but by countries such as America, etc., and it goes without saying. The general international usages compel everyone, whether America or any other state, to simply ignore us until England informs them what our position is. I say that all these little things are a constant source of friction, annoyance and suspicion, and if there is one thing which must be put on a sound footing, and the sooner the better, it is this position. Whatever our status may be, in heaven’s name let it be made known to the foreign powers. Let it be done without delay, openly and straightforwardly, because every child knows that unless your status is acknowledged by foreign nations, you simply do not exist as a state. The hon. member for Standerton asked whether the House would have an opportunity of discussing the matter. If the hon. member wants an opportunity for it, I shall be only too glad to give it.

My question was whether, if a separate declaration were made by us with regard to our position without the collaboration of Great Britain and the other states, whether we should then have an opportunity of discussing the matter

In my opinion, the declaration can only take place with the consent of England, and after we are in agreement about the matter. The matter, in my opinion, is of so great importance that unless that happens, the matter must be shrouded in doubt. To actually have a status, it must be an international one. I am glad to say that in recent times we have been treated more as an international state than ever before. In former years we have had people in England, as well as here, who have given time to go into the matter, and I am glad to see that recently other nations and other people outside the empire have occupied themselves about the matter. What we want is more clearness about it, and my speech at Stellenbosch was an attempt to introduce more clarity on the subject. Unquestionably there exists a general feeling to-day that if the exercise of the equality cannot be called humbug, it is still so empty that every opening is left to throw dust in the eyes of each other. I think it is desirable that we should have clarity very soon, and not only that, but also certainty about this great problem. I feel convinced of it that as long as this want of clarity exists, we shall have continual unrest and unpleasantness, and the eventual result will be that as between the dominions mutually and between dominions and the empire, harm will be done contrary to the interests of all. Therefore, we must do something definite. I take up the attitude that we are equal, equally free, and in my opinion if we want to remain so, and also if we wish to remain on the same intimate relations mutually, or rather want to work together in the future in as intimate a way as possible, it is necessary that we should know where we are, and that the outside world should know where we stand, and that the source for suspicion should disappear.

More for the purpose of record than anything else, I would like to refer to the policy of the Government in regard to the provincial councils, and the unfair allocation of subsidies and loan advances. Natal has to raise nothing by local taxation, so its subsidy is absolutely sufficient. The Free State has to raise 10 per cent. by local taxation, the Cape 18 per cent., but the Transvaal 40 per cent., yet the basis is supposed to be the same. I protest also against the insufficiency of the loan money advanced to the Transvaal, which, being newer in settlement, has greater requirements than the older provinces, but nevertheless it gets less loan allowance than Natal and the Free State. I can understand the affection of the Minister of Finance for the Free State, it is a natural one ; and I have a natural affection for the Transvaal. The provision made for the Transvaal this year in the shape of loan moneys is only £220,000, equal to about a million in ten years! Well, the Transvaal could spend a million pounds in less than a year on bridges and hospitals alone. All these loans must be repaid. Natal has paid back only 6 per cent. of its loans, I think the Cape has returned 10 per cent., but the Transvaal has paid back about 14 per cent. The Cape has had a million more lent to it than the Transvaal. Is that fair? When we get back to the Transvaal, the administrator of that province will tell us one thing, and the Minister of Finance tells us another. The Minister says the administrators and executive committees are quite satisfied, whilst the administrator of the Transvaal will affirm that he never expressed satisfaction, but simply had to take what he could get. Which is the George Washington, our Transvaal administrator or the Minister? There cannot be two on this question.

After we have heard a declaration of our status, which I must say as a plain layman leaves me very much in the dark, it being as clear as mud, I would like to raise a matter which seems trivial in comparison—that is, the question of where a battery of artillery is to be placed in the Transvaal. I understood it was to be located at Ermelo, which is the centre of the eastern Transvaal, but for some unexplained reason the Minister of Defence has changed his opinion.

I never gave you any promise.

Not definitely, but afterwards he told me he had changed his mind, not that he has no right to do that. I have received a letter from the mayor of Ermelo, who states that the Minister first promised to see a deputation, and then decided not to meet it. The mayor continues—

It is a more important matter than a little jealousy between two towns. The Minister of Defence and the staff officers should keep politics out of defence matters. Defence is a matter of voluntary service, and if you give people a grievance it is bound to do the organization harm. We cannot understand why the Minister should take this battery of artillery to the other side of the military district. Surely the first consideration is that the selected place should be central, and you should not go to a district where horse-sickness is pretty rife. I rather imagined that the Minister would be swayed by the argument that Piet Retief is nearer to the native border than Ermelo is, but both are border districts. Then you can get a much better and finer type of recruit at Ermelo than at Piet Retief.

No.

We don’t want to go into old history.

You had better not.

We know the reputation that was gained by the two districts during the Boer war—which had the reputation of providing fighters, while the other did very much to the contrary. Education has a lot to do with morale, and forming the character of troops, and it is not the fault of one district that it has not had the chances the other district has had. The district I have the honour to represent is very much better off in that the people there have had more opportunities to provide their children with education, and naturally there has thereby been developed a greater spirit of camaraderie and competition. I feel very strongly that political considerations have come into this matter, and I don’t know whether I have to thank the Minister of Agriculture for changing the mind of the Minister of Defence. It seems to me very much so, as he is preparing to reply to my arguments. I am wondering whether it is because Ermelo has not bowed the knee to Baal.

Who is Baal ?

Does the Minister need to ask me ? Anyway, that is what they tell me there. They said—

What we feel about this is that we have a grievance. We thought we were shabbily treated by the Minister last year over the visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. Don’t let him heap up these grievances. There can be no question that you should go to the centre of the military district, which is Ermelo. The late Government is responsible for a grievance that we had when they placed the headquarters at Standerton. The officers at Ermelo came to me and said—

I said—

I don’t understand the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé). It is very nice to get something for your district, and I can understand that he would be quiet, too, over the matter, but he knows as well as I do that if you ask the people at Amersfoort and Wakkerstroom where this battery should go, they will tell you Ermelo and not Piet Retief.

The hon. member (Col.-Cdt. Collins), I am sure, will excuse me if I do not enter into the question of invidious comparisons between the type of inhabitant of the Ermelo district and the type of inhabitant of the Piet Retief district. I am sure that they are, both of them, excellent men and excellent material. Far be it from me to say a word in derogation of your Ermelo people. I do not wish to deny for a moment that in conversation with the hon. member some months ago I expressed my own opinion that very probably Ermelo would be the place. He will also admit, I think, that I gave him no promise in this matter. We have had pretty nearly as many deputations and as many strong reasons why these half batteries should be placed in nearly every town in the country. There are a great many arguments certainly in favour of Ermelo, but I think what determined us mainly was the position of Piet Retief and the advantage of having a citizen battery there. What delayed us so long was simply the question of the number of young men of compulsory age in the district, and I thought at one time that I would have to abandon Piet Retief on that account. May I say to your worthy mayor that it is hardly fair to accuse me of receiving one deputation and not another. I told the hon. member that it was really no use their coming down. We discussed the matter very thoroughly in the Cabinet, and we came to the conclusion that Piet Retief would, on balance, be the most suitable place. I ascertained that the actual number of registrations was below the mark, but the Piet Retief municipality, when they came to see me, said there were heaps of young men within the radius and, subsequently, sent me a list. I am afraid the deduction to be drawn from that list is that the Act in regard to registration and our proclamation requiring young men to register are not being scrupulously obeyed throughout the country.

The proclamation is obeyed better in Ermelo than in Piet Retief.

I do not know. I would like to see the lists. I am afraid we find a good number of young men all over the country who are not registering. The final determining point was that, on the whole, in that border district it was a sound and wise thing to have the half battery there from the point of view of moral effect.

Will the Minister tell us what the advice was of his department ?

The hon. member can, of course, ask for the papers to be laid on the table, but I don't mind informing him that the departmental view was in favour of Ermelo, and I overruled it.

I want to ask the hon. member for Ermelo (Col-Cdt. Collins) whether Ermelo is so weak as not to be able to stand on its own legs. Ermelo has always been much assisted by the Government, especially in educational matters. Now the artillery camp is to be placed at Piet Retief, which has not yet obtained anything, and the hon. member for Ermelo objects. As for horse sickness, he knows that it is more or less just as bad in Ermelo as in Piet Retief. The Minister is, anyhow, not doing horse farming at Piet Retief. The horses are to be stabled, and there is no danger at all. Every farmer at Piet Retief has to keep horses, and the hon. member knows that there are only two places in the Transvaal where there is no horse sickness, Wakkerstroom and Volksrust. The Ermelo farmers come to us to buy their horses. I know this because I live just on the boundary. Piet Retief needs protection the most, because it can easily be cut off in the event of difficulties with the native tribes, by whom it is surrounded. In Ermelo the protection is not so necessary, and I admit that the Minister is taking the right step.

Perhaps, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence may be able to tell us when the native Bills will be laid upon the table. We are getting near the end of the session, members are going home, these Bills were promised some considerable time ago and if the Minister is not able to tell us, will he assure me that he will get into touch with the Prime Minister so that on Monday, if the Bills are not on the table then, he will be able to tell us when they will be on the table?

They are not going to be discussed this session.

The Prime Minister said it was his intention to lay those Bills on the table for the information of Parliament, and for the information of the country. I am not so sure that my hon. friend knows the nature of those Bills. Evidently the Prime Minister did not think it proper to discuss his pronouncement at Stellenbosch with my hon. friend and his two colleagues in the Cabinet.

I think the scheme of an artillery camp is excellent. It will not be cheap and, therefore, we must see that it proves a success. It is strange to me that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naude) complains about the camp not being in his division. That is a wrong policy. As soon as we go to work in that way we shall not have success. I would recommend the Minister if he wants an artillery camp in the Transvaal to place it at such a spot that it can be moved in all directions if it is found necessary. I think the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me. If it is put in the district of Piet Retief to benefit that place because the Minister of Agriculture is influential there, I think it is not right. Piet Retief is not centrally situated, and if artillery are required at other places in the eastern Transvaal it will have to come back for one hundred miles.

There are artillery in Pretoria as well.

My hon. friend need not tell me that, because I know it. There is a great part of the eastern Transvaal where artillery will be required if anything takes place.

In the case of native troubles ?

I do not want to keep on frightening the natives. The artillery will be required in other cases as well. I say that the artillery park ought to be at a central place where railway communication is convenient.

Must it be at Bethal ?

I did not mention Bethal, because I am not so small-minded. The town council and other persons at Bethal have asked for it to be placed there, but I want to be impartial in the matter and, therefore, ask that the artillery camp shall be placed at a suitable centre, in the neighbourhood of Ermelo, Standerton and Bethal. If it is placed at Piet Retief it will not be centrally situated, and will not be able to be moved in all directions. I think the Minister should reconsider the matter and consult people who can assist in the matter. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom spoke about horse sickness prevailing in the district of Ermelo, but not in Piet Retief. It is, however, not a fact that only Piet Retief is free of that disease, because it does not prevail in the middle of the high veld where, in my opinion, the camp ought to be if it is to be a success. If the camp is placed centrally then it will be at a spot where it will be conveniently situated for a large number of young men in Standerton, Ermelo, Wakkerstroom and Middelburg. I say that a thing of this kind ought to be made attractive to the young people. There is already among them a spirit tending towards military things, and they are flocking to the rifle associations. They should, therefore, be given a chance to get into touch with the artillery camp, and for this reason also it should not be put in an outside corner.

I would like to ask if there will be any opportunity of getting before the House two important Bills which I notice are down on the order paper, but which have not been dealt with beyond the first reading. They are Bills which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a large number of people, are of vital importance. We have been discussing one since 1920: that is the question of the amendment of the Transvaal Precious and Base Metals Act. We have never gone back one session since 1920 without this question being brought up in the constituencies. I should like the Minister to reconsider his attitude on this Bill, and, if possible, have it dealt with during this session. The other matter is also of great importance. Those who have been dealing with the social regeneration of a certain type of individual know that the country is singularly lacking in machinery for dealing with the down-and-out. I refer to the Work Colonies Bill, and I should like to know if there is any possibility of dealing with this measure.

I would like to hear from the Minister of Native Affairs what he proposes to do with regard to the establishment of these native councils in the Kingwilliamstown district. Does he propose to introduce a Bill to legalize the position ? The matter is very urgent ; the natives have been asking for years for the establishment of these councils. I trust the Minister will see that this Bill is introduced, if it is necessary, this session. Another matter I would like to mention: We have heard a great deal from hon. members on the cross-benches as to the enormous profits made by milling companies. I have here some figures submitted to the Board of Trade and Industries in connection with that. These figures are extracted from the balance sheet and profit and loss account of one of the biggest companies. These are the returns for the last three years. The total sales in 1924 were £929,000 ; the percentage of profits from all sources was 3.14 per cent. In 1925 the turnover was £1,003,000, and the profit from all sources was 3.4 per cent. In 1926 the turnover was £1,075,000 and the percentage of profit from all sources 2.24 per cent. I would like to know where the enormous profits of these companies come in.

Is that the profit on the turnover?

Yes, on the turnover.

In reply to the question by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), I will discuss the matter with the Prime Minister, and I am quite sure the Bills will probably be ready on Monday. If not by Monday, perhaps the day after. The hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux), mentioned two other Bills. The Prime Minister has already stated he proposes on Monday to inform the House as to the Bills on the order paper which will be proceeded with during the session. In regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Maj. Ballantine), I doubt whether it will be possible to bring in a Bill—if it is possible to deal with the matter by means of a Bill—this session. It is doubtful whether we can do anything unless legislation is introduced in this matter. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) has brought up this question of the allocation of loan funds to the Transvaal. A special loan was given them in connection with certain deficits, and is nearly repaid. A shorter period was given them, and that is right, for it was not for capital purposes, but for a deficit. I have given the Transvaal almost the full amount for which they have asked. The Orange Free State gets a little more, because they are going in for a special programme of hospital construction. I assure the hon. member that we deal with these applications for loan moneys on their merits, and the Transvaal has no reason to complain, because practically the full amount was awarded them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time: House to go into Committee now.

I move—

I want to call the attention of the Minister and of the House generally to the amount we are providing for the expenditure of the railways, which is large, and is considerably over last year’s. In 1924-’25 we provided for the ordinary expenditure of the railways £23,908,000; in 1925-’26, £25,415, 000; we are providing this year £28,077,000. This year’s increase is £4,169,000 over the figures of two years ago.

That includes allocation of the surplus.

All these figures are taken from the Appropriation Acts of 1924-’25 and 1825-’26, and the Appropriation Bill of this financial year. I am perfectly well aware, of course, of the increasing business of the railway department there has been during the last few years, and that on new lines the expenditure must increase, but in my opinion, and that I want to lay stress upon, the expenditure is increasing in a greater proportion than the earnings. In the last bulletin of the general manager he points out that, whereas the railway earnings from April 1st, 1925, to the 28th of February, 1926, have increased 10.2 per cent., the expenditure for the same period has increased 12.4 per cent. The latest statement that has been issued of the earnings of the railway department week by week—that for the 22nd of May—shows a falling off of £65,000 from the Estimates, which is a signal of which my hon. friend should take note, because it appears to me that the rapid increase of earnings of the last two years is not going to be continued and cannot, on account of drought in certain parts of the Union and the falling off of the maize harvest. There is another point to which I want to call attention, and that is the rate of interest. My hon. friend was paying on the money which is invested in the railways and harbours an average on the funded debt in 1910 a rate which worked out at £3 7s. per cent. ; in 1925 it had risen to £4 3s. per cent. The earnings of the railway department worked out in 1910 to £7 9s. 11d. per cent. on the capital, and in 1921 the gross earnings worked out at £2 6s. 4d. per cent., which, of course, showed a deficit. In 1924 it rose again to £5 6s. 4d. per cent, and in 1925 it had fallen to £4 9s. 11d. per cent or say 4½ per cent., which is a big drop, as my hon. friend will see at once. My object in mentioning these figures is to warn my hon. friend to be careful in keeping his hand on expenditure. This is an enormous concern, and we have 120 millions of capital invested in railways and 13 millions invested in harbours, which is more than half of our public debt. It is very easy, with a concern spending something like 28 millions per annum on ordinary expenditure, if a very tight hand is not kept on expenditure to get into difficulties again. I would also like to point out to my hon. friend, where he is running on such a close margin as he has to do, that you cannot give such extra payments as to the shipping control board, which he proposes to take out of railway funds. The time will come, I am pretty sure, when he cannot afford to do it. In another Bill he proposes to subsidize shipping; and is that money to come out of the railway and harbour funds? Why should the users of the railways up-country pay for these little extras which my hon. friend wishes to push forward?

I would like to take up with the Minister a question of shortage of trucks. The mines in my district, especially the four or five smaller ones, complain bitterly that there is a very considerable shortage of trucks, and that they are losing seriously. I cannot speak for the large coal mines, which have greater staying power, but the smaller ones are getting desperate. I hope the Minister will make some statement that will satisfy these people, or give them hopes of some betterment in the immediate future. I have a statement from one of the mines which shows how they are losing money through having to close down for hours owing to lack of trucks. It would be a very serious thing indeed for a district like mine if these small mines closed down. One realized that last year, with a bumper mealie crop, trucks would be short, but it is a year since then, and two years since the Minister took over, and the position is still very serious. I do not think the Minister can fairly use the argument that it was the fault of his predecessor. The Administration should have enough trucks, but I am not sure that the lack of sufficient trucks is the cause. My information is that there is bungling in the way of allocating these trucks, and that while, at some centres, trucks are standing by the hundred, at other centres they cannot get any. During the mealie harvest, the mines felt that they had to be patient, although they were losing money continuously, but now the improvement is very slight, or none at all. The fear exists that with the mealie season again approaching, although unfortunately it will not be as good as last year, these mines will be the sufferers again. I hope the Minister will assist us, and see that this matter is altered.

I should like to take this opportunity of bringing a matter to the notice of the Minister. Last year during the export of fruit large quantities of oranges were rejected in the harbours with the result that great damage was suffered by the exporters of citrus fruit. In my district, marico, it so happened that many of the farmers as a result of the rejection of the oranges in the harbours had to pay the difference between the railway rate of 8½d. which is allowed to exporters and the rate of 2s. 1d. on oranges intended for the local market, because if fruit is despatched for export and is then rejected in the harbours, then the railway rate is altered and the rate of 2s. 1d. has to be paid on the rejected fruit. A request was sent to the railway administration to allow in such case the 8½d. rate to continue, instead of increasing it to 2s. 1d. I understand the administration takes up the attitude that it would be a wrong precedent, because when the fruit is rejected the Cape market would be overstocked. Here, however, we have a special case, and special circumstances, and I think it ought to be specially taken into consideration. Marico was one of the districts which exported most fruit last year and it is largely attributable to the strike that some of the fruit was rejected. At that time the fruit was passed at the loading stations by Government inspectors and was rejected by the inspectors in the Cape Town harbour. The people in Marico consider that they have a just grievance and that the railway administration ought to meet them and make their losses less by putting the 8½d. rate on the rejected fruit instead of the 2s. 1d. which is demanded on fruit intended for the local market. The amount is not large, but I can assure the Minister that it will mean a good deal to the farmers, however small the amount is, because then the amount will be granted to the farmers instead of their having to pay it in. If the Minister will regard the matter in this light, that it is a special ease, it need not establish a precedent. I hope the Minister will meet the farmers because it will be a great thing to them.

We have gone fairly fully into the details as set out in the schedule, and I do not propose to go further into these, but a very important committee has sat practically the whole session upstairs, and we have taken evidence which forms, I think, one of the most important, far-reaching, and perhaps interesting reviews on administrative matters ever placed before Parliament. It has also made certain recommendations which I think are of such importance that they should be discussed by Parliament, and I do hope the Minister will give us the opportunity. Under ordinary circumstances, we should have had it before us to-day, but owing to the volume of evidence, the printing has been delayed, and we cannot discuss the report. I hope the Minister will give us some opportunity, even though late in the session, to touch on this matter, because the report will be a very great help to the administration.

May I make a few remarks in connection with the insufficient facilities at Machadadorp station. It is the junction on the main line for the Ermelo branch line, and passengers for Delagoa Bay, Nelspruit, Lydenburg and Pretoria, have to stop there at night, often waiting for three or four hours without a good waiting-room. There is a small waiting room but it is quite inadequate, and I think it is necessary to have a good waiting-room, where women travelling with their children can pass the time. I think the Minister will earn the gratitude of the public if better facilities are given there.

May I support the plea of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) ? As the Minister knows, but not through his personal attendance at the meetings, we had very strenuous sittings of the Railways and Harbours Committee, which discussed matters of the gravest importance. It also discussed subjects involving very large financial considerations, dealing not only with the past, but also affecting the future. The Minister will find it an advantage to have the conclusions of the committee reviewed by the House for his own guidance, and I hope there will be a full opportunity of discussing the report, as millions are involved.

I would also like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). Owing to the shortage of railway trucks, considerable loss was suffered last year by the coal mines all over Natal, they having as a result to restrict their output. Heavy losses were also sustained by the employees, as in many instances they worked only half time. This grievance has been in existence for many years. I admit there has been considerable improvement, but there is room for further improvement. The export of coal has increased from 1,014,000 tons in 1923 to 1,520,000 tons in 1925. I hope the Minister will clearly state to-day what arrangements are being made to meet the difficulties of the industry, for it is a very serious matter. One of the Natal coal mines has closed down, and there is a possibility of another following suit, very largely due to losses suffered owing to the shortage of railway trucks.

I want to refer to the question of the time allowed farmers to load maize into railway trucks. The department, the Minister states, allows 12 hours for this to be clone, but that is expecting the farmer to do something which is impossible. I suppose not more than five per cent. of the farmers have more than one wagon and span of oxen, and if they live any distance at all from the railway they are unable to load a truck of maize in 12 hours; and, rather than take the risk of having to pay demurrage, they sell their maize to the speculators at a lower price than they would receive if the produce were sent to the elevators. I quite realize the difficulty of the administration in having a large number of trucks standing during the process of loading, but it might consider whether it could not extend the time allowance to 24 hours. The farmers are losing considerable sums through having to dispose of their maize to speculators and middlemen, of whom a large number make a handsome living by taking advantage of the loading disabilities under which the farmer labours.

I wish to support what has fallen from the last speaker, for the question of demurrage is causing considerable hardship to farmers, as it is practically impossible for many farmers, particularly those living a few miles from the railway station, to load a truck in 12 hours. I have had correspondence with the railway department on the subject, but have not been able to obtain any satisfaction. Then there is the reverse case of those living within the three mile radius charged demurrage if they do not remove their goods within a very short period. Cases occur where the consignments are large and farm transport limited, making it impossible to comply with the conditions.

I should like to have some information regarding the purchase of sleepers for the railways. The annual consumption of sleepers for the Department of Railways and Harbours is in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000. I do not know whether a project for the manufacture of Dempster concrete sleepers has been brought to the Minister’s notice. That would provide a new and important industry, built up on the raw products of South Africa. The Dempster concrete sleepers should be given a fair trial on our permanent way. It is reported that the Government intends to try some other country for the supply of sleeper material—British and Dutch Guiana being mentioned as possible sources of supply. If Government intends to send anyone there for the purchase of sleepers, the services of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) might be utilized in this connection during the recess. Since his return from his now historic visit to London, he has been on the Swamp Fever Commission, but now he is doubtless ready to go elsewhere. Has the Minister decided to send anyone to buy sleepers in South America?

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m., and resumed at 2.19 p.m.

The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has referred to the Machadadorp waiting room. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has already done so, and I will see if it is possible to do anything. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) has again referred to the matter of the railway rate on fruit carried from the interior to the coast for export which is rejected at the port, and he advocates that the rate on fruit intended for export shall apply on export fruit rejected at the ports, and that the exporter shall not be asked to pay the local rate for carriage of the fruit. I think the hon. member will see that it is impossible, because if that is done then all the fruit which is rejected will come into unfair competition with the fruit which farmers send to the local market, paying the rates on fruit intended for such market. That is not desirable, and I am sorry that it is not possible to comply with the request.

†The hon. members for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) have raised the question of the consideration of the report of the select committee. I agree with the hon. members that the work which was done by the select committee this year was of very great importance. As to whether there will be a special opportunity of dealing with the report, that is a matter which is very much in the hands of the House. When the report has been printed and is available to members, if the House is prepared to give time to its consideration, I shall be very happy indeed to take part in the discussion.

When will the report be printed ?

On Monday, I understand. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has again raised the question of the time allowed for farmers to load their produce into trucks. It is very difficult indeed to be able to harmonize the wishes of the hon. member with the wishes of other hon. members like the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and others, who complain very bitterly about truck shortage. It seems to me that the difficulty which the hon. member has mentioned could be met in this manner, namely, that farmers who do not own more than one wagon should bring the produce they have to the station in anticipation, and then load into the truck. I am afraid it will not be possible to extend the time, but, in view of what the hon. member (Mr. Anderson) has said, I am prepared to discuss the question again with the officers and see whether it is possible to meet the farmers in this matter. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has raised the question of the use of concrete sleepers. We have made a thorough trial of these sleepers, but we find that they are too rigid, and, while we are not at this stage prepared definitely to say that they are unsuitable, we are making further tests. We are always trying to extend our markets in regard to sleepers, because the wider the market is for the purchase of sleepers, the better terms we can get.

Has anybody been sent to the Argentine ?

We have one of our construction engineers in the East, and he may possibly, later on, go to the Argentine and South America. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) have raised the question of the shortage of trucks They complained that the coal mines are not getting a sufficient number of trucks. If hon. members turn to the Loan Estimates, they will see that we have a very large number of trucks on order which will be delivered during the course of this financial year. When these trucks are delivered, I feel sure that we shall be able fully to supply the requirements of the mines.

We had that last year.

Yes, and, as has been admitted, there has been a big improvement. I want to stress again the point I made on a former occasion and it is this, that unless the collieries are prepared to assist us in regard to this question, we shall not be able to deal satisfactorily with this matter.

How long do you keep the trucks down here ?

At Cape Town we off-load on to the ground. At Durban and Delagoa Bay the trucks are kept under load. We hope soon to have the necessary storage bins at Durban so that we may be able to store the coal there.

How long are they under load at Durban ?

I cannot give the hon. member the details at present, but there are always a large number of trucks under load at Durban. I would draw the attention of hon. members interested to an article which appeared in the “Railway Gazette” on April 16th last in which Mr. Sherington, who is an assistant lecturer on transport to the London school of economics and who has made a thorough investigation into this whole question on the Continent, points out that in France, Belgium and Germany they charge demurrage for all trucks under load with coal. Unless the collieries are prepared to assist us in this question of quickly off-loading trucks and returning them, the Administration will have very seriously to consider the desirability of making a charge for demurrage. I do not say that we shall do it, but it is being done all over the world, as is shown by Mr. Sherington in this article. What I would say to the Natal collieries is that they must again consider the possibility of pooling, as is done by the Transvaal collieries. When there is pooling, an individual colliery can supply to any ship that calls for bunkers. At the present time ships come in to bunker, and because a particular colliery has not had the order for a particular ship trucks remain under load and supplies must be brought from another colliery which means delay to the trucks which are under load.

You should come round to Durban and enquire into the matter.

I have been there and I have enquired into it, and I have the reports of my officers in regard to this question. The hon. members knows that what I have said is correct.

It is exaggerated.

The facts cannot be disputed. There is no pooling by the Natal collieries, and the trucks remain under load at Durban for a considerable time. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has referred to the increased expenditure. In my budget statement I clearly indicated to the House why there was this increased expenditure. I thoroughly appreciate what the hon. member has said in regard to keeping a tight rein on expenditure. I agree with him that, if this is not done, it may get out of bounds. The hon. member has referred to interest. Our loan money is costing us more in the way of interest at the present time than it did previously. I have made a beginning—it is not a very large amount, I admit, namely a quarter-of-a-million every year—by taking from revenue this sum in order to check the increase in our loan expenditure. The hon. member quotes the figure of £28,000,000 as the expenditure for this year from revenue, but he must not forget that in this amount is included the three-quarter of a million surplus of the previous year. That is included in that figure because we are allocating it this year under the supplementary estimates, but of course it is not actual expenditure, so that the amount he has given of £28,000,000 odd is not correct. The hon. member has objected to two items which the administration may undertake. One is the cost of salaries and allowances to members of the Perishable Products Export Control Board and the other is the subsidy under the Ocean Freights Bill. Well, I think we might deal with both of these matters when we come to the respective Bills.

I hope you won’t reach them.

I hope we shall. They are both sound Bills.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time: House to go into committee now.

House In Committee :

On Clause 1,

I want to bring a question to the notice of the Minister. Down in Cape Town at the goods station you have between 200 and 250 men who are classed as drivers. For some mysterious reason they are regarded as casual workers, not entitled to sick pay or privileges of any sort. Some of them have been in the service for 20 years. I hope the Minister will make a special effort to go into that himself. These men are old servants.

That is a matter of policy which the hon. member should have raised on the second reading.

I asked the question, and I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to it. This matter seems to have been overlooked by the department.

The hon. member cannot proceed now.

Can I ask a question of the Minister ?

The hon. member must not deliver a speech at the same time.

I was going to ask the Minister if he would make a personal investigation into the condition of these men.

I want to ask the Minister again if he would give people longer time to remove their goods from the station. At present they are charged demurrage when it is impossible for them in the time to remove their consignments.

I notice from the papers this morning that the administration have decided to drop the electrification on the docks line. Perhaps the Minister will give us the reason and tell us how much saving there is going to be on the Estimates on account of that, not that I am against it.

On the question of demurrage, I want to ask the Minister what he is going to do about it. It seems to me a great deal might be done on both sides, both by the customers and by the administration. Out of every hundred hours of a truck’s existence, for 97 hours it is idle and empty ; for 2½ hours it is full and standing still or moving unladen, and only half-an-hour is it running with a load, and actually earning revenue. This matter of rolling stock is a matter of great expense to provide in the first instance, and to keep in order in the second, and it seems to me that a united effort ought to be made to improve the position. A vast sum of money would be saved if that half per cent. of useful time could be increased to one per cent., or even to three-quarters per cent.

I want to ask the Minister what principle the railway administration adopts, and how it can be justified that if a private person orders trucks and does not load at once he has to pay for them, and also when off-loading is not immediately done, while trucks for coal can stand in Durban without payment being demanded. It seems so unfair, and thus I ask on what principle the Minister can defend it ?

The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) asks for the justification for charging a farmer if he does not load a truck within a certain time while the administration allows coal trucks to stand in Durban. The position is, however, quite different, because the trucks are in use in Durban and Delagoa Bay, when they are full of coal, and the position is that there is no room to off-load coal, and the ship is not in the harbour to take the coal. It is, therefore, necessary to leave the truck there. It is impossible to allow the farmers to detain the trucks for an unlimited period, because that would mean that a much larger part of the rolling stock will be out of use for a time, and that we should have to have much more.

I would like to say a word about the farmers beyond the three mile limit of the railway station and this demurrage.

The hon. member must not discuss this now. It should have been discussed on the second reading.

I want to ask a question of the Minister. Will the Minister take into consideration the extension of the demurrage time for farmers ? In the planting season it is quite impossible for farmers to remove their fertilizers within the time. Wet weather sometimes holds up the animal transport, and the farmer has to pay demurrage.

The hon. member may not make a speech on that point.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) on that point, that I am prepared to go into this question. I cannot say whether we will be able to extend the time, but I will have a thorough investigation made. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has, I think very rightly, said there should be helpful action on both sides. Unless the public assist the administration, we cannot deal satisfactorily with the truck position. He has quite rightly pointed out that the trucks are not in actual use for a very long period of time, and if the public would co-operate with us it would add very much to efficiency in the operation of the railways. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked me about the abandonment of the electrification of the docks line. The reasons are that the docks are getting so congested with goods traffic, that we felt we were not justified in continuing the train service for passengers. We have decided to abandon the electrification of the line, and to institute a ’bus service, so that employees and others who go down to the docks will be served. I think that is a wise decision.

Very wise.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has raised the question of the position of the cartage employees in Cape Town. I have no information about the point, but I will go into the matter carefully and see if it is possible to meet the case he has put up.

I should like to ask the Minister if he can do anything to speed up the running of passenger trains from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth. The time from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town has been lessened by three hours, but the time from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth remains unchanged.

I cannot allow the hon. member privileges which I have refused to other members.

The reason why we have not been able to speed up these trains is because of the condition of the line between Worcester and Mossel Bay. We are now busy re-laying and re-ballasting the whole of that section, and when that has been done we will be able to use heavier engines and speed up the train service.

Clause put and agreed to.

On the schedules,

On the item grain elevators, I want to ask the Minister if he has considered the possibility of putting an intake leg on to these elevators ?

When that time comes, we will deal with it.

Have you considered it?

No, we have not considered it.

Do so, please.

Schedules and title put and agreed to.

I move—

It is only just to my staff that I should say that when the Bill was in committee, the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) said that a communication had been received by me dealing with a benevolent fund, which had not been replied to. This letter was written by Mr. John Isaacs, and was replied to on the 28th September, 1925. Wrong information has evidently been given to the hon. member.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Does it state to whom this grant is to be given ? I thought the common-

age belonged to the municipality of Ceres. How can the Government give land that belongs to the municipality ?

Representations have been made that the Ceres municipality have applied for the authority of the Cape Provincial Administration to donate to the Statutory Educational Trustees land for the purposes of an agricultural school. It is about 4½ morgen of the commonage.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation 20,

This is the withdrawal from the lists of demarcated forest areas of 90 odd morgen of land. It seems to me sold at a low price.

I may inform my hon. friend that these things did not originate from my department, but from the forestry department. They say this land is not suitable for forestry, and therefore they propose to sell it. It is a piece of land right in the middle of private land, and the forest department has informed me that it is unsuitable for afforestation, because they would have to trespass on private land. The price has been fixed by the Forest Department.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation 23,

This is an enormous grant, of 350,000 morgen ; perhaps the Minister would give us some explanation.

I ought to explain this, because it is a very important matter. It is one which has been dragging on since 1847. When I took over the department I dug into the files of these old years, and found that the matter was in a very unsatisfactory state. The country was annexed by the British Government in 1847, and the Richters, a sort of Hottentot or bastards, protested at the time against the annexation ; but it was effected, and things were left in abeyance. Nobody bothered about them for all these years. In 1890, or thereabouts, the Cape Government sent Mr. Melville to see what area should be delimited for these people. He made an exhaustive report, and demarcated about 370,000 morgen, which he thought would be sufficient as a reserve for these people. This matter came before the Crown Lands Committee of the Cape Parliament, but was not reported to the House. Shortly before Union—the session before Union—it came before the select committee of the Cape House again, and that committee decided that it should not be gone on with, but by the Union. The matter has been left in statu quo. The difficulty is that discoveries are being made in that part of the world, and speculators have instigated these people to claim sovereign rights—to claim minerals and everything. The matter went so far that a case was instituted in the courts against us for a declaration of lights for these people. Under these circumstances, I thought we could not delay the matter any longer, and we appointed a commission, consisting of Messrs. Faure, Bowden and Norton (who is from the Native Affairs Department), to see what is to be done in the Richtersveld. They made a very full report, and recommended that a certain area should be set aside for the Richters as a reserve, but that they should not have sovereign rights. The Government will have sovereign rights. These people get only surface rights, like in any other reserve.

What about prospecting? I believe it is mineralized—with copper.

Anybody can apply. There is no obstacle. They recommend that another piece should be cut off, so that I can have it surveyed under the Land Settlement Act. They propose that £2,000 should be set aside and used to lay down bore holes where these people can get water, and that is the recommendation I make to this House.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation 24,

I should like to know why this item is necessary.

This is not my fault. These farms were bought at a time of inflated prices, and settlers cannot make a living out of them at the price. There is no question about it. Then there is another point. There was a valuable house built by the man to whom the estate belonged, and I was advised to exclude the house, as the owner was willing to retain it and that would have made the price less, but it could not be done. If I do not do this, they will leave.

I see you have several reductions. I am not quite sure whether these should not go before the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I know they should not.

There is no doubt that perhaps a more searching examination would be made if these were sent to the Public Accounts Committee. Why should the State reduce the price without cause?

As long as I am Minister of Lands, I shall certainly set my face against the Public Accounts Committee going into these things. The Select Committee on Crown Lands are appointed specially to, deal with land (and land values), and are in a far better position to deal with it than my hon. friend who will not reduce anything, and I will be saddled with the land and nobody on it.

I want to support the Minister. I strongly object to this matter going to the Public Accounts Committee. They are not qualified to deal with land matters. The House is fortunate in having a Crown Lands Committee which are qualified. This land has been purchased at excessively high prices, and if the price is not reduced it is going to be derelict. No settler can farm on it with a hope of success unless the land value is reduced.

I support what the Minister has said. As a member of the committee on Crown Lands, I wish to say that the committee went most carefully into all these cases. Looking at the matter as one of public policy and with a view to the future welfare of land settlement in this country, that committee framed its recommendation with its eyes open and with full detailed reports before it and, as much information as the Public Accounts Committee could have had and considered that this was the best thing to do under the circumstances.

Who purchased it?

That does not affect the question. It was purchased by the last Government. No one denies it. Mistakes have been made and this land was bought in a boom period at higher prices than it was worth. At that time there was a special reason for trying to settle a very large number of men who returned from their duties in Europe, Palestine and so on, and there was a clamour from all sections of the community of the country that these men should be put on the land. The land was bought bona fide. We want to get this matter cleared up, and to get land settlement on a proper basis for the future.

As an instance of what the Lands Department does here is a case of a farm called “Kromkrantz.” I mention this to show that these things ought to be taken out of the hands of the Lands Department. It was bought for £1,320. On the first inspection it was reported to contain 110 morgen of irrigable land out of a total of 1,823 morgen. A report made two years after, in 1923, which said that there was no irrigable land at all, and that the value of the land was only £800.

The Minister is in this position that he must rely on his Land Board. The board recommends after inspection by a member. A certain member of the Land Board is dead, and I do not wish to speak ill of the dead, but his inspections were of such a character that the less said about them the better. The land is bad, and I cannot help it.

And the State has to pay.

I don’t want the House to be misled about the land bought in 1918-’20.

When the land was bought then the £ was only worth about 10s. and the price of land was soaring. Sugar was at £120 a ton, and I think maize was at 25s. a bag. Consequently, the products that came from the farms obtained high prices. The Government, seeking to purchase land, had to pay the prevailing price in the district. The House should not forget that whilst the Lands Department only purchased about £1,000,000 worth of land, about £30,000,000 of land changed hands among private people in that period in the Union. This land was purchased under section 10 of the Land Settlement Act Then you may have a farm which is worth £3 or £4 per acre if you take it in a block, but when you cut it up into small areas some of it will be worth very little indeed, and it was under these circumstances that these re-valuations had to come about. The committee which sat on it is infinitely better able to judge of the values than the Public Accounts Committee. In the Lands Committee we discuss it from every angle.

Except the public purse.

Yes, from the interest of the public as a whole. I believe there are some more coming along and we have already written down an amount of £282,077. But we bought £1,000,000 worth of land in 1918 when the £ was only worth 10s. or 12s., and we still have a considerable amount to write down.

I agree with the last speaker and the Minister of Lands. My objection is that a careful man, and the man who does his best and makes a success does not get any of all this money.

That is not so.

I know a little about it too. I know the Minister has hardened his heart to the men who come under section 11. The department has lost very little money through them. I think the Minister’s great objection is that the men knew the land that was being purchased.

He purchased it himself.

He didn't. Who has got transfer ? The Minister’s argument is that the men who got land under section 11 had a chance to see the land and inspect it, and must stand by their bargain. The Minister will have to soften his heart before he is very much older. If the Government, through its officers and the Land Department, has made a bad bargain, there is no reason why the poor settlers should suffer. There is no reason why a man who has paid one-fifth of the value of the ground, and who cannot make a living out of it, should not receive some consideration. In many cases the ground is not worth what was paid for it. I hope the Minister will not proceed with his expressed intention, for unless he meets these people, they will be made into poor whites.

The two cases are vastly different. In one case the Government was responsible, bought a farm, cut it up and invited applications for the land. Under section 11, however, a man strikes his own bargain and buys the land through the department, and the Land Board inspects the ground to see if he is paying too much for it.

He asked you to buy it.

But he fixes the purchase price. If we revalue this land— and there are 2,000 cases like this—where are we going to stop? I have not seen my way clear to revalue land under section 11, unless it has been abandoned, and I am not going to do it.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation 28,

This item provides for the reduction in the allotment prices of the holdings comprising the Highveld Closer Settlement in the Bethal and Standerton districts to an amount not less than £201,452. This is a pretty big amount.

I should like to have information from the Minister in connection with the writings off at the settlements in Standerton and Bethal. I see that a fairly large sum has been written off there, £150,000, and I should like the Minister to tell us how the Bethal settlement was treated. Then I should also like information about the writing off at Hendrickspan. It is important to the people there, because we know they have already erected buildings.

This involves 18 closer settlements. The Land Board has made a very careful inspection of every plot, and in some cases the price was reduced. Apart from this, an amount was written off for improvements.

†*The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has asked me a few questions in connection with the method of writing off, and I can tell him that as far as I know, all the settlements including the one at Bethal are included. All of them had amounts written off. Of course, there was not an equal amount written off in each case, because one is better than another, so that less is written off, while there is more written off from one that is bad. With regard to Hendrickspan, which is now coming under my department, I may say that there is a large sum written off. Provision has also been made for larger plots because, in many cases, they were too small. With regard to the buildings, exactly the same method is adopted as at the other settlement.

The Minister has said that the writing-off has practically been done in accordance with the terms of a promise which I personally, as Minister of Lands, gave to the settlers. The position, as I and other members have made clear to the House, is that ground was bought in the boom time at the high prices then prevailing. Parliament voted the money, because the public wanted the people to be assisted. After the war, when the slump took place, the value of ground so depreciated that we had to elect either to put the people off the ground and make poor whites of them while, at the same time, losing the money, or to lose the money and to save the people. Therefore, I personally gave the promise that we would appoint a commission to re value the ground. I must say that I am glad to see the way in which the Minister has fulfilled the promise of the previous Government, and I want to congratulate him on it. The re-valuation was done in fulfilment of the promise of the former Government. I think the House should be grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has done this. I am certain that the commission has given careful attention to the matter, and that the valuation of the ground has been done in as fair and just a manner as possible. I, therefore, hope that the House will pass the vote, because the matter has been repeatedly discussed in the House. It is pimply a “clearing up of the mess” of the high prices paid for ground.

Does this amount include land written off under section 11 ? The Minister has told us that he is not going to write off anything under section 11 unless the land has been abandoned, and he cannot find a purchaser at the price in which it stands in the books. Surely it is much better business to retain a man on the land and agree to write off, say, 20 per cent. of the value, than to compel a settler to abandon his holding. I am not asking the Minister to make a general practice of writing off all ground bought under section 11, but it is not treating settlers fairly to say that because they bought under section 11, ipso facto, their cases are not to be looked into.

I did not intend speaking on this matter, but as the former Minister of Lands has spoken, I should like to say a few words. I agree that the settlers cannot pay these large amounts, but I still remember the time when a farm was bought from a man who was a member of Parliament. When I went to see the former Minister of Lands about it he said—

I am sorry for the settlers, but the member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) should not talk about the matter.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) does not know that he should not talk about the matter in that way. We are thankful to the Minister for what he is doing. But now we have the hon. member for Riversdale with his reproaches. I am convinced that the former Minister made the promise, because I sat with him on the conference. Consequently I also appreciate the motion of the Minister of Lands, that the people should be assisted, because the position to-day is that the settlers cannot exist on the settlements. On some of the settlements the plots are good, but on some they are bad. I am, therefore, glad that the settlers are being met because if that were not done there would be great trouble in a short time. If they get a bad harvest they will not be able to pay the high interest plus the arrears. We are, therefore, thankful to the Minister but we must co-operate in this matter and stop reproaches. The hon. member for Riversdale should not go on in that way, because he only sits in that corner to see where he can strike and stab.

I only wish to say that I think the hon. member who has just spoken is under a misunderstanding. It does not include section 11 but only 10. A few cases under 11 are written off because otherwise the people could not come out. If I did not write off then no one would want the ground, because they cannot make a living on it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has already pointed out that the ground is not at all what it was often represented in the report to be. It occurs that ground which is represented as being under water is not at all supplied with water. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) my predecessor, spoke of certain promises. I know of no promises which he made, and I want to say that although I try to fulfil bona fide promises made by my predecessor, I do not go into matters unless I am convinced that it is necessary. I have investigated the matter myself and had the report of the inspectors before me, and can, therefore, judge about the matter. I act after mature consideration. Let me just say further that we intend to keep political intrigues out of land settlements. If we did not do that we might as well give up settlements because then the settlers would say—

In that way we shall never get any further. We must as a Government demand that people should do their duty and fulfil their obligations and not talk about Saps, or Nats. I hope that my successors will do the same and that no further difference will be made between Nats, and Saps.

As one of the members of the commission, I want to say that the case the Minister mentioned is not a similar case. If anyone buys ground under section 11 he gets an option on the piece of ground and then he goes to the Government and says at what price he can buy the ground and that he is willing to pay that price Then the Minister sends a member of the Land Board to report on the matter. That person is, therefore, not in the same boat as the one we dealt with. I think that the attorneys in some cases too strongly advise the people to invest, and represent matters too favourably. I am glad the Minister stated that we should stop party politics in this connection. In answer to what the hon. members for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naude) and for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) said, I may say that I know of a case where a member of the Land Board said—

I hope the Minister will remember that, and I only refer to it because he also wishes that we should not mix up politics in this matter.

The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has grumbled very much. I agree that we should not drag politics into this matter, but it is his people who introduced politics and I will prove it. The S.A.P. Government only appointed S.A.P. officials, and no Nationalists, and ground was only bought from the Saps, and that of the Nats, was carefully avoided. Today these same people come and want the Government to write off £10,000 because the ground is worth so much less, and the people could otherwise not make a living on it. This Government must put the mess of the previous Government right. Last year it had to write off £136,000 and this year approximately another £200,000. Do you think that the taxpayer is blind and does not notice this ?

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation 30,

I hope the committee have gone very carefully into this matter. This is a sale of land near Durban to a township company, 145 acres for £200, which works out at about 27s. 6d. per acre. The price seems to be very low. I see that the ground is to be used for recreation purposes.

I may explain to the hon. member that the Government owns a small strip of land along the coast near Durban. It is a mosquito-infested place. There is a lagoon there. This company, the Durban North Estates, Ltd., have acquired land near this Government land. They asked us if they could have this land because it is situate right in front of their property, and they want to lay it out and have gardens and a tea room, etc., there. I may tell my hon. friend that our title to the ground is not too clear. We were threatened with an action, the company claiming that this land belongs to them and not to us, but, in order to avoid unpleasantness, eventually they said—

The committee, after going into the matter, came to the conclusion that this was the best way to settle it.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On Recommendation 40,

I would like to ask the Minister a question with regard to this. According to the recommendation there are only two portions to be valued. The farm is divided into five portions. We got the impression from the Land Settlement Act that there was to be a revaluation of farms. I would like to know whether the Minister is going to give effect to that.

The hon. member is under a misapprehension. The Land Settlement Act of 1925 contains no provision for revaluation of inherited Crown Land. The revaluations have been made in the past by me on my own initiative. The Act only provides to give them leases on a 40 years’ basis instead of 20 years. Revaluation is only done on Ministerial initiative. The Land Board recommended that only two holdings should be revalued in this case, and I cannot act without the permission of the Board. That is why these are the only two recommended.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On Recommendation 44,

I see there is another big reduction there, £149,000.

No, it is “not less than.” The reduction altogether is about £40,000, but actually it only amounts to about £30,000. The land was really sold for £13,000 more than we paid for it, so there is no great loss.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation 50,

What is the history of this transaction ?

I do not know much about this matter, because it falls under the Department of Agriculture. I received the papers from my colleague asking me to put this before Parliament. The lands are leased for 15 years.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Remaining recommendations put and agreed to.

I move—

This matter has already been discussed in this House in connection with a motion by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) on the 16th of February last. That motion asked that the Government should consider the desirability of raising the allowances which have hitherto been paid to members of this House, and on that occasion a fairly full discussion took place. The Prime Minister at the time expressed his view on the matter, as well as that of the Government, and the hon. member for Standerton also spoke on the subject. A resolution was taken adopting the motion. The view of members on this side of the House who voted in favour of the motion is therefore clear but there is no doubt that that view is shared by a large number of members on the other side, whatever their ultimate course of conduct may be. They may possibly for certain reasons oppose the matter, but we know that on the merits of the case many of them feel that action should be taken in the direction of improving the position of members of Parliament.

What about the people outside ?

I am coming to that. During the debate an objection was taken to the procedure that was being followed. Hon. members pointed out the unpleasant position of members in themselves taking steps to improve their position. It was, however, at the same time acknowledged, I think, on both sides that on the merits it was necessary to do something to improve the position of members of this House. The hon. member for Standerton then pointed out that the National Convention had fixed the salaries at the time to absolve hon. members of Parliament from the unpleasant task of fixing their own allowances. That is so, but unfortunately since the fixing of the salary at the time by the National Convention circumstances were altered and to-day there is no other constitutional machinery except Parliament to revise the matter if we find it necessary to do so. The only question therefore in my opinion— because we cannot escape the responsibility—is to enquire whether the increase or any increase can be justified. I think the answer to that has already been given by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) himself. He objected to the procedure which is being followed but himself acknowledged that the existing salary was not fair and just towards members of Parliament, and we find for example that on that occasion he used the following words—

Here it is therefore clearly acknowledged that the bare fact that members of the Assembly come here and do their work entails a sacrifice on their part. It may be a sacrifice which the people expect, but nevertheless it is a sacrifice that members of the Assembly make in coming here. Then the hon. member for Standerton went further and said—

I think that that is very strong language in which the hon. member admits that unless one is a rich man and has independent means it is impossible for one to come here and do the work', and live here in a “self-respecting way” and to meet the expenses he has to. I think the necessity for the increase of the allowances cannot be put more strongly. Here it is not only acknowledged that a sacrifice is made, but that unless members of Parliament have independent means it is impossible for them to live here in a proper way, such as is expected of them, and to meet their expenses. I therefore say that the unsuitability of the present allowances is acknowledged by no less a person than the hon. member for Standerton. The hon. member, however, objects to the procedure and referred to what was done formerly. He said—

Here the hon. member again acknowledges that the matter is justified on the merits, but he objects to the procedure followed. I have already said, and I want to repeat, that if there is anything to be done in the matter it can only be done by the members of this House. It is quibbling to say that it should be done in another way and that other provisional measures ought to be taken, because eventually it comes down to this in any case, that if the allowances are to be increased the House must agree to it. That is the only machinery that exists. The opinion so strongly expressed by the hon. member for Standerton is undoubtedly that of every hon. member in the House. We know that the position in the country has changed during the last sixteen years, since the National Convention fixed the amount. The standard of living is raised and the salaries in the public service and in commerce have been increased. The House has tried to get the increase by a circumlocution, but the increase to £600 was anyhow in conflict with the provisions of the constitution settling the allowances to members of the Assembly. I say that if we hold the view that the allowances ought to be raised, we are obliged to take the responsibility upon ourselves and to act as we are now doing. Let us compare the position in other countries. It is only in England, I think, where there is a large population of rich people who are prepared to give their time and sacrifice themselves, that there is a small salary. In Canada it is £800 and other privileges, and in Australia £1,000. We see that the present position in our country compares unfavourably with the position in other dominions and other parts of the world. It can be said, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said it—

I admit that when this matter was mentioned we heard of objections to it from all parts in the country, but I also say that the people have not the right to demand of members of the Assembly to make the sacrifice if the position is as represented by the hon. member for Standerton. When the public appreciate that it will not demand that members of the Assembly will in the circumstances continue as they are doing to-day. The position is much too serious. It is unquestionable that during recent years members have come to this House, young men who have given up their future because the people said they required their services, and they therefore made a financial sacrifice. One will not be able to expect this in the future, and young men will not be prepared to become members of the Assembly. If we want the right type of person to come to the Assembly to work here in the highest and most important body in the country, we must take steps to see that even if it is not financially profitable, it will not break anyone to come here. I say that if it is at once made clear to the people outside what is at stake and how necessary the alteration is, then the people will not be so unfair as to demand the sacrifice on the part of members of the Assembly. We must ask ourselves whether it is necessary to do so in order to improve the position, and if it is necessary we must take the responsibility on ourselves unless of course we are willing to adopt the doctrine which is also preached, viz.: that only men who are absolutely independent of any allowance paid should enter the House of Assembly. If we want that then it is not necessary to increase the allowance, but I do not think that that is what the people want. If that is the case then it is right to say that no steps ought to be taken to increase the allowance. But I am convinced that the people will not accept that principle but will demand the right of sending the best men irrespective of their financial position. As that is actually the attitude of the people the step which we are here taking is justified. As for the Bill itself hon. members will see that as the Prime Minister said at the previous discussion, we ought to stop increasing the salary by devious ways above the amount fixed in the constitution. Let us do it once for all on a sounder and proper footing by legislation, so that the allowance of members of Parliament shall not depend on the whim of the Government in power. The way we are following is to amend the constitution and to settle what the salary of members of the Assembly shall be. When the Government came to this decision it considered what the amount ought to be, whether the increase should be by way of a fixed amount or by way of attendance at Parliament and whether it should be limited to members of the Assembly or to be extended to members of the Senate. These are matters which we carefully considered. There is a good deal to be said for a different view to the one we are following, but after consideration we decided that it is not desirable to pay members different amounts by way of allowance or salary or by reason of the fact that the member lives in the north or in the Cape Province or in the Cape Peninsula. We considered that it was not possible to do that. It has been pointed out that the arguments for the increase of salary may possibly apply to members of this House, but not to senators. Alter consideration we came to the decision that we should remain by the principle existing to-day, that there should be no distinction between the salaries, apart from where the member of the Assembly and the senator live, and the House of which he is a member. That is the Bill which we here submit and it is of course a matter on which there may be a difference of opinion. Hon. members will see that the amount is fixed in the Bill at £700 which the Government think is a fair salary. It will not be a recompense for the sacrifice made by members in coming here, but will be enough to enable them to do their work “in a self-respecting way,” as the hon. member for Standerton says. Then provision is made that the amount in connection with deduction for absence should be considerably increased. It is doubled from £3 to £6 per day. That will also have the effect that members will be more inclined to be present and to fulfil their duties. I think therefore that I have sufficiently shown not only that this side of the House feel that what we are to-day proposing is fair but also that the speeches of the Opposition show that members there also feel that the position is not fair and that hon. members are not able in the circumstances to properly fulfil their duties. The public cannot expect this.

I think it is a great pity that the Government has seen fit to go on with this matter. We dealt with it last February in a debate which was by no means pleasant, and since then we have had an opportunity to see what the feeling of the country was in regard to this proposal, and I think it will be generally admitted that the impression of the country was not a favourable one. That is my impression ; that, on the whole, the country was opposed to this proposal to increase Parliamentary salaries. It seems to me that that should have been a warning to the Government. Even if there was something to be said for the proposal, on its merits, that should have been a warning to the Government not to flout public opinion. People may be wrong in the country, but still we represent them. We are here not in our own right, but as representatives of the public, and especially in a very delicate matter like this, we have to consider very closely public opinion. And I should have thought that, with the indication of public opinion which the Government had, they would not have gone on with this matter. Personally, I regret that they have gone on with it; because this matter places us in a difficult and unpleasant position. We shall have to go hack to our constituents and justify the step we have taken. It is clear that the Minister who has introduced this Bill is going to shelter himself very much behind the opinion which I expressed quite fairly and sincerely last February, when this matter was under discussion. I adhere to that opinion. I spoke fairly ; because I did not want public opinion in this country to be misled. That is the attitude I have always taken up. It is difficult for many members to come out in a proper, decent, reasonable manner on the allowance which is paid us ; but that does not close the matter. After all, we are now judges in our own interests in a matter which closely concerns ourselves. Therefore, we have to be doubly on our guard to see that we do not flout public opinion and do not act in a way which shakes the confidence of the public in us. Whatever inducement we may have, whatever ground we may have, in reason, for taking such a step, I am sorry, with the opinion of the country as it is, that we are to-day taking this step. Make no mistake about it. I warn hon. members that, whatever we may do or say here, they are going to have a difficult time up-country, when they get back to their constituencies. We know the situation up-country. The people are hard up ; times have been bad, and we shall have to go back to our constituencies and admit that one of the legislative efforts we have perpetrated is the increase of our own salaries from £500 to £700 a year. It will place us in a difficult position, the increase will be difficult to defend, and it will shake the confidence of our constituents in us. Whatever may be said on the merits of the question, we were sent here on a policy of economy. If we have to suffer hardships and work for less than our services are worth, thousands of other people have to do the same. The public servants say that they are working for less than they are worth. It will be very difficult to carry out a policy of economy after taking this step. People will say it does not rest with us to force a policy of economy after we have helped ourselves ; they will not trust us in the matter, and they will say we have not acted fairly. I know there is a strong feeling in the House in favour of the measure, but the Minister is wrong in thinking there is a strong feeling on this side. I should be the last person to force my views on members here in a self-righteous spirit. The strong feeling of the vast bulk of hon. members on this side of the House is that this is a wrong step, which it is not right for us to take under the circumstances of the country, and especially in view of the very strong indications of public feeling we have already received.

Are your members free to vote as they like ?

Yes ; do not think we have imposed any party pledge on them. This Bill will not increase the respect of the country for Parliament, and I do not see any justification for the proposal. It may be said that a similar step was taken in 1920, and it may be asked why, seeing that the convention laid down that our parliamentary salaries should be £400 a year, did we increase that amount by £200? But hon. members will bear in mind that the circumstances then were not the same as they are to-day. In 1920 we were at the top of a big boom, prices were soaring, and the country felt that the increase was justified. No protest of any importance was made against this step.

Because the Opposition agreed to it.

The circumstances were quite different, but this is a different case. To-day the financial situation is stabilized ; we have not a condition of inflation such as we had then. Under the circumstances prevailing to-day, I am sure the step which is going to be taken will be resented, will create criticism, and will not redound to the credit of Parliament.

Are you speaking for your party?

Yes. But the vote we are going to give will not be a party vote.

Why are you speaking for your party then ?

I have consulted them, and it is the opinion of the vast bulk of them that it is not a proper and fair step to take, and it is not justified. Unfortunately, the Government goes further than the motion of the hon. member who brought the matter forward. We are going to make the increase retrospective, and that will still further affront public opinion. The whole business will make an unpleasant impression on the public mind. I know it is useless to appeal to the Prime Minister not to press the matter, for he could have brought it forward only on very strong motives, but I am sure we are making a mistake, and that we shall be sorry if we pass the Bill.

I am very glad that since the last discussion on this matter there is a better disposition to go into this matter thoroughly. I want to say at once that I feel in this matter just as I usually do when I am convinced that the step being taken is a right step. Let me say at once that I have received resolutions from a number of places—about 15 or 20—saying that the persons who took part in the meetings that passed the resolutions are opposed to the raising of the salaries of members of the Assembly. I attach the greatest importance to such resolutions, but when we have to do with such matters we shall always find quite a number of people who say—

That we always find when it concerns the spending of money, and the man who knows nothing about it will at once say that we must not spend it. That goes without saying. We find it in private life, and of course it applies just as well in political life. I am, however, also convinced that very few people, when the necessity for the step is laid before them, will not admit that we were right in proposing the increase of the salaries. I felt that it was a fair step, and, as usual in such circumstances, I am also prepared to take the necessary steps to put right what I think was wrong. In connection with this matter, I shall without the least hesitation appear on any platform in any part of the country to defend what we are here proposing. I am not afraid of it, because a certain number of people differ from us. That will always be the case, but it is not the standard by which I should act when we have to deal with a matter of this kind. In connection with this case, every member is in the unpleasant position that he has to vote in his own affairs, and to benefit himself. Therefore, it is my duty as Prime Minister, if I feel it ought to be done, to take up the lead and assume the responsibility. That is precisely what I am doing, and what I did from the moment that I felt that we had to do with a reasonable request. I have no interest in the increase of salaries, and in the second place I stand here as Prime Minister, and think that this is just such an occasion when one is called upon to give a lead. I am therefore sorry that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has not also felt that he, as leader of the Opposition, ought to give the lead. Then I am convinced that the people outside would not have bothered about the matter, because they would have regarded that as sufficient.

Oh, no.

Of course there are exceptions like the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys), who are not open to conviction. I am speaking of reasonable people. I say that if the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had given a lead then there would have been no difficulties because the people have enough confidence in him and in me to be convinced that when we say that it is fair under existing conditions that then it is necessary. Then there will, of course, always be people who differ, like the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), but that need not frighten us from doing what we think is right and just. The chief obligation in this matter rests on the hon. member for Standerton and myself, and I say it, therefore, with so much the more earnestness, having heard the reasons given by him. He agrees with me that the salary of members of Parliament ought to be raised, and if he takes that viewpoint, I consider it his duty—he will forgive me for saying “duty,” I, of course, do not wish to dictate to him when he felt that I and others were prepared to do this on behalf of our followers in Parliament who cannot speak with the same freedom that we can because it is fair, actually desired and in the interests of South Africa, to stand by us and give us a lead. Unfortunately he took the opposite point of view, and I regret it very much. It will cause a little more trouble. It will possibly mean that I shall have to go and explain things on one or more platforms. In any case the difficulties will be greater than otherwise. But I say as regards this that the people outside will eventually see the equity of it because I have always found that the Afrikander people are reasonable and fair as long as they understand matters. The people will eventually see that we are doing the right thing. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) quite agrees that the salaries ought to be raised but he mentioned two objections to it. In the first place he says that we have been sent here to practise economy and that, therefore, we cannot do it. We are not the only ones sent here to practise economy. All our predecessors before us were sent here to practise economy and all those who will come after us will be sent for the same purpose, but if we want to press that point of view we shall never be able to do what is just to hon. members. Why should we be less able to practise economy if the salaries of members are put on a proper basis? I do not know whether the hon. member wants, with reference to financial matters, to make out that the State to-day is in such a position that it cannot bear the burden ? He will not say that. That is one of the very reasons why I say that the allowances should now be placed on a proper footing. I shall return to this point later ; I first want to point out the inconsistency in the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He says that the view of the country should have been a warning to us, and that in consequence we ought not to have proposed the increase of salaries. The case is precisely of such a nature that he and I ought to give a lead. Not in order to despise the view of the people, but to assist the people in forming their opinion when the people are coming to a decision. If the people express an opinion they do not thereby intend that no one may contradict them. I have always found in such cases that the people must be assisted to correctly form their opinion, and let me say that there would have been very few resolutions and meetings in connection with this matter. In my constituency, e.g., there was not one and I have not received a letter from it. There are others like that. I can assure the hon. member that only a few protests have come from the whole of the Free State. But be this as it may the whole point is that we convince ourselves whether the people are wrong or not, and if we find that they are wrong, then it is my and your duty to put them right. Therefore, I say again, that I consider the argument of the hon. member for Standerton indefensible. He started with the fact that he approved of the view that the salaries ought to be raised.

I do not say that.

During the recent discussion the hon. member went on the assumption that the salaries were not sufficient.

I said that many members found it difficult to come out.

You admitted that the salaries of the members were insufficient. But let us take it that the hon. member said what he now says, that it is difficult for members to come out. He surely does not say that about members who are wasteful. He surely applies it to members who live carefully but decently. They have to come out. Let me say that I am glad that hon. members took the resolutions which they did last February, because I am convinced that this Parliament cannot go on for many years on the basis of the present payment to members without this Parliament going back and necessarily going back in dignity and capacity. That is clear to me.

It has not yet retrogressed.

Has it not?

It does not look like it.

Let me point out to my hon. friend what the position is. Let us look at the House and ask what the influence is why members of the Assembly have actually come here. It is the influence of 1899 to 1902. That period gave rise to the enthusiasm in the people to take part in anything which tended towards the interests and advancement of the country as nothing before it had done. The result is that we have men in this House, a large number of them, who stood apart in the Anglo-Boer war. They are people who would not have entered into politics were it not for the Anglo-Boer war. I may instance myself as an example. One can take the farming members in the House as examples, because some of them would never have come here as farmers because they would not have been prepared to sacrifice themselves in this way that they are sacrificing themselves to-day, were it not for the zeal they got as a result of the Anglo-Boer war to do their utmost to contribute to the well-being of the country. There are other hon. members who did not take part in the war, but they have all come under the influence and inspiration of that period. That time is, however, passing. What is going to happen? If the salary of members of the Assembly remains as at present then you will find, as time passes, the House of Assembly will become more and more the resort of advocates who cannot make a living at the bar. I do not speak of advocates in Cape Town and places near Cape Town. They will be able to come to the House but you will not get advocates from the Free State and the Transvaal to come here for five months in the year to attend Parliament, because that would mean that their practice would be entirely ruined. Where you might possibly still obtain attorneys because an attorney can have a partner, even the best of them will not come to the House of Assembly. When one regards the matter from the side of the farming members you can ask the question what young farmer is going to give up his farm for five months to come and sit here for £500 a year. I do not even take the amount laid down in the Constitution, but the amount which is paid to-day. Of the sum of £500 the members of Parliament have to spend practically every sovereign here on their families and when the farming member gets back to his farm he finds it neglected unless he has left someone in his place who has to be paid so that he has to go to the bank for an overdraft. I go further. Let me take my hon. friend of the Labour party. The working man is also given the right of coming to this House and taking his share in legislation. It ought to be made easy for him to do so. How shall we be able to deny him that right and grudge him the opportunity? Look at the position of the ordinary business man. The moment he comes into the House he has practically to sacrifice his whole existence outside. He comes here for five months and draws £500 and he goes back and has to pay in £200 or £300. He does not receive in the House what he can earn outside. Must these people then be excluded ? Usually the best man is excluded because he cannot get here what he earns at his own job. No one would wish that to be possible but what everyone desires is that when he comes here and does work for the State he should at least have so much that when he goes back he should not have to sacrifice in such a way that he and his family have to suffer in consequence. I think that we should make provision that the advocates, farmers, business men or whoever, whatever class of society it may be should come here and be paid sufficiently to be able to say—

Then he can be content, but with £500 a year the position is unsatisfactory. I will not even speak of £400 as laid down in the Constitution. I thought that the salary should at least be placed at £700 which is none too much and with which at least even your competent farmer though he makes a lot will know that he is not living on his capital when he comes here. It is the same with the labouring classes, the advocates and the attorneys. I do not believe and it has not been stated by my hon. friend the member for Standerton, that £700 is too much. Let me say that I feel that we as members should be satisfied with it. We shall indeed not get here the best advocates, attorneys, farmers and business men, as members of the Assembly, but we shall at least open the way for the class who if they do not have that large practice and income will at any rate receive such salary as not to frighten them away. The increase in the allowance will, therefore, make it possible to continue to get a good class of man in the future to stand for Parliament and to come here to do the work of the people. Now I want to point out that the hon. member for Standerton knows it just as well as I, that this is not a matter which was raised this year or last year, but one which has been insisted upon for many years. The hon. member knows himself that the matter has been discussed over and over again in the committee of which we are both members. It is discussed there almost every year and therefore the necessity for this has been long felt. In the second place I just want to point out that he has already mentioned it. The step was taken in the past of raising the salary from £500 to £600, and thereafter the amount was again reduced to £500. £500 also is not in accordance with the Constitution.

The amount is voted every year.

That is true, but we vote it every year. I am glad, therefore, that the hon. member has not used his argument that we should vote it.

I never used that argument.

Then somebody else used it during the former discussion of this matter. The people must trust us and I have not the least doubt that they will do so. I have shown the necessity for us to get men as members of this House who are actually capable to do the work which is required here. I just want to point this out. Have hon. members ever gone into the amazing difference there is to-day in the extent and subject of the matters with which Parliament and the Government have to deal to-day in comparison with the legislation of twenty years ago ? We are called upon year to year to decide upon important and complicated economic matters and there is not the least doubt that if such things are to be dealt with in a proper way, if the House of Assembly wants to dispose of all the various matters properly, then it is necessary for us to get the best forces of the people here. If that is so, then I say no people have the right and our people have not the right to deprive those who are called to this work of what they need for their maintenance when they are engaged on the business of the country. If we do not do that, if we do not remain at that level, if we cannot do the work properly, then I say it is our duty to take steps to point out to the people that there are defects which must be remedied. I just want to point out further what will happen to-morrow or the day after if we do not provide for proper maintenance. Then one or the other class of the people will for that reason not see its way to send its best men as members of the Assembly, and the people will suffer in consequence. Is it right, because the maintenance allowance is not adequate, to deprive certain classes of the people of the right of sending people to Parliament by practically shutting the door ? I feel that that can only lead to loss, bitterness and unpleasantness, and we must prevent the interests of the people being injured in that way. As a Government we feel it to be our duty to make an end to this long juggling we have had in the past in connection with this matter, and I have already said previously that I do not at all approve of it being practically concealed from the people. The payment of £500 is practically a thing about which not one per cent. of the people were aware before this matter was discussed here recently. Not one per cent. of the people knew that the sum fixed in the Constitution was £400. I wonder how many of them knew that for a time it was £600. Very few indeed before the recent discussion.

It was properly dealt with in the House.

It was never discussed. It was only referred to and everybody remained absolutely quiet.

There was opposition to it.

There may have been one or another who said a few words, but that ended it. I say that in these matters we ought to be straightforward and tell the people definitely what the position is. If the people wish to disapprove, well and good. In time there will probably be another general election. There are people who say that it will take place before the time fixed, but when the election comes then the people can instruct their representatives to alter the salaries. As for me I am convinced that the people as a whole approve of the step if they are only informed about the actual position. Just let me say with regard to the persons who opposed this that they only want to make their attitude known. That does not mean that people will be hostile on account of the alteration and will see that the step is fair when we point it out. Therefore, I regret that in this matter where the Opposition differs just as little from us as their leader does, have not taken up a different attitude, except the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and perhaps a few others. I am not saying too much if 70 per cent. of members opposite feel precisely as does the leader of the Opposition, nor do I say too much when I say that the large percentage of members opposite entirely agree with what I have said this afternoon. The hon. the leader of the Opposition now says they can vote as they please. It is a pity it was not said before. They will not come over to vote here. Why should they ?

How will the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) vote?

I do not mind. I have given him his freedom. The hon. member for Ficksburg goes to the root of the matter, just as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). I honour them for always being consistent. They always remain firm where finances are concerned and lock the door.

Right.

It may be right or wrong, but I say that my friends opposite who feel as I do will not come and vote on this side because they will in any case get the benefit without doing so. Why then should they expose themselves to criticism. That does not take away that I must disapprove of the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton, when he agrees with me that it is necessary to raise the salaries and that it is in the interests of the country in turning the matter in the circumstances into a party question. That has unfortunately been done, and we must make the best of it. I am prepared to justify the matter in the country and—a thing I do not at all fear—if the people should disapprove of it, I am prepared to assume the responsibility.

The Prime Minister seems to think that this is one of the most important questions that has come before the House this session, because he states that he is going to take responsibility as leader of the House in connection with this measure. I am sorry that during the course of this session, when we wanted the Prime Minister to be in his place to take the responsibility which he should take, the House has not always got that lead from him that they have had on this question. If the Prime Minister felt from the very beginning of the session that this was a matter that required adjustment, it is extraordinary that he allowed a private member on the cross benches to bring forward the motion for the purpose of seeing how the cat was going to jump. One would have thought that, as he considered this a matter of first-grade importance, he should at the beginning of the session have taken the responsibility. I would now ask him, if he had this feeling in February, what have been the reasons that have actuated him in delaying this Bill until practically the last week in the session ?

I suppose we were doing work all the time ?

I acknowledge that, and a portion of the work which my hon. friends over the way were doing was seeing what means they could devise for bringing a measure of this sort through the House, being afraid of the opinion of the public outside.

Nonsense!

That is very weak.

The Minister knows it is correct. A great deal of pressure has been brought upon the Government, during the last month or six weeks, because this question was in the balance, and until to-day we did not know on what side the scale was going to tip. We were not alone in that ; the leading organ of the Government was in doubt. It won’t be in doubt after the Prime Minister’s speech to-day ; but I believe only yesterday morning it was in considerable doubt, and did its best to try to bring the Prime Minister to a better point of view than that which he has explained to the House this afternoon.

Try to convert me.

Who converted my hon. friend ?

My good sense.

What were the reasons for his conversion ?

16th February.

It would be very interesting—

I think I have just told you.

No, the Prime Minister wandered away for a long time, and one could not help feeling sympathy with him, because one realized he had been forced into a position which he was extremely sorry he had to take up. [The Prime Minister laughed.] We know that laugh, and what it betokens. I do not think the Prime Minister ever found himself in a “moeiliker” or “pynliker posiesie” than he finds himself in this afternoon. What was the position in regard to the pay of members of Parliament? The Act of Union laid down £400 a year, and, in 1920, when the purchasing power of the £ was about 12s. 6d., when the price of everything had soared enormously, this House was asked to vote £200 a year as a special allowance, to meet special conditions in connection with members of Parliament ; but no attempt was made to alter the Act of Union which laid down the salaries at £400.

Since when have prices come down ?

I listened patiently to my hon. friend. Is he also in a “pynlike posiesie” ? When the cost of living began to fall, the special allowance of £200 was reduced to £100. Will it not be very difficult for members to justify voting themselves an increased allowance when the country cannot meet the demands for higher salaries made by members of the public services who, when they made their demand for bringing into operation the fifth report, used as an argument that Parliament was going to raise its own emoluments ?

They made that demand before they knew anything about this.

I am not going into the question whether £500 is, or is not, adequate. I know there are many members of Parliament to whom the allowance is of no consideration whatever, but there are other members who suffer financially and who knew they were going to lose considerably by satisfying their ambition to become members of Parliament and take part in the work of the country. Without any disrespect, I may say there are other members who I do not think have made very great financial sacrifices to come into this House. I do not know what the feelings of hon. members opposite were when the Prime Minister referred to the advocates and attorneys, of whom there are many on his side, and when he remarked that, owing to the remuneration paid here, he was getting only second-class advocates and prokureurs. That does not apply to the prokureurs and advocates on this side of the House,

They are all first-class!

There is no doubt about that. It has even forced itself on to the mind of my hon. friend. This Bill, if introduced at all, should not be made applicable to the existing Parliament, but to the next Parliament. The Prime Minister must realize in what an invidious position members will be put when they go back to their constituents and have to justify their action in increasing their emoluments.

Why did you vote every year for the extra £100 ?

If it were the intention of the Government to increase members’ allowances, the question should have been raised at the last general election. Is there any member who, if he had stated then that he was going to vote for an additional £200, would have been returned to this House ? Is this not a question upon which the public should be allowed to express an opinion before the matter comes to a vote in this House ? It is quite possible that if the country discusses the subject, it may come to the conclusion that members’ remuneration is too little. This is one of the subjects which engaged a considerable amount of attention at the National Convention. One of the arguments used was that in a country like this, where there are very few people of the leisured class, it was necessary to make an allowance to members to enable all sections of the people to have their representatives here, but, pointed out Mr. Merriman, we should be extremely careful that we did not fix the remuneration at such an amount that it should be looked upon as a yearly stipend, and would interfere with the liberty a member has in casting his vote in the House. I agree entirely that there should be adequate remuneration. Personally, I think the present remuneration is sufficient. Many members make great sacrifices to come here, and it is a bad thing for the country to derive the impression that we desire to increase our emoluments without giving our constituents an opportunity of stating their views. I would even now appeal to the Prime Minister not to proceed further with the Bill, but to allow members an opportunity to discuss the matter with their constituents, and then, if the Government desire to reintroduce the measure next session, members will be fortified by having the support of their constituents, with whom they have discussed the proposal. I, for one, should not like to go back to my constituents and have to tell them that, without their approval, and at a time when they had asked that the most strict and rigorous economy should be observed by the Government, I had voted for giving myself a bigger allowance.

The question has been asked whether I have changed my opinion and I, therefore, want to make my position clear. I am certain that my honoured leader would be one of the last to ask that I should violate my conscience. I am, therefore, in a few words, going to explain my view. When this matter was before the House on a former occasion there was a motion by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson). It was not a party question and each member had the right to speak and to vote according to his convictions. I then expressed my view clearly on the subject, and I went so far as to propose an amendment to the motion. I am still of the same opinion to-day. I feel and say emphatically that I consider that the people should have been consulted in this matter. I shall not go further into the Bill, but I only want to say, as I have said in the past, that my view is, the people should have been consulted, and, therefore, with the best will in the world, I shall not vote for the Bill.

I do not want to make a long dissertation about the Bill. I can tell the Prime Minister that I listened carefully to his speech, and I want to compliment him on expressing his view about the matter in so moderate a way and so fully. I think the Prime Minister has mentioned every point in favour of the proposal. Where, however, I differ from him is that it will not be an easy matter to explain the increase of the allowance or salary to the people. I speak of that part of the people to which the Prime Minister and I belong, and there is no doubt that our people look upon Parliament with a spirit of dignity and of jealousy for the dignity of Parliament. The question with me is whether, by accepting the Bill, we shall really raise the dignity of Parliament in the eyes of the people. The people feel, especially as regards the payment of members of the Assembly, that we must make a certain sacrifice in the interests of the country. If I correctly followed the Prime Minister’s speech, I must take it that if a man comes forward to serve his country he must be fully paid for it.

That is not what the Prime Minister said.

That is what I understood. The Prime Minister thinks that we will, by that method, get the best men as members of this House. When the matter was discussed for the first time the Minister went further and said that the member of the Assembly should have saved something when he leaves political life. That is not the way in which the people view the matter, and, although I agree with the Prime Minister that this is a delicate matter, that does not prevent every hon. member from doing his duty to the people, because the people sent him here as a representative of them. Another point which weighs greatly with me is that the allowance fixed in the constitution is £400. When we increased the salary times were abnormal, and I think the Prime Minister will admit it. If I had been on the floor of the House at that time, I would never have agreed to the altering of the constitution, and to support the alteration in the constitution because circumstances change, the economic position alters. In 1920 it was necessary to give the increase. Although the Prime Minister has criticized the matter in which it was done, he must not forget that we have to vote the amount every year. Let us leave it as a temporary allowance about which we can vote every year, so that when times become normal again, when economic conditions are the same again, we can revert to the old position. Hon. members may differ from me, but that is my attitude. The Prime Minister has said that we shall not get the best men unless we do this. I must say that the best men who are out to make money, people in business who are successful, and who will not make a sacrifice for the people will, in any case, not be attracted by the additional £200. It will not pay them at all. We must depend on patriotism and service of the country. I agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that the Prime Minister will do well if he gives the people an opportunity of expressing their opinion. I am prepared during the recess to consult my constituents about it, and we shall have sufficient opportunity to do it then. I shall lay the views of the Prime Minister, the economic points, the sacrifice in the interests of the public, etc., before them and make no party matter of it. Let the people express their view. To-day I must vote against the second reading.

I do not want to repeat the arguments of previous speakers against this measure, but I do want to give a few additional reasons why I must oppose it. I take it that the principle of payment of members is accepted now generally, accepted by this country and by this House. I am not influenced by any party considerations nor by any personal considerations in my opposition to this Bill. I am one, perhaps, of the few members who have received no communication whatever from their constituents, either for or against this measure. I understood the Prime Minister to say that he does not fear the opinion of the country upon this matter. All I know is what other members know. What they have seen in the press is that a large number of constituencies have made representations to members to oppose this Bill. I doubt whether there is a single member here who has received a message from his constituency directing him to support this Bill.

Yes.

At all events I think they are largely outnumbered by the number of requests to oppose it. It is very desirable, not only that members should receive an allowance, but that it should be an adequate allowance. We suffer in this country from a lack of wealthy leisured men who can afford to devote their time not only to the practice of politics, but to its study. Older countries have such a class, but in this country it may be said that men of wealth have no leisure and men of leisure usually are not wealthy. We are suffering undoubtedly in this country from the fact that as a rule men can only devote their attention to politics after they have achieved more or less of a competence in their private business. To that extent we suffer because in addition to the wisdom and experience of maturer years, we require the energy and the elasticity of youth in a new country like this dealing with ever changing problems. Therefore there is no question that it is desirable that members should receive some remuneration while they attend Parliament. It would be very unfortunate if members were drawn from a class who were sufficiently well off to be able to ignore the allowance they receive, and on the other hand, it is most desirable that members should not be delegates of a particular class or section or of a trade union or guild and so no, but that they should be representative of the whole of their constituents. It has been pointed out by the right hon. member of Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that the National Convention, after very mature thought, fixed the allowance for members at a certain figure, and my opposition to this Bill comes not so much from the fact that it is considered desirable to increase the allowance, as from the methods employed in introducing this measure. It is disappointing that the Minister of Finance in introducing the Bill, gave us very few facts and I believe no figures to show that this increase is necessary. I believe the Minister could have made out a good case for an increase—I do not say for an increase of £200. The country feels that members are voting this increase to themselves arbitrarily and blindly, but if a reasoned statement had been put forward showing that what was considered an adequate allowance in 1909 or 1910 does not obtain in 1925. I believe the position would have been far easier. It is only right that members of the general public, in the absence of that information, should feel very doubtful about the whole thing. I suppose when we go back to our constituencies we will be faced by the statement—

They will say—

And what will the civil servants have to say who have been complaining for a long time that they are not adequately paid ? I do not think that the principle of increasing the allowance is so much involved as the method by which this increase is sought to be obtained. It is a bad thing for the country when the country generally for any reason begins to lose confidence in Parliament, and the method of introducing this measure, I am afraid, will have a tendency to that end. Statements have appeared in the press.

Which press?

It does not matter which press—I am only speaking of the effect on the public. A certain effect has been produced on the public by these statements in the press that this increase was to be granted, then it was not, then it was in doubt, and so on. That is a very bad state of mind for the public to be in. It tends to a lack of confidence in Parliament which is very undesirable. As regards the increase, it is not so much a matter of principle as a matter of figures. It will be generally admitted that some increase is necessary, but the basis, apparently, has not been calculated. Another point that perhaps might be emphasized is that it is not a salary which members receive. It is officially called an allowance. In America it is termed compensation ; but if we call it an allowance I have never been able to understand why this allowance should be subject to income tax. Either change the name or abolish the income tax on these allowances. I think as regards the increase the question is not so much whether there should be an increase as the amount. We are getting into the habit now of what I may call tinkering with the Act of Union. It is very undesirable. If this amount is considered necessary it should have been done in another way. The Act of Union was certainly not intended to be altered and changed and revised at every little phase. People will not know where they are. We have perhaps an unduly large number of members. Here we have 135 members of the Assembly and 40 members of the Senate. A much bigger and larger country, Australia, manages to get along with 72 members of the Lower House and 36 members of the Upper House.

How many governors has Australia got ?

They have a governor for each state ; we have an administrator. I think the suggestion of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is a good one, that the public ought to have this matter explained to them before it becomes law. I have no fear whatever, if this is explained on its merits, supported by figures, but that there will be less opposition to it. I think it would be undesirable to have it made applicable to hon. members of the present Parliament. I hope the Minister will see his way to withdraw this measure, and when the country has had time to go into the whole matter, to bring it forward again—you can bring it forward next session, if the opinion is not so strong in the constituencies as hon. members say it is.

I feel it is desirable to say a few words about the matter. The great question to my mind is that when we go into the principle it is whether there shall be payment or no payment. If the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) had said that there should be no payment, then I would have said Amen to it. But now that we feel that the principle of payment is accepted, members of this House ought to be given an allowance which is sufficient to enable them to live six months at the Cape. I want to invite the attention of the House, and especially of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) to the question whether it is desirable for us to live at the Cape for six months without our families.

The session never lasts six months.

It lasts nearly six months and I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) who is a man of high morals if it is desirable to live here for that time without your family. The question amounts to this. We who are accustomed to live with our families feel the necessity to bring our wives and children here and we need the money to enable them to live here. Let us look the matter from the viewpoint that we are accustomed to domestic life and have to give it up for six months in the year. If the Parliament is removed to Pretoria, I shall be prepared to live there on the present allowance. I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will appreciate this point. Hon. members who live in Cape Town should remain silent about the matter, because they have their homes and families here. We also wish to have our families here. I want hon. members who represent Cape Town and live close by to regard the matter from the viewpoint that it is desirable for our families to live here for five months in the year with us. Consequently the extra allowance is absolutely necessary. Some of us do not need the money but I do not think of myself, but of those who have to make a sacrifice. Therefore I think that the matter should be considered whether it is desirable for members of the Assembly to live here without their families. The salary has actually been raised in the past, but there was no finality in it. Is it not better that the salary should now be fixed once and for all than that the salaries of members of the Assembly should be cast on the waves of the ocean so that they receive more if it is a good year and less if it is a bad year ? The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is anxious to have here the men with the best talents and the best knowledge, people who can fulfil their duty here. The position however, is that they feel that they cannot bring their family here and that they have constantly to go to their homes to look after their business. Hence I feel that I can heartily support the Bill and there are hon. members opposite who feel just as I do. The hon. member for Standerton has spoken about public opinion. When we were students in Amsterdam we often went for a lark and stood in Kalver Street and looked into the sky, and when the crowd collected and did the same, we disappeared. We did the same thing in Edinburgh. When one explains matters to the public impartially I am certain that no one will be opposed to the Bill. If, however, the public do not get the necessary enlightenment, then it goes without saying that they will be against it. Therefore I should like to make an appeal to hon. members on both sides to do everything in their power to inform the public of the actual state of affairs. In this case the House, consisting of the leaders of the people, has the right to decide, and without making difficulties the people will take up and approve of the matter upon receiving the necessary information. I am quite prepared to go to my own and any other constituency to defend it.

I wish to approach the subject from one particular aspect. There is no doubt that the expense of the legislative bodies to the country is an important one and worthy of deep consideration, and I have no hesitation in saying that our parliamentary machine is far too costly. We have too many members, the country is over represented.

Certainly one too many.

If we take Australia, we see that there is one member for 68,540 people; in New Zealand, one for every 40,220; in the United Kingdom, 65,000, and in Canada, 32,609. If we take foreign countries, there is one member for 41,007 people in Belgium ; 25,800 in Denmark ; 67,990 in France ; 71,100 in Italy; 40,900 in Japan, and 67,786 in the Netherlands. These figures date about six years back when the Netherlands had a population of 6,778,000. There are still only 100 representatives, while here, in this small country with its white population, according to the census of 1918, of 1,421,781, we have one member to every 10,600 white people, as we have 134 members. That is where the root of the trouble is. We have too many members for the population. The other day, when the Justice Vote came on, and urgent representation was made by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) for an increase of salary to the magistrates, the Minister of Justice said he knew the magistrates had very responsible and onerous duties to perform, and would like to increase their pay, but he said, the country can’t afford it. If you look at the Estimates you have 250 magistrates, and 133 of these receive emoluments starting with £575 per annum and increasing by annual increment of £25 until £700 is reached—exactly what it is proposed to give members of Parliament, who devote only some four months in the year to their duties. I think some members have a wrong conception of their Parliamentary duties. I do not consider they are co-extensive with those of a “predikant,” doing “huisbezoek,” he is open to approach by his constituents, and only visits certain centres once every year, that is as much as can be expected. With regard to this point of over-representation, there will be no difficulty in increasing the area of urban constituencies where the population is dense, although in regard to rural constituencies there is a certain amount of force in the objection of large areas. If the representation of the people is brought within a reasonable compass, according to the size of the population, there will be no difficulty in increasing the emoluments of members, whilst, however, trained and responsible magistrates cannot be adequately rewarded, because the State, as the Minister concerned, says, cannot afford it, I do not see my way to vote for this Bill.

Motion put and the House divided: