May I ask the Prime Minister when it is his intention to lay on the Table his draft measures relating to native matters.

The proof of the last Bill only reached my hands this morning.

I move—

Before this Bill finally passes I should like to register a last word of protest against not only the substance of this Bill, but also against the manner in which the Government has dealt with this most important matter. I think that the procedure that has been followed on this occasion is subject to very grave criticism. Here we have one of the most important matters with which we as the Legislature of this country can deal, we have a fundamental part of the South Africa Act brought forward for amendment and vital change in the last days of the session, and I think we cannot strongly enough register our objection to the course the Government has followed on this occasion. I admit that the constitution of the Senate, as settled in the South Africa Act, was not meant to be final. The South Africa Act provides for revision after a ten years’ period, and some years ago, when the ten years’ period had elapsed, the late Government appointed a Speaker’s committee to go into the whole question and to see whether some other scheme could not be adopted which would fairly meet the case. That Speaker’s committee sat and brought up a report which, I think it is generally admitted, would not have proved acceptable to the country. The scheme which was adopted was one of an elective Senate. That is one of the matters which we happened to have considered at the National Convention, and it was felt at the National Convention that to have two elective Houses in the legislature of this country would not be a desirable arrangement, and the result was that the Government of the day decided not to go on with the scheme of the Speaker’s committee, which was formulated some five years ago. But, at any rate, an honest and fair attempt was made to deal with the matter in a way which would be calm, which would give a fair chance of threshing out all the details and of coming to conclusions that might bear scrutiny. On the present occasion the Government has adopted an entirety different course. We have heard now— we heard last session already—that the constitution of the Senate would be dealt with. It was announced here by the Government towards the end of last session, but when we met this session nothing was done. The matter was allowed to drift, and even within the last few weeks of the present session the Government evidently had not yet made up its mind, it had come to no conclusion, and it was still drifting on this important question, and it launched the change on us actually in the last days of the session. And so we have this most undesirable state of affairs that, at the fag-end of the session, when we have no time to consider this important matter, we are called upon to make a drastic alteration in the constitution of the Senate. I ask myself what is the necessity for this change ? The Minister of the Interior in moving the second reading of this Bill tried to make out that there was some urgency, but his arguments were demolished almost immediately after by his colleague the Minister of Justice, who admitted that no case for urgency could be made out. The Minister of the Interior also tried to make out in an elaborate argument that the Senate had given grave provocation for this action which the Government was taking. The Minister of Justice rose immediately after and said no, he did not think that a case could be made out that the Senate had dealt unfairly with the work of the Government. The matter will scarcely stand scrutiny. This constitution has been in force for the last sixteen years. Only on one occasion in all that long period has there been a real conflict of opinion between the two Houses of the Legislature, and that was over the Colour Bar Bill, a Bill which involved fundamental changes and involved considerations of the most far-reaching character and on which one might expect a difference of opinion, and one could understand a difference of opinion. In all that long period there was only one occasion on which the Senate had insisted on its view, and had gone the length of compelling the Government to hold a combined sitting of the two Houses of the Legislature. That makes it clear beyond all argument that our constitution was functioning well, that the two Houses were working together well, and that there was no real reason for meddling at this stage. There was no case for urgency, no case could be made out that the Senate had acted in a partial way, or in a purely partisan spirit. They had passed all the Bills which this Government had sent to the Senate, and there was only that one Bill, involving far-reaching questions of principle and policy, on which they had insisted that there should be further time and on which a joint sitting should be held. Under these circumstances. I say there has been no reason for the course followed by the Government and, in spite of the effort which has been made by the Minister of the Interior to show the urgency of this Bill, to show the provocation under which the Government has acted, no case really has been made out to support that view. Now I come to the details of this Bill. I find that it is a patchwork of a very dangerous character. There is no scheme worked out here. If you deal with a matter like a second chamber and the constitution of the Senate you have to weigh it from points of view. It is not only the party point of view which has to be considered. There is the provincial point of view to be considered. You have to consider the constitution of our second Chamber in the light of the practice of other countries too. I should say that, on the whole, we have been singularly lucky and happy in the working of our constitution here. Take a country like Great Britain, where you have an upper House whose political complexion is permanently of one type, whatever Government may be in power.

Is there any country which would advisedly introduce that ?

No, but I mention that to show that in a country with a most successful political record, a country which is almost a model of the working of political institutions, you have an anomalous state of affairs like that which does not exist in South Africa. Take the case of Canada, In Canada you have a second chamber which, for the last five years, has had a different political complexion from that of the other House, and from that of the Government which is ruling in the country. The Senate of Canada is conservative. A Liberal government has been in power for the last four or five years, and during that time the Government of Canada has had to contend with this situation, that many of its most important Bills have been thrown out by the Senate. The Government has simply faced the situation, knowing they cannot get out of it.

We are going to get out of it.

In the United States you have an even more singular state of affairs. If you compared the two Houses you find that the Senate is actually the more powerful body. I mention these facts just to make it clear that in dealing with a question like that of a second chamber, you have to consider the position and the function of second chambers all over the world. You have to follow precedents; you have to consider how this has worked in other parts of the world, and it is only in the light of experience of that kind that you can come to any statesmanlike solution of a difficult problem like this. We have been singularly happy in having a Senate which is not too powerful, but which is not entirely servile.

Then why should you go out of your way to appoint a Speaker’s conference?

In order to see whether a case had been made out at the end of the first ten years for an alteration in terms of the South Africa Act. However, the report which was made was not a report which could be accepted, and in default of that report we decided to go on with the constitution of the Senate as laid down by the South Africa Act. In the scheme now before us there is nothing well-considered. We have no scheme which takes into consideration all the points of view which have to be considered if a proper constitution of the second chamber is to be decided upon. We have instead patchwork. There are minor alterations, but there are some of a fundamental character going so far as to entirely alter the character of the Senate, as fixed by the South Africa Act. There are four changes here. The first change provides for the dissolution of the Senate apart from the House of Assembly. I am prepared to accept that. It does go very far, and in my opinion it is really not necessary, but if the Government insist on that change, if they say they that do not want to be at the mercy of a body of a different political complexion in the other place, then I will not raise a strong objection against this provision. The second provision is this, that when the Senate is dissolved, whether with the Assembly or separately under the Bill, the eight nominated senators shall also vacate their office. I am prepared to accept that too. There is no doubt that in the National Convention a distinction was made, and was put in the South Africa Act, namely, that senators should sit permanently for ten years whatever happened to the elected senators. That was justified from the point of view of the Convention, and may be justified on important grounds. It may be argued that it is most undesirable that in the case of senators with knowledge and experience of native affairs, that they should be changed continually. I think a strong case can be made out that in regard to the four native senators they should be there for a long period. I think there is a great deal to be said for the provision as it stands in the Act, but granting all that, as a matter of compromise and concession to the Government, I would say let us put the eight nominated senators on the same footing as the others, and let them undergo at the dissolution the same vacation of office as the others do. Then we come to the third provision, and it is this, that the eight nominated senators will not only be subject to dissolution, like the rest of the Senate, but that they will also vacate their office whenever there is a change of Government. I do not want to argue that position again, in regard to the difficulties and doubts when it can be said that there is a change of Government ; but even if those difficulties and doubts were not there, I think this provision is a grave indignity to inflict on the Senate, and especially on the nominated senators. I wonder if it will be possible for the Government to get decent, self-respecting and able men, men of position, to come to the Senate and sit there simply at the beck and call of the Government of the day. A senator, if appointed, will never know what is going to happen to him. They will know that if they offend the Government, the Government may resign and re-form, simply to get rid of them. They will be in a hopeless position, and I have the feeling that you will not get men of any standing to place themselves in that humiliating position. I think that is a provision that should not stand. It has been said by the Minister of Justice that this is a two-edged sword, and that, not only this Government but future Governments can wield this weapon. We have not to look at a matter of grave and far-reaching public importance from that narrow party point of view. The question is, how to constitute a Senate which will carry weight, and which will pull its weight in the legislature of the country. A body constituted in this way, with many members entirely dependent on the will of the Government, entirely at the mercy of any prime minister of the day, I say is not a Senate worth having in this country. I think, at any rate, that part of the change is most undesirable, and should not become law. I am sure if there had been adequate consideration in this matter, a silly proposal like that— because I cannot characterize it differently— would never be placed on the statute book rtf the country. Then we come to the fourth change. It is of such a character that I doubt, if it goes through, whether the Senate will be really worth while having in this country. The fourth change abolishes the joint sitting. In the Senate you have representation of the provinces of the Union on an equal basis. We followed great precedents in providing that at any rate in one House, we should not simply follow the rule of numbers, but we should establish the principle of equality, and we should give equal representation to the provinces whether large or small. There is not an occasion of the functioning of the Senate where this power of equality comes better into play than at the joint session, because there the Senate matches its vote against that of the Assembly. The provision which is now before us does away with that altogether. There will be no more joint sessions in case of dispute, in case of differences, and the result will be that a provision which was put into the South Africa Act to please the small provinces and to get them into Union is entirely scrapped, without any consideration or consultation with them, and the joint session disappears. I think it would be a very grave mistake to pass the second clause of this Bill ; and I have this feeling, that the Government are going too far in taking one precaution after another to ensure the predominance of the lower House. I think they have gone quite far enough under section I. The Government have taken precautions in order to see that the personnel of the Senate is such that there will be no legitimate conflict. Now we go a step further, and in section 2 we say that even although the Senate has been, by continual dissolution and the appointment of members, brought into thorough harmony with the lower House, the section which provides for the joint sitting will also be abolished. If a Bill is passed twice through this House it becomes the law of the land, whatever the view of the Senate may be. That goes too far, and goes to nullify the utility of the Senate in this country. If we go this length there is a great deal to be said for the views urged from the Labour benches, to go the whole hog, and abolish a body which ceases to function as a proper limb of the legislature ; and under those circumstances it might as well go. In regard to section 2, I cannot ask the Government to alter their views now ; but here I feel that they have gone much too far. Section 2 was not necessary, and will weaken the Senate to such an extent that it will not be able to pull its weight in the future. Section 2 destroys what we look upon as a very great concession to the provinces, and it leaves the legislature of this country really and practically unicameral. The Senate will go on and survive, but as a shadow of its former self—the body which was intended by the National Convention. If we had considered the matter more fully we would never have come forward with patchwork of this kind ; it goes far beyond the necessities of the case, and may do the institutions of this country a great injury. I think it is necessary once more to register my protest against the way in which the Government has dealt with one of the most important matters they could have dealt with in this Parliament.

I want to say a few words with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I must admit that the more I consider the position of the Senate the more it seems to me that it could actually be abolished except for one reason, the only consideration which was acknowledged at the time by the National Convention and that is, that there should be a body which, when it was necessary, and hasty legislation had taken place, could act a little as a brake. That is all, that was the entire conception of the National Convention of the functions of the Senate. Of course we might all have expected that if there were a good Senate it would be helpful to the House of Assembly and the better it was the more it would assist. The past fourteen years have, however, taught us that the Senate has been of no other use except to serve the Government of the day. If I say no other use I exaggerate a little, but only a little. The result of the Senate being only of use to the Government of the day, and its being constituted as it is, was that from the very moment this Government came into power the Senate took up the precisely opposite methods in comparison with the past. At the first ordinary session after the change of Government had taken place the Senate purposely and knowingly did something which it had never before done, viz., rejected a Bill, not only with the intention of giving this House an opportunity to reconsider it—if that were the case I should not take it amiss—but with the fixed object of rendering legislation of this House futile. For the hon. member for Standerton to get up here and say that the Senate has proved that it was a success is completely opposed to the facts. All the Senate has proved is that it was a success in supporting the Government to which it owed its existence. The Senate can only prove how far it has been a success when it not only has to do with the masters that appointed it, but also with people who have other views and with other parties. Then only can the Senate show whether it will reasonably deal with matters on the basis of what was previously laid down by it. I state that at the first testing of the Senate it showed that it could not stand the test. I do not want to go into the question about what it should all be ascribed to, but one thing is certain that it is attributable to the way in which the hon. member for Standerton made use of the powers he possessed with reference to the nomination of senators. There is not the least doubt that by nominating members as he did—it is not a nice word, but I think I am justified in using it— he prostituted the Senate to his own advantage. The hon. member cannot deny that. He had himself to acknowledge that he appointed the hon. gentlemen simply as party supporters. I warned him at the time and asked the question beforehand because I wanted to remind him of his duty. He simply disregarded the warning and knowingly and purposely took steps to enable him to carry out the wishes of his party as long as he was in office, and he departed from one of the basic principles laid down in the National Convention, that those eight men should not be only two from each province, but should also represent the views of the people in the respective provinces. He intentionally departed from that and decided not to reappoint one of the foremost men, one of the most honoured and of the most important men, that had ever sat in the Senate, who was President all the time he was in the Senate. Am I wrong when I say that he practically prostituted the Senate to his own advantage? I do not wish to make further accusations, but it is very necessary that such things should be said when we have to do with a protest of such a nature as we have listened to this afternoon from the hon. member. The second thing I want to say is that I know of nothing which permits the hon. member for Standerton to say that the provisions of section 63 of the South Africa Act which is now to be amended by Clause 2 of this Bill are specially concerned with the two smaller provinces. That is not right. The National Convention in this respect did nothing more than that each province should be represented by the eight elected and also by two nominated senators, to represent the views of the provinces. As regards section 63, there is not a single word mentioned in that connection. It is certainly not a fact which weighed with myself and others at the Convention. The hon. member asks how we can introduce a Bill at the end of the session when he had hesitated to make a change after a special commission had been appointed, and had made its report. When and under what circumstances did the hon. member consider it necessary to consider the question of the Senate? It was during the short period when he was in power with a minority, and when his hon. friends who are now members of his party insisted upon an alteration. He then appointed a commission. What did we find, however? Hardly had the two parties amalgamated and he had therefore a majority in the Senate, but he said—

We are now in the position in which he was when the commission was appointed, and we shall find that other Governments will be in that position. Whether the Government has a minority or a majority in the Senate does not alter the fact that there are shortcomings in the body, which have appeared to be shortcomings. Two of them he admits and he accepts two of the provisions proposed in the Bill, but he cannot agree with the others. I can understand why he does not do so. What are his arguments ? He cannot give a single reason why the two other provisions cannot be accepted, except that hitherto he has not been able to suggest anything better. If I may use his own words then I must say this is—

The hon. member states that the Bill detracts from the dignity of the Senate. As if the dignity of that body only depended on its having the right in certain circumstances to sit together with this House, and as if the eight nominated senators were to be the nominees of the Government or of the other side. Just think of it. If that argument is to hold then the dignity of the Senate has increased since he left the Government. That argument cannot hold as regards this matter. The hon. member for Standerton himself said that there were only four points in the Bill, two of which he approved while the other two he was not able to see the effect of. If he is not able to understand them then we can give him just as many months as he has had weeks and he will never come to a solution. The hon. member also says that all other countries' have trouble, e.g., Canada, England and the United States of America. Because there is trouble there must we merely sit still, throw up our hands and say that we can do nothing? Fortunately we are able to do something, while other countries are not. It is our duty to see that a change is made as soon as possible, so that we shall not later get into such a position that it will be impossible for us to make a change. I am sorry that I have detained the House in this matter, but I wanted to say a few words in answer to the solemn protest of the hon. member at the third reading.

It appears clearly from the speech of the Prime Minister that he wants to make a party chamber of the Senate. That is the object of the Prime Minister.

No, but what was it always under the former Government?

The Prime Minister continually says that" this side of the House is the cause of the Senate having the colour it has to-day.

Why was President Reitz not re-nominated ?

What is the position? Two-thirds of the forty members of the Senate are elected by the people, indirectly, indeed, but yet by the people. Eight members are nominated by the Government. According to the Prime Minister, if he had to reconstitute the Senate afresh he would appoint two of the eight members for their capacity. Thus it is said here that on account of six nominated members, it is necessary that there shall be a revolution in the Senate on the whole basic principle on which the Senate was created. That is a reason which will not hold water. Now the Minister of Justice has straightforwardly stated that from a party point of view the Senate had not obstructed the Government at all, and that in his opinion an alteration was entirely superfluous. That was plain from his speech. The Prime Minister referred to a Bill which the Senate disapproved of, and it was a Bill about matters about which the Senate is specially qualified to judge, as the nominated members were specially appointed for looking after native affairs and protecting the natives. The Senate, therefore, in connection with that matter, took up a serious attitude.

It concerned a principle on which you have acted for 16 years.

The Prime Minister has the right of forcing his wishes through by a joint sitting, and he did so. Why, then, is it necessary to make a party question of it, and to reform the Senate? I will tell the Prime Minister why the Speaker’s conference was held at the time. I occupied the position of Speaker at the time. The then Prime Minister was urged, not once, but repeatedly, to convene such a conference.

The recommendations of the conference were not carried out.

Your colleague, the Minister of the Interior, said that the report of the conference was stillborn ; if that is so, how then could the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) take action in the matter and carry out the report ? We admit that the Senate is capable of improvement, but then the matter must be tackled in a serious, statesmanlike manner. If the Minister is dissatisfied with the report of that conference, let him refer the matter to another conference. Let it sit at a place far removed from party feeling, and let us try to effect something good. The findings of the former conference were, however, that it is very difficult to get away from the existing constitution of the Senate. We have, e.g., discussed the way of electing the Senate. We found that in France, for instance, the election is done in an indirect way, and in Belgium even the large municipalities have indirectly a voice in the Senate. In America also we have the indirect way, by which the states have an indirect vote in the Federal congress. It is very difficult to get an impartial body, in so far as it is humanly possible by an indirect election. We recommended the direct election of 32 members. The Free State would be one constituency, the Cape Province one, the Transvaal one, and Natal the fourth, and then each would have a number of members in the Senate relatively on that basis. I do not say that it is acceptable. I say, however, that it is a very difficult matter, and that that alternative system deserves to be given a chance, if we want to make such a reformation. I admit that the country is democratic, and that we should go in the direction of direct election. The Prime Minister said that the Bill was not introduced as a party measure. I accept that, I believe he honestly means it ; but are we not giving the people the idea that we are in a very frivolous way going to make a vital alteration in the constitution ?

Why frivolous?

I will tell you. The Prime Minister said, I do not know whether he meant it, that the Senate is only intended to give party advantage to the Government of the day. If that is the intention, then I agree with him that we had better abolish it.

Why did not the previous Government abolish it then ?

I am not ultra-democratic. I respect the traditions of the people, and I want no second chamber which is merely a replica of the first. We must have the second chamber as a protection to the people. Let the Government convene a conference. The Prime Minister knows better than I do that politics is a changeable thing. The time will come when that part of the population to which he and I belong and which is conservatively inclined will be sorry for the alteration that is being made, which will turn the Senate into a replica of the House of Assembly. That is the object of the Minister, because he says the will of the House of Assembly must prevail. I agree with that," but the will of the House of Assembly has already prevailed on two occasions. I am not now speaking on party lines, but I am speaking because I feel that we should consider the matter on a permanent and fixed basis outside Parliament, and should have a report presented about it. The old report of the Speaker’s conference can be again considered, and they can see what alterations ought to be made. The Speaker’s conference was constituted in a representative way, and it was an honour to be able to preside at it. We eventually prepared a report, but if the Minister considers it unacceptable it can be reconsidered. The matter must not, however, be dealt with in a frivolous way, because the Senate is being robbed of the actual power which it possessed, and in that way the people are robbed of the protection they might require in certain circumstances. The Dutch-and English-speaking parts of our people are conservative. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), e.g., is a conservative, and so is also the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) who makes his living out of the ground. I want to show that the man who counts in South Africa is conservative, whether he is Dutch-or English-speaking. We ought not to pass a Bill which is in conflict with the conservative views of the people. The Minister will find out himself that the time may come in history that the people will require the safety-valve, and then it will be gone. That is the way I regard the matter, viz., not from party feeling, but in view of what may occur in the future. When we live in such an abnormal time as the present, we ought not to make such a radical alteration.

We follow to some extent the example of the British Parliament, that is after a Bill has been passed a certain number of times by the Commons and has been thrown out by the Lords it becomes law without further reference to the upper chamber, but the circumstances of the House of Lords and the Senate are very different. The complexion of the Lords never changes and the vast majority of the members of the Lords are of one political complexion only, that is Conservative, so that it might not be fair to decide matters at a joint sitting of Lords and Commons. All the same they have more safe guards than it is proposed South Africa should have. Under the measure now before us it is intended that a Bill shall become law after it has been twice passed by the Assembly, and in Great Britain a Bill has to be passed by three different sessions of the Commons, while two years must elapse between the date of the first passing and the final passing. In the Union, however, a Bill which is rejected by the Senate may be passed a second time by Assembly within a period of twelve months. The British practice certainly gives more time for reflection than this Bill does. Then the headings of the Bills are different. Our measures are stated to be enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate and the House of Assembly. Will this wording be retained ?

It will be retained if there has been a joint sitting.

Under the Parliament Act of 1911 it is laid down that in the event of an Act having been passed only by the Commons that fact shall be stated on the measure itself.

That is a very little point. It was thought of.

The Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Mines have laid great stress on their party being democratic, but I have always noticed that the people who pride themselves on being in close touch with the people are most intolerant, and especially intolerant of any checks on, or criticism of, their actions. Once a revolutionary party obtains command—I do not say that the Nationalists are revolutionary—they all become dictatorial.

Dressed in a little brief authority.”

They are always very intolerant of newspaper criticism. I have no doubt that this Government would like to suppress the second chamber ; certainly the Labour members would, because people of that stamp are always intolerant of checks or criticisms.

What about Italy ?

Is Fascism going to be a permanent state of affairs ?

No.

I should think not! Mussolini is intolerant and does not allow any newspaper criticism, although he professes to be ultra-democratic. There must be some check on democracy and the popular chamber. The tendency the world over is to lower the status of second chambers, and to take away from them their proper functions, which is to act as a check on the popular chamber.

They are not a check— they are an obstacle in the path of progress.

The Minister of Justice says that during the last two years the Senate has never hampered the Government, and the two Bills it threw out were passed in the ensuing session, so the Senate has been no obstacle at all, but has simply served the function it was intended to serve, and that is to give time for reflection. In some cases it is proposed to have a referendum in place of a second chamber, and that will be a more effective check.

Are you in favour of that?

Certainly I am. It works best in Switzerland. It is a check in more ways than one. There are many Bills that never see the light of day in the Swiss Parliament for the simple reason that they will be referred to the popular vote and rejected, and they are, therefore, not brought forward. Take the question of the capital levy. That was referred to the people, to the direct vote, and it was turned down by an overwhelming majority. All nations and statesmen recognize that there must be some check on the popular assembly.

The people are the best check.

Exactly. I agree with my hon. friend, if you will allow them to vote on a straight issue. You cannot alter the constitution of any state in the United States without a direct vote of the people. Take this Payment of Members Bill, that is a question which should go to the people for a direct vote. A change of the Senate is also a change in the Grondwet. Both those questions should go to the people for a direct vote. If you do away with one check, I am certain that the people will demand the setting up of another which, to my view, will be much more effective. If you did away with the Senate to-morrow, you would have to set up another check in the form of the referendum, which would be a perfect abomination to my hon. friends on the cross-benches.

So far as I was able to follow the Prime Minister, I gathered from him that he was very disappointed that the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), when he had the opportunity, did not act in some way on the Senate Conference report of 1920. The history of that conference, I think, briefly, is this: Sections 24 and 25 of the South Africa Act provided for a revision of the constitution of the Senate after 10 years. The opportunity arose then to enable that revision to be made, and it was thought desirable to have a conference to study the whole question and to make certain recommendations. This conference was not held on account of any shortcomings of the Senate that had been notably visible up to that date. There was no demand for the reform of the Senate. If the Prime Minister asks why no action was taken from 1920 to 1924, one may be entitled to ask, on the other hand, why some action should have been taken. There was no demand for it, no outcry. If the shortcomings of the Senate were as great as he would have us believe, is it not strange that there was no mention of them in his Smithfield manifesto in 1924? The Prime Minister has not been able to point to any serious delay or thwarting of legislation by the Senate, except in one instance, the Mines and Works Bill. It is a solitary instance in which the Senate did not agree with this House, but it did not materially affect the passage of the Bill, which became law when the machinery provided for such occasions had functioned, and had functioned to the satisfaction of the Government, who had proposed the Bill. The Prime Minister said that practically the only reason which he could think of for having a Senate at all was to prevent hasty and ill-considered legislation being put on the statute book. I can give him a few other reasons. It has rather astonished me that, during this debate, in the contributions from that side of the House there was very little allusion to the functions of second chambers generally, and that the addresses of hon. members were mostly confined to the trouble or disability which they have been experiencing. Such a stalwart democrat as Oliver Cromwell said—

In his very last speech he said—

A century and a half later Mirabeau, one of the leaders of the French revolution, a month after the fall of the Bastille, said—

It is, therefore, no wonder to find that Alexander Hamilton, admittedly one of the greatest constitution-makers that the world has ever seen, who had a rare opportunity of putting his studies into effect in the American constitution, “that masterpiece of the human mind,” as Bryce calls it, said—

That might have been written last week almost. Bryce, summing up the whole thing, says that a single chamber in history proves to be a combination of incapacity and tyranny. Mirabeau said—

But there are many other reasons exemplified by the history of the world, other than the check on hasty legislation, why there should be second chambers in order that the affairs of State may run smoothly. It has been suggested from these benches that a referendum would meet the situation. I would supplement rather than controvert what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said about the referendum in Switzerland. It works so admirably that it has become a nuisance. They have it about once a fortnight. That does not do away with the value of the referendum, but there is another very important attribute of a referendum, that it can only express the wishes of the majority and can in no way take notice of the rights or susceptibilities of a minority. A referendum as a substitute for a second chamber would be a very poor substitute indeed. If I follow the Prime Minister at all, I gather that this Bill is really a flank attack upon the Senate ; it will make the task easier if and when the Pact Government desire to abolish the Senate altogether. It is not only abolishing the Senate ; it is attacking the constitution ; it is attacking Parliament. Let me remind the House that Parliament is not the Assembly. It is too often forgotten that Parliament consists of the King, the Senate and the Assembly. With regard to the power of veto, that has not been exercised since the reign of Queen Anne— who it is notorious has been dead a long time— so that factor practically passes out of the picture. The king has the right to be consulted by his Ministers, and has the right to encourage them, and also it is his duty to warn them at times. There we may say the functions of the third part of Parliament cease. We must not forget we are all working under a constitution under which a second chamber has been established. Its powers are not co-equal with the powers of the Assembly, but they are co-ordinate. I put it to the Minister that if this Bill were a law on the statute book it would scarcely be necessary to sumbit this measure to the Sepate at all. The constitution under the South Africa Act never contemplated co-equal powers, but only co-ordinate powers ; and the Senate is strictly limited as to its powers over money bills, and in practice, though not by statute, legislation does not originate in the Senate. It keeps largely to the intention that it should be a revising body mainly. We do not want the Senate with all the paraphernalia of a second chamber simply to do the revising of our laws. That could be done by a committee of lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen. It is the duty of the Senate that they should not only revise the laws, but they should also have cognizance of the policy of the country as expressed in those laws, and, above all, it is their duty to see that the policy, if an important one, should be upheld by considered public opinion. These are the duties devolving upon the Senate which they should not neglect, and which the public expects them to perform. If they perform these duties there are two or three conditions. In the first place I should put the condition of the reasonable independence of the Assembly. Then, in the second place, the Senate should have well-defined functions, and should have the power to hold up and delay any measure they think ought to be delayed. How does this Bill re-act to these conditions? We find that, under this Bill, the Senate is placed in the power of the Assembly. The Assembly, if it decides to have a change of Government or a change of Ministry, practically automatically decides on the dissolution of the Senate. If this becomes law we shall have three forms of dissolution, alternatively simultaneously and successively. The Senate might be threatened with dissolution if this or that measure forwarded by the Assembly does not pass that House. That is a very undesirable set of circumstances for any legislative body to be placed in. And, of course, it will bring them down from the position from which we in this House suffer—the loss of allowances and the expenses of a contest if a general election is brought about—this may have a profound influence on their votes. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has alluded to there being a tendency throughout the world to curb the power of second chambers—admittedly—but so far it has been only a phase, and I am not aware that it has succeeded ; on the contrary, we find in many cases that the sober thought of the community would have been in the direction of the perpetuation of its second chambers, because, on the whole, there has been no outcry in countries where there is a bi-cameral system for the abolition of that system. In this Bill we are not only going against the constitution, but against the machinery that has enabled the Senate to work with very considerable efficiency up to the present.

Because you have had a majority for fourteen years, and a majority here.

Is that a good thing?

No, it is a bad thing—good from your point of view.

The hon. member has argued that it is bad that the Government should fill the upper chamber with its nominees. If that is bad, surely it is equally bad for the present Government to do.

Then, according to you, the Opposition ought to rule.

No, we are dealing with a Bill which alters the political complexion of the Senate to correspond with that of the Government of the day. If it is a good thing, the hon. member has no right to cavil at what has been done by the late Government; if it is a bad thing, he has no right to support the present Bill. The functions of this House are almost unlimited, and it can do almost anything if this Bill passes. It is limited by the constitution, but otherwise this House is free to make laws on any subject in any direction it pleases ; it has full control of finance, to tax, and to spend money in whichever way it likes. That is not the case with the Senate, whose power should be strictly laid down, and not whittled away either. The most valuable power of all is to hold up legislation for a reasonable time. I am glad to note the improvement in this Bill, that at least one year must intervene between the Senate’s rejection of a Bill and its re presentation for approval. I think it is a bad day for this country when we destroy the power of the Legislature. I am afraid we shall only repeat the experiences of the commonwealth of Cromwell, of France, of the U.S.A., and other countries where they have tried the uni-cameral system. One modification to the report of 1920 that is most desirable is there are no means of arranging that the life of the Senate shall be continuous. I should like to see the term of office of senators nine years, with one-third retiring every three years, which would bring a continuity of effort and position, and allow changing circumstances to be reflected in that House. These figures are not very rigid, and it may possibly be better to adopt the Australian principle—one-half retiring every three years. As students of this matter know, it is curious that Australia, which has the election of its senators by popular vote, has succeeded in having in their second chamber the most democratic body in the world, and they have the power to deal with money Bills.

Do you agree with that ?

It is worthy of consideration. I do not think we are ripe for it yet. So long as the principles are retained, that the Senate should not be an absolute reflex of the other House, either in number, composition, or in the suffrage of those who elect it, I am prepared to consider very carefully any scheme for a Senate with clearly defined functions and independent of this other House. I am afraid it is too late now to expect the Government to change its mind ; but the debate, I hope, will have served one useful purpose, and I hope the country will take note of this Bill and, to some extent, of what has been said here ; will study the Act of Union and the constitutions of other countries, and realize that if this Bill becomes law, the country will have taken a step unsurpassed in importance since the Act of Union becomes law.

We have certainly had speeches this afternoon at the third reading which are nothing else than second reading speeches. No new argument has been brought forward to-day which could not have been mentioned at the second reading. The second reading took place on Friday and some members, including the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), apparently postponed their second reading speeches until the third reading because on Friday he was engaged not so much with the country’s affairs, but with party matters, with a view to a public meeting that night. The hon. member for Standerton has again asked what is the urgency for the Bill and why it is introduced at the end of the session. It does not matter when a Bill is dealt with, at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of a session, the only question is whether the House gets sufficient opportunity to discuss the matter, and I challenge any member to tell me with any justification that enough time has not been given. The whole of Friday, the whole of Monday, morning afternoon and night, were devoted to this Bill with two clauses. There was enough time to discuss it thoroughly.

Then you applied the closure.

Simply because on Monday night it was clear from the debate that members had nothing more to say. The hon. member for Standerton has made a great point that this Bill is not urgent. We have been occupied for I do not know how many years considering the reformation of the Senate. The urgent necessity for that has been repeatedly mentioned by no one less than the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and also by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). A conference was appointed to consider the matter as the former Government was worried so-much to deal with the question. Is it then not urgent? Then it is asked why a Speaker’s conference is not appointed. One was held and the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has devoted the greatest part of his speech this afternoon to it, to point out how well that conference was constituted and how it included the best available men in the country, not only in this House but also in the other House. He said that no better Speaker’s conference could be appointed. Why then should we appoint another such conference ? The question is whether a Speaker’s conference ought to be held or not. Whatever the result and the recommendations of such a conference may be the Government of the day must take the responsibility of legislation introduced into the House. We have had all the benefits of the Speaker’s conference and of the recommendations it made. The hon. member for Standerton has told us here that we ought to have had time to consider what the constitution of other countries was on this question, and how the second chambers were constituted in other countries. That is a matter which was considered at the Speaker’s conference, and any member can look at it and will find pages in it about the position in other countries with regard to the second chamber. It is therefore not necessary to have another Speaker’s conference to find out the position in other countries. The hon. member for Standerton further mentioned the argument that we were going entirely too far and that we should look at the Upper Houses in Canada and in England. He referred us to the way members of the Upper House in Canada retained their seats for life and how a “peer” in England has the right to sit in the House of Lords. You have there then the permanency which is his ideal, but the hon. member did not tell us whether he recommends us to follow the example of Canada and England. He did not have the courage to go so far, and I do not hope that any member of the House, even a Tory like the hon. member for Caledon will go so far as to recommend that. I want to point out to hon. members that what we are proposing here will not by a long way make our Senate of so little account as what the House of Lords, constitutionally and from a legislation point of view, is in reality. What is the position of the House of Lords? In spite of all the appearance of stability and power it has in reality no power as against the House of Commons, not because the Government can create lords if it wishes to and as many as it wishes, but because the Act of 1911 lays down how the House of Commons can eventually pass by the House of Lords without its approving the legislation. This means that the House of Lords is deprived of all power as against the House of Commons. Our legislation leaves the Senate in a much stronger position towards this House than that of the House of Lords towards the House of Commons. Consequently I cannot understand how the House of Lords can be quoted as an example in the circumstances. The hon. member for Standerton used another argument which I cannot allow to pass. He said that by what we were proposing here we were exposing the nominated senators to humiliation, and that in future they would be “at the beck and call of the Government of the day.” How the hon. member for Standerton who is a lawyer can say that I cannot understand, because the Bill is quite short so that he ought to understand it. There is nothing in the Bill which justifies that statement. It provides that when a new Government comes into power the seats of the nominated senators shall become vacant, and that the new Government shall nominate eight senators. What is there to put them “at the beck and call” of the Government of the day ? They are nominated for ten years, or until the Senate is dissolved, or until the Government nominating them is defeated. If it is so that the nominated senators in the circumstances are “at the beck and call” of the Government appointing them then the eight nominated senators who are in the Senate to-day are “at the heck and call” of the Opposition and that is just what hon. members opposite deny. The hon. member for Standerton said in addition that the Government could merely resign and re-constitute itself to get rid of the nominated senators. If there is a change of Prime Minister the seats of the nominated senators become vacant, but if the same Prime Minister is again appointed then according to the opinion of the legal advisers there is no change of Government and the seats of the nominated senators will not be vacant. The hon. member for Standerton further said that the alteration proposed in Clause 2 takes away the guarantee which the smaller provinces have. The Prime Minister has already replied to that, and it was pointed out that the number of members for each province remains the same in each case. I have also pointed out before that this arrangement by which each province shall have eight senators has nothing to do with the guarantee to the smaller provinces, but that it is a concession to the federal idea. Suppose the hon. member for Standerton is right and that it will really give an actual power as regards legislation to the smaller provinces, and that it gave a guarantee that they would not be done an injustice or suffer wrong, then I ask, what guarantee there is now ? Each province can only elect eight senators and in any case even if senators were elected according to the numerical strength of the provinces the smaller provinces would have had four or five. Will the hon. senators assist if there were to be a plot to rob the smaller provinces of their rights? If the representation in the Senate was the reason which attracted the smaller provinces into the Union (because in that way they were guaranteed in their rights) then I say they were fools in political matters. What are the rights of the smaller provinces which can run any danger of being taken away by both Houses of Parliament? If there is anything I can think of it is the provincial system. Are the eight senators for each province, however, a guarantee? The whole Opposition for years on end pleaded for the abolition of the provincial system. It is a matter with which the special representation in the Senate has nothing to do. It is a fact that hon. members of the Opposition pleaded for the abolition of the provincial system irrespective of where they came from. This shows how absolutely wrong is the allegation that the eight Free State or Natal senators are a guarantee in the Senate for the maintenance of their interests. The hon. member for Caledon devoted a great part of his speech to the question why the matter was not again brought before a Speaker’s conference. I have already dealt with that. I just want to point out in connection with the Speaker’s conference that one of the great principles in connection with the two chamber system is whether the second chamber shall be a direct representative of the people or not. If that point is once decided whether it shall be directly representative or not then it must be laid down whether that body shall be a legislative one in the same way as this House. The Speaker’s conference tried to take a middle course between the two whether the Senate should be directly represented or not. According to the proposal of that conference there were to be a number of members who were to be nominated by the Government, representatives of certain bodies, such as universities, etc., but then as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said a further thirty-two of the members who should be directly elected by the people in the same way as members of this House. If that recommendation had been adopted and the Senate was directly elected by the people, then we should not have had the direct right to propose what we are to-day proposing, because then the Senate would have been just as representative as the House of Assembly. We did not, however, adopt that principle and we had a Senate that does not directly represent the people. This being so we have the fullest right of saying that we must take another means of bringing the Senate into, and of keeping it in, agreement with the will of the people and with the House of Assembly. The only way to do so is to limit the powers of the Senate to delaying legislation which should be delayed in the interests of the country and about which the people should have an opportunity of expressing its views. For that purpose the Senate should, if necessary, be in the position to force the dissolution of this House and appeal to the people. The Senate retains under our proposals all the powers of review and practically gets more rights than it had of delaying legislation, and giving the people an opportunity of making itself heard on such legislation. The Senate can call in the assistance of public opinion, and it remains further in the position that it can reject a financial Bill which this House approves. It can make the administration by the Government of the day impossible and in that way force an appeal to the country, a thing which of course only takes place in extreme cases. In the circumstances I do not think that the Bill goes too far.

Motion put, and the House divided:

I move—

Hon. members will see that Order No. 4 deals with ordinary pensions which have been approved by this House and also by the Senate. This Bill deals with a different kind of pensions, viz., that which is paid by the Treasury itself. Hon. members will remember that during the last two years certain persons who were entitled to war pensions sent in petitions to this House which were referred to the select committee on pensions. That was a formal matter, and usually the committee said that the applications could be granted, notwithstanding the fact that they were not applied for within the period prescribed in the Pensions Act. The War Pensions Act provides that the applications must be sent in within a certain period. That time has lapsed, and we are still finding many people in the country who are entitled to pensions, but who did not apply for them in time. To avoid this circuitous procedure, I undertook, where the necessary evidence is given and information obtained by the Pensions Committee and it is proved; that persons are entitled to pensions, to formally get the approval of the House without that circuitous procedure. Those pensions are contained in this Bill, but there is, further, another case, viz., a pension for Mr. Scheerhout, who was discharged from the service with a pension, and thereafter brought an action against the Government, in which the Supreme Court decided that his retirement was not according to law. Mr. Schierhout then returned to the service. During that time Mr. Scheerhout was reported for not obeying certain instructions given him by the department. An enquiry was held, and as a result of the enquiry and the recommendation, the Government decided to discharge him from the service. Mr. Scheerhout is not, in the circumstances, entitled to a pension, but the Government has thought fit to ask Parliament to grant him the pension which he would have received wheel he first left the service.

Agreed to.

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

House In Committee :

Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed :

Bill reported without amendment, and read a third time.

I move—

The amendment is recommended by the law advisers.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I suppose, in connection with this Bill, a certain amount of sleepers will be required. Is there any possibility of getting them from Brazil, where they have fine, hard woods ?

But then that is outside the British Empire.

Is there any truth in the rumour that the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) has been requested, and has allowed his great abilities to be used in a business direction, to go to the Argentine, and from the Argentine to Brazil? Is this gentleman no doubt going to assist the business ability of the Railway Department? Is this under the policy of providing interesting trips to supporters of the Government ? Is it that the Railway Department is devoid of men with the necessary ability, so that an hon. member of this House has to be sent; or is it due to the fact that the hon. member for Pretoria (District North) (Mr. Oost) has introduced such an enormous amount of business into the country ?

I suggest that the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) address his enquiry to the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). The right hon. member has held forth about a trip that the hon. member might or might not undertake. The Government has no knowledge of it.

A wasp will sting its nose one of these days.

Is it correct, or is it not correct ?

I take it the Minister has said there is no truth in the rumour.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The Bill embraces the pensions which have already been approved by this House and also by the Senate, but there has been added a certain grant to Mr. Fairbairn which is recommended by the other House to the Government. Mr. Fairbairn was an official in the other House.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

I move—

In this Bill effect is given to the proposals of the Government in connection with the protection proposed to be given to the sugar industry. Hon. members will remember that when we passed the Tariff Bill, in which provision was made for a suspended duty over and above the ordinary duty on sugar to give protection to the local industry, I made it clear that the protection would be subject to two conditions, viz., that the millers and producers should come to a satisfactory agreement in connection with the revision of the contract between them, and secondly, that legal steps would be taken so that it should be prevented that increased protection should cause an increase in the price paid by the consumers of sugar. I have previously informed the House that as regards the fixing of the prices no provision would be made in the Bill to generally fix the prices in the trade, but only the retail prices in the coastal towns for white and refined sugar. As regards the price of sugar, the Bill says that the Government shall have the power to fix the price at 3¾d. per lb. for refined sugar, and 3½d. per lb. for white sugar. The prices are based on the average returns of the present retail prices of the various coastal towns in the country. I can say that strong representations were made to the Government to fix the maximum price for refined sugar at 4d. per lb., but although the Government would like to assist the sugar industry, it was felt that that would not be justifiable, because it would cause the prices of sugar up country in connection with which transport expenses are involved to amount to 4½d. per lb. Inasmuch as the present position is that sugar in Bloemfontein and other inland places is sold at 4d. per lb., the fixing of the price of refined sugar at 4d. in the coastal towns would not be justified, and the Government came to the conclusion that 3¾d. per lb. was a fair price for it to be sold at in the coastal towns.

Why is the price not fixed for the producers ?

The hon. member knows what the experience was previously when the former Government, two years ago tried to fix the prices generally, and when they went much further than we are now doing. Much difficulty was caused then. It was originally recommended that the wholesale prices, as well as the prices of the producers, should be fixed, but the Government has come to the conclusion that it would be much better to leave the regulation of the trade to the people concerned in it, and to only fix the price in the coastal towns where the sugar is sold directly to the consumers. I think that it is sensible, and that nothing further ought to be done than what is absolutely necessary. The regulation of the trade is further left to the persons concerned in it. The Government does not intend to give this protection to the sugar industry to fix prices unless it is informed by the Board of Trade and Industries that the industry itself has properly regulated the matter so that a fair revision of the contract between producers and millers has been brought about. If that does not happen, then the provisions of this Bill will not be put into operation, and the protection to the sugar industry is not made effective.

I want to express, in the first place, on behalf of the sugar industry, its very keen appreciation of the sympathetic attitude that the Government have adopted to the industry in its difficulty and, in the second place, I want to thank the Board of Trade for its very illuminating and able report upon the industry, and also for the work and enthusiasm it has shown towards the study of a highly technical industry. If hon. members will only read this report they will see the industry has made out a very good case indeed, and that the Board of Trade has put the case before the House in an extremely able manner. When the House goes into committee, I want to move an amendment that the price of refined sugar shall be fixed at 4d., instead of 3¾d., and I want to show the House my reason for moving that amendment. I think the House ought to realize that this is a maximum price which it is fixing for sugar, and that the price at which sugar may be sold may be anything below that, and also that the maximum is based on the existing price ; the price at which sugar is being sold to-day without any increased duty. There is no new duty in operation at present. We are taking the existing price of sugar when the price has reached the lowest level on the world’s market, and fixing the price at the existing average market price in the Union. There are two circumstances, the effect of which the board has not fully considered. First, the board recommended that the maximum producers’ price should be fixed at Cape ports at £25 per ton of 2,000 lb. Secondly it recommended that there should be a maximum gross wholesale profit on first refined sugars, not exceeding 1s. 3d. per 100 lbs. ; and thirdly, it recommended that the price of first refined sugar should be fixed at seaport towns at a price not exceeding 3½ per lb. This 3½d. per lb. was based on the understanding that the producer would get £25 per ton, but the producer is not going to get anything like that, because of what follows—

It is going to considerably reduce the amount which, on an average, the industry will obtain for its sugar. Then the question of the reduction which will be brought about in the average price, by reason of the great export that will take place, has not been adequately considered. The conditions under which this recommendation of the Board of Trade, of 3½d. a lb. was made have not been adopted by the Government. The chambers of industry have recommended to the Minister that the profit should not be limited to the distributor. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has pleaded in the House that the profits of the distributor shall not be fixed, and that has not been done, and one of the corner stones of the recommendation of the board has been taken away, so that the conditions under which the price was fixed at 3½d. no longer exist. Another thing was not adequately considered by the board, and this they admit. The price at which the sugar was to be sold by the industry, which is set down at £25 a ton, is based on the cost of manufacture, leaving a reasonable profit to the industry. On page 31 of the printed report, it is shown that the profit which was being allowed to the retailers was 2s. 11d. per 100 lbs., and the margin of profit to the wholesalers was 1s. 3d. per 100 lbs. But the profit to be allowed to the industry, of £2 per ton, immediately vanishes, because the price which the industry is going to obtain on the average will not be £25, but somewhere in the region of £22 a ton. In fixing the maximum price the board states—

The whole basis of working out this scientific arrangement was the price of £25 per ton, but since that now becomes £21 or £22, because of the considerable fall from the average, by reason of the export trade and the lower price for jam and sweet manufactures, the price will not be £25 per ton as was originally supposed. The Board of Trade point out that from the planters’ standpoint the cost of producing a ton of cane is 15s. 6d. The board states—

Unless these people can get an increase on their present prices they cannot possibly produce at a profit, and it is because the Board of Trade realized that planters are in a very parlous state that they made these proposals. I have had a telegram from the planters at Durban stating that permanent relief will be very difficult, if not impossible, at any figure under 4d. per lb. first refined owing to the many reductions which will pull down the average price received by the producers. The telegram added that the position of the planters is desperate. One of the outstanding features of the report of the board show that it was first possessed with the idea of guaranteeing the planter the minimum price for his cane, but the board has had to admit that this fixed price cannot be guaranteed on this basis, because of the serious drag down from the level which it was supposed would be originally attained by reason of the export trade and by agreements between the various manufacturers. When we come to the committee stage I wish to propose an amendment.

And kill the Bill.

I think politics ought not to enter into this question. The Minister should leave the matter to a vote of the House. The House should have an opportunity of judging this matter purely from an economic standpoint. The Minister stated he could not go to fourpence because if he did the price would go to 4½d. per lb. inland. But why should it— after all it is the maximum price which is being fixed. The country is now, at a time when the sugar market is glutted with sugar at a price below normal, going to fix the price for years to come.

Don’t you agree with fixed prices ?

I don’t say anything against that—all I am arguing is about fixing 4d. for best refined. That sugar cannot be sold under 4d. to make a profit, and I ask the House to judge this matter solely on its merits.

The Minister of Finance and the Government generally have made a new departure in fixing prices. It is all right to do that in times of war when there is a shortage, but not in times of peace, when there is an over supply.

What if the supply is locked up ?

With a free market that will not be done. I take it the Bill is a compromise to reconcile the conscience of the Government with the views of hon. members on the cross-benches who want cheap sugar. Without the duty the consumer would obtain sugar at 2½d. per lb. as the duty will amount to 1d. per lb. I cannot, however, blame hon. members on the cross-benches for what they are doing. The price fixing applies only to the coast ports ; why is it not done for Johannesburg? The Minister could calculate the exact cost of the carriage of sugar from Durban to Johannesburg. I think it is about 3s. 3d. per 100 lbs.

Do you support the extension of the principle ?

I am not in the Government. The Bill also allows the Government power to differentiate ; it might charge 3¾d. in Cape Town and 4d. in Port Elizabeth. Furthermore, the Bill does not definitely fix the price, only the maximum. The Minister might further reduce the price and pressure will always be brought to bear upon him to do that. The maximum is fixed, but not the lower price. The maximum prices you have fixed at 3¾d. and 3½d. respectively. If pressure is brought to bear on the Minister that 3¾d. is too high, which is quite a reasonable thing to do, he might make it 3½d. all round. With all this heavy protection—it is about £8 per ton— what is going to be the position of the jam factories ? The fruit industry is growing rapidly, and with all your fruit production you must send a certain amount to the jam factories which you cannot export overseas.

They have a very advantageous contract.

How are we going to make jam and pay the price that we have to pay in this country for sugar and export, we will say, to Kenya or East Africa generally ? If this protection of sugar is maintained, you will have to give a bounty on the export of jam. It is a thousand pities, but the country should clearly understand that the sugar industry is no advantage to South Africa as it is to-day. Perhaps I should rather put it that any increase or extension of the sugar industry is no advantage to South Africa. When we produce a certain amount of sugar, say, 160,000 tons per annum, that can be used in South Africa that is all right, but when you get beyond that—supposing, as now, it is over 200,000 tons—we have to export the surplus. The surplus has to be sold in the world’s markets at the world’s prices, which will be, perhaps, £12 or £13 a ton and entails a heavy loss on the producer. This heavy duty is intended to enable the industry to get a very big price here, comparatively speaking, so as to make up the loss on the sugar exported. On every ton that they export they lose money. Any extension of the sugar industry, therefore, is not of advantage to South Africa. That is the position that the industry is now in owing to this protective system. I am sorry to have to say it, but I think the country should know the position.

Would not that automatically cause the limitation of sugar production ?

Unfortunately, it does not. It must eventually do it, I quite agree, but it has not up to now. I am very glad to learn from the Minister that he is going into the agreement. I think that a lot of reform could be brought about if you had a thorough examination and went into the agreement between the cane growers and the millers. Some time since the Government appointed a commission to go into that and recommendations were made. The Board of Trade have gone into it, and they state that they believe that the sugar industry is not being conducted on sound economic lines. It is very clear that this agreement between the planters and the millers is not advantageous so far, at any rate, as the planters are concerned. That certainly should be revised as early as possible, and I am glad to hear from the Minister that he is going to take action before he brings the new duty into operation.

I object entirely, of course, to the fixing of prices. It is the thin end of the wedge and it is going to lead to disaster, if we have all this interference with the ordinary economic laws. But as we understand that we have to accept this method of dealing with the sugar industry, I will pass on to the details of the Bill. As regards the question of the maximum price, 3¾d. mentioned in the Bill, I understand that this has been arrived at after considerable negotiations and the Minister has now come to the conclusion that 3¾d. is the right price. As far as I am concerned, I accept that. At any rate, it is a more sensible proposal than the original one and we are only fixing the final price, not fixing the prices right through from the planter, miller, wholesaler to the retailer. In that regard the Bill is preferable to the suggestions made by the Board of Trade. Naturally, I do not agree with the suggestion that you should fix prices in the inland towns. It does not seem to me to be necessary, if you inflict a hardship or if you inflict a bad system on the coast ports, to extend that to the inland towns.

Why not?

Because there is no necessity to inflict an evil on more towns than necessary. If you decide to inflict a very bad system on a certain portion of the country, it is an advantage, almost, not to inflict it upon the whole country, because it will then be seen in practice that the fixing of prices does not do any good whatever. There will be no more advantage taken in Johannesburg of the fact that there is no fixed price than there is today. There will not be any exorbitant profit made in Johannesburg or Pretoria on sugar. It is very satisfactory to feel that, at any rate, in a portion of the country it can be shown what the effect is of the natural laws of supply and demand in this regard. There is one point I would like the Minister to make clear, and that is the exact meaning of Clause 1 (a). I think it could be worded so that it is very much clearer than it is at present. The Governor-General will prescribe the maximum price for these two classes of sugar. There the matter will end. If we are going to have a monthly or a weekly revision of prices, the position is going to become more impossible still. I feel the Minister does not intend to start in life as a sugar expert, therefore I think that in committee we should make this clause a great deal clearer, and that is by fixing once for all the price of these two classes of sugar and have done with them. With the clause as it is it will be necessary to put in another clause by which the retailer will be given notice as to any advance and any alteration that is likely to occur. Otherwise he would not be able to stock sugar. I suggest that we should alter the clause so that it is perfectly clear what the intention of the Minister is, because the hon. member for Zulu-land (Mr. Nicholls) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) both read the clause in a different light. That could easily be altered and I suggest in committee we should do that. In Clause 4 icing sugar should be taken into account ; I think that is merely an oversight in the Bill. With those exceptions, if we are going to have a pricefixing Bill, I think this is about as good a thing as we are likely to see, provided that if we are going to have a price let it be perfectly definite that it is the price and is going to remain the price. Do not let us have a price that is going to be constantly varied so that no one will know where they are. On the question of the fourpence I agreed in the original instance that the price should be fourpence. The Minister has decided on 3¾d., and it seems to me that the best thing would be for the House to accept that and finish with that matter.

What I cannot understand is why the operation of this is limited to coast ports. The additional duty of 3s. 6d. per 100 lbs. will be paid by every consumer in the Union. We understand that in order to try and minimize that and to prevent an increase in the cost of living due to that increased duty, the Minister of Finance was going to introduce a price-fixing measure.

I never stated anything which extends beyond what I am doing here.

The Minister denied that these new duties would increase the cost of living.

It is not doing so.

Can the hon. member tell me how an increase of 3s. 6d. is not going to affect the cost of living—3s. 6d. extra is being put on sugar whether consumed in Johannesburg or Cape Town, and the pricefixing methods are limited to the coast ports. There is no protection in this Bill as it stands. If a dealer in Johannesburg asked 4d. a pound for his sugar there is nothing in this that can touch him. I was always a little sceptical as to whether you could give increased protection to local industries without someone having to pay for it.

If you are an exporter obviously.

But if you dump as our sugar people are dumping, if you sell overseas at a lower price than the cost of producing that product, then someone has to pay. As this Bill now stands the protection given is given only to the consumers in the coast ports, and there is nothing to protect the consumer in the hinterland of South Africa. A shopkeeper in Cape Town who sells sugar at 4d. a pound will be prosecuted. So far from the hon. member for Newlands complaining he ought to be thankful that his constituents are protected, but where do we come in who live on the Rand ? Why should these measures not be extended right throughout South Africa ? I want to know why this should be so, why the duty should he universal in its operation and the protection local and limited in its operation.

There is only one point I would like some explanation on. I take it the price is to be fixed for many years to come and that price is one of about ¾d. to 1d. a pound more than would be the price if there was a free market in this country. We have had times in the history of the world when sugar was considerably higher than 3¾d. a pound. At the end of a certain period there is trouble of some sort and up goes the price of sugar. What is going to prevent the producers from saying the whole lot is going to be exported because they can get 4½d. abroad ? That seems to be a commonsense view. For years we are going to bear a burden to support the sugar industry, and then, owing to world prices going up, we will not get an ounce of South African sugar owing to the rise in the world market. I would like the Minister to explain that point. There might be some side issue under which that can be evaded, but it seems to me to be a sound view.

I can only express the hope that we are not going to have any very lengthy discussion on this subject, which I think we have debated at great length, and we know everything that can be said for and against the sugar question. In addition, we have had the matter gone into, and investigated, by the Board of Trade and Industries, and we have a very valuable report before us. They have gone into this thing in an impartial and disinterested manner, and heard every interest.

Except the consumer.

The issue is simply whether we can retain the industry in this country. If we now adopt the attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), good-bye to the industry represented by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). The consumer realizes this, and is prepared to give this assistance we are asking for the sugar industry.

He has never been asked.

We are taking steps to see that the price of sugar remains the same as it is to-day at the coast ports. If somewhere in the interior someone starts overcharging, the ordinary laws of competition will enter into the matter, as a competitor will undersell him.

The same law applies in Cape Town as in Johannesburg.

We have experience of price-fixing in this country. What is the hon. member’s alternative?

Drop it altogether.

And what will be the result ? The hon. member for Zululand will tell you what the result will be. There may be weaknesses in our proposal, but this is the only possible way in which we can deal with the matter if we are to do something for the industry in the plight in which it finds itself. We are discriminating between the coast ports and the interior, because we have to deal with your transportation charges. It costs more to convey a ton of sugar to Johannesburg or Odendaalsrust. The price is uniform at the ports.

Why can’t they pay the price in Johannesburg?

The hon. member knows now. Prices are regulated by rail distances, and away from the rail there are the ordinary transportation charges.

Why not Johannesburg?

If you take Johannesburg, why not Bloemfontein, and why not Jagersfontein ? Where are you going to stop? The majority of hon. members cordially approve of the proposals which have been laid before the House after a proper investigation by the Board of Trade and Industries. This Bill is the latest outcome of the investigations of the board, which have been constantly at this subject, getting information, ascertaining the prices, and considering the points of view of the various interests. It was a very difficult matter, and I think Parliament can be satisfied that this is the best possible solution of the problem. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) raised the question of prices to confectioners and jam-makers. I have pointed out that at present the existing arrangements are very advantageous to these people, because they are getting sugar at the price at which they can land certain kinds of Java sugar.

Free of duty?

No, not free of duty, but the prices are regulated by the prices at which these sugars sell. That arrangement will continue. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) raised the matter of maximum prices, and wanted to know what we shall do to regulate the matter when prices go down. We are going to lay down the prices, and we are not going to change it again. If prices go down, that will have to be regulated by your ordinary laws of competition. We do not want to go in for price-fixing more than is absolutely necessary. Do not let us go and bring in all sorts of amendments, and endanger the passage of the Bill. With regard to the matter of icing sugar, that we can attend to—

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time ; House to go into committee to-morrow.

I move—

This Bill deals with a variety of matters, and I do not think any of them will be contentious. The first section deals with the allocation of a portion of the realized revenue surplus towards the actuarial deficits on the Transvaal Administrative and Clerical Service Pension Fund. We have to legalize that. Section 2 seeks to exempt from stamp duties certain stop-orders in connection with friendly and benefit societies. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has ruled that some of these stop-orders, in the form in which they are issued, would probably be liable to stamp duty, and I do not think that is right. We should encourage this form of thrift, and we do not want to have any trouble about it, so we are exempting them. Clause 3 proposes to increase the interest on the invested Guardian Funds of miners and lunatics. We are amending the existing administration of Estates Act by altering the existing rate of interest from 4 to 4½ per cent. The Public Accounts Committee dealt with this matter some time ago, and made that recommendation, and the Treasury has accepted this. This will necessitate a surrender of revenue to the extent of about £15,000. Clause 4 repeals the occupational licence.

I thought that was rather a favoured licence.

Last year, when we consolidated all the licences, we had certain specific licences, but in this case we laid down a general occupational licence of £1 for trades not specially mentioned in the Bill ; but when the Act came into operation, it was found very difficult to interpret this clause. People whom Parliament never intended to be brought in were made to pay. Seeing the revenue formerly went to the provincial authorities, I think it is well to repeal it, rather than have all the difficulties. Most of the difficulties in connection with the Licences Consolidation Act have disappeared as a result of administration, and I do not want to touch it until we have had a year’s experience of it. In section 5 we validate the action of the Receiver of Revenue in giving a month’s grace in connection with the taking out of certain licences. He refrained from imposing the penalty which the law laid down if licences were not taken out within a certain period. The difficulty was that in connection with many of those trades and occupations, before a licence can be issued by the Revenue Department, a certificate from a local authority or another body has to be produced. In Johannesburg, for instance, it was found impossible for the local authorities to issue all the certificates which were required, and as a result many people could not take out their licence within the period of grace laid down by the Act.

Is that likely to recur ?

Well, we know in what cases these certificates are required, and the provincial councils are taking steps to remove certain of the difficulties that existed. I hope it will not occur again. We cannot issue a licence until the certificate has been produced, and sometimes it is rather difficult to get all these certificates in time. In regard to section 6, I am informed that the position is that in 1914-15, on the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds there was allocated to the Grey University College £12,000 for the building of a hostel. At the time the regulations were that they would contribute on the basis of one to two. The Treasury was unable to give the whole of the loan, and some years afterwards they drew the balance of the loan. In the meantime, the regulations had been altered, and the contribution was altered from one to two to one to one. Afterwards the Treasury sought to enforce the original arrangement in regard to basis of contribution. It was only afterwards that the point was raised by the Controller and Auditor-General. Part of the money had been paid out after the regulations were changed, and obviously we cannot ask the educational authorities at Bloemfontein to pay. In section 7 we have an amendment of the Public Service and Pensions Act in regard to the remuneration payable to the Public Service Commissioners. When the salaries were fixed originally, the intention was that a commissioner should receive the salary payable to the head of a first-class department. That was £1,700, plus £100 for the chairman. Since then the Graham commission report came out, as a result of which the scales were revised. What we propose to do is to bring back the salary of those commissioners to the existing maximum salary paid to the head of a first-class department. That is going to apply only to the new men ; not to the existing incumbents. There is no justification for paying higher salaries to those commissioners than to the head of a first-class department. Section 8 deals with the transfer, between various branches of the service, and also with the transfer of officials from the services to the public service. In connection with the reorganization scheme of the Minister of Defence, where we are taking over certain S.A.M.R. to the police, this difficulty has arisen. As the law stands, a member in one branch cannot be transferred to another branch of the service. He has to resign, and loses his pension rights. Now we are making it possible to do this without loss of pension benefits or privileges. Clause 9 allows any present holder of the office of Attorney-General to retire if he so chooses on abolition of office terms. It is possible that some of these gentlemen may think that their position will be affected under the Act put through by the Minister of Justice dealing with the position of Attorneys-General, and they may want to retire. I understand the Minister has given them the assurance that they can do so, and that they will then receive abolition of office terms.

Are they members of the public service ?

Yes.

Their status has been degraded.

Probably it may be held so. Section 10 deals with the position of the Assistant Controller and Auditor-General—Mr. Hunter. He was a Transvaal official, and was entitled to retire at the age of 55. Then we passed the Exchequer and Audit Act, which laid down the age of retirement at 60. It was only afterwards that Mr. Hunter found that his position was affected by that Act, and he is desirous for health reasons to leave at 55. I think it is only right under these circumstances to enable him to come under the Act under which he joined the service. Clause 11 deals with the position which arose at Wynberg in connection with the rating of defence and endowment properties. When these were under the Imperial Government and used for defence purposes, they were free of local rates, but when they were transferred to us they became liable to rates. I am simply restoring the position which originally obtained. So long as the properties are used for the purposes they were originally used, they will be free of rates.

Is that retrospective?

Only from the beginning of the year. A claim was made upon us for rates for the Wynberg Camp amounting to some thousands of pounds. Judgment has been given against us, and we have to pay for the past year, but the position is put right for the future. Clauses 12 and 13 deal with the position of certain irrigation works in connection with loans granted them by Parliament. I now move the second reading of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House In Committee :

On Clause 11,

This is the result of the judgment given in the Wynberg case the other day. It affects Wynberg, Simonstown, Kingwilliamstown and, I think, Grahamstown, but they have absolutely no knowledge of the clause.

I informed them when they lodged their claims, that I was going to introduce legislation. I know Wynberg was informed.

Clause put and agreed to.

This seems very strange. Here you propose to increase the grant which has been made I presume by Parliament in previous years, by no less a sum than £126,000. The sum given before was £600,000. Now by a simple method of this kind, without any examination or any discussion at all—

I will explain this to the hon. member. I do not think he understands it. All that we are doing here is to legalize the position in connection with loans that have long ago been granted by the previous Government. All these loans were voted on the loan estimates. Originally, Kamanassie was £360,000. Under Loan Estimates later on, the amount was increased to £600,000. Since then, these amounts have again been voted on the Loan Estimates, but no Act was passed. They have all been voted by Parliament on the Loan Estimates, but we have not so far passed the necessary Acts, as we have done in other cases. The people have got the money long ago. The amounts of the loans has now been increased three times.

The same with the next one, I suppose ?

Yes. The total amounts of these irrigation schemes are now Kamanassie £726,000 and Sundays River £560,000, all paid out long ago and properly voted by Parliament.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed :

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time. This matter was dealt with on a previous occasion by the House on the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) when he brought up the position in regard to the pension rights of certain of the old Transvaal republican officials. I at that time indicated that the Government realized that there were undoubtedly cases of hardship, that the matter was not satisfactorily dealt with on the previous occasion, and a select committee was appointed. That committee made certain recommendations which are contained in the report that hon. members have before them. I believe the recommendations were unanimous, but I regret that the treasury did not find itself in a position to accept all of them, but what we thought was a fair and just settlement is contained in the Bill now before the House. Generally, we have agreed that the previous service should be linked up with the present service of the officials in the service now for pension purposes, but we refuse to accept the recommendations that the broken period during the time those officials were not employed shall be calculated also for pension purposes. Then we also agreed, in the case of the people who received a gratuity of three-quarters, that that should be supplemented and that they should get the full gratuity in regard to pensionable service. Then we agreed to extend the period of pensionable service, and, instead of taking the date as 1900, we are extending it to 31st May, 1902. In regard to those officials who were not employed, we agree to have all their pensions recalculated and settled accordingly. In the case of any official who has since died, any increased pension to which he would have been entitled is to be paid to the widow. We have also agreed to make provision for certain members of the Imperial Forces, who, without a break, were taken into the public service, and on whose behalf the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) moved an amendment, at the time the matter was before the House. The select committee agreed to that, and we deal with it in the Bill before the House.

When the matter was raised I thought that the object was to include the old officials of the Free State Republic as well, but as I read the Bill it seems as if provision is only being made for the exofficials of the South African Republic. I should like to know from the Minister whether the ex-officials of the Free State Republic cannot also be included under the Bill. I think that it would not be fair if provision is only made for one province and not for the Free State. I know that certain gratuities were paid to certain persons, but the question still remains whether they got what they were entitled to. I do not see why only the ex-officials of the South African Republic and not those of the Free State Republic should be included.

I do not want to raise any objection to this Bill. I am glad that the Minister has included the officials on behalf of whom I brought a petition, but there is one point I would like to put to the Minister. It seems to me that this Bill makes provision for two classes of ex-republican officials. One is the class of officials who were not taken over into the service, and the other is dealt with in sub-section (4), officials who were appointed to pensionable office after 31st May, 1902. I would like to know from the Minister whether any provision is made for the case of officials who were officials of the republic, and who, of course, lost their office when the war broke out, but who were appointed to pensionable office before 31st May, 1902. There was, of course, a break in their service, but they were appointed before the actual declaration of peace. The number is not very large, I believe, but there are a certain number still in the service who came into the service before 31st May, 1902.

There should be no difficulty about their case. There has never been any break.

There was a break in their service between the declaration of war and the time of their appointment. Many of them were out with commandoes for a certain time.

The date is now altered to 31st May, 1902.

Yes, that applies if they were appointed to pensionable office after 31st May, 1902. I have in mind officials who were appointed to pensionable offices before the 31st May, 1902, say, in 1901. I would like to know from the Minister whether any provision is being made for them.

What about the Free State? It was understood that the Free State would come under this Bill. Perhaps the Minister will tell us.

The Free Staters were dealt with in 1904 on exactly the same lines. They never had a grievance.

I happened to be chairman of that select committee, but I understood there were several who were left out.

I was a member of the select committee and we went very carefully into the matter of the ex-officials of the republics. I am very sorry that the Minister does not see his way to accept the whole of the report made. The members of the committee unanimously signed the report and I am therefore the more sorry that the Minister is not giving execution to the whole report. As for the ex-officials of the Free State Republic, we recommended that all the exofficials of the republics should be paid out. Now the Minister says that provision was made for the Free State officials by a former Act, but the fact is that there are certain cases where the pensions received are very small and therefore I am the more sorry that the Minister cannot also include those few cases in the Bill now before the House. I hope the Minister will make a few amendments in committee to make provision for this.

I think that provision is made for the case just mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in Clause 1 of the Bill. It is there said—

If, therefore, between the 1st of September, 1900, and 31st May, 1902, there was a small break in the service, it is included for pension purposes. Further, I should like to make a few observations and remarks about the points of difference just mentioned by the hon. member, viz.: That the Bill as it now is before us does not coincide with the reports made by the select committee. It is not at all necessary that a Bill should coincide with the recommendations of a select committee. It is true that the recommendations of the select committee are more favourable to the ex-republican officials than the Bill itself. Mr. Boezwart gave evidence before the select committee as a representative of the ex-republican officials in Pretoria, and I can say that he did it in a capable and thorough manner. On some points the requests of the ex-officials, in my opinion, went somewhat too far. There was the point that the period between the peace and when the exofficials again entered the service should be added for pension purposes. This means that when the pensionable time under the Republic is calculated to 31st of May, 1902, and the official was subsequently re-appointed in 1906 that the period of four years would also have to be calculated in the service for pension purposes. That was one of the requests. Secondly, it was asked that the amount of gratuity paid in 1908 for service under the Republic should not have to be repaid by the ex-official when this Bill was passed. I may say that a few members of the select committee objected to the points I have mentioned, and thought that too much was being demanded from the Government and the Treasury. After we had heard some ex-officials themselves, the select committee called in the assistance of Mr. Haussmann, an official of the Treasury, who is specially concerned with pensions, and everything connected with them. The official is not unknown to most hon. members, because in every select committee on pensions every year he is the official who drafts the report and advises about pensions. Each one of us will acknowledge that Mr. Haussmann is acquainted with all the Pensions Acts in the Union. It is a difficult matter for him to give all the information, but from my own experience and what I have heard from other members, Mr. Haussmann is an officiat who can be trusted to give good advice and information with regard to pensions. When doubt arose in the select committee whether all the requests could reasonably be granted Mr. Haussmann’s assistance was called in to thoroughly understand what the position would be if the requests of the ex-officials were granted, in relation to the Pensions Acts in the Union, and the position in which the ordinary officials are as regards pensions. Mr. Haussmann gave evidence and he was cross-examined on all sides. His evidence will be found in the report of the select committee. It is clear, and he himself expresses a doubt whether the State and the Government can go so far as to grant the two requests of the ex-officials which I have just mentioned. In his evidence with reference to the pensions, he handed a memorandum to the select committee. I have it before me, and it sets out in a plain and clear manner what the position of the ex-officials is who were appointed after Union, and also the various Pensions Acts of the different provinces. It is clear what the opinion of Mr. Haussmann is. It would be wrong to think that Mr. Haussmann was not inspired with a proper feeling towards the ex-officials. One can, e.g., take that part of his evidence which appears on page 46, where he says—

When the memorandum by Mr. Haussmann was laid before us the Chairman of the select committes was ready with the draft report and the recommendations of the select committee were approximately to the same effect. A few members objected to it and the Chairman was asked whether he would not be prepared first to consult the Treasury and the Minister to find out whether such recommendations would not be in conflict with the existing Acts, and whether the recommendations could be given effect to without encroaching on the position of the other officials. Our meeting that day was adjourned and, at the next meeting, the Chairman notified that the Treasury agreed with the recommendations, and that the Minister was willing to accept them. There must have been a misunderstanding in some way or other because, although in view of the message we sent in the recommendations which will be found on pages 1 and 2 of the report, it appears from the Bill and from the Minister’s explanation of it that there was no such promise and agreement. On the very points where some of us objected in the select committee the requests of the exofficials are not granted. Yet I think that the ex-officials, when the Bill is passed, will have no reason to complain about the treatment received. What is the position? Firstly, there are officials who were appointed directly after the occupation or after the peace. They received a certain gratuity for their republican service, and now it is provided that all the years they were in that service will be added to the years in the Union service for pension purposes, but they are obliged to repay the gratuity, or otherwise it will be deducted from their pension. This is, of course, to the advantage of the ex-officials. The second class of officials are those who were not appointed immediately after the peace, but had to wait some time before they were appointed. They get the benefit of their years of service under the Republic are added to the years which they served in the Union and provincial service. The years of republican service are included for pension purposes on the understanding—and this is just the point of difference—that the years they were not in the service will not be included for pension purposes. I really do not know if there is reason for complaint that this is not being done, because as Mr. Haussmann said in his evidence, it would be something that had never been the practice as regards pensions, that years they had not been in the service should be included for pension purposes. As regards the point that the persons nave to repay the gratuity they received, the select committee recommended that it was not necessary. In that case, and bearing in mind the recommendations they would have received two pensions for the years that they were in the republican service, once the gratuity in 1908 and again when they received a pension. I can well understand that the Minister objects to it because it would not coincide with the practice that has been adopted with reference to any of the existing pension Acts. There is still a third complaint, viz.: Of officials who were not re-appointed after the peace. In the petition submitted to the House it is requested that the officials who were not re-appointed after peace should be paid an amount if they were in poor circumstances. The select committee, however, did not feel at liberty to make a recommendation of that kind because it would lead to all kinds of difficulties. As regards the officials, whether they are in poor circumstances or not, the recommendation is that the period up to 31st May, 1902, shall be included as service under the Republic. It is laid down in the Bill, and it means that one year and eight months will be added for pension and gratuity purposes. That is a concession, and I cannot see that the Minister could go further and accept the whole report of the select committee. I may say that the select committee treated the matter of the exofficials with the greatest sympathy, and although all the recommendations in the report could not be accepted the members of the committee are satisfied with the Bill introduced by the Minister, and I hope the House will pass it.

In reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), I may say that there will be no difficulty about that case, because we extend the pensionable services of the republican officers to the 31st of May, 1902.

*With reference to the ex-officials of the Free State Republic, there is no necessity to take any action as was done in the case of the ex-officials of the South African Republic, because the Act of 1904 of the Orange River Colony deals with the ex-officials of the Free State Republic along the same lines as this Bill does in the case of the Transvaal officials, with this difference, that the former were treated more liberally, because they had the privilege of remaining in the service until their sixtieth year. In the Free State Act of 1904 the same conditions are laid down as are being done here in the case of the ex-officials of the South African Republic, and the position of the Free State exofficials will, therefore, not be improved if they come under the Bill. I do not know what cases the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) referred to.

The ex-landdrosts.

Their case has been already dealt with. It is complained that the pension is too small, but they were dealt with on the same basis as is done in this Bill. If their pensions were to be raised it would have to be done in the case of all the ex-officials, and then we should have to go further than what is proposed in this Bill in the case of the Transvaal ex-officials.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House In Committee :

On Clause 1,

I move—

The effect of this is to enable us to add 25 per cent. to the grant which was withheld under the 1909 Act ; the reason being that the old Transvaal Act was non-contributory.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title, put and agreed to.

House Resumed :

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

I must honestly say that I am very sorry that the Minister did not see his way to go further in the Bill. There are many ex-officials who are in very difficult circumstances, and as I understand from them they did not even get gratuities after the Anglo-Boer war. No provision is made for those people in the Bill.

What people are those ?

They are the ex-officials of republican times.

I do not know how you can say that.

It is a fact. The Minister knows that the Bill only provides for those officials who are in the service.

Read the Bill.

I have gone into the Bill and I see that only the break of service up to 31st of December, 1902, for those who are in the service is added. There are some of the people who have suffered much and though some returned into the service, there are many who have become poor, yet no provision is made in the Bill for them. Although I do not wish to oppose the Bill, I want to enter a protest, because there are many grievances among the ex-officials who were not reappointed to the service. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) mentioned ex-officials of the Free State Republic, and the country is full of exofficials who do not come under the Bill.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) astonishes me because I do not know what he wanted me to do. We cannot undo the injustice where people were not re-employed in the service. Officials who were not again appointed are nevertheless benefited under the Bill by the addition of service for one year and eight months to their republican service, and where they only received three-fourths, they are now going to receive full gratuity. Therefore they also are benefited under the Bill. We cannot go further. It was not only the exofficials who suffered damage as the result of the Anglo-Boer war, but we who took part in the war also suffered damage, and many of the burghers were ruined. We received no compensation. That grievance cannot be remedied. We are trying by this Bill to do justice as far as possible in the way of pensions, and even those who received a gratuity will be further benefited under the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I want to move a drafting amendment to this clause which is rather ambiguous although it follows the wording of the existing legislation. I move—

(a) for any day on which he attends a meeting of any committee of the House of which he is a member ;

I ask the Minister to consider a point raised last night. I have drafted an amendment as follows —

(3) There shall also be deducted the sum of two pounds for every day in respect of which such member draws an allowance as a member of a commission appointed by the Governor-General.

It is perfectly clear that the Act of Union anticipated that any such work would be an office of profit under the Government. Therefore members should not draw any pay for it. I think if a member serves on a commission appointed by the Governor-General, he should do so free of charge to the country.

This would have the immediate effect of preventing any member from becoming a member of a commission. I can only speak of the commission ion which I happen to be, and the allowance provided for members on that commission is an allowance for actual out-of-pocket expenses, so I shall be in the unfortunate position, under this amendment, of getting an allowance for out-of-pocket expenses and losing £2 a day of my Parliamentary allowance ; so that my resignation would be in the hands of the Government without delay. If members were paid three guineas a day, I should have no objection to your making it three guineas instead of two, but that is not the case.

I sympathize with the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour). Perhaps the Minister of Finance will tell us whether an ordinary member of a commission does not actually get three guineas a day.

I do not think we can deal with this matter in the way the hon. member suggests. It is an important matter, and I have been giving some thought and attention to it, especially in connection with this Bill. Of course, the principle of our existing legislation is that a member of Parliament may not accept an office of profit under the Crown. The theory and the fiction is that if he does sit on a commission a member is supposed to be remunerated only for the out-of-pocket expense he is put to. Generally that amount has been three guineas a day. There is a conflict of opinion on the point. The Treasury has taken legal advice. We have the opinion of eminent counsel that this could not be considered an office of profit, and others say the opposite, and if the point is tested it is doubtful what the position of members would be. If this Bill is accepted, the Treasury should review the position and lay down a sum which would really cover the expenses of the members sitting on the commission, and not permit of his making money when he is sitting on a commission. That is a matter that can be put right administratively without inserting any amendment in this Bill.

I think this matter requires a little clearing up. I cannot quite square the explanation given by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) with a certain return which I think will be fresh in the memories of members, when there was a commission of a single member, and perhaps the Minister might remember that the expenses ran into several hundred pounds. The commissioner was the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh). Perhaps the Minister will explain if that particular charge, debited to commissions, represented out-of-pocket expenses or a rate of remuneration.

I was glad to get that assurance from the Minister. If the Minister is going into the matter with a view to paying out-of-pocket expenses only, I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the committee, the amendment was withdrawn.

What is going to be the position of members of Parliament who are permanent members of commissions? There is a member at present who is a member of the Native Affairs Commission, and there is one in the other House. They would be drawing, I think, £1,000 a year.

That is due to a special Act of Parliament.

That doesn’t matter ; it comes to this, that they will be drawing £1,000 a year and also £700. I think we ought to revise that. I move—

We are departing from that principle laid down by the Minister. That is an office of profit under the Crown.

That was specially provided for by legislation.

Perhaps the Minister would reply to the question I put to him ?

I thought my previous reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) covered it. I said that, so far as I know, generally the fee which is paid to any member of a commission is three guineas, except in special cases. I know there have been cases where only out-of-pocket expenses have been paid.

Apparently there are two systems in vogue, one described by the hon. member for Yeoville, which is about to obtain in the Old Age Pensions Commission, and the other is the paying of three guineas a day, which apparently has obtained in the past. I have ascertained that the amount paid to the commissioner I referred to, the hon. member for Krugersdorp, was just under £300. which seems a large sum for out-of-pocket expenses.

Quite wrong!

I will give the hon. member a chance of explaining it. There is no dispute that the amount came to hundreds of pounds, and more than covered the out-of-pocket expenses.

Does the hon. member mean that only men who can afford to set aside their business and live at leisure should serve on commissions?

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and his friends are on a commission which meets while the House is sitting, and as soon as the House rises they will get three guineas a day.

No.

My question is this: apparently there are two means of remunerating members of commissions who happen to be members of this House. In one case, they are awarded three guineas a day, which are intended to cover out-of-pocket expenses, and in the other case alluded to by the hon. member for Yeoville, they are given their actual out-of-pocket expenses. Why that difference should be made, I do not know.

I am not dealing with a Bill passed by a previous Government laying down this principle that, notwithstanding the fact that a man is a member of Parliament, he shall be entitled to a salary when serving on a commission. Here we are dealing with payment of members of Parliament.

Why have two scales?

What will be the position of the Irrigation Commissioners?

No member of Parliament can be a member of a commission and draw a salary for it unless Parliament passes a Bill giving him that right.

That was done specially in the case of the Native Affairs Commission.

No member of Parliament can hold an office of profit under the Crown. If he is a member of a permanent commission he is clearly the holder of an office of profit, and no difficulty arises, as his position is clear. But in the case of a member of Parliament being appointed to a temporary commission, a difficulty does arise as to which differing opinions are held. The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) would, indirectly, recognize the appointment of a member of Parliament to a permanent commission.

I will withdraw the amendment.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by Mr. J. B. Wessels in lines 10 and 11 and by Mr. G. A. Louw, put and agreed to.

On Mr. J. B. Wessles’ amendment in line 15,

Before that is put, I would like to say that we had some rather amusing talk yesterday about this clause being a test of sincerity. A rather odd effect of this amendment will be that if a member does not apply for the increased allowance of £700, but remains loyal to the £500 he will be fined £4, instead of £3, a day.

Amendment put and negatived.

On new sub-section (a) moved by the Minister of Finance,

I would ask the Minister to explain what effect this is going to have in view of the amendment we have just passed.

This merely deals with the provisos. We have just said that the deduction will be made for any day on which a member does not attend the House, but we here provide that such member shall be exempted from such deduction on account of such failure on any day on which he attends a meeting of a committee of which he is a member, or on account of illness or the 15 days. We have three exemptions now.

That is very different to the amendment which has just been passed.

No, that is the one that the chairman is putting now.

I understood the chairman to say that the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort had been passed.

No, the last one was defeated.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. D. M. Brown put and negatived.

On Mr. Hay’s amendment (new sub-section 5),

I am afraid I do not follow that amendment at all. Under the first amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels), apparently you have to make application for the allowance. If you don't make such application, have you also to write a letter declining, because as far as I can make out, that clause makes provision for declining the allowance? I am not quite sure that these clauses fit in with one another.

The hon. member is quite right. That is how it strikes me, too.

It appears that this amendment is inconsistent with the one already passed, and cannot be allowed.

It appears to me that the most appropriate thing in this whole Bill is the fact that it starts on the 1st of April. I have never heard of such a fool of a Bill all the time I have been in this House. I do not think there is a single member of this House who knows where we are with all these amendments. It really seems to me that we should report progress. It is utter folly going on like this. I defy any member of this House to tell us where we stand now. We are simply stultifying ourselves. This is a fool of a Bill at the best, but by the way we are going on now we are making a fool of the Bill and ourselves. I move—

I would like to second that I do not think there are two members of the House who have the least idea of what the position is at the present time. Speaking for myself, I do not. I doubt if the Minister in charge of the Bill knows where we are.

Motion put, and Col. D. Reitz called for a division.

Upon which the committee divided:

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Members of Parliament under the law are entitled to 15 days’ absence from this House during the session without any deduction. I think that is correct. What is the position of a member of Parliament who has been absent from this House attending a commission during the sitting of Parliament and who has been absent say a fortnight ? He has not been absent over 15 days. Does he draw the three guineas a day to which the Minister refers, as an allowance, because having been allowed 15 days’ absence from this House he would be drawing that amount of pay extra by the Government putting him on a commission. This is rather an important point and I think it ought to be cleared up.

What is the position to-day?

That is what I want to know.

What has that to do with the Bill ?

I want to know when a man is on a commission does he receive pay while he is serving, while absent from Cape Town, and is he still drawing his Parliamentary allowance ?

Do consult your lawyers—there is one next to you.

The Prime Minister need not get so needlessly alarmed.

Sit down and work it out. That will be the best. Have you a pen? If not, I will give you this one and you can work it out.

We expect from the Leader of this House, even towards the fag end of the session, a little more courtesy. An hon. member mentioned the other morning about the House becoming rattled. I am sorry to see the Prime Minister being rattled ; but that will not prevent me from asking the Minister of Finance, does an hon. member appointed on a commission and absent from Parliament, draw his commission ?

Does this question occur to you for the first time?

No, but I have found that it is the custom of this Government to throw these things in the way of their supporters.

I can only tell the right hon. member that any payments that are made will be made according to law.

Why I am pointing this out is not because the amount is so very much, but I do not think it is a good thing that during the sitting of Parliament the Government should appoint a member of Parliament to sit on a commission which takes him away from his duties here, save and except he is a man possessed of outstanding qualities which are not possessed by anybody else. It leaves a nasty impression.

Alter the law.

I take it, Mr. Chairman, you are putting the clause as amended, but before doing so I ask the Minister of Finance, is there not to be a schedule to this Act? There must be a form of application, because 163 applications will have to be made out.

There won’t he so many.

There are 175 members of Parliament, and eleven Ministers.

You won’t apply.

It will be for the convenience of the officials that the applications should be properly worded.

I take it that Ministers of the Crown as Ministers will not be in receipt of the ordinary member’s allowance of £500 and therefore they will not be able to apply now for the £700 under this Bill. Then suppose by any whirligig of fortune there should, say in a year’s time, be an alteration in the occupancy of the treasury benches, they will have lost their chance altogether.

I regret that some of the amendments were amendments with which the House, as a whole, does not agree. Under those circumstances both the amendments of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) would not have been carried—there are many hon. members who voted under an entire misapprehension as it was impossible to hear what amendments were being put. I am making these remarks so that hon. members will be alive to this at the next stage, when I hope both of these amendments will be knocked out.

Clause, as amended, put ; and Dr. de Jager called for a division.

Upon which the committee divided:

I move—

2. Before a member of the House of Assembly applies for the increased allowance as provided under section 1 he shall consult the wishes of his constituents at a duly advertised public meeting in his constituency.

I am surprised a, the unseemly levity on the other side. It is rather typical of the present Government, that a suggestion that we should consult the country before paying ourselves out of their pockets, should raise all this laughter.

Why didn’t you consult the public in 1920?

We consulted them to such good effect that they put us in with a big majority.

interrupted.

I think the less the hon. member says about an unholy alliance, looking at the Government benches, the better. The hon. member seems to be verging on a fit. Get the hon. member some water quickly. But I do think the least hon. members ought to do, is to consult the taxpayers. In spite of the hilarity across the way, the Government should gladly accept this amendment because I know the Government has been bombarded with objections from all quarters, from their supporters, Whom they ought to consult. We on this side are prepared to do that.

I thought you were not going to apply at all.

We said nothing of the sort, but we do feel that, before doing an abdominal crawl, we should consult our constituents. This amendment is democratic and just. Up to now, we have not had any expression of Government opinion on this, and I hope either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance will take this opportunity—

You can take it from me that I shall vote against it.

I am not surprised, considering the autocratic views of the Prime Minister on other matters.

I am glad the hon. member has put this amendment on the paper ; because here we have a genuine test of sincerity. I predict that the other amendments already accepted is one which, at the earliest opportunity, the members on the Government benches are going to get moved out of the Bill. The great argument we have used against the Bill has been that during the last elections every member of this House raised a cry of economy. These representations were made to the electors by members on both sides, and the electors can justly complain of being deceived if the first thing we do is to put our hand into the till and help ourselves without consulting them. But if we consult them, and if our constituents have no objection, we have redeemed our position. There is only one objection I have to the amendment, and that is that, if it is incorporated in the Bill, it will kill the measure, which means that members over the way will not vote for it.

I wish to move, as an amendment to this proposed new clause—

In some constituencies there is only one polling station and in others there may be 20 polling stations, and it would defeat the object of the amendment if only one public meeting were held in a very widespread constituency.

I am afraid the amendment would hardly work out in practice. I cannot accept it.

I must rule the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) out of order as being frivolous.

I can assure the Deputy-Chairman that it is not meant to be a frivolous amendment. In the case of a very large constituency in the north-western portion of the Cape some of the polling stations are 50 to 100 miles apart, so it would be absurd to hold a meeting at one place only, and to obtain the resolution of a meeting which might be attended by only half-a-dozen persons as proof that the condition has been complied with.

If the hon. member tells me there is good reason behind his amendment, I must accept it. I cannot interfere with the rights and privileges of an hon. member.

I hope the committee will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). I cannot be accused of springing anything new upon the House in supporting this amendment, because on the second reading I most distinctly said that while I was not going to express an opinion whether members of Parliament received adequate remuneration, I felt very strongly that it would be wrong for members to vote themselves additional allowances without at least having obtained the opinion of their constituents on the matter. The amendment meets that position exactly. I should not think it is the desire of any member to draw a remuneration over and above that to which he was legally entitled at the last general election, without first obtaining the concurrence of his constituents. If hon. members opposite feel that their constituents support them in this matter, surely they will not object to allowing their constituents to decide whether they should receive extra emoluments. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) said he would like to see certain amendments which had already been accepted in this Bill thrown out at the report stage. There is nothing that would give him a stronger argument in favour of throwing out the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) at the report stage than the fact of accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), because then a member would feel that he had got the concurrence of his constituents and I believe, if I am any interpreter of public opinion in this country, hon. members know that they have not got the concurrence of their constituents. We have heard a good deal about hypocrisy and sincerity. This is a very good opportunity of allowing hon. members to show their sincerity. The country does not like this Bill. I know from reports I get from my constituents that this Bill is not liked, and hon. members opposite, who next to Holy Writ set up the “Burger,” must have found from that publication that the people in the country who support them are not in favour of it. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) surely would have no objection to going to Brakpan and taking the voice of the people. I understood the hon. gentleman was a great believer in the voice of the proletariat. He shall now have an opportunity of asking them. Am I to understand that the hon. member is a bit afraid of asking the proletariat what they think on this particular question ?

Not a bit.

What will Riversdale do ? I am not referring to the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) approaching the Clerk of the House in the manner which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) at a previous discussion referred to. I would like to know what he feels about my suggestion, and that is that, before he would be a party to accepting this increased remuneration, he would hold a public meeting in his constituency and get the voice of the people who returned him to Parliament. He has always told us that he is not prepared to do anything unless he is absolutely convinced that he has the whole of his constituents behind him.

Can you tell me, is there any law under which our salaries are regulated other than the Act of Union, by which the salaries of members were fixed at £400? In 1920 we voted ourselves an additional £200. We have heard a lot about hypocrisy. Can you tell me whether the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) went to his constituents and consulted them before accepting that additional £200? In the last three years has he had any qualms about accepting any additional amount? No, it is pure and sheer hypocrisy.

Order!

I will withdraw that word.

You must apologize.

Yes, I apologize. I want to point out that the hon. member in accepting that additional £200 of 1920 had never consulted his constituents, and I am not allowed to characterize what I think of the right hon. gentleman.

I must say that there is something to say for the amendment drafted by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). The hon. member for Standerton gets his followers into much trouble. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is in trouble, although he is just as clever as the hon. member for Standerton. Not only was that hon. member’s amendment found to be ridiculous by the chairman, but I say the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) is not so clever as he thinks. I foresaw this and, therefore, I said that application should be made within thirty days. Thirty days is quite sufficient for consulting the electors and if the time is too short I am prepared to make it two months, and if the other side thinks that too long I shall be prepared to propose fifteen days.

Make it fifteen years.

I know it is in his interest to make it fifteen years. Some time ago the electors were asked whether hon. members opposite were worth £600, and the electors decided that many of them were not worth that. I should very much like to meet some of the friends of the Opposition in the House again, and I shall possibly be prepared at the next stage to propose an allowance of £300. Then it is possible that some more of them will come back, though I am certain that many of the electors think that they are not worth 7s. 6d. I, therefore, do not hope to support the amendment because I have already made provision for that case. It is a matter between myself and my constituents, and I bear the responsibility. If my constituents think that I am not worth £700, they will elect someone else who is worth £800 or £700.

I would like to point out that there is no analogy whatsoever between the increase of salary in 1920 and the present one. The 1920 salary was practically a war measure. In 1920 we were still under war conditions and this was a measure passed in the same way as the local allowances for civil servants. We increased their emoluments by way of local allowances to meet the abnormal cost of living. In 1920 there was an abounding Treasury ; to-day there is not. I am surprised to hear the attitude of the Government on this matter. We all realize the Government has put its foot into it very badly—in fact the Government has put all four feet into it. I still hope the Prime Minister will advise his followers to accept this amendment. It is an eminenty reasonable one.

I must say I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, because after all, when we remember that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) told us that this is an open question, then judging by the empty benches behind him, it is quite obvious there must be a large number of hon. members on his side who have not only open minds but open hands. I think it is wrong to place members in me position of not only holding out their hands but signing an application for it. I think the object of the amendment is to place members who honestly say they are in favour of the proposal in the same position as those who say they are against it, but who have open minds and open hands. May I suggest to him that perhaps a more effective method of doing it would be to withdraw his amendment and to move that the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) shall be deleted at the report stage.

There does not seem any method for acquainting the Clerk of the House with the result of these meetings. I want to move as an amendment to this amendment— to add at the end “the Chairman of such meeting shall immediately transmit the result of such meeting to the Clerk of the House duly certified.”

It is very necessary that some provision of this sort should be made. We do not want to leave it to the word of the member only.

The absence of any support from the opposite benches for the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) shows that I was correct just now in anticipating that members opposite would not support it as they knew it would kill the Bill. As far as the Minister of Defence is concerned, when he in somewhat characteristic terms and manner attacked the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), he seemed to forget the circumstances under which the alteration in 1920 was made, and the amount was reduced in 1921 ; at the same time as the allowances of the public servants were reduced, which were made on the same grounds. He also seems to forget that there have been two or three elections since that time, so we are perfectly prepared to face that position. During the last election, in which economy was the cry, the great attack on the late Government was that they had increased the expenditure of the country, and that they did not know what economy was. Members now on the Government benches fully promised economy. During the election this very question was raised, and we have, for instance, the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) who, if he was correctly reported, promised to oppose the increase of allowances.

The hon. member for Frankfort says 30 days referred and on his amendment will allow ample time for members to consult their constituents before making application. But he seems to forget that the difference between his suggestion and that contained in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) is that the latter will make it compulsory for an hon. member to go to his constituents, whereas what we are afraid of is that there are members who if left to the amendment by the hon. member for Frankfort will not seek the voices of the people, which the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and others claim so much love.

I think the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is a reasonable one, as I believe it is only right that every member should be compelled to consult his constituents before accepting this extra amount. During the elections my opponent made the point, all the time, that he was out for economy.

What is his name?

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels). He said if they returned him for Newcastle he would do all he possibly could to reduce the expenditure of this country.

Wasteful expenditure.

He also said he was out for a simpler form of Government, and that the cost of administration of the country was altogether too great. I also took up the same attitude. I have always been an advocate of economy. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) does not recognize the word “economy ”. I doubt if the hon. member knows how to spell it.

How many “k’s” are there in it?

That is why I have voted all along against this Bill. I believe the Minister of Finance when in Newcastle during the elections, stated that he was out for economy. He has forgotten about it. I feel I would not be justified or acting honestly if I accepted this amount without consulting my constituents.

There is the amendment, that you need not accept it.

If hon. members opposite accept it, why should I not accept it. I hope the Minister will accept this reasonable amendment.

Amendments put and negatived.

Proposed new clause put and the committee divided:

Hon. members opposite seem to be entirely opposed to anything in the nature of hypocrisy in dealing with a measure of this sort, and as they have taunted hon. members on this side of the House, who are sincerely opposed to the principles of this Bill—[laughter]—their laugh will soon be of a different character ; it is rather a laugh that betokens the anxious mind. Two things I have maintained on this Bill. One was that you should have the whole support of your constituency. The committee have refused to accept that by the vote they have now given. I will give them an opportunity of voicing the sincerity of which we have heard so much since this Bill was first brought before the House. I would like to move—

I do this largely to meet the views expressed by the Prime Minister the other day, when he pointed out the essentiality of having a measure of this character, because he dwelt very strongly on the fact that without increased remuneration it would be impossible to get the class of men whom you desired to see sitting in this House. He even stated, I believe, that without an increase of our renumeration, we could only have second-class advocates and prokureurs as the representatives of the people in this Parliament, and I then took the opportunity of pointing out to him that it was rather a serious reflection on the people who so staunchly supported him, and who always voted so stolidly with the Government in a division in this House, and also, if it is necessary on the basis laid down by the Prime Minster, of increasng our remuneration to secure a higher type of representative in this House—well, then, all I would ask you is this, is not the proper time to do that after a general election ?

He was referring to the Opposition.

He was referring to his own supporters, to whom he turned round in despair and said—

It is a perfectly fair request to make. When hon. members sought the suffrage of the electors in 1924, they knew the salary of members was to be £500 a year, and now, if they consider that it is in the interests of the country that the salary of members should be £700, then I say legislate to bring that into operation after the next general election.

I see what the idea is.

The hon. member sees it at last! We have been trying for a considerable period to make him see it. I want to make his constituents see that hon. members cannot with dignity embark upon a policy of grab without consulting their constituents. There may have been a period of temporary mental aberration when the electors of Graaff-Reinet voted for my hon. friend, but I doubt if the electors will support the policy of my hon. friend now ; I think they will far sooner support the policy I am advocating in this amendment.

Try.

The hon. member must make no remarks from the Treasury benches.

The hon. member is getting a bit nervous. We have heard about members over there getting rattled. He is evidently very much afraid that he won’t rattle this extra £200 if I have my way. I would appeal to my hon. friend to be able to go back to Graaff-Reinet and say—

Will you meet me on that platform ? I feel sorry for you if you do.

I think it must be very gratifying to the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to see the reception that his absolutely logical and sound amendment received from that side of the House. That extremely forced laugh was a true index to the feelings of hon. members over there, who, point by point, have had an opportunity during this debate of playing the game to their constituents, and showing that their professions at the time of the elections were genuine and sincere. It is a pleasure to us that there is at least one hon. member on the opposite side who has been converted. Perhaps if a message could be conveyed to the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), he will now have the opportunity of carrying out his pledge when he talked of “besuiniging,” and that he means it all the time. The whips on the Government side perhaps would not mind taking the trouble to tell the hon. member that he can safely and honourably come back and vote for the amendment.

He has not stopped running yet.

The place where the hon. member may be may be obscured by dust owing to the rapidity of his movements after his retreat from this House. I do not see how any member can refuse to support the amendment of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). There has been a certain amount of jocularity because of the “pynlike posiesie” of hon. members opposite. But, seriously, it is trust money we are voting away.

Have you not squandered money ?

The hon. member has not added a mite of wisdom since he has been in the House. I wish he would not point at me. When I was a young boy I was told that to point at people was not good manners. We have to bear in mind that we are the guardians of public money.

I should have thought if there is one man in this House who would vote for this amendment, it is the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels). I listened very carefully to him when he explained the motives of a certain amendment, and he told us it was to be a test of our sincerity. If ever there is a test of our sincerity, it is the amendment of the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt).

Why?

We have been told that in our heart of hearts we are wanting this money but pretending not to. And so we wish to show our disinterestedness.

This side does not pretend to be distinterested. We have made out a case for this Bill. Every member has voted for it because he feels he is entitled to it.

So far I have not heard a single word. I have been wondering what the attitude of the Minister was. If the hon. members on the other side of the House are going to vote against the amendment, to make this Bill come into force after the next general election, it seems to me they have a fear that if the Bill is passed they will never handle any of this money. They have seen the writing on the wall. The public takes its time in coming to a decision, but the last ten days have been the pivot. The tide has turned. The sands are running out.

That is your prophecy.

The hon. member will never handle any of the boodle. His sins will find him out, and his constituents will find him out long before that.

The next general election will find you out.

No, the general election will find us in. It seems to me that if a single member of the Government benches votes against the amendment, there should be an interdict of perpetual silence on him. We have been accused of insincerity, but if this amendment is negatived, they will stand convicted before the bar of the House of insincerity themselves.

Why?

Even the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has seen the point, and if he has done so every other member should be able to see it. I hope this amendment will be carried.

A good deal of talk has been put up about this £700: but if you look at the S.A.P. benches you will see that there are only 23 members present. That condemns them. As far as my constituents are concerned, they do not worry at all. If they are not prepared to pay me £700 a year I am not prepared to come to Parliament.

That is the best reason I have heard for passing this Bill.

My town turned the hon. member down for £400 a year. What is the good of all this talk ? A member of Parliament is either worth £700 a year, or he is not. Some of us would be very glad to give our constituents £700 per annum if they paid us what it costs us to sit here and leave our businesses. The position is either dignified or it is not, and it should be paid for accordingly. If the matter is explained properly to the country it will go with us. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) once stated in this House that this Parliament is for the most part composed of poor men, and it is. I say without hesitation, and I quote the right hon. member in support, that this is the most dignified Parliament in the British Empire, and is composed of poor men who get poorer and poorer the longer they sit here. Hon. members who live in Cape Town should not say anything on this question, but it means a good deal to members who live up-country. My constituents can have my seat to-morrow if they can find anyone else to take it. If the country wants honest men, and men who can live decently it will have to pay them £700. All this talk from the S.A.P. is extremely puerile, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) cuts capers on the sawdust and if he thinks he is going to gain votes by it he is making a great mistake. The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) has put the position before his constituents, who have told him he can receive an amount up to £1,000 a year. The constituents of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (The Rev. Mr. Hattingh) and my constituents would vote me the money, and the Opposition will gain no seats and will only make itself look extremely ridiculous in the eyes of the country by opposing the Bill.

I rise to correct the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) who said he recently addressed a meeting in the constituency of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) adding that the proposed increase was adopted unanimously. I read from a very complete report of the hon. member’s speech in the “Star”, That paper devotes three columns to the hon. member’s views on “Socialism in our time.” In that speech he referred incidentally to the question of Parliamentary pay. He said—

This declaration was greeted with “loud laughter.” and we all know what the pressman meant to convey. Then a little later on, just to show what a terrible calamity might ensue if the hon. member left Parliament, he said he could—

A martyr in Parliament ?

No a mark. I do not know whether it was a black mark. We have had a good deal of talk about hypocrisy, but could anyone contemplate the spectacle we have around us this evening with anything but amusement? We have the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. Brand Wessels) solemnly moving a resolution in this House, the sole aim of which was to embarrass, as he thought, this side of the House. Now he is entreating the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) and his colleague in arms, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to extricate him from the mess in which he has placed himself. The hon. member for Troyeville has stood up to justify, after the manner of Russia, the sort of proceeding that is going on. No consultation with one’s constituents The soviet of all the Russias can help itself to the funds of the proletariat and never pay its debts to other people. That seems to be the principle on which the hon. member would have us go.

I would like to be allowed to correct some inferences or statements made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). The question before the House really is not the amount of £500 or £700, but we, on this side, are endeavouring to take our stand on the principle that there should not be this additional salary without some consultation with our constituents. A good deal of cheap chaff has been directed about the comparatively small attendance on this side this evening.

Is the hon. member over here entitled to say—

I did not hear the hon. member say so.

The principle is it is not right or dignified or justifiable that this should be suddenly sprung on the country without any reference being made to the country at large or to the constituents of particular members. This particular departure should have been included in the Smithfield manifesto. One would like to know what pressure has been brought to bear on the Government to spring this Bill upon us at this late stage of the session.

By whom ?

That is what we want to know ; we want to know all the facts. We are well aware that a motion was introduced in the early part of the session by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson). The Opposition voted solidly against that. We do not think it right without any consultation with the country, to come to the House and ask Parliament to vote this money for our own remuneration. Another thing that puzzles us is that we have had no speeches from that side of the House If members had no time to address their constituents they might have addressed them through Hansard.

We would like to know your views.

I have given my views on several occasions.

Will you take the £700?

That is not the point. I am addressing myself to one particular phase and that is the want of propriety on the part of members on that side in bringing pressure to bear on the Government to introduce this particular Bill at this juncture. I should be better pleased, while I enjoy these interruptions that hon. members are making, if they would put them in the form of speeches which would go to their constituents and educate them to the views hon. members themselves hold. I am making a suggestion which will add to their popularity, as these speeches will, no doubt, be reported in Hansard. On the ethics of the matter, I do not think there can be any serious opposition to the, amendment of the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I suggest that, if these reasons are good and convincing the hon. members opposite, we should hear them at length. Why should the hon. members on the Labour benches be so strangely silent during the last two days? We would like to have some explanation, and they might thoroughly go into the reasons that have induced them to bring pressure to bear on the Government to bring this Bill forward at the tail end of the session.

Are you fond of fishing? ing?

I, for one, certainly support the amendment of the right hon. member.

I merely wish to point out that this matter was not contained in the Governor-General’s speech at all.

Question put: That all the words after “shall” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause. Sir Thomas Smartt called for a division:

Upon which the committee divided: