I would like to ask the Minister of Mines when he is going to bring forward the Diamond Bill which we have been promised so long. The session is half-way through and we have not yet seen any notice of this Bill.

I will try and bring it on within a week from to-day, within the next week.

Before you go to the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask your ruling on the following question—

I have not been able to raise this question earlier, because we have not had the material before us. It will be remembered that when the Prime Minister introduced these Bills into the House, I raised the point at once whether the Government was following the proper procedure in introducing these Bills into this House, instead of first calling a joint session of both Houses by proclamation in the ordinary way, and introducing these Bills at a joint session. We inferred from the answer given by the Prime Minister that there was, in his opinion, no difficulty from the shape in which the Bills were in the way of their introduction into this House, and I came to the conclusion that some change must have taken place in the character of the Bills which made it possible for them to be introduced into this House. Well, we did not see the Bills until Friday. I had only an opportunity to look at those Bills on Friday afternoon, and then I found that two of these Bills contained these clauses about the differential franchise which would necessitate a joint session of Parliament. Let me take the Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill; Clause 6 provides for the deletion of natives from the present register. Then in the Coloured Persons’Rights Bill, the very first clause we find provides for the deletion of natives from the present register, and that the names of any coloured persons shall not be placed upon the voters’ roll, save as specially provided in this Act. So that these two Bills require the procedure under Section 35 of the South Africa Act in order to legalize a change. That is to say, they must be passed by both Houses sitting jointly and by a certain majority at the third reading. The House has by consistent practice laid down what should be the procedure in such case, that is to say, there must be a proclamation in advance convening both Houses and then the Bills can be introduced. Here we find that a Bill containing these clauses under Section 35 has been introduced into this House. In view of the motion which the Prime Minister is just now going to move it may be said the matter I am raising is one of academic importance only, and that is so. In a few moments these Bills will disappear from the Order Paper and will go to a Select Committee, but we are busy with a most important point of procedure. I do not want us to get into a procedure on these Bills which might form a wrong precedent for the future, and there is no doubt that under the Bills we have before us, following the procedure we have adopted hitherto in Parliament, we should have these Bills introduced at a joint session. It may be argued that we have to do with Bills of a mixed character. The Prime Minister said in the remarks that fell from him last week that these Bills contain not only provisions requiring a joint session, but many other clauses which can be properly dealt with by this House. No ruling has been given on this question, but it seems to me it will be most awkward for us to deal with what I may call a mixed Bill in the way which is proposed by the Government. We must consider this point of order on this basis; supposing these Bills were not discharged from the Order Paper and we were going on in the ordinary course with the Bills—what could this House do? This House could not possibly deal with these differential franchise clauses. The other sections of this Bill are so bound up with them; the whole scheme is so entirely a franchise scheme, that the franchise question will continually be cropping up in consideration of the other Bills. The question will arise again later on, if there should be a joint session at which these franchise questions are considered, how the joint session is to separate the franchise question from the other questions in the Bill, all these provisions being bound up as one whole in one big scheme of reform. The point is a very important one, and we have followed a certain procedure so far in these matters, and it will be most important for us to know whether the Government is right in the way they have initiated this legislation in this House. To my mind it must lead to very great confusion. We are getting out of the confusion to-day by the motion now on the Order Paper which will see these Bills disappear from the Order Paper. That is a fortuitous circumstance which we cannot consider at this stage. We must assume a case where the Bills are introduced into the House, and it seems to me it would then be impossible for us to know what we have to discuss in these Bills and in this House and what we have to discuss at a joint session. You cannot separate the two unless you have the Bills drafted entirely separately. It would lead to the greatest confusion, and in these matters of procedure we have to be very careful. The South Africa Act singled out certain large matters to be dealt with in a certain way. We must take care that we do not, perhaps by an oversight, perhaps by mistaken procedure, get round the intention and procedure of the South Africa Act. That is why I have submitted this point to you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is competent for us to go on with the consideration of these Bills, or what is the procedure which should be followed in a case like this; whether it is not the same procedure that we have followed in other cases of a similar character that have been before us. I should like very much to have your ruling on this matter.

The right hon. member was good enough to inform me some days ago that he was going to raise this point. It is a very important point and I should like to hear the views of other hon. members.

I doubt whether a question of greater constitutional importance has ever been raised in this Parliament than the question now raised by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). If there is one thing this Parliament cannot escape it is the responsibility which the South Africa Act throws upon this Parliament in regard to the franchise rights of the native and coloured people, the entrenched rights of these peoples. These rights, of course, specially refer to the coloured and native peoples in the Cape Province, but, of course, we know that they are of much wider importance than merely the Cape Province. I would submit this to you, sir, that whenever Parliament is dealing with entrenched rights, then we should be very careful before we depart from the strict provisions of the Act of Union. I held that view very strongly two years ago. In 1925 it was suggested that it would alter the provisions of Article 137 where the languages are entrenched. It was suggested then that we should deal with these rights by resolution of this House and resolution of the Senate. It was very strongly submitted that it was the duty of Parliament to proceed strictly in terms of the constitution, and I am glad to say that eventually this latter course was followed, and the two Houses sat together in order to give interpretation to Article 137. I repeat that when we are dealing with the cherished rights of individuals which they very highly esteem, Parliament has to be careful, and when those rights, in addition, are entrenched under the constitution of the country, this House has to be doubly on its guard. Upon the motion of the Prime Minister certain Bills have been introduced, and it is clear that certain of the provisions contained in at least two of these Bills, require clearly that these provisions can only be considered by a joint sitting of this hon. House and the hon. the Senate, and eventually these provisions must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the total number of the two Houses. As the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has remarked, both he and I raised this question when the Prime Minister introduced these Bills. Naturally we were then at a disadvantage to argue the question fully. Since then these Bills have appeared in print and are in possession of the House. They stand to-day for second reading on the Order Paper. Is it not, Mr. Speaker, to your mind a clear violation of the provisions of the South Africa Act—the very fact that these Bills are in possession of this House containing these provisions; and we of this hon. House are solemnly asked to pass these Bills? I am not taking into account the notice of motion on the paper, but arguing this point apart from this motion. The House is asked to pass these Bills, containing if I may so call it—these unconstitutional provisions—provisions which this House has no power to consider sitting as a separate chamber. Now, as I judge the position, this difficulty is proposed to be remedied in two ways; firstly, we have the provision in both these Bills, which to my mind is worthless. It says that these two Bills, when they become Acts, shall be of no force and effect until the provisions thereof which are required to be passed by both Houses shall have been so passed at a joint sitting of the two Houses; that is, the provision which I understand is sought to cure the unconstitutionality of the position. Let us see what kind of safeguard this is. I draw your attention specially to sub-clause (b) of Clause 12, applying to both Bills, but I quote that in the Coloured Peoples’ Rights Bill. I submit to you that the utmost value you can attach to this provision is the declaratory value. Legally it can have no effect; for the simple reason that this House has no power to pass these provisions as a separate chamber. We have no right, as a separate House, to consider these entrenched provisions of the South Africa Act dealing with the coloured and native franchise rights, and therefore logically, whatever this House may do with regard to the Bills before us, it can be of no legal effect. Take the further point-say that this House solemnly passes these two Bills as they are before us. Another Bill has to be passed by the joint sitting. That joint sitting would have the constitutional power to deal with these entrenched provisions, and would have the right of amending those provisions. So the joint sitting passes a Bill which is in conflict with the provisions of these two Bills. Where is the dignity of this hon. House? I would ask you, sir, in what false position, we, as an Assembly, would be placed when the joint sitting, as it has a perfect right to do, amends that provision as they think fit? You, sir, are the supreme authority in this House, and you are there to protect its dignity and prestige, and if ever there is an occasion where we can appeal to you to protect the dignity of this Chamber, it is this instance, so that we should not afterwards be placed in taking up a constitutional position which cannot afterwards be justified. I would submit to you that the only proper course to follow is, in order to safeguard this House, for you to eliminate from those two Bills those clauses to which we have referred. I ask you to do this entirely uninfluenced by the fact that the Prime Minister has a motion on the paper to refer the subject of these Bills to a select committee. I also ask whether you think that such an undesirable precedent should be created. Allow me to submit, in the second place, certain constitutional aspects of the motion which the Prime Minister is about to move. He proposes to discharge these second readings and to refer the several subjects to a select committee. We cannot get away from the point that the principal and vital points of these Bills are the entrenched rights of the coloured and native peoples. These two Bills, having been read a first time, bear the imprimatur of this House, and we have set our official seal on them. Unless these provisions are ruled out before the Prime Minister’s motion comes on, is it possible that the committee would be influenced by this fact that we, as a House, have referred the subject matters of these Bills to them. The most important subject matter is the entrenched rights of a section of the people, and the committee may fairly conclude that they have the power to deal with these entrenched rights. If the Bills are discharged before the second reading and referred to a select committee, that committee has a perfect right to bring up the same Bill in the same form, or to bring up amended Bills, or they could advise the House that the matter being of such importance that the legislation should not be proceeded with. I make this definite statement with which I am sure, sir, you will agree, that had the Prime Minister proceeded with these Bills to the second reading, you would have been bound to rule out these provisions dealing with the entrenched rights of the natives and coloured people, provisions which require to be passed at a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. Should we relegate to a select committee a matter upon which this House has no right to legislate? Take another point. Assuming that the select committee brought up a Bill incorporating these entrenched clauses then I submit with due deference, that Mr. Speaker would have ruled out the action of the committee in dealing in that form with these entrenched provisions. I, therefore, ask you in view of the supreme constitutional importance of the question that you lay down clearly the procedure, especially seeing that these Bills are still in the possession of the House. Above all, the important point seems to me to be that if you feel that you are constitutionally bound to rule out these provisions at the second reading, then we can fairly claim that they can be ruled out now. If these provisions are unconstitutional at the second reading they were unconstitutional at the time the Prime Minister proposed his motion, and they were read a first time. I submit they are unconstitutional now. These Bills appear to foreshadow a fifth Bill, apparently to cure whatever unconstitutional procedure may now be reflected in these Bills. I think that the House and the country have a clear right to ask the Prime Minister what is to be the nature of this fifth Bill, and this is a point of vast importance. We can leave this important issue safely in your hands, sir.

Section 35 of the Act of Union lays down that there are certain rights that we cannot deprive the natives or coloured peoples of, but the House is entirely within its powers when it grants them other rights, and in that case the House is entirely competent to proceed with such legislation in the ordinary way. What would have happened if the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) had been followed? All these provisions which do not deprive the native of rights he has to-day are entirely outside the scope of a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament, and if Mr. Speaker ruled on the lines suggested by the hon. member he would be depriving me of a constitutional right. If such a Bill came before the joint session, and the Prime Minister appealed to the joint session to accept the position, you would have a constitutional position raised whether or not it would be constitutional for the two Houses to pass legislation which we could have passed by an ordinary majority of one in this House. The other issues are within the powers of this House to deal with, and I think the way the Prime Minister has adopted, to introduce these Bills into this House first, is correct. Whatever points in these Bills are introduced, that should not be introduced, will not be accepted until the combined Bills are accepted by a joint sitting of both Houses. The only way to do it is to introduce the Bills into this House first, because the greater part of them is entirely within the jurisdiction of this House. You, Mr. Speaker, can decide which part of these Bills ought to be passed by a joint sitting of both Houses. When these Bills were introduced, I felt that we could not place them wholly before a joint sitting because that would deprive the private member of his constitutional right to deal with them. Section 35 draws attention of the legislature to the fact that there are certain sections which require peculiar treatment in terms of the Act of Union. In voting for the section you know you are voting for something which cannot be law, unless in joint sitting of both Houses it is passed by a majority of two-thirds of both Houses. If the Prime Minister had placed these Bills before a joint sitting straight away, the hon. the leader of the Opposition would have at once said that there were many things which could be dealt with in this House, and that the Prime Minister had no right to deprive the legislature of its constitutional right on these matters. He would undoubtedly have taken that line. Does the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) suggest breaking these Bills into tiny little parts, and putting one small piece before a joint sitting, and the rest before this House. You cannot do it. I ask the hon. member for Caledon, could he make an extract of those parts of the Bill which he thinks ought to come before a joint sitting, and leave the rest to this House to fill in? Could he have done so? The only thing is to put the whole Act before the House, and to deal with such portions as we can pass, and leave the rest to a joint sitting of both Houses.

After the lucid manner in which hon. members have put the question before the House, it seems to me unnecessary for any member to take up the further time of the House in discussing this question. I only rise on another point for your consideration. I hope the Prime Minister, in the decision he has adopted, is not taking the legal advice of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees), who says that in treating with constitutional questions, you should look for the best way out. No question at the Convention received stronger consideration than the question of the rights of coloured people which the hon. member will recognize, as a prominent member of the National Convention. There would have been no possibility of the Act of Union coming into being had it not been for the compromise arrived at in this connection. That is accepted as an historic fact. In Clause 35 of the Act of Union, I understood there were two principles laid down. One was that you could not interfere with native or coloured franchise in the Cape of Good Hope unless the Bill was introduced before both Houses sitting together. In sub-section (2) of that clause, there is another important position, and that is that if both Houses sitting together decide that the franchise qualification should be altered, that qualification should not be based on race or colour, if they were on the existing voters’ roll. It was applied in 1887 at the instigation of John Henry Hofmeyr, and was put in the Liquor Bill that their rights were not to be interfered with. I call your attention to section 152 [section read.] That procedure was adopted in connection with Clause 137, and although you did not preside over the deliberation of this House, when proposals were made for the alteration of the language clause of the Act of Union, both Houses of Parliament sat together, and dealt with the whole of the clauses of that Bill through all their stages. I beg your pardon, sir, you did preside, so I call your attention to that. I should have thought that perhaps that laid down a precedent, but over and above what has been said by my right hon. friend and the hon. member for Caledon, I would like to put another point to you, Mr. Speaker, and it is one that I consider of extreme constitutional importance. The point is this, whether you would not be right, in protecting the constitutional principles of the Act of Union, not alone in disallowing any further proceeding with these Bills, but in ruling that all reference to these Bills should be erased from the Votes and Proceedings of this House. The point is one on which I would be glad to have the benefit of your opinion.

This matter is one of the most important which could come before the House for decision. What the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) has said, namely, that certain rights can be given to any section of the population without a two-thirds majority in a joint sitting being required, is quite right, but there is special provision in the constitution that certain rights may not be taken away without a two-thirds majority in a joint sitting of the House of Assembly and the Senate. Now certain clauses appear in the two Bills in which definite rights given to a certain section of the population are taken away. The Bill is introduced into the House with the proviso that a joint sitting will subsequently be asked to give its approval to special clauses. It seems to me that the important question before the House is whether a joint sitting can actually be asked to deal as a whole with a Bill which has already passed the House. If your answer to that is that the Bill cannot be dealt with as a whole because there are certain portions which are the prerogative solely of this House, and that only certain subordinate parts of the Bill can be dealt with by the joint sitting, then it is another question. In Section 35 of the Act of Union nothing is said about certain parts of a Bill. It is clearly laid down that a Bill which deals with such rights shall be dealt with by a joint sitting and approved by a two-thirds majority. If the Bill goes through here, e.g., and it comes before a joint sitting, is the joint sitting only entitled to deal with the few clauses, or has it also the right to deal with the whole Bill brought before it, from beginning to end? If the joint sitting has the right to deal with the whole Bill and to make certain alteration in other clauses, and again to approve of these clauses, then it makes the whole position impossible. If again it is accepted that the other parts cannot be dealt with, but only certain subordinate parts or clauses of the Bill, then the whole position of the joint sitting is also almost an impossible one with a Bill before it, which it is not entitled to deal with as a whole, but only with a few clauses. It seems to me as if the only sound method to be followed is to delete certain clauses here, and to bring them in a different form before the joint sitting for approval or rejection. Then the Bill, as passed by the House, will not come before the joint sitting. The Prime Minister will then be called upon to delete special clauses, and to put them into a special Bill to be laid before a joint sitting for approval by a two-thirds majority. It seems to me as if apparently there were no other course. If the Bills are passed as drawn, and come before a joint sitting, then it will conflict with the provisions of Section 35 of the Act of Union. Now the question arises of referring the Bills to a select committee before the second reading. In this connection it is quite clear to me that there is nothing in the constitution to prevent the House referring a Bill, although unconstitutional questions may arise in it, to a select committee before the second reading, and before any principle has been adopted by the House. When the Bills come back from the select committee with certain recommendations, it will be Mr. Speaker’s duty to take steps in connection with certain matters which are unconstitutional, and to rule them out of order. In a matter of so much importance as this, to which we hope the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will also give his approval, and will support us in solving the native question once and for all on the best possible lines, we feel that it would be right for Mr. Speaker to give a ruling at this stage, to say how special clauses can be introduced after the second reading or after the select committee has sat, so that we can successfully complete the matter.

I rise now, otherwise it seems as if we shall soon have a general debate. With all respect to hon. members, this is a matter which should be left to the lawyers. We have been told that this is a constitutional question, and that, in the first place, it ought to be left to the lawyers. What I feel is this, we can go on talking and talking for days, but we won’t talk this question right if it is not right. Constitutionally it has to be thrashed out, and we shall have to look at it purely from a constitutional point of view. I appreciate the question that has been raised by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts); at the same time I have no hesitation in saying that there is not the least reason for holding that the procedure which is followed here is not the correct procedure. I hope to point that out in a few words. Now as far as these two Bills are concerned, what we have to look at well in the first place is this, that in each of the Bills you have out of the 100 or more provisions therein contained practically one provision which is of a nature that it has, in order to be validly passed, to be passed by the two Houses sitting together and passing it by a two-thirds majority. Both these provisions have been referred to by the right hon. gentleman. In the one Bill, the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill, you have it in Section 3 (b). Let me say at once—and I wish hon. members to remember this—that there may be also other provisions which would require to be passed by a two-thirds majority at a combined sitting of the two Houses. In the other Bill, the Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill, you have Section 6. This section requires, as far as that Bill is concerned, a combined sitting with a majority of two-thirds. What in regard to the rest of these Bills? They contain provisions which clearly cannot be of force and effect unless passed by this House, sitting in the ordinary way, i.e., sitting separately. It is very clear that as far as these provisions are concerned, we have to come and proceed as we are doing to-day, but what Parliament is asked here is not merely to pass those provisions. No, I do not want those provisions, nobody else on the Government benches wants those provisions, except sub conditione, subject to the condition, taking the Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill, that a provision such as is contained in Section 6 be passed validly, that is to say, by a combined sitting of both Houses and by a two-thirds majority. Unless that is done, we do not want the Bill to be passed. All I ask Parliament to do by coming here is that Parliament shall pass this Bill as it stands (I refer to the Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill), subject to such amendment as this House or the Senate or the two Houses combined may validly import into it. But I ask that Parliament shall pass this in the ordinary way, only upon one condition, that is, subject to a combined sitting being held later on of the two Houses and the two Houses passing a provision as contained in Section 6. That is the whole long and short of the whole proceeding. In other words—

We cannot discuss (6) here in this House.

Let me point this out to the right hon. member. He says we cannot discuss it.

I say we cannot discuss (6).

We can, and I am going to ask for it to be discussed, because how shall this House otherwise pass the condition if it cannot discuss the condition? This House is asked to pass this Bill subject to the condition in paragraph (6), and as is contained in paragraph (6). Surely this House can say —

but this House must know whether it is going to pass this Bill subject to this condition or not, or whether it is going to pass it subject to an altered form of this condition or no. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) says that Section 10 does not mean anything. It means everything, because there Parliament says—

What is there in the world to prevent this House from saying that it will have certain provisions of law, but only subject to certain conditions? Nothing. When this House passes No. (6), it does not pass that as law; it cannot, and Section 10 (b) clearly shows that this House knows that it cannot. Therefore it says, as this House cannot pass (6) validly, and give effect to it, and as this House nevertheless wants it to be law, therefore the rest of this Bill will only become law provided your joint sitting makes it law.

May I put this point to the Prime Minister? Supposing the Bill is passed by both Houses with Section (6), and the joint sitting makes an alteration in Section (6), what is the position then?

It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that that is tantamount to a rejection by the joint sitting, and all that we can do is that we shall, later on again, have to come to this House and say—

Just fancy the hon. member for Caledon finding it something this House should not do to pass a conditional law like this. Why not? The hon. member asked us seriously to think of the dignity of this House, when the combined sitting rejects it and sends it back. How many Bills has this House sent to the Senate and the Senate has sent them back? Every session Bills are sent back, and this House has never complained of its dignity.

The constitution lays down the practice.

What practice? That is why I am suggesting this procedure in order that it may be valid. Let me again refer the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to what will happen. He wants this House, or rather he wants me, not to come to this House with this Bill, but he says—

—a joint sitting, I mean. Now, I ask him, does he really think the joint sitting will do so? Surely if I were to go to the joint sitting with the provisions in (6), the joint sitting would say—

and if I say this or that, they will say—

That shows a joint sitting must deal with the whole Bill.

The hon. gentleman is approaching the right road. That is exactly what I am going to do. This whole Bill is going to the joint sitting. Just as it is passed in the ordinary way here, it will be laid before them, and the joint sitting will be asked to pass anything in this Bill, or so much of it as they think is necessary. If it thinks that the rest of what the Bill contains is not sufficient compensation for taking away what is in Section (6), then it will naturally either reject the Bill altogether, or it will make amendments in this Bill. My hon. friend seems to find this a very strange way for the joint sitting to proceed. Very well. Suppose I come to the joint sitting with Section (6). Is there anything to prevent the joint sitting from saying—

Is there anything? No, there is nothing. But see what will happen. I go to the joint sitting, I ask them for (6). They say—

and they draft, we will assume, a Bill exactly like this. What will happen then? So far as the other provisions in this Bill are concerned, your joint sitting is fully entitled to pass that, as a condition subject to which they will grant provision (6), but there can be no validity to those provisions; it cannot give them the force of law. For instance, how can the joint sitting, under any pretext whatsoever, go and extend the franchise to the native or to the coloured man in the northern provinces? No, it cannot do so. In other words, if it does take up anything to that effect, this Bill will have to come here, and will have to be passed through this House—and this House, what will it do? It will consent, speaking for the Government side at any rate, subject only to (6). If you start with a combined sitting, you will have the whole procedure as it is now, but only reversed. Instead of starting at this House you start with a joint sitting. You will gain nothing. The whole procedure would be reversed, that is all. Which of the two is to be valid is one undoubtedly for this House to decide; if this House says—

then very well, the only thing that can be done is to start at the other end, but I say this, that that would undoubtedly, to my mind, be the wrong procedure. The other method, the joint sitting, is, let me say, an extraordinary remedy, an extraordinary body for extraordinary reasons constituted under our constitution. The ordinary legislative functions are fulfilled and executed in the ordinary way through this House, through the Senate, and then to the other. If the Government had proceeded first to a joint sitting, this House would have been right in saying it was a slight on this House not to have come to this House first before making use of an extraordinary institution existing for extraordinary purposes. What is asked here is that certain provisions be made legal provisions, statutory legal provisions, valid for this country, and the furthest we go in order to have these provisions is to say—

Let me say this, if this Bill be passed and be submitted to the joint sitting, and if any alteration be made in this Bill by the joint sitting, there is no doubt that so far it is a rejection of this Bill, and only one thing can cure that, and that is that the Government will have to start de novo. Insofar as it is prepared to accept the recommendations or amendments of the combined sitting, it can accept that. But what you will have in this case is that this House cannot in the same session he asked to consider this Bill. Practically it would mean that this Bill would have to be reconsidered and treated de novo the following session. I think it must now be very clear that the provision is nothing which is not strictly correct I think it must be clear to anybody, where we have merely to deal with a clean suspension or repeal of Section 35, it would be foolish to come to this House; in fact, this House would not accept it, because it is not made a condition of anything; but it is merely what it purports to be —a suspension or repeal of what is not within the competence of this House, and you would have to get your joint sitting at once, submit it through and finish with it. Here you have to do with a totally different thing. I am not sure whether Section 6 is the only one.

There may be others.

Exactly. If there is anything we must guard against, it is that later your law courts say this is ultra vires, either because it was passed by a joint sitting and it had no power, or passed by an ordinary sitting and it had no power. I am not going to guarantee, and I do not think anybody in this House can, that there are not other provisions, but if so we do not know where a thing like that begins and where it ends. The only safe way is to pass through both Houses in the ordinary way and through a joint sitting. Of course, the National Convention at the time had in its mind a case where you have to do with a clear-cut repeal or suspension, and it is only since I came to deal with this question, where you have, as it were, a mixed Bill, and you do not know exactly how the mixture is diffused, that you see that you must follow a procedure that cannot be questioned later on, and it is under these circumstances that I lay these Bills before the House to be passed in the usual way. It is quite possible that when these Bills come back—I will not say that it is likely, but quite possible—from the select committee, that even the intervention of the combined sitting will not be necessary, and the select committee could find ways and means by obviating the necessity of passing these provisions, as I have to ask, by a combined sitting. It is not only correct, but the only practical way of setting about where you have to deal with Bills of this kind.

I think that the last argument submitted by the Prime Minister really does not touch the point that is now before us. It is quite possible that the Bills may come back from the select committee and a joint sitting is not required on any of the clauses, but the point before you, Mr. Speaker, is whether these Bills are rightly before the House at all. To that extent, as the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, some hon. members may think the point is academic, but I submit, and I think you will agree with us, that a point of this kind is not academic. It is dealing with a precedent which is being laid down on one of the most important clauses of the constitution, and I think we would be wise in exercising the greatest care in laying down any precedent which would infringe, or appear to infringe, the safeguards of these clauses.

In what way is it an infringement?

I think we are infringing the safeguards, especially in this clause, if we pass, or attempt to pass, in this House a Bill which ought to have been brought before a joint sitting.

It acquires no force.

I think we are putting ourselves in an awkward position if we pass a Bill that is sent on to a joint sitting, and I do not know of authority in the constitution for that course. It is an entirely new procedure.

It goes to another place as well.

Is the idea that this Bill should be passed through this honourable House, the Senate, and then the joint sitting?

Why not? What I meant was this—this Bill, if passed by this House, is passed subject to a certain implement. If this Bill passes this House and the Senate passes it, it is a Bill of the country. At the same time it is, therefore, the law of the country with Section 6, but Section 6 is the law of the country, not because it stands here, but by another Bill which is going to be laid before a joint sitting and contains Section 6 and all the other clauses. The joint sitting passes a similar Bill as this, and that is also to be registered as the Bill of the combined sitting.

Won’t that be the law of the land—if the combined House passes an amended Bill?

No, it cannot. With regard to the extension of rights of the natives in the northern provinces, the joint sitting has no such right.

I see the Prime Minister’s point perfectly clearly, but it only seems to lead him into another difficulty. [Clause 12 (b) read.] How can you bind a combined sitting?

We do not bind them.

Suppose the combined sitting passes something not identical with this clause.

Then it rejects it.

The clause passes in some other form—not as it appears here. But it becomes the law of the land.

Only as far as Section 6 is concerned.

Yes, as far as Section 6 is concerned, but the whole of the rest of the Act falls away. No, there is only one way of doing so, and that seems to be the plain interpretation of the constitution—if you embody in a Bill a provision for the repeal or alteration of Section 35 of the South Africa Act, the Bill as a whole must be passed by a combined sitting, and then becomes the law of the land—it must not be a clause of the Bill, but the Bill as a whole. It was not contemplated by the constitution that a Bill would be introduced into this House merely repealing and altering that section, and nothing more. Section 152 says so perfectly clearly. [Section read.] But now it seems to me that we are going sub conditione, as the Prime Minister said. We are going to pass a Bill through Parliament in the ordinary way, but it is to be suspended until Section 6 is passed by a joint sitting. If the combined sitting chooses to amend Section 6 it is tantamount, the Prime Minister says, to a rejection of this Bill, but what the combined sitting has passed has the force of law. You would have the curious position that the clause taking away rights is passed, but the whole of the rest of the Bill will have fallen away. That was not what the constitution intended. If we are going to proceed to alter or repeal Section 35 of the Act of Union, a Bill must be framed for that purpose, and must be introduced to the combined sitting and passed in the way required by Parliament. The present procedure is not justified.

A point of order has been raised of great constitutional importance, and as the ruling will regulate procedure for many years to come, we must discuss it from all points of view for or against, and these must be brought to your notice, Mr. Speaker. I confess that the point raised is, in my opinion, sound, and also perfectly arguable. It is a proper legal principle that has been put forward, because when the National Convention decided on a constitution to adopt they decided they would not adopt a rigid constitution like the American, but a flexible constitution like the English, which gives Parliament the power to alter it. Inasmuch, however, as there are very vital principles in South Africa on which people differ, certain clauses were entrenched, and it was provided that they should not be altered, except in a particular way—that is, at a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. In that respect they give what may be called a testing power to our courts, which would have the power to declare a Bill passed at separate sittings which should have been passed by joint sittings, unconstitutional. Take the language clause. Can that be altered by both Houses sitting separately? We shall be setting up a very dangerous precedent if we adopt the procedure desired by the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) says what does it matter at this stage. But he forgets that the first reading has already taken place. A first reading of a measure is not necessarily a mere formality. If we have no right to deal with the Bill, then we have no right to have a first reading of it at all. It is begging the question to say that if you are dealing with a matter illegally at the first reading, you can put it right at the second reading. As far as I can understand the matter, Government apparently does not know which clauses of the Bill conflict with Section 35 of the Act of Union. Is Government not asking Parliament to deal with legislation in a most extraordinary way? Surely it is not beyond the powers of the Prime Minister’s legal advisers to tell him which clauses are in conflict with Section 35 and which are not. The clauses which do not conflict with Section 35 should be passed through both Houses separately in the ordinary way, and those clauses which are in conflict with it should be embodied in a special Bill.

What will the position be if we pass one Bill without the other?

Exactly as it was in 1918, when we passed a Census Act which was all right with the exception of one item. Instead of bringing the matter in as a hybrid Bill, as the Prime Minister is doing, the Government of the day very rightly brought in two separate Bills. One of the clauses dealt with men on active service, and that appeared to be in conflict with the Act of Union; consequently, it was embodied in a special Bill making it perfectly clear that certain rights were not being interfered with or altered. That Bill was passed by a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. That is an exact precedent for the Prime Minister. We have special rules for hybrid Bills. There are two ways of passing laws in the Union. There is the ordinary procedure by which a Bill is passed by both Houses sitting separately, and there is the special procedure in regard to entrenched clauses of the Act of Union when joint sittings of both Houses are imperative. It is, however, impossible to combine the two procedures. I submit that this is not a mere technical matter at all, but is of the greatest and most vital importance. The Government has no right to bring matters which should be dealt with at a joint sitting before Parliament sitting separately, and thus to obtain a sort of imprimatur upon them before they are submitted to a joint sitting. I presume that the framers of the Act of Union were not cynical gentlemen, but hoped that when there was a joint sitting there might possibly be some conversions, and that some members might see the light of reason, and not vote on strict party lines. A joint sitting is entirely different from a separate sitting. It would be a waste of time to bring a Bill which would go before a joint sitting of both Houses before each of those two branches of the legislature separately, and then to submit them to a joint sitting. Whether you look at that from the point of view of constitutional practice, or convenience, that is a very mischievous way of introducing legislation. To-day it is proposed to legislate in this unconstitutional manner with regard to the rights of natives and coloured people. But on another occasion an attempt may be made to deal with the language question in this manner. Hon. members should be specially careful to safeguard this provision of the constitution, which was framed to prevent Parliament acting hastily by a mere majority in certain matters. I submit to the Prime Minister that it would be much better for him to withdraw the Bills and to take out of them what does not require a joint sitting, and to pass them through both Houses separately, while the matters that do require a joint sitting should be embodied in a measure to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament at a joint sitting. Section 35 of the Act of Union seems to have worried the convention a great deal, as it is specially mentioned again in Section 152 where it is again entrenched. It must not be forgotten that, had it not been for these entrenched clauses, there would have been no Union, and we should not encourage a procedure which seems to ignore altogether joint sittings. I can find no reference in our Act of Union to legislation sub conditione. Our legislation is final after it goes to the Governor-General. I submit it is a bad procedure and without precedent, and that all the precedents I have found are distinctly against it.

The Prime Minister said that when the Bill comes back from the select committee it might not contain these conditions. Supposing it does come back with the conditions, and this House sits by itself, will you, or will you not, Mr. Speaker, allow this Clause 6 to be considered?

This matter is very important, and interesting questions have been raised. The problem is, perhaps, not so complex as we seem to think. The law must be interpreted in a common-sense way. You have no specific provision in the constitution dealing with the constitutional position which has arisen. But we must assume the constitution does, by implication, deal with such a case. By Sections 35 and 152 it is laid down as a sine qua non, that the passing of such legislation at a joint sitting gives validity to such legislation, but this does not preclude the two chambers separately from dealing with the matter. Parliament has the full right to discuss and pass anything it wishes. We must also bear in mind that at the time the South Africa Act was passed the supremacy of this Parliament was not as clearly established as it is now. This Parliament is, in every way, supreme to-day. We can, to-morrow, by ordinary procedure, although the question does not arise here, pass an ordinary Act by the two chambers, approved by the representative of the King, abolishing Section 152 of the South Africa Act, 1909, and I submit, being a supreme Parliament to-day, constitutionally it would not be requisite to get a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting. Otherwise we should not be a supreme Parliament. We could abolish the proviso to Section 152 by an ordinary Act of Parliament without a joint sitting.

Without the intervention of the British Parliament?

Of course. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 152 contained in the proviso if you want a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting to alter certain provisions in the Act of Union you can to-morrow by an ordinary Act of a supreme Parliament repeal Section 152 without joint sittings. That is our constitutional right to-day.

Section 152 is also entrenched.

Because we are a supreme Parliament we can remove that entrenchment. We can say that, notwithstanding the provisions of the South Africa Act about certain joint sittings we abolish that part of the Act. We repeal it.

The Senate of the United. States of America cannot do that.

Their whole constitution is radically different.

Does the Prime Minister adopt that doctrine?

I do not know whether he adopts it or not, but I am prepared to defend it any day. Look further at Sections 35 and 152, and you will see that nowhere is there an exclusive right to a joint sitting to discuss Bills like these. It is perfectly open to the separate Houses to discuss, consider and pass Bills like these, and even if there were not these clauses like 12 and 10 in the Bills, these Bills would only acquire the force of law when other eventualities have arisen or taken place, viz., the passing of the relevant parts by the joint sitting. It would follow that the Bills passed by this House and the Senate could not acquire the force of law until the joint sitting has been held. So long as we allow Section 152 to remain as it is to-day we have to follow this procedure. If we decided to repeal it tomorrow we need not follow this procedure. Prima facie each member has the right to deal with any Bill even if it does contain clauses touching Sections 35 and 137 of the South Africa Act.

And pass them by an ordinary majority?

But they do not acquire force of law until a joint sitting has passed certain provisions.

Surely you are joking on a serious question.

How can you say that?

It would turn us into a debating society.

What is the procedure contemplated under 35?

It is this—whatever the separate chambers may do in regard to the Bill they may introduce and discuss it and decide upon it, but it would not acquire the force of law or become valid until the joint sitting had approved of it in respect of clauses affecting the entrenched sections of the South Africa Act. That is all I contend. In law you have a principle which is very often valuable, that is where a statute has omitted to deal specifically with a problem that might arise, you follow the doctrine called cy-près, that is, you carry out the law as nearly as possible if you cannot carry it out in the letter. Presuming the implication is that there is doubt about the procedure adopted, then it would be the correct one to follow, because we have to do with a case of a mixed Bill containing many important questions exclusively the province of this House and another place, and not of a joint sitting, and at the same time embodying provisions which are not the exclusive province of the separate Houses, but of the two Houses in joint sitting, so far as it regards imparting validity to the measure. As there is no concrete or explicit provision, it is competent for this House to deal with the Bills, and then discuss the clauses dealing with Sections 35 and 152 or any other entrenched section of the South Africa Act. It is only common sense that it is highly desirable that the separate chambers should discuss any alterations in the entrenched provisions of the constitution. There is nothing to exclude the discussion by the separate chambers of these important points. In so far as the Bill or these Bills contain clauses touching Section 35, they are Bills for a joint sitting and nothing further. In other words if these measures come before a joint sitting, then they are Bills for a joint sitting only in so far as any clause or clauses in the measures touch the entrenched sections of the constitution. And when the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) argued under Sections 35 and 152 that the word “ Bill ” means every part of the measure, whether it has to do with Section 35 or not, then, to my mind, it is an entire misconstruction of these sections of the constitution. The Bill before the joint sitting means that part of any measure which the joint sitting is competent to deal with. These two chambers constitute Parliament and Parliament can deal with anything under the sun, being a supreme body. The joint sitting cannot deal with such a measure. It is confined to specific cases provided under the constitution. You, Mr. Speaker, or your predecessor, have decided that in cases of conflict between the two Houses the joint sitting must say “ yes ” or “ no ” under Section 63 of the South Africa Act. In this case it will be for the joint sitting to say that its competence is confined to clauses, e.g., 3, 7 and 8, which touch Section 35 of the constitution, and that it will alter them. If they are altered the question is being put—

My answer is: It is perfectly competent for the two chambers to acquiesce, and the thing becomes law. If there is no acquiescence it would then be competent for the Government, or either of the two chambers, to bring the matter again before the joint sitting to get them to revise their decision on the clauses. Whether or not it could be done in the same session I do not exactly know at this moment.

What do you say to the last portion of the first sub-section of 35—

I say what they pass in respect of Section 35 acquires the force of law by the mere fact that the Bills have been laid before them and they have passed what affects Section 35. If this honourable House passes all the other clauses and another place passes them all, only the clauses touching Section 35 go to the joint sitting—and, of course, it is clear that the joint sitting can only deal with these particular clauses. I entirely disagree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that they can deal with the whole Bill, and that the whole document must be passed by them. It is clear that, even If they amend the clauses touching. Section 35, the law, as it is then passed, becomes operative. But the procedure proposed by the Prime Minister does no harm, because the Bills contain clauses like 12, which these two chambers have passed, but the Bills cannot become operative unless the clauses touching Section 35 have been passed.

Do the joint Houses only go into certain clauses?

The joint sitting, to my mind, can only touch upon and go into clauses and pass clauses dealing with Section 35, or any other entrenched sections.

Section 35 says “ passes the Bill,” not clauses.

Yes, but my point is this— that the words—

in Sections 35 and 152 are used to express clauses touching Section 35 or any other entrenched section, and you cannot extend them beyond that, because ex hypothesi it is incompetent for the joint sitting to deal with other clauses.

The joint sitting must pass the Bill.

Supposing the joint sitting, instead of accepting the clause suggested by the two chambers, were to substitute another clause, and say—

surely hon. members would not contend that that would have the force of law.

The Chairman of Committees of both Houses must put it clause for clause.

You must remember that Section 35 has to do with disqualifying, with a reduction of rights, not with creating privileges and increasing rights.

Hear, hear, only disqualification.

I want to test the contention of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) further. His contention was this—that “ the Bill ” means, not only the two or three clauses touching entrenched provisions, but the rest of the clauses, may be 50 or 60 more.

If they are relevant.

Now that, to my mind, is entirely wrong, because then if Parliament, by accident, passed an Act which was not intended to affect or to touch Section 35, but by accident does so, every section in it would be invalid because, according to the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville, it should have been passed by a joint sitting of the two Houses, having contained a clause which affects an entrenched section of the constitution. Surely it is obvious that that cannot be contended for. Hon. members will remember that in 1913 an Act was passed, the Natives Lands Act, and the right hon. gentleman will remember that the question arose before our Appellate Division, I think, ultimately whether a certain section in that Act was applicable in the Cape Province, and the court held that it was not, inasmuch as it was in conflict with Section 35 of the constitution. There the court in effect decided that a section of the Act of 1913 was in conflict with the constitution, but, according to the reasoning of the hon. member for Yeoville, that whole Act should have been declared, or is invalid. We have all along regarded the Act of 1913 as applying, and as valid in every other respect, and I think it would be rather a shock to the country and the House itself if it were found that the whole Act was invalid The Act expressly said that the Cape Province was included. But then another argument is this—that the contention of the hon. member for Yeoville—and I was rather impressed with it at first—is correct, there would be nothing easier than for a Government with a big majority in the House of Assembly, but not a majority in the Senate, to introduce a Bill containing 100 clauses which are of importance to the Government, and another little clause touching an entrenched provision of the constitution directly in a joint sitting and, owing to their having a big enough majority in this House, push it through the joint sitting and get the joint sitting to pass that Bill from A to Z, thus avoiding or eluding the Senate altogether. Surely that would be the result of the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville. One has only to state this to show the startling results of the view of the hon. member for Yeoville. Now the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has stated that it would be undesirable to establish a precedent, that the vital principles of these measures are the entrenched rights of natives and coloured people, and that these rights are being affected, and he has asked— can you refer the subject matter of such measures to a select committee when this House cannot deal with the main principles themselves? Of course, these are only various forms of stating the same problem, and they do not help us much further. No, I think it is perfectly clear that the constitution intended the two ordinary chambers of Parliament to be chambers with unlimited power, and that, in the absence of any prohibition in Sections 35 and 152 declaring it incompetent for these two chambers to deal with this question, it is competent for us to deal with it even as regards clauses touching entrenched provisions, so long as ultimately the joint sitting takes place, and then the joint sitting is practically confined to clauses in the measures dealing with the entrenched sections. Generally speaking, joint sittings are strictly confined to the functions imposed upon them by the constitution, and, in conclusion, I wish to repeat and emphasize that, in my humble opinion, the words—

in these two sections simply refer to that part of any document, any Bill, laid before them that it is competent for them to deal with. If it is a thing entirely outside their purview, outside the ambit of their duties and functions, it is in that respect not a Bill for them. A Bill can only be a Bill for the joint sitting in respect of those points in regard to which they are competent to deal. Section 152 speaks of—

It may be argued that the word “ embody ” may mean something more than the repeal or alteration of those entrenched clauses, that it may mean something in addition, but I think that the plain reading is that it means—

is synonymous with clauses dealing with the repeal or alteration of the indicated sections, and it is only “ the Bill ” in respect of those proposed repeals or alterations in so far as the joint sitting is concerned. The rest of the document is no Bill before them at all.

The very deep importance of the constitutional question involved in the debate this afternoon justifies one in getting up even at this late stage to make a few further remarks. I would like to deal with one or two of the points raised by the Minister of Mines and Industries. With regard to his remarks about Section 152, the House must have listened with amazement to hear him repudiate our obligations under the Act of Union. I entirely repudiate his contention in regard to the effect of Section 152, or with regard to the effect of the higher status on Section 152. That Act is a solemn document by which we are bound, and when the time comes I am sure there are a large number of people who will raise their voices to repudiate this idea. It was a very serious suggestion coming from a Minister of the Crown, but there were other suggestions from the Treasury benches which one can hardly imagine were made seriously. It was quite unexpected, when the Prime Minister rose, to learn that the procedure to be followed is to have the whole of the Bill passed by this House, then passed by the Senate, and then submitted to a joint sitting of the two Houses. On reading 12 (b), for example, one thought the procedure was to submit certain clauses taken out of each Bill for the special consideration of the joint sitting. But I gathered, from what has been said by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Mines and Industries, that it is proposed to submit the whole of the Bills to this House, then to the Senate, then to get the royal sanction— when they become law—and then to submit the Bills as so sanctioned to a joint sitting to go through the stages de novo. That seems a most extraordinary position, but still more extraordinary is the intimation that the Bill, after being passed by these two Houses and sent to the joint sitting, is to be submitted to the joint sitting for a “ yes ” or “ no ” only, and only with regard to the clauses that deal with entrenched rights. Here we have a series of Bills which, as the Prime Minister points out, contain certain clauses which do touch upon entrenched rights. In regard to the Coloured Persons Rights Bill, the Prime Minister said that there was Clause 3 which touched on entrenched rights. I should like to point out that the whole of that Bill is virtually an attack upon entrenched rights, because the whole basis of that Bill is the formation of a list for coloured persons, and those who are not on this list cannot come on the voters’ roll.

Our differences in opinion show how careful we must be.

Yes, but that does not seem to carry the debate much further. The Prime Minister said there is one such clause in each of the two Bills, and then he afterwards said that of course there might be more. Either these clauses which touch upon entrenched rights are separable from the rest, or they are not. If they are separable from the rest, there is no reason whatever why the Prime Minister should not bring them in as separate Bills and send them to the joint House, but if they are inseparable—and that is what he said—and cannot be detached the one from the other, then in the first place you, Mr. Speaker, have no power to strike these clauses out of the Bill, as suggested by the hon. member for Caledon. The clauses which touch on entrenched rights are so vitally connected with the others that we will have to go through with the whole Bill. When that Bill comes before the joint session, then the contention of the Minister of Mines is that the joint session can have no power of alteration whatever. That is an amazing contention. It seems to me a good deal of the confusion on the Treasury benches is based on a confusion between Section 35 and Section 63. The ruling has been given to this House as to Section 63, that where a Bill is passed by the Assembly and is rejected by the Senate, and comes back to this House again, then the Bill must be accepted or rejected by a joint sitting. That is because of the peculiar wording of Section 63. But no such circumstances arise under Section 35. Under Section 35 I contend most strongly that the joint sitting will have the full power of altering the whole of the clauses which it has before it because of the very hypothesis on which it goes before the joint sitting, and that is that all the clauses are mutually interdependent. Take the alternative. Is it to be assumed that the joint sitting is to be merely the application of the rubber stamp? In regard to Section 63, there is much to be said for the rule the House has adopted, because the Bill is then the result of a conflict between the two Houses which can be best settled in that way. It says—

I fail to see under what circumstances it can be held that the joint sitting under Section 35 is to be merely a rubber stamp, and merely accept or reject what has been passed by the Senate and Assembly before.

No one has contended that.

It has been contended on that side of the House. If the joint sitting is to be confined, on the other hand, to sections only which touch upon the entrenched rights, where on earth are you going to draw the line between these sections which touch upon the entrenched rights and those which deal with rights which are not entrenched? I can see a welter of intolerable confusion that will arise before Mr. Speaker or the Chairman in charge of that Assembly—in what case does a clause trench directly upon the entrenched clauses, and in what case does it not? In what cases is it a mixed one? I suggest that the reason why in Section 63 the House has to pass a Bill as it came from the Assembly was as a way out after a conflict. Here is not a case of conflict. The Minister of Mines and Industries says—

But I find in Section 35 of the Act that every Bill which originates and deals with these things must be passed by a joint sitting.

I would like the hon. member to say where it is stated that the Bill must originate in the joint sitting. If he looks at Section 35, it says—

I take the first part of that clause which says—

If it said that alone, there would be no difficulty, as the ordinary procedure of passing Bills through both chambers would be followed. But it goes on—

The word “ passing ” has one meaning only, and that is going through all the well-known separate stages. Therefore, I consider that the Bill must go through every stage in the joint sitting. Where you have a definite interpretation which can be given to the terms laid in the Act, there is no room for a cy-pres doctrine. It means it shall be “ passed ” in that way only.

To give it validity?

I join issue with my hon. friend over there when he says he thinks there is nothing in the law to prohibit it. I say the provision for the method of passing by both Houses sitting together excludes all other methods of passing. Here the old maxim comes in—

This is a special provision which is made, and the object is perfectly clear. It is that you shall have the thing discussed as a whole by the whole of Parliament in order to secure at the end of the third reading a two-thirds majority. I submit there is only one way in which you can read this clause, which is that the whole Bill containing those clauses must become before the joint sitting in the first instance, and that the whole of that Bill, with its several clauses, is open to the entire and unfettered decision of the joint sitting.

And will every provision of that be valid as law?

If the Minister chooses to put in the Bill any provisions deciding that those directly trench on entrenched rights, and he puts others in because they are necessary to the provisions he makes touching on entrenched rights, when he puts that Bill before the joint sitting, he takes risks of any amendment that the committee may make, subject, of course, to the powers of the Chairman in the exercise of his authority under the rules, as to saying whether the particular provisions are or are not relevant.

Suppose the franchise were to be extended in that way to the natives of the Orange Free State, would that be valid law and good, after passing by the combined sitting?

My view is that if any amendment is held by the Chairman to be within the scope of the Bill before the joint Houses, within that ruling, the House has power of passing any clause it likes.

What do you mean by—

Where it is within the title of the Bill, and so on, following the ordinary rules which we follow in this House. The joint sitting would, subject to this, be able to make any alteration.

And substitute a new clause?

Yes.

That is a very startling result.

This is an extraordinary procedure. Any amendment can be made to the Bill and any alteration and substitutions can be made by the House sitting jointly, because there is no fetter on the House sitting jointly.

Would you say that provisions which could not be passed in the ordinary course through this House or the Senate could not, in such case, be introduced there, and become law?

As a matter of fact, the practical check would be that the Minister, before taking the risk, would be sure whether he had a working majority at the amalgamated sitting of the two Houses. But once a Bill comes before that joint session, you cannot fetter the hands of the joint sitting in regard to the terms of other clauses which the Minister may consider not to touch the entrenched clauses.

That is a reduction ad absurdum.

No, there is something much more absurd in the Prime Minister’s alternative, which is that the House has to act as a debating society and pass a principle, and then go before a joint sitting to obtain validity for it.

Is there anything to prevent the separate chambers passing resolutions desiring a joint sitting?

That is another point. If each chamber chose to pass a resolution referring anything to a select committee for inquiry, no one could stop them, but this procedure which we are objecting to seems to be a degradation of the dignity of the House. In view of Section 35, there is nothing in the Act of Union which justifies any contention that either chamber may initiate legislation on a subject on which it is definitely intended to obtain the sanction of a joint sitting. I would like to raise another point—this is not a matter which affects this House only, for a ruling on the question will have to be given in another place as well. Whatever is done in this chamber is not conclusive as to what will be done in another place. It is a pity that there is no provision for consultation on such points between the chairmen of the respective chambers. I urge very strongly that within the meaning of Section 35, the principle of the Bills under consideration should be passed at a joint sitting. If they desire of the Prime Minister should be given effect to, we should be in an extraordinary position. When the Bill comes before a joint sitting, that joint sitting should not have its hands fettered in any way in its method of dealing with the whole of the clauses. Take the clauses regarding the striking of a native off the roll, but giving substituted voting powers, e.g., communal voting powers. One of these clauses is about entrenched matters; the other is not. Suppose the joint sitting says these clauses are very closely related, but the substituted voting should be done in some other method than the communal method, and suggests it should be done either by tribes or kraals, what would there he to deprive the joint sittings of the right of making some such other arrangement? It would be unjust If they joint sitting were unable to alter conditions which are the vital elements of the Bill.

Nobody withholds that right.

I am not a lawyer, but I am very much interested in this question, in so far as it affects the liberties of this House. It may be that in the multitude of counsellors there is safety, and you have had a multitude of counsel to-day. But there are two points which should weigh with Mr. Speaker above all others. The first is that he should not give a ruling which would in any way restrict the liberties of this House, and to secure that in the use of our liberties we do not contravene the rights of other people. I submit that the procedure which the Prime Minister proposes to follow does not in any way affect the rights of those whose rights are entrenched and about which hon. members opposite are so solicitous. If that is so, and if without the sanction of a joint sitting we cannot abate or repeal existing franchise rights, certainly our passing this Bill in this form will not in any way do any sort of injury whatever to any person outside this House. So we are proceeding in the way of safety. It appears to me that that is the major consideration. Bills embodying great alterations of policy must obviously be something in the nature of hybrid measures. If we originated them in a joint sitting, the supreme court might hold that particular provisions in the Bill were not of a nature which should have been passed by a joint sitting, and we might possibly have a position in which only a certain number of the provisions in the Bill were held by the courts to be valid, in that they came under the category of those which should be dealt with by a joint sitting, but other provisions of the Bill might be held to require the sanction of both Houses sitting separately. I do not want to go into the legal aspect of the matter, but it must be presumed that the constitution did not wish to debar Parliament from dealing with any complicated question that might arise. It may be that in certain cases it would be more convenient for the whole matter to originate in a joint sitting. But in this particular case I submit no wrong is done to anyone by this matter originating in this House, whereas, if the other course were pursued, we might find ourselves in a very great difficult in having validated certain provisions which did require the sanction of a joint sitting, and having left other provisions in a hybrid Bill invalidated. By Clause 10 we take care that our labour is not wasted, and trust the Bill shall not become law until it receives the sanction of a joint sitting. My hon. friend puts to me what seems to me to be rather a legal point which has already been put, but I still hold with what I suggest to you. We have to be very careful and you, sir, have to exercise your supreme care, that by your ruling you shall not fetter the liberty of this House to pass whatever Act it pleases and submit it to another place, and particularly where we are dealing with a Bill like this which itself carefully safeguards any rights which are affected by stipulating it shall not become law unless the clauses have been ratified by the two Houses sitting together.

It seems to me, sir, you are being asked to give a ruling on a highly complicated matter, which may quite easily place this House and yourself in an awkward position. The constitution provides that in certain circumstances matters shall be dealt with by a special legislative body, not this House plus the Senate, but the members of the two Houses sitting together as one legislative body with full powers, and who shall deal with these reserved matters ab initio. Now supposing that your ruling happens to be in a certain direction, how is it going to be binding on another section of Parliament, how is it going to be binding on this special legislative body? If we ask you for a ruling, should not the members of the Senate also ask their President to give a ruling also? Your decision may be in one direction, and the ruling of the President of the Senate may clash with yours. I ask the Prime Minister what will be the next step if such a position arises? It only goes to show what confusion and complication of our legislative machinery may and most probably will arise if once this House departs from its clear constitutional course of action.

On previous occasions Bills dealing directly with rights entrenched by the South Africa Act and introduced in a joint sitting, dealt exclusively with those rights, and this is the first occasion that such rights are sought to be dealt with in what might be called a mixed Bill. Very important points have been raised with which, however, it is not necessary for me to deal to-day. I refer more especially to the important and interesting views put forward by honourable members with regard to the functions of a joint sitting and this House with regard to such Bills. Although Sections 35 and 152 clearly entrench certain rights, it is by no means clear what procedure should, in a case such as this, be resorted to in order to deal with such rights, and about that there appears to be a great divergence of opinion. With regard to the first point raised as to the introduction of the Bills, I may point out that only portions of the Bills may be said to affect rights entrenched by the South Africa Act, and that other portions deal with matters on which it is wholly competent for Parliament to legislate in the usual way. The principles of a Bill are dealt with at the second reading, and it is only then that the seal of the House is placed on principles in the Bill. If they Bills had been proceeded with to second reading and further stages I might have been called on to give a ruling as to whether certain clauses in the Bills should not be struck out, but that point which is of the greatest importance does not arise, and it is not necessary for me at this stage to deal with that aspect of the question. In my opinion, therefore, the introduction of these Bills should not be ruled out of order. As to whether it is competent for this House to proceed with these Bills, I have already indicated that I may be called upon later to deal with certain clauses, but that point does not now arise. The motion now before the House is for the discharge of these Bills from the Order Paper and to refer the subject dealt with by them to a select committee for enquiry and report. That, in my opinion, it is perfectly competent for this House to do. The fact that Parliament is precluded from validly legislating in the usual way in respect of rights entrenched by Sections 35 and 152 of the South Africa Act does not, in my opinion, prevent this House from enquiring into the desirability or otherwise of continuing those rights. It would be perfectly competent for this House to adopt a resolution recommending the alteration or even the abolition of those rights. It is only when it comes to actual legislation that resort must be had to a joint sitting. I am of opinion, therefore, that it is competent for this House to set up a select committee to enquire and report on these matters. The recommendations of such a committee may be of such a nature that if they are adopted by the House a joint sitting may be obviated, or steps may be taken, before proceeding further with the Bills, to define more clearly the procedure by which the intention of Sections 35 and 152 of the South Africa Act may be given effect to. Such procedure in connection with Bills of this nature is by no means clear. My ruling, therefore, is that the motion on the Order Paper is in order. With the recommendations of the select committee I can deal when they come up.

I move—

I just wish to state shortly why I move that the Bills should be referred to a select committee before the second reading. Since the first day this matter was discussed, I have, in and out of the House, stated that, in my opinion, it was a subject which should be treated on non-party lines and as outside party politics. It is clear to me that If they Bills go to a select committee after the second reading they will stand very little chance of being dealt with on their merits. I have not yet abandoned the hope that the Bills will be kept outside party feeling, although, hitherto, I have not had much encouragement for thinking so. Consequently, I thought that the Bills should be referred to a select committee before the second reading, when we could sit round a table and deal with all the problems on their merits. I feel convinced that in this way we shall not only do better work than If they second reading were first taken, but that much time will also be saved, because the debate will not be of such a nature, spirit and duration as if the second reading had first been passed. Now I only wish to add that these Bills, in so far as their contents are concerned, are, except for a few small alterations, practically the same as they were when I laid them on the Table last year, and this is so, notwithstanding the useful and sound advice which I have received in more than one respect, and notwithstanding the criticism which has been made. Although I think that the criticism was caused too much by party feeling, that does not subtract from the good criticism that has taken place, which, in my opinion, will conduce to give a lead in connection with certain matters contained in the Bill, and will, perhaps, cause them to be changed from their present form. In this respect I thought of not making use, as far as the Government and I personally are concerned, of the suggestions to bring the Bills in a new form before the House. That was done because it was clear to me that in the consideration and discussion which would take place in the select committee, and even in the House, it would be useful to have the wording as nearly as possible of the Bills originally laid on the Table. Secondly, I thought that it was not advisable that any suggestion, unless it was of such a nature that it was clear to me that it would be passed by the House practically without opposition, should be put into any new Bill, but that we should rather leave over the hints and criticism until we met in the select committee, and then discuss the Bill in the light of further suggestions which might be made during the course of dealing with the Bills in the select committee. For this reason I thought it best to leave the Bills, as far as possible, as they were, in order to put them, after discussion, into such a form that they could be passed by the House. It follows that there are certain suggestions which I, in some cases with a qualification, am prepared to adopt, as provisions in the Bills, but for the reason I have already given, I will leave them over until the select committee has gone more fully into them in the light of other suggestions which may be made.

seconded.

I daresay the House will be in general agreement with the Prime Minister that he was acting rightly in not pushing these Bills through to a second reading, because If they House had had to go into the principle of these Bills without preliminary consideration, such as you can have in a committee or commission, there is little doubt that there would be a very great deal of difference of opinion upon them, a difference of opinion which it might have been very difficult to remove and heal afterwards. I, therefore, think he has acted quite rightly in not proceeding to a second reading, but I would say this—that, whilst the Prime Minister is right there, I think he has made a mistake in sending these four Bills to a select committee. For this reason—the session is very far advanced indeed; we have had more than two months of the session already; we are probably half-way with the work of the session, and the House is now very much occupied with other work. Members of this House, on both sides, are very much engaged, not only with the consideration of the multitude of work already before us, but also with the work of other select committees of great importance, and it seems to me it will be impossible to expect the members of the select committee to give that time and attention to these four important Bills which they deserve, before the end of the session. I am sure they could not do justice to these Bills. You can take any one of them; you can take, for instance, the Land Bill. The Land Bill in itself will be quite sufficient to take up the time and consideration of a select committee for months. A great deal of evidence will have to be taken. There is a good deal of feeling outside among the interests affected by that Bill, and a select committee will naturally have to hear people, and hear different views, and will then have to give consideration to the principles of that particular Bill, and only after that come to a conclusion. What I say about the Land Bill applies to the Councils Bill and to the two Franchise Bills. It seems to me a select committee has no ghost of a chance to come to a proper and wise conclusion before the end of this session. Then what is the use of starting this procedure of a select committee? We are overloading such a committee. We are asking members of Parliament, at a time when they are working to the full extent of their power and resources, to take this additional load. They are serving on other select committees, and it seems to me impossible to expect them to do justice to this important matter. No, it seems to me the enquiry necessarily will have to be carried into the recess; we cannot finish it during the session. If that is so, I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not far the wiser course at once to face that position that the select committee would not be able to finish the work, would not be able to go through these four Bills, and make wise and proper recommendations to the House before the end of the session. We will be faced, in all probability, with the position at the end of the session that the work will not have been completed, and that it will have to be undertaken de novo. Is it not advisable to face the position at once, and to say—

It seems to me it will be absolutely necessary to give this committee or commission of inquiry more time than the two months of very arduous and difficult work that we have before us. I would make that suggestion to the Prime Minister. He may take it from me that we are anxious, if it be humanly possible, to help in this matter. We do not want to quarrel over the native question of this country. If there is one question on which we should be united, this is the question, because there is no doubt that whatever we do with these Bills, we are going to unite every coloured and black man in this country. There is no doubt that they will be united, and it would be a very grave mistake if we are divided on party lines over these Bills, and did not exhaust every means to come to some agreement. I want us to give Parliament and the country a fair chance, and it seems to me that consideration by a select committee, beginning at the beginning of April, and having to complete its labours before Parliament prorogues, is to attempt the impossible. We cannot do it. You take in comparison a trumpery matter like the Liquor Bill, where a similar procedure was adopted last session, and it was found that they were not half-way through the inquiry at the end of the session. This is not one Bill, but four, dealing with the most intricate and difficult matters that can be conceived in this country. In these circumstances, do not let us make an initial mistake, but deal with the matter gravely and fairly, and let us send it to a commission. The Prime Minister will remember that months ago I made the suggestion that we should have something like a small national convention. That is, perhaps, a grandiose phrase to use; a national convention makes people think, perhaps, of something greater than is intended, but let us appoint a strong body consisting of the best men in this country that can be found, and give them time; do not limit them to two months; they may want six months or a year for this work. Let them go thoroughly into the facts underlying these four Bills. Let them give the natives a hearing. I know the natives have been consulted to some extent by the Native Affairs Commission, who have been going over the country and explaining the Bills to various native communities, but it cannot be said that that was a proper consultation. I would not give the impression that before we are going to legislate on these very difficult matters we are not going to give the natives of this country, whose rights are principally affected, every possible chance. We made no greater mistake than when we passed what is called the colour bar Act, without giving a fair hearing to the natives. The thing I felt at the time was most regrettable. We shall afterwards find that Act has gravely compromised the whole native position in this country. Here we are proceeding with a far more important matter, and let us give them every opportunity. They would like to talk, to represent their case; let them have ample opportunity to do so, and do not let us limit them to the small opportunities of a select committee to represent their case before us. I would urge the Government most strongly. I would urge the Prime Minister to adopt a right procedure in regard to the inquiry, and to appoint a strong and representative commission which could begin with the work as soon as possible, and which would be able to be at it continuously all the time until they are in a position to report these four Bills to us. I think that would give a much better chance to these Bills than we could expect from a select committee, sitting with very limited time and attention, and exhausted by the heavy work which we have to conduct for the balance of this parliamentary session. I would, therefore, like to move this amendment and I do so, not in a spirit of opposition at all, but because I think that the procedure by way of a select committee is not the best and wisest one. I move as an amendment—

I second the amendment. I hope that the Prime Minister will accept the suggestion proposed from this side. I happen to know the feelings of the natives in the Eastern Province, where there are the most advanced natives we have in this country, and I can bear witness that the feeling at present is not of satisfaction generally with the political position in this country. We know we have recently had unrest in the territories. When we look back to the time of the National Convention, the natives felt then that they had not been properly treated in this country, and that the National Convention took away the rights which the natives in the old Cape Colony had had to be represented in this House, and that they might have been consulted. A deputation was sent overseas, in which Dr. Rubusana, one of the leading natives, and also the late Mr. W. P. Schreiner took part, and they asked that that right should not be taken away. Now in referring this matter to a select committee appointed by the different political parties of this House, and the fact that one political party must hold the majority will undoubtedly give the natives the feeling that these Bills are going to be approached from the political attitude—a feeling we must avoid in this country, and we must try to make them realize that we Europeans wish to co-operate and work with them, and let them have the feeling that they themselves are assisting to build this country and have a real interest in it. A Parliamentary select committee without any European representatives upon it who have actively worked on behalf of the natives and associated themselves with native interests, would not carry such weight as the form of commission proposed by the hon. member for Standerton. We have already under the Act of 1920 adopted the principle of consultation with the natives upon all matters affecting their interests. I maintain that the particular form of consultation we have now to adopt should be such as will carry the natives with us, and that we should have active participation from the outside, as well as from the inside of the House. The question will arise who should sit and act on such a commission and be representative of the people. The natives will at once say that they should have a right to be represented on such a commission. I may state that I sat on the Provincial Council Commission dealing with native education in 1917, over which Dr. Viljoen, the Superintendent-General of Education, presided, and we had natives such as Tengo Jabavu and other leading natives represented thereon. We sat together, and for a month or so we co-operated with those natives. The report was duly published, and gave the utmost satisfaction. On that report the Provincial Council is to-day working and has based its native educational policy. This is one instance of how compromise and discussion have acted undoubtedly in the best interests of the country. I know the feelings many Europeans have about sitting on a body with natives. We have to suppress these feelings, and realize that in a country like ours there are different aspects springing up every day. I think, above all things, that in legislation affecting the natives of the country we should feel at any rate that we should come into contact with the leaders of their people. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister. I do not for one minute believe that he and the party he represents will assent to the placing of natives on that commission. But it should be quite possible to have a sub-commission of natives, travelling around and acting as an advisory body to the main Commission. I do not see any reason why it should not be done, and it will help to carry the natives with us in regard to legislation. We do not wish to make political capital out of the matter, for we feel it is too important—it is a matter for the future, and what we do to-day may have important results as far as they affect the future. I say this native question has been put off too long, and I feel grateful to the Prime Minister for having at last put the matter on the floor of the House and making it practical politics. The country as a whole is grateful to the Prime Minister, and looking to the House to support any fair, equitable measures brought forward. I think that the attitude of every member of this House is to support such measures if just and reasonable, and we on this side will support them even if they do not emanate from this side. We must realize that it is necessary to carry the natives with us in this country. Many natives are trying to create feeling against the white man, and native agitators do not care what they do so long as they inflame the feelings of natives against the Europeans. I believe there is a solution to be found, but if a select committee discusses the problem, those who have studied native affairs will give evidence before it, and that evidence would, in the ordinary course of events, be published. The native vote has been Used, and will be used for a considerable time, in order, perhaps, to further political interests. Twelve to 15 seats in this province are dependent on native votes. We know that the natives in the Cape Province are as a whole antagonistic to the Bills, and if we take up a stand which we feel to be right, the natives may say that we are traitors to their cause. If, instead of having a select committee, the Government, by means of the commission proposed, obtained the views of leading men who have studied the question, it would be in a better position to frame legislation which would be of real value. The Prime Minister will shortly introduce the Native Administration Bill, and I think it will have a more direct and a more immediate effect on native development and administration than all these four Bills put together. In fact, I do not think that the effect of this quartette of Bills will be felt for four or five years to come. Another point to be remembered is that there is not sufficient time to consider the subject thoroughly this session. Shortly we shall have the Easter recess, so that even If they select committee is appointed now it will not be able to commence operations until about the end of April. That would give the committee only about a month in which to consider the matter, and this would lead the natives to believe that the matter was not being considered sufficiently. We have already made one mistake in regard to legislation affecting natives—the most serious mistake the House has ever made, for in passing colour bar legislation we have done no good whatever. Harm has thus been done, and if it is possible to undo that harm by the appointment of a commission to go round the country, let us take that course. It is said we have the Native Affairs Commission, but it has happened that misunderstanding has followed the visits of the commission to native areas. Two members of the commission on one occasion visited Umtata. I was away at the time, but when I returned to Umtata the natives told me that my farm was going to be given back to them—

Eventually I understood that the commission told the natives that the European-owned farms were to be turned into a neutral or released area. It is impossible for three men, however willing, to gallop from one place to another and hold meetings with natives and tell them what Parliament intends to do in regard to native legislation. It will be necessary, if we wish to retain the confidence of the natives, that this body should go round and meet the natives in the different areas, in the Transvaal, Natal, and in the Transkei, and tell them what we desire as white men to do in this country; what our policy is. Ask them to co-operate with us, and they will do so. The great majority of the natives in this country are prepared to work and co-operate with us. A great mass of the Europeans pass their judgment on the native by what they see of him in the town. They hear or read about some agitator talking about driving the white man into the sea, and their opinions are formed on that. I want to remind the House that frequently the native who comes to the town is one who is semi-educated at one of these institutions, very frequently he is a teacher thrown out for immorality, and he comes down here to get into an office and escape hard work, and he becomes an agitator, he becomes detribalized and loses caste. These, unfortunately, are the natives whom people think are the real natives of the country, but they are not. The real native is the man on the land who has respect for the white man and wants to co-operate with us, and wants us to help him. If we are going to neglect the great masses in the country and put legislation through the House in the form suggested, namely, by a select committee meeting here and taking evidence, and by bringing two or three natives from the Transkei, the Transvaal and Natal, then saying that we have tested the feelings of the natives, all we shall succeed in doing will be to estrange the natives of the country. If they Prime Minister wants to get into touch with native opinion, who is he going to? Is he going to the Native Affairs Committee? He cannot go there. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) may be able to bring one or two natives from his district interested in native development, but as for the rest of the natives of the Transvaal, he cannot claim to be in touch with them. The Prime Minister knows the trouble he has had in the nomination of natives for the council in Pretoria. Many natives protested against certain nominees, and the protests were often made with good reason. That body sitting in Pretoria to deal with the native interests was not truly representative of all the natives of this country. If this commission which is suggested went right through the Union and visited different centres, say, Umtata and Butterworth, and round the territory generally, and let it be known it would remain there for two or three days, the natives would meet with their chiefs and headmen several days beforehand, and would nominate, say, five or ten men to come before the commission and place their views before it. They would know then that their views were being put before this House, and would be more satisfied. The Prime Minister will tell us that these Bills have been submitted to this council of 30 or 40 natives who sit in Pretoria, and that for three or four days they considered them. I defy any member in this House to go through these Bills in three or four days and make himself acquainted with them. I defy any member of the House to explain the Bills to the natives in two weeks. Continually new points are cropping up, and it would be impossible to do so. We know the Prime Minister means well by these Bills, and that he is trying his best to do his duty by the country, but I tell him, and the House, that if we adopt the same procedure as we did in the Colour Bar Bill of having a select committee where only a few natives wished to put their views forward, and they were refused, we are not going to get the co-operation, help and assistance we are justified in expecting and demanding from the native. We have some natives in favour of one or other of the Bills. In King William’s Town, I understand, a native got up at a meeting and said that the proposal of the Prime Minister that they should have seven representatives in Parliament should be accepted upon certain conditions. When they are willing to help him, why, by adopting this wrong procedure which the native neither understands nor appreciates, why endanger getting that sympathy and assistance which is a vital necessity if we want to carry through a real solution of the native problem in the country? If they Prime Minister persists in following that course, it will not be in the interests of the country, and I hope he will follow the suggestion of our leader to approach this matter from a non-party point of view, and it is only by appointing such a commission that it will give encouragement to the idea that the matter is being dealt with on a non-party basis. I appeal to the Prime Minister to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and let us approach the matter from the very outset in this way and show that we are anxious from to-day to work and co-operate together with the natives, to bring about a proper solution. I understand that the Bills are not to be discussed in detail at this stage, and I will therefore end by appealing to the House for a reasonable and calm consideration of the matter.

The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will have to modify his amendment slightly in order to make it acceptable. I think there should be inserted after “ discharged ” the words “ and the Bills withdrawn.”

Yes, all right. I move

I hope the Prime Minister will accept the suggestion of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I think he could give no surer test of his sincerity in the matter than that of sending the subject matter of the Bills to an independent tribunal, a commission appointed on the same lines as that of 1903 and 1905. The right hon. the Prime Minister has said these Bills have not hitherto been approached in a non-party manner. I am going to approach this matter in a non-party manner. But I am going to speak very strongly, because I feel strongly, and I hope that in expressing my opinions I will not be accused of party politics. The time has come for plain speaking. This is not an ordinary political question at all, though it goes to the political roots of the country; it is not an economic question in itself, although it may shatter our economic fabric; it is not a Union question in itself for it goes beyond the Union, it affects the whole of Africa. These Bills propose to introduce revolutionary changes into this country, and the future of civilization itself is at stake in what is being done. Never in the history of South Africa have we had to approach so momentous a question as we do to-day. The clashes of the white races in this country and the native wars in which we have been engaged were only milestones on the march of progress; but this is a march to the crossroads of the future and, according to the steps taken to-day, the destiny of southern Africa may be decided.

When the House adjourned I was trying to point out the revolutionary character of the legislation embodied in these Native Bills. I had laid great stress on the fact that we were approaching the crossroads with as little realization of what we were approaching, as many of those ancient armies that marched out in the deserts to the north, and were lost for ever. On this matter, history affords us not the slightest guidance for the future. Nowhere in history have these experiments, which are proposed to be conducted under these Bills, ever been carried out. The world knows from bitter experience that you cannot erect barriers against the course of evolution without those barriers being swept away by the flood of bitterness which will eventually ensue. That seems to me the great lesson throughout history which we are in danger of ignoring. Yet, in a matter involving the whole destiny of the white races of this country, we propose to send these Bills and the shaping of them to the tender mercies of a select committee drawn from members of this House. Who is there amongst any of us in this House who dares to take it upon himself to cast the dice of destiny in a select committee? In challenging the suitability of any of the hon. members of this House to sit in judgment on this legislation, I am not reflecting in the slightest degree upon their ability to represent their constituents and the best interests of the country, but I am going to challenge the right of any hon. members of this House to sit in judgment on the future in this matter. I say there is not sufficient information at the disposal of members, we have not the qualification to judge the matter. First, I would ask what are the qualifications required to sit in judgment upon these Bills? What is the first qualification which any member going on to a select committee such as this must have? The first qualification is a realization and a knowledge of the goal which this legislation is aiming at. Is there any hon. member of this House who can say that he knows the goal of this legislation? I defy any hon. member, even the Prime Minister himself, to state in plain and unequivocal terms, which can be understood by the ordinary man, where this legislation is going, and the objective which is being aimed at.

Then we must not tackle it at all?

It is all mystery, like a mirage of the desert. If there is, perhaps, some dim realization in the minds of some hon. members where we are going in this legislation, and the objective we are aiming at, then I ask them—can they, in the light of the history of the last 20 years, with the upheaval of the world in all directions, say what kind of country we are going to pass through here in the next 20 years. A Napoleon’s march to Moscow—that is what it may all end in.

Don’t talk about Moscow.

I am talking about the Moscow of the olden days, not to-day. I say that every member sitting on that select committee on these Bills must have a very clear idea of the objective that is being aimed at. The second qualification for such a member of a select committee is a knowledge of the psychology of the native, to consider only the majority side of the proposed select committee. I ask how many hon. members sitting on those benches know anything whatsoever about the natives. With few exceptions from the North and Eastern Transvaal, all the members on that side of the House, and on the Labour benches, are drawn from that area of the country where there are no natives, except native employees, and where there are no native locations. If a line is drawn from Port Elizabeth north, round the western slopes of the Drakensberg, skirting round the north of Pretoria to Rustenburg, you have on the north and east of that line all the native territories of the country. The hon. members on that side are nearly all drawn from within that circle. They are representing constituencies where there are no natives, except as employees, and they are going to form the majority of the members of the select committee. The call for this legislation does not come from the east, where the natives lie, but from the deserts of the west, which my hon. friends represent. It comes from the cities, from the centres of European population, where your professors in carpet slippers are writing gaily and daily about the native question. It comes from the lawyer whose daily study in the law courts and their daily interpretation of the written letter of the law gives them a pathetic belief in the immutability of Acts of Parliament. I say in all seriousness—I am not speaking from a party point of view—that the tremendous issue of deciding the fate of Africa may depend largely upon the majority of a committee drawn from hon. members on that side of the House who have obtained their knowledge of the natives from the native of the kitchen, or the native of the compound.

Do you get yours from Australia?

I got mine from governing natives up in the north. There was a time in the history of this country when the most bitter feeling in South Africa was engendered against Great Britain for its interference in the native affairs of South Africa, and South Africa was up against Downing Street. It is very strange how time brings its revenge, how the pendulum of time swings back to old policies which were thrown aside. We are now seeing old policies revived. We are seeing another Downing Street arise in Smithfield. We, in the east, are face to face with the real problems of Africa, living in the heart of the native problem and the Asiatic problem. My hon. friend, over in the corner, the other day called it—

If it is a “ coolie and native reserve,” it is the best judge of coolies and natives. The east is beginning to feel about this matter very much as South Africa used to feel about Downing Street. I say this is not a question for the Karroo and the Free State. It is a question for the east, for those centres where the native populations live. We refuse to have our future and the future of our children imperilled by the ignorance which springs from the Karroo and the western Free State. I state honestly, and I state what I believe, that I doubt If there is a sufficient body of men in this House who have a sufficient knowledge of the psychology of the native to deal with these problems. Hon. members are inclined to jeer at this matter, but let me tell them they are living on the slopes of a volcano.

You are trying to put fire to it.

I am trying to wake hon. members opposite to the necessity of adopting the recommendation put forward by my leader. There is a third requisite in a member of this select committee, and it is administrative experience of the natives. How many hon. members have had that experience? Without that knowledge, without that experience, without knowledge of native custom and native law, and native psychology, it would be impossible for any select committee to arrive at a reasoned judgment. Sitting behind me is a late secretary of Native Affairs in the Transvaal who spent years in the administration of the natives. Let me point to a fourth qualification. It is a necessary knowledge of the conditions of Africa, the conditions which are obtaining elsewhere, the evolution that is going on elsewhere, and the tendencies which are being set in motion there. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) could tell the House how much money is being poured to-day into the Congo, how the natives of the Congo are today becoming our engine drivers, clerks, budding lawyers and other qualified professional men. The Minister of Defence laughs. It is very amusing to him; he is accustomed to do an egg dance round a volcano. I would point, too, to the amalgamation which is being attempted between the administrations of Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Tanganyika, and Kenya. The British Government is finding it necessary to bring about co-operation between all those states. When the Native Affairs Commission, the best commission ever established in this country, toured the country in 1903-’05, it did not limit its attention to the Union. It went up to the north and enquired into the conditions there. Is anybody unwise enough at this juncture to think that what is happening outside the Union is not going to touch us and touch us very vitally? You might as well say that China is unaffected by the revolution in Russia. Or that the fire in the Balkans had no affect upon Europe. This part of the Continent is going to be as much affected by what occurs beyond our borders as by what occurs inside our borders. The natives in the north belong to the same race, have much the same traditions, speak the same language and have the same aspirations as the natives in the Union. To pursue policies diametrically opposed to those going on elsewhere, is merely fatuous. I would also point out that the nations of the world having dominion in Africa have found it necessary to come to some kind of understanding regarding their policy in Africa in the treatment of the natives. Here in South Africa we completely ignore what is going on outside our border. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the British Government has been consulted as to the effect of this legislation upon Basutoland and other territories and whether Rhodesia has been consulted. So I say that some of the members sitting on this commission, in order to discuss the matter from all its aspects and to do justice to it for the future of South Africa ought to have a very sound knowledge of what is occurring beyond our borders. The fifth qualification they must have—and not the least —is a real understanding of the economic position of the natives in relation to Europeans. It is strange how utterly neglected this phase of the subject is. Yet the Economic Commission when it sat here drew attention to the inter dependence of the native upon the European and the European on the native, and one of its chief recommendations was that a survey of the economic position of the natives should be immediately conducted. Has that been carried out? And yet we propose to discuss legislation with this very important matter hidden entirely from us. We know, if we are honest enough to admit it, that every white man in this country lives upon the result of the work of the native. The whole production of this country is broad-based on the backs of the native population—450,000 natives living upon our farms producing our wealth in agriculture; 250,000 natives in our mines producing our wealth in minerals. We may obscure the issue as much as we like; we may talk about our white railway policy, but the goods carried on those railways are the products of native labour and but for that labour those goods would not be carried. We may go out among the ignorant people in the country and try to get their votes by obscuring the whole economic position, but in South Africa as in other countries the basis of production is your proletariat and the proletariat of this country is black. Politician or publican, lawyer or doctor, whether he is a tramway worker or a railway worker, he always comes down to ultimate resort to the products of native labour. He would be either out of employment or subsisting upon a much lower standard if it were not for the native. That is an indisputable fact. Our estimations of our national wealth are obscured by basing it upon the amount of wages received, yet we know in actual fact the wages white men are receiving are due to the low wages of natives. What effect is this legislation going to have on that position? Does any reasonable man contend that a Select Committee in two months is going to solve problems like this? It is too stupid for consideration. We talk about a white South Africa, but is there a farmer in this House who has studied for a few days the Drought Commission’s report who can say that South Africa is an agricultural country in the face of that report? And yet cur chief wealth is produced from agriculture, and that wealth is produced because there are 450,000 natives on the farms. We have revolutions on the Rand because a few white men are thrown out of employment. Yet everybody in this House knows that it is the 250,000 natives on our mines which provide the wages for the Europeans. Come down to honest facts. When those smokescreens are blown away, and by this legislation we have undermined the position of the white man in this country, it will not serve then to say that we were misinformed. There is nothing more dangerous than to leave the decision of such important matters as these to the tender mercies of a select committee. There is a further consideration. I say, and I think hon. members in their hearts agree with me, that it is perfectly impossible to approach this subject unbiassed by political considerations. What happens? A select committee is appointed and it sits round a table in a committee room. On one side of the chairman will sit certain members of the Government, and on the other side certain members of the Opposition, and this is a Government measure to be put through according to the ideas of the Government. We know that the individual conviction of the members of the committee will never have full play.

When your commission reports, will you all be unanimous?

I do think we could get in this country a body of men on a commission who would not be ruled by the political ideas by which we are ruled. I ask the Prime Minister whether he would impeach the Native Affairs Commission which sat in 1903-’05 of having any political bias, and if it is not possible now to get men of the same calibre?

Would you accept their verdict?

Did you accept the verdict in 1903-’05? Your whole native policy has been founded upon that. The Minister of Defence comes from centres of population, and he labours these theoretical ideas, and has no contact with the real facts of existence in this country. What is necessary for a commission of this kind is first of all an economic survey of the native position in this country and of the interdependence of the European and the native, such as has been suggested by the Economic Commission’s report. Another necessary investigation, probably in collaboration with other Governments, is to find out what is happening elsewhere, what native policies are being adopted, and how they are going to impinge on our own. In full view of all these facts it might be possible to arrive at a solution of our difficulties which is not possible otherwise. If we are going to legislate merely from the white point of view, without any regard for what is going on up in the native territories, or without regard for what is happening in our economic sphere, we are only going to end in ruin. Personally I feel there is no need for this legislation. There seems to be an extraordinary itch among certain sections of people to be always legislating. What is necessary to my mind is greater and better administrative action. What is wrong in this country is the chaos in the administration, the impunity with which white and black are allowed to go out and stir up trouble. Trouble arises from the rank sedition that is allowed to be preached at the street corners. What has happened? Owing to our political conceptions of freedom in a country in which we rule by aristocratic might, yet in a country where aristocracy and democracy are constantly at war, our Native Administration has become weak-kneed, brow beaten by politicians, and it has lost all the spirit which it had before and all the purpose which enlightened its actions. There is no native question in Natal. The native question is in the Karroo—where there aren’t any. Natal is not asking for these Bills; there is no demand for them in the East at all, but there is a very strong demand indeed that there should be more effective native administration and that the native administration should be imbued with a better understanding of the relations which should exist between black and white. Natal does not want the native parliament which is going to be set up by these Bills. It does not want this native council; it knows what the end is going to be. If we create an institution it must do one of two things—it must either die or grow; it cannot remain still. Nothing living remains still. If you are going to create a native council it will grow, and will seek for power and come constantly into collision with this Parliament of the Union. What will be the ultimate result? Let us face the issue. The result of this native council will be the welding of the natives together into one common bond, a welding of the native proletariat. We propose to send to this Parliament white men to represent the interests of this native council. There will be a constant agitation in this House on behalf of the disgruntled section of the natives, and a constant bombarding of the Minister of Native Affairs with questions designed to advertize alleged dissatisfaction until the administration of native affairs becomes absolutely timid. It is analogous to our planting a powder magazine in the reserves and allowing a fuse to be applied by the native council, and allowing their representatives to come to the House to apply the match. The result I need not dwell upon. Take the Native Land Bill. Upon whose authority is it said that the native land reserves are inadequate? Has the rainfall and the fertility of the soil been considered in their effects upon this question? No, it is all a question of politics. We know that the delimitations were made without any regard to economic considerations. One acre in one place may be worth one thousand acres elsewhere. If we were sincerely desirous of uplifting the native and furthering his interests and his evolution on the best lines, instead of dabbling with native politics, and instead of using the native politician, we should be cultivating the native reserves, seeing proper methods of agriculture carried out, enabling the native to develop his own wealth of agriculture. There is not the slightest need for this legislation. The goal, to me, is uncertain. The road is very difficult indeed to follow, and the dangers, to me, are very apparent on every side. But whatever our opinion may be on the wisdom or otherwise of the legislation, there can be no shadow of doubt on the mind of any unbiassed man, that no Select Committee can be competent to deal with that matter. It requires a mind divorced from politics. I give all honour to the Prime Minister for his work and interest in the matter, and I do not for the slightest moment question his sincerity, nor do I question that of hon. members opposite in approaching these questions, but I want to put in plain outspoken words, so that I cannot be accused of desiring to gloss over things, what is felt in many parts of the East regarding this matter. The Prime Minister would be doing justice to himself and putting his sincerity to the greatest test if he would allow this matter to be discussed by some impartial body which he would allow to be set up. I have not wanted, and it is not my purpose, to try to raise any political issue. This is so important a matter and so fundamental to our existence that I have felt it necessary to speak my dearest convictions, without regard to party or persons.

I have listened very attentively to the hon. member who has just sat down, and I was glad to hear that he wanted to speak very frankly about the matter, because he considered it so important and far reaching. I must honestly say that the hon. member did not speak very frankly. He did possibly speak very loudly and told some stories to frighten people, but he got no further.

Look outside.

Is the hon. member already frightened of them? I have no need to look outside. After listening to the speech of the hon. member, I have had enough to frighten me for a few years, i.e., if I am to believe everything that he said. I expected the hon. member to support the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. He has actually not done so, but tells us, just as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) did everywhere on the countryside, that we must remain quite quiet, inasmuch as the question is insoluble. This does not annoy me very much, but what annoys me is the impudence of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). He was not born here and was, I believe, well on in years when he came here, and saw the first native. Now he comes and tells us, sons of the soil, the sons of the old voortrekkers, who from our childhood have had to deal with natives that we cannot solve the question, that we know nothing about it, but he, the stranger, will tell us how to solve it. I do not wish to say anything about Australia because it will possibly be connected with another matter. He does not believe that the hon. member had any share in the solution of the Australian native question, but the impudence of people who know very little about the question wanting to tell us what to do is too much. The hon. member wants to state that we on this side of the House know nothing about it, we who as farmers not only from our childhood have had to do with them, but still come into contact with them daily, not only on our farms, but in all parts of the Union, know nothing about the natives, but that the Opposition who for the most part consist of members from the large towns are the only people who know anything of the native question in our country. They take up the attitude of the leader of the Opposition, and say that the question is insoluble, and that we must leave it alone. I hope the Minister of Native Affairs will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton. The Minister was for a short while out of the country, and possibly does not know what took place here. I know that the Prime Minister is an optimist, but I did not know that he was such a big optimist as still to expect that the Opposition would treat the question as a national problem, and would not make a party question of it, this while the leader of the Opposition is trying to arouse suspicion among the natives all the time. The leader of the Opposition tried at the congress of his party in the Transvaal to induce them to make a party matter of it, and I think he also succeeded in having his memorandum approved, but in the Free State he did not have that success. I did not for a moment expect that the leader of the Opposition would treat the matter as a national one, because recently he has tried to make political capital out of everything. I am glad that he is taking up this attitude. He has made it clear that any problem, howsoever important, can be turned into a party question. I am glad because the people can now at least see what they may expect from the leader of the Opposition. I also know him well enough to know that he will continue to go along the way he has taken. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) pointed out that we should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton, because we should get non-Parliamentarians who were well acquainted with the native question, and who have not yet taken part in party politics. I do not know of any such people. There is no man of importance who has not yet expressed his view on this question. Anyone who has not yet done so is not of sufficient weight to be of use to the select committee. Then the hon. member said that we must not make the same mistake as in the case of the colour bar Act. Was that a mistake? I never thought so, and the large majority of the people, and even a large number of natives never thought so. Only the hon. member for Standerton and a small number of his followers in the Cape Province—not in the Transvaal—have done their utmost to stir up the natives against this legislation, but it was a hopeless failure, We also hear that there is too much work for a Select Committee to be able to do it. That we otherwise do not hear. We usually hear that the Government does nothing to keep its promises, but when it suits their book they talk about too much work. We are not complaining, and the Opposition works much less, and I hope the Minister of Native Affairs will persist with the legislation. It is years in arrear and every year the matter becomes more difficult. I hope, however, that the Prime Minister will be steadfast.

The Prime Minister is entitled to very much credit for his courage in attacking these native questions, for a marked tendency in times past has been to avoid a careful consideration of these matters or If they question became too obtrusive to evade its issue. I am glad one at least has formulated certain policies. Whatever they are they are certainly open to a great deal of amendment. A question of this magnitude and vital importance ought to be discussed on every side of the House with a perfect absence of party spirit. We have already this evening heard remarkable ebullitions of party feeling. I am not pledged to party but to my own conscience to abstain from party politics in a less question of this sort, and no party machinery will keep me quiet. Unless we approach this supreme question with absence from party politics we are face to face with disaster in the near future. We ought to put away what lies latent in many thoughts—the unworthy element of fear—in attempting to discuss the native question. People tell us that there is a vast increase of the native population as compared with the European population. I belong to a race, and members not of my race on the other side of the House belong to a people who have faced and discharged great colonizing missions without respecting the disparity of numbers.

In China?

Will you go to China? In what are called the Dutch East Indies is an enormous native population, but I have yet to learn that Dutch colonizers have failed. While in India or elsewhere we, the British, carry an enormous burden without fear of disparity of numbers. Why should we fear in South Africa? If we hold in sacred trust, not only the material forces, but the greater things, the spiritual forces of civilization, we ought not to fear disparity of numbers, nor must we attempt a policy of suppression—that would be disastrous to us but not to the native people. What we need in our approach to the native question is a policy of goodwill and cooperation. It has been my privilege to live for years in the native territories. I know the natives’ value, their respect for the law, and how in a time of crisis not so many years ago the whole of the native territories were denuded of European mounted police, but still the natives kept the law and gave no trouble. They are a law-abiding people responsive to good government and a friendly touch and we shall manage them if we recognize and treat them as men and not as chattels. I appeal to the Prime Minister to listen to the pleas made to him and not to attempt, in the expiring weeks of the session, to force through the House the vast content of these Bills by sending them to a select committee. Do let us take time over the matter and send the Bills to a carefully selected commission. I don’t share the fears of my colleague from Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). I believe there are many members in this House willing to do their part and that applies to both sides. Nor do I agree with the hon. member for Tembuland that we should have a native sub-commission. No, it is our responsibility here in Parliament; we don’t need to devolve that responsibility upon anyone. We in Parliament are the microcosm of the whole Union. It is our duty to make laws and to keep in touch with those who send us to this place. They look to us for guidance and example, and we may not shirk our duty by attempting to impose on those outside the duty of a commission to inquire into matters of this sort. Let us do our duty and give the utmost possible time, thought and attention to the vast problems linked up with these Bills. We have in this Union a Native Affairs Commission that, theoretically, has been from the beginning composed of experts on the native question. There may have been instances when the assumption underlying the appointment of them as experts and men fitted to guide the Government has been questioned. Have the members of the Native Affairs Commission been directly and definitely approached on the content of these Bills and do they give it their approval? Another question is what about that magnificent magisterial service we have, what about those men—a credit and a glory to any civilized country—the chief magistrates of the native territories, men who have spent all their lifetime among natives and to the study of native affairs and to the proper administration of laws amongst these people. Have they been approached with a direct request to give their unbiassed opinion on the Bills? I appeal to the Prime Minister to accede to the recommendation from this side of the House, but none the worse for that, to give the most careful attention to the urgent request that this matter go to the care and ripe experience of a carefully chosen commission.

I listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider), especially after the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). We all know that the latter holds himself out as an expert on native affairs, and I admit that to a certain extent he is. An expert, however, always gives the other man a chance of thinking that he also knows something, and not the expert alone. If it is as stated by the hon. member for Zululand, who argued from the standpoint that this side of the House knew nothing about the matter and sat here like baboons, then no progress would be made. Therefore I am much surprised at the speech of the hon. member for East London (City) although he possibly is not an expert. In support of the amendment that the Bill should be referred to a commission rather than to a select committee, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) used an argument which contained a great deal of truth. He said that it is already late in the session, and that the House still had much work to do, and that the Bills would not be able to be completed by the select committee. I admit that the handling of the Bills will give much hard work and that the committee will have to sit a long time, but there is a precedent that where a select committee cannot finish, the work can be gone on with. I want to tell the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that it is unnecessary to travel about the whole country to go into the matter. The hon. member for Zululand said that the commission of 1903 was the kind that we ought to have. I have the report of the commission here, and I recommend hon. members to read it, because there is not a subject introduced into the Bills which was not thoroughly investigated by the commission, and reported upon.

That is 22 years ago.

That is true, but the hon. member said that the right kind of people, unprejudiced and competent, who were not politicians, had served on the commission. The report of 22 years ago still represents today to a great extent, the position in the country. It is said in the report that squatting is an evil, and that it is against the best interests of the country, and when there is a question of natives being represented in the legislature of the country, it is said that no native ought to vote for any candidate for whom the European has the right to vote. The report contains the crux of the whole matter, and hon. members ought to study it thoroughly. The hon. member for Tembuland said that the commission should go round again and have meetings with the natives, and he wanted to make out that the Native Affairs Commission, of which I am a member, had not done its work well. He says that he came to Umtata and that a native said to him that the Commission had informed them that all the farms in the neighbourhood would belong to them. The hon. member made a weak speech, and was quite unconvincing, and I have come to the conclusion that he was not speaking from conviction. One can send hundreds of commissions through the country, and then you will still find natives after the meeting who will not know what they have been told. That is the kind of native which the hon. member for Tembuland probably met. When we travelled through the country we found that the educated natives were better acquainted with this legislation than the Europeans. They knew the clauses practically by heart, although they possibly misinterpreted certain parts. Even the question which the advocates have discussed this afternoon was laid before us, and we were asked what was going to be done in that connection. We took the greatest pains in explaining the Bills, and had maps indicating the native areas and the released areas, and it cannot be said that the natives did not understand the matter. They have decided opinions and gave expression to them. With regard to this Bill on union native councils, it can be taken that the natives throughout the Union are in favour of it. There are minor matters which they do not like, and one of them is that the Bills are inter-dependent. You can quite understand that because they want the portion which they approve of to be passed. As for the Bill on native lands, the natives in the Transvaal are in favour of it, because they feel that they will get more. The Free State natives are to a certain extent satisfied although they say that they are not getting enough ground. The natives in Natal are also satisfied to a certain extent, but they want certain amendments. It is only the natives in the Cape Province who do not want it. They have the free right to-day of buying ground, but they are suffering from the inconvenience that only one man can live on it, and that he cannot have more natives with him because it is against the provisions of the Locations Act in the Cape. The natives in the Transvaal said that they like the Bill, because they will get more land under it, but that they do not know what their Cape friends will say about it. Resolutions were passed by natives in the far north of the Transvaal, in Zoutpansberg, which were identical with those in the Eastern Province, viz., that they did not want the native franchise. They did not want to accept it if it would injure their brothers in the Cape. They could not be got away from that attitude, and there was not a concession which we could make with reference to the franchise except that three natives were to be permitted to sit in the House of Assembly. The natives met on the invitation of the Dutch Reformed Church and discussed the Bill for three days. Resolutions were passed and recorded. At the meeting which the Native Affairs Commission held, minutes were kept, and the resolution sent to the Prime Minister. They will be available to the select committee. Then one of the bodies which takes the most interest in the welfare of the natives adopted the so-called board of black and white associations, and passed resolutions and issued brochures. Then a conference was held in Cape Town by the Dutch Reformed Church at which representatives from all the churches, and leading natives, were present. Resolutions were passed, recorded and sent forward, and they can all be laid before the select committee. I do not wish to say that the committee cannot take further evidence. With reference to the land question, this is a matter which was dealt with in 1917. It is on record, and at that time the whole matter was gone into. There was the Beaumont Commission and thereafter the local committees which were sent out and made reports. It is said that this is not a political matter, but we, as representatives of the people, must solve the matter and ought not to delegate it to people outside the House. It has become a political problem, and we should as political parties try to come together and to find a solution by mutual concessions. Otherwise our attempts will be a failure and we shall remain where we are. The hon. member for Zululand asked if we knew what the consequences would be if we proceeded with this legislation. He says that we do not know, but we must surely act according to the best of our ability. I want to ask the hon. member what the position would be if we do not go on with the Bills? Must we allow things to slide and neglect the native question? I do not want to represent myself as an expert, but as an ordinary man, I want to use my sound commonsense in connection with the question to the best of my ability. It is becoming daily more difficult for the Europeans and for the natives to find a solution. In 1917 a portion of the problem was for months before the House, and we Nationalists assisted the hon. member for Standerton, and the late Gen. Botha, to get the second reading passed. We still remember the shouting of the Unionists that fever districts fit for baboons where no one could live were being given to the natives, and at that time the conditions offered to the natives were better than they possibly are today. The same fever area and “ baboon ” country has since That time been granted by the Department of Lands to settlers from overseas and from South Africa, and the ground cannot any longer be obtained for the natives on the same conditions. If we put off the matter any longer we shall make the question still more difficult. I want to appeal to the hon. member for Standerton if he, and his party, cannot work with us and meet us, to say so frankly, so that we can know where we are. He must not, however, postpone the matter indefinitely. It seems to me the Opposition’s difficulty is that it does want to postpone the matter indefinitely. I hope that I am wrong and if I am wrong I hope that he will be ready to allow the matter to go to a select committee. I consider that when such important Bills have to be dealt with, then the man who introduces them, and the hon. member for Standerton should both have an opportunity of serving on the body that deals with them. If they matter is not referred to a select committee, it might happen that the Prime Minister, and the leader of the Opposition, would not be able to serve on the body. I regard it as our duty as representatives of the people, to find a solution. We cannot delegate it to the judgment of people outside and leave it to the views of the natives. They can be consulted about minor matters, but on the large questions we must take the responsibility, and try to find a solution to the best of our ability. I hope the hon. member for Standerton will not press his amendment, but will be prepared to accept the motion of the Prime Minister.

I rise to suggest that the House would be grateful to the Prime Minister if he would give us a more extended statement of his own views on this subject. I realize he need not necessarily do so, but we have been anxiously waiting a statement of the policy of the Prime Minister for three years, and we can honestly say that in the heat of party warfare, and polemics, we have never doubted the Prime Minister’s sincerity when dealing with this matter, but we cannot say what the position is unless we have a statement from the Prime Minister himself. The natives themselves will say that it is a hole-in-the-corner affair, and that they have no idea as to what is the policy of the Government. We do not know exactly to-day what the Prime Minister’s native policy is, and he has never given a statement.

Have you not read the Bill?

The Bills do not give the House the Government’s policy on the question, and we will take it as a privilege if they Prime Minister will give us briefly his ideas on the subject. We have read the Bills, but nevertheless, I myself, and I think the bulk of the public, are in the dark. It is a curious thing that no single member of the other side has attempted to give an explanation of these Bills to the public. We have all read these Bills, but surely there is something more than reading the Bills. The fact does remain that we are still completely in the dark as to the Prime Minister’s real goal. What is he aiming at? Is he aiming at ultimate geographical or territorial segregation only, or is his ultimate aim industrial segregation, too? We do not know, and we would like the Prime Minister to tell us exactly whither he is tending. I think before an important matter like this, a matter of national importance, goes to a select committee, the public should be enlightened. I do not think a single member on the other side of the House or a single member on this side has a real inkling as to what the Prime Minister’s policy is. We give him full credit for his sincerity and his courage in tackling this matter, but it is not merely enough to put Bills on the Table of the House and say—

It is of great importance to the country to know exactly whither the Prime Minister is tending with these Bills, what exactly is the policy of the Government. The Bills do not set out what the Government’s policy is on this important question. That being the case, I would like to appeal to the Prime Minister, in replying on this debate, to give us briefly a statement as to what his policy is on the subject.

One must really be astonished at the hon. member who has just spoken. He wants the Prime Minister to explain his policy with reference to the native question. He admits having read the four Bills, but he says that they do not contain the policy. It must therefore be mentioned in the Bills that the policy is so and so. The hon. member appears to want each clause to say what the policy of it is. It is strange that all the S.A.P. congresses have passed resolutions and decided against the Bills and disapproved of their policy. The hon. member for Standerton (General Smuts) issued a memorandum in which the whole policy was gone into and condemned, and now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) asks what the policy is. One cannot reason with such people. We always listen with pleasure to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) when he talks about protection on which he agrees with us, or on the sugar industry, but to-night he has held himself up as a great authority on native affairs, but I must say that I have seldom listened to greater nonsense. One of his chief points is that the Opposition has received the great gift of alone being able to judge about the native question. He has repeatedly said that we know nothing about it. We have grown up with the natives, but, according to him, we know nothing of the psychology of the natives and nothing of the native question. Only those in Natal know it. Is there not a large native population in the Transvaal? Was there not a tremendously large population in the Transvaal when the voortrekkers arrived there? They were a little handful of people, and in the Transvaal they settled matters better than ever was done in Natal. And what about the Free State? Did not the natives progress there and become strong out of the little republic? If they hon. member does know the history of South Africa, does he not know Moshesh, who created the great Basuto nation in the Free State under the eyes of the farmers, and that they lived on a friendly footing with each other, so that during the second war of independence, a large number of the Basutos took the side of the boers. These people understood the native policy, but the hon. member comes and considers that we know nothing about it. I learn that the hon. member was born in Australia. We say nothing about that, but we say that he must not tell us what to do.

He was not born in Australia. He was born in England.

Then I say that a person born in England must not tell us what to do. In Natal they have so muddled matters that they are sorry to-day and are shouting to be released from the Asiatics. If they were so far-seeing regarding the aborigines, why did they exhibit so little vision with reference to the Asiatic question? They introduced a plague into the country under which generations and generations will still suffer. Now hon. members say that it is impossible for the select committee to do the work in a few months. The native question was put in the foreground to the population at the last election. The Opposition then tried to make political capital out of it, and the manifesto of the hon. member for Standerton spoke disparagingly of the native policy of Gen. Hertzog. Moreover, during recent years the matter has been constantly under the notice of the people. The Bills were brought in last year, and have been considered for a whole year by the whole country. Almost every congress and meeting has expressed its opinion on them, and now it is said that we cannot decide on them in a short time. The hon. members argue that we ought just to do nothing. They say we are sitting on a volcano. Must we then remain sitting on it? Or should we take our hands out of our sleeves and see that we get away from the volcano. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) himself said that to sit still longer would be fatal. We cannot follow a policy of laisser faire any longer. I consider that the matter has been sufficiently long before the people, and that it demands solution. A select committee will be able to conclude the matter, and I hope that next year we shall be able to finally dispose of the question.

I am very pleased indeed that a Prime Minister in this country has at last tried to solve this great question. It is true the Bills are not perfect and can be amended, and I hope they will be, but at least they embody a principle, and we, I believe, as representing the people of South Africa, should assist the Prime Minister in these amended Bills and passing them through the House.

What is the principle?

The principle is not the principle that has been carried out by previous Ministers. It is a principle trying to solve the native question, by giving to the natives power to govern themselves and develop themselves on their own lines. In the past South Africa has been following the principle of least resistance, what other nations and empires have done previously. They have stolen natives’ land, they have driven them into industrial centres. Hon. members will see If they study a map of the Transkei that it is marked like a chess board. White areas and black areas. Is it in the interests of the natives and the Europeans to have the Transkei black and white settlements, white settlements and black settlements alongside each other? No one can foresee what will happen. We have got to take a lesson from history. It is not fear of the natives that Europeans feel, but it is the fear of what has happened before, where a subject race has been exploited by a more civilized race and has been practically driven into the workshops and onto the farms to produce the necessities of that higher civilization, with the result that where the higher civilization has refused to function and to use its initiative and creative faculty it has not only lost that creative and initiative faculty, but it has developed in the subject race that faculty, and we find that history tells us that where a subject race has been exploited, as we have been exploiting the natives in this country by forcing them into the industrial centres and onto the land, it will mean the destruction of the civilized race, but it will mean the degeneration of the race to which we belong. The time has come when the native should not be exploited; the natives should be allowed to govern themselves; they should also be given the land which legitimately belongs to them. They should be allowed, through their native councils, to develop on their own lines.

What about our votes?

The hon. member who has spoken is returned to this House by the native votes in his constituency. I have 900 native voters in my area, but not above 50 of those voted for me. The press of this country is powerful, and the result is they are content to be exploited by that class and that party which have been exploiting them since Union. We know that in the Cape Peninsula alone we have over 15,000 natives. They are not here because they desire to be here, but owing to the land laws of this country they are being driven from the land to the industrial centres. I hope and trust that when these Bills are passed the natives will return to the land, and also utilize the taxes for their own development. Given an opportunity to develop, not only from an educational point of view, but from an industrial point of view, they will not only be a credit to themselves but to us. I do want this House to take a lesson from history. The history of the Babylonian and the Roman empires shows that they were overcome by their own slaves. In a generation or two the time came when the lower civilization, through its initiative and creative faculty being developed, overcame the higher civilization, and I do not doubt this civilization of ours will be overcome in the same way. We do not know what is going to happen in the future, but we do know what has happened to the nations before. I want hon. members to remember that if we do not take a lesson from the fate of other nations we shall be destroyed in a like manner.

I do not want to give voice to any views on the native question, but I would like to put one point before the Prime Minister. We seem to be all agreed that this native question is to be looked at from a non-party point of view, and we want to get the best possible committee to deal with this. This legislation in the last resort will have to be, in part, at any rate, passed by both Houses sitting together. It will obviously be impossible for the other House to set up a committee of this nature, seeing that they have adjourned until some time in May, and unless we have a committee that would, at any rate, include members of the other place, we should be deprived of the wisdom of members of the other place, and seeing we have four members there who are specially appointed for their knowledge and acquaintance with native affairs it would seem to stand to reason that it would be a very great help to this House to have the advantage of the presence on the committee of some members of the other House. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr: Rider) has said we must not shirk the responsibility—the responsibility is ours—but it is also the responsibility of members of the other House, and surely it would be wise to have a committee that could include members of the other House. I hope, therefore, that at any rate to that extent the Prime Minister will be prepared to accept the very reasonable proposal put forward by my right hon. friend.

I wish to respond to the Prime Minister’s appeal to observe a non-party attitude on this question. I must say, with regard to my colleague the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), although he spoke vigorously, as is his wont, clearly and distinctly on these matters I found nothing in what he said that one could attribute to any party spirit, and I do maintain that it was wholly unfair for some subsequent speakers to attribute to him the attitude which they have assumed he had taken up. For example, the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) suggested that the hon. member for Zululand hailed from Australia, and that he was speaking to us out of the wealth of his ignorance, Australia having no problems of importance with regard to natives. He was followed by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) who imitated his colleague in his reference to the hon. member for Zululand. Perhaps it is as well to say once and for all that the hon. member for Zululand does not come from Australia.

What if he did—it is not a crime.

I am not disparaging it, though one of the hon. members on the other side recently linked up Australian origin with criminality. The hon. member for Zululand has had wide experience in regard to native matters, and in speaking as he did he was perfectly well entitled to do so, as he has had experience, not only in Africa as a Native Administrator, but in New Guinea as a magistrate amongst people who are in a similar position to that of our own natives. Instead of the hon. member’s views being disparaged, they should have been welcomed and received with respect by the other side, as I am sure they will be throughout the whole of the country. The policy outlined in the Bill, if adopted, will mark a new epoch in native government in this country, an epoch not necessarily less important in its influence on the inhabitants of the Union than the establishment of the Union itself. It is very desirable, to my mind, from every point of view, especially that of the future good government of the country, that such far-reaching decisions as are bound up in the Bills which are before us should not be embarked upon without our inviting the same measure of public consultation and public deliberation as we sought for the Act of Union itself. The aim of the Prime Minister’s proposed legislation, as I understand it, is to remedy some of the defects of the native policies of the past. If from the present point of our history we look back so as to visualize the outlines and not the details of our native policy in South Africa, we shall find two outstanding native policies that have had their vogue in South Africa; that of Sir George Grey in the Cape, and that of Sir Theophilus Shepstone in Natal and the Transvaal—each acceptable in the territory in which it has been in force, but in many respects divergent in aim and producing widely different results. Sir George Grey broke down the power of the chiefs by purchasing from them by monthly stipends, the right of inflicting fines and punishments, and introducing European magistrates in their stead. He abolished native law, and substituted individual for tribal tenure. That was a wide range of policy which has been inherited by succeeding Governments for more than two generations. One of our historians writes—

The policy of Sir Theophilus Shepstone aimed at the vesting of large areas in the crown for the communal use of the natives and utilizing the authority of the native chiefs for the government of the people. He also applied native law as the best and most acceptable means of ruling the natives, leaving the progress of the native people to an evolutionary and educational progress of a gradual kind. The policy of the Cape, conditioned by too bookish a system of education, has resulted in the early enfranchisement of the natives, and has set the trend of the native idea towards the existing system of democratic Government. The Natal and Transvaal policy has more slowly developed the native as a member of a tribal community, with little or no aspiration to political influence That latter policy covers a wide range of human relationships in the provinces concerned. The Prime Minister will find on closer acquaintance with the feelings of the people in those provinces that they are challenging the introduction of a policy which aims at doing away with this wide range of relationships. The policy of the Prime Minister, as I understand it, places in the forefront the need for regulating native franchise throughout the Union. On the grand scale it may be said he aims at abolishing the general native franchise in the Cape Province and substituting for it the right of the natives to elect two European representatives to this House for each Province, with the exception of the Orange Free State, where only one European representative is to be elected by the natives. This proposal, however indirect the exercise of the native franchise may be in its earlier application, implies to the mind of those who best understand the backward native, that the large mass of natives, untouched by political influences, are to be dragged into the sphere of politics. This means that their half century of development under the tribal system—indeed, the tribal system itself will be brought to an untimely end! On this point—and on the Prime Minister’s land proposals—his policy has met with open challenge by the public of the three province mainly affected. And this is the quarter from which the proposal of a national convention or a commission somewhat different from the stereotyped and accepted parliamentary method of dealing with this matter will find most support. Where Parliament is engaged as in this instance in extending the sphere of politics, Parliament will be regarded as “ suspect.” We must consider the public at large, which will desire, and if it could would insist, on having its views given weight in the determination of this matter. We are all of us looked upon as people who are here to grind our own political axe, who would not be loth to see the sphere of politics extended to the natives if that step would give us political gam. I should regret anything which would speed up the individualism of the native and which would democratize the native—that I should regard as an unmitigated evil, and many people share that opinion. They feel that one of the greatest evils would be the introduction of politics to the large mass of tribal natives in however mild a form. The Prime Minister would do well to take the country at large into his confidence in the form in which our leader has proposed. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) has spoken of the attitude of the natives at public meetings towards the Prime Minister’s proposals, but there is no-one more deceptive than the native who speaks at public meetings. There is no-one more calculated to mislead and to conceal his real ideas than the man who is speaking to the gallery and whose whole aim for the moment is to please the people he has come to meet. I think the large class of natives who live under tribal rule would regard the introduction of these proposals as being only one further element of disturbance in a reasonably settled mode of existence, and in no way would they welcome the proposal for their gradual introduction into the sphere of politics. The hon. member also quoted the recommendation of the Native Affairs Commission of 1902-’05 in favour of the representation of natives by the methods proposed in the Prime Minister’s Bill. These recommendations were made as the only possible alternatives to the representation of natives by the general franchise, which it is the Prime Minister’s aim to abolish. Many of us believe that many generations will pass, possibly hundreds of years, before the native, developed under the tribal system, will consider it desirable that he should be represented under our democratic institutions. The reason why the natives in the Cape Province have so rapidly imitated the European’s participation in democratic institutions has been the kind of education which has been imparted to them. A commission appointed by the Cape Province reported that—

That system of education also produces a crop of would-be politicians. The Phelps-Stokes Commission from America which studied educational methods throughout Africa, reported that—

There are a large number of us who maintain that the education and improvement of the native as a unit for community welfare are the direction in which the efforts of the Government should be applied. I am glad to see that the Cape policy has been largely adapted to the recommendations of the commission of which the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) was a member, and now aims at giving an education which does fit the native very much more than the former one did to become a useful member of his own community. Throughout the northern provinces and Natal the large majority of the people are opposed to our taking it for granted that the only solution of our future relationship with the natives is by means of the ballot box. The whole body of opinion in those provinces is opposed to the policy which is outlined in the representation of Natives Bill. We can be quite certain of one thing, and that is that the native question is not static. Conditions are constantly changing. Ten years ago I was a member of a commission to consider the needs of natives of Natal in regard to land for the ensuing ten years. I was a member of a commission which made the recommendations to that end. These recommendations were never adopted, and I am bound to confess that to-day those recommendations were probably unnecessary. Today again the Government takes the blue pencil to mark out large areas of land in Natal for native purchase, but the natives may not find that land necessary and may never require it. If their land is properly developed it is probable that not a single acre will be required, but the mere proposal has led to considerable speculation among European land speculators. That will be an unmitigated evil which will only help to impoverish the natives. I agree with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that we should do well to consult the wide body of opinion outside Parliament, to consult with our neighbours to the north, and I should like to invite some attention to the report of the East Africa Commission of 1925, which dealt very fully with questions of a cognate character in that part of the world. The whole aim of the commission that investigated the problem there was to consider measures which should be taken to accelerate the general economic development of British East African dependencies and the means of securing a closer co-ordination on policies of transport cotton growing, the control of human, animal and plant diseases, and steps dealing with the economic problems of the natives with regard to labour, the employment of women and children, etc. There are one or two phrases in this report which I should like to invite the Prime Minister to consider. It is stated in that report that—

It goes on to say that—

That is very true of our own natives, and it would be a mistake to imagine that one system would be generally acceptable to the natives in Africa who differ widely in the progress they have made. The same report states: “ The social and economic relations between the European, the Asiatic, and the African, the last in his immense variety, claimed the greater part of our attention.” A body of the kind suggested for the investigation of this present question can be of value to us if consulted on similar problems that we are called upon to deal with. The Prime Minister must surely realize that his proposal to release areas in Natal for sale to natives and the unrestricted purchase of land by Asiatics are questions that must be considered together because they are bound up with the future of the Europeans and are inseparable, and whatever Parliament does the people of Natal will consider that sufficient thought has not been given unless these two problems are considered in their relation to each other. As showing the interdependence of separate States in regard to matters of Native administration the East African commission dealt with the conditions in existence in which the Governor of Kenya was High Commissioner for the other dependencies, and in recommending the discontinuance of that appointment they suggested that there should be regular periodic conferences of Governors, and of the responsible officials of the various departments, and instanced that such conferences should deal with matters of common interest to the territories such as Native administration, taxation, land policy, labour, etc. There again we have an instance of the importance attached to the very problems we are considering to-day and it will be wise for us to take into consultation these neighbours in the afar north who are concerned and perplexed by the same problems as those of the Union. Coming nearer to our borders there is the province of Southern Rhodesia, which is considering native land policy, and recommending a policy very much in line with the one we are considering at the present moment. Throughout the whole report of the Southern Rhodesia Land Commission of 1925, there is abundant evidence of the thought and consideration that has been given to these problems and, to the same extent, of the doubt which assails the administrators there as to the course they should take. It seems to me that where we have so large a body of experienced administrators within hail, we should do well to consult with them and to adopt a policy that will be, in any case, a policy with a common objective, though not necessarily a uniform policy, a policy that will take proper cognisance of the differences of race, the differences of progress and the differences of outlook that undoubtedly exist among the Bantu natives of Africa. We can gain nothing but confidence and strength from consultations of that kind. I think those members of this House who were on the deputation to India will agree with me when I pay tribute to the work of administrators, judges and others, who have gone from the Union to assist in the task of administration in those northern dependencies, in the Kenya, Uganda and elsewhere. When we were at Mombasa the Governor of Kenya spoke in the highest terms of the assistance that had been rendered in particular by Mr. Felling in the sphere of railways, Mr. Justice Feethan as adviser on some of the native problems that troubled them there, and other experts who had been borrowed from the Union from time to time to assist in the great work of administration in those countries, and I think if we reciprocate and draw upon their experience and knowledge we shall have done right well and we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have explored the sources of wisdom and experience and that in any case we are within reasonable measure of being assured that we are making no mistakes and that we shall not have to reverse our policy. Among the many reasons that one can urge is the reason that the natives themselves would certainly have more confidence in the results of our efforts If they could be assured that the Prime Minister had made every possible endeavour to secure the best men available, not only in this country, but in the countries of our neighbours to the North, and that in deciding upon a policy we have taken into consideration the wealth of experience and knowledge not only of the administrators, the magistrates, native commissioners and those identified with native matters in this country, but we have also drawn upon the experience of those in the adjoining colony and the dependencies further north. There is no doubt that in Rhodesia a much closer study of native affairs has been encouraged than has been the rule in the Union. For some considerable time administrators and native commissioners have been encouraged to specialize on certain branches of native administration, and to write upon these questions, and prizes have been offered by the Administration for the best thought-out and the most useful contributions of this kind from their own Native Affairs Department. And we have there men who have served both in the Union and in Rhodesia. And the same holds good of two other territories, Tanganyika and Kenya. During the war a considerable number of South Africans who went there with the troops, remained there, and, with the permission of the then Prime Minister, who was Minister of Defence and of Native Affairs, they were allowed to take up appointments there, and as a result are to-day in the position of being very valuable witnesses who might be called to our aid to consider this question in its widest aspects. I hope the Minister will consider very carefully the representations that have been made to him, and will not regard this as purely a matter to be decided by a vote of a majority of Parliament. It is a matter that is engaging the attention of the Europeans throughout South Africa who regard their relationship towards the natives— their dependence on the natives, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls)—as matters that should not be rashly interfered with, and I hope that the Prime Minister will proceed with deliberation in this matter and take into consultation the various authorities I have indicated.

I think that all of us in the House appreciate the tremendous responsibility which rests on us in discussing this important problem. I hope that during the debate of the native question no party politics will be dragged in, because everyone in South Africa feels that a solution must be found. Deep down in my heart I feel that if they question is not solved, there will be a dark future for South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) in particular made the speech he did. I am very much disappointed in him, because I hoped that he would regard the matter from a great South African standpoint, and not from that of little Natal. We must well understand that we have to do with a question which cannot be indefinitely postponed. Each year the matter becomes more difficult and later on it will be quite insoluble. The psychology of the natives has been referred to, and there are quite a number of members on this side of the House and also opposite who have grown up with the native and have made a study of the psychological problem. Young South Africans have also recently made a thorough study of the question and written valuable theses about it. The matter has been fully gone into and essays have been written of which we may be proud. Some of us have not only studied the question from one side and therefore it is a pity that the hon. member for Zululand said that we knew nothing about it. I admit that he and the previous speaker knew something about it, but if we cannot solve the question in the House who then can do so? The great question of the country must be solved and if we cannot do it then who can? We have surely been sent here as representatives of the people to solve the problems of the country. The last speaker said that we should study the Rhodesian example, but I do not think the question was dealt with properly in Rhodesia, The hon. member for Zululand spoke of conditions in the Congo. How the native was and is treated there I leave to history. He knows something about them, but it is sheer nonsense to tell us that all wisdom is to be got from there. During his speech I thought of Exeter Hall, and I am sorry that he dealt with the matter in that way. The hon. member also spoke of professors and advocates in slippers, but there are advocates who know something of the matter. The hon. member for Standerton. e.g., has made a study of the matter, and there are other people who have not grown up among natives, but have yet thoroughly studied the matter.

Who made the accusation?

The hon. member for Zululand.

You misunderstood him.

I am sorry if that is so. I am much afraid that the matter will again be indefinitely postponed. Procrastination is the thief of time, postponement will be fatal for South Africa. What will he the future of our children If they matter is not dealt with? I want to appeal to the Dutch-speaking members of the South African party, because I know they feel just as we do about the native question. I want to quote what the late Gen. Botha said in 1913 about the matter. He said that the salvation of South Africa lay in territorial segregation, and in the Act which was passed that year with the co-operation of all parties. In 1917 he said that the first steps were taken in 1913, but that the war had intervened. Now they had to continue along the way entered upon and pay a further instalment. He said, however—

When the late Gen. Botha pleaded for territorial segregation the hon. member for Fort Beaufort who now sits next to the hon. member for Standerton made a bitter attack. Gen. Botha further said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had made an unworthy insinuation against the portion of the population which he, Gen. Botha, represented, and that he had also tried to stir up feeling against the segregation principle. That is what the late Gen. Botha said about the matter, and I only mention it to show my S.A.P. friends who at that time attacked Gen. Botha. And now they sit cheek by jowl and allow themselves to be led by the same men. We must carefully consider what we are going to do in connection with the matter. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Col. D. Reitz) spoke about the “ hole in the corner ” business, and I do not know if he is the only stranger in Jerusalem. The Prime Minister laid the Bill on the Table last year and now the hon. member says that the people know nothing about the matter. At every meeting I addressed, and everywhere I went I explained the matter, and hon. members opposite did the same. Where we differ about the matter, I want to echo the appeal of the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) viz., that we must not regard the matter from a party point of view, but from a broad South African standpoint, for the welfare, not only of the European, but also of the native population. Then we shall be going to work on right lines. I want to say that the man who introduces party politics in the discussion of the native question is not a friend of South Africa, but an enemy to his country. He is committing an offence against the future of our people. We have never yet discussed a more serious and weighty matter in the House. I do not want to say anything against anyone, but we ought to so deal with the matter so that it will not only assure a future in South Africa for the Europeans, but also for the natives. Therefore I trust that the hon. member for Standerton will withdraw his motion and say that he entirely agrees with the Prime Minister that the matter should go to a select committee. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) has indicated that we have had one commission after another and that the reports have subsequently been put away in the files of the offices. Let the parties together discuss the matter thoroughly and take evidence, and then come to the House with the Bills. South Africa will be thankful for that and our children in the future will be thankful If they House solves the native question, and consequently I appeal to the Opposition to give its support to the matter.

I do not see how the Prime Minister can do otherwise than accept the amendment. How else is it possible to get important Bills through the remaining days of the session? I do not share all the views that have been expressed on this side of the House on the native question. There has been a good deal of talk about solving that question. We shall never solve it in the ordinary sense, in fact there is no question to solve. The natives are here and will continue to live side by side with the white people. What question is there to solve? It is only a question of treatment—first and foremost you must treat the natives fairly and justly; secondly, assist them to raise in the scale of civilization, and, thirdly, provide for their requirements by legislation as those requirements arise. Take the Act passed about 1920 in which the late Prime Minister provided for local Government in large native areas. But these Bills are revolutionary, and actually propose to take away certain rights. If that is not a step in a retrograde direction I should like to know what is. Is that going to make the natives more contented? Their representation by two white members is not worth having. Is it fair to take away rights which the natives of the Cape Province have had since 1856 Have they ever misused that right? Some of the best men in this House have been returned with the help of the native vote. Sir James Rose-Innes, the late Chief Justice, was returned for Victoria East to a large extent by the native vote. The natives are not animals, they have their own ideas and thoughts. As to segregation, will the Bills now before the House tend to segregation? Under the Bill of 1913 certain areas were set aside for natives only and other areas for Europeans only. These released areas could be bought either by Europeans or natives, and they are going to be mixed up together. Take the big centres. I would like to know how Cape Town would get on to-day under the same conditions. Take the report of the Economic Commission, both the minority and majority reports, and you will find they agree that it is too late to attempt to move the natives out of the towns, and that the only possible policy is the absorption of the natives in the European economic system. They are part of the economic system to-day and we cannot get on without them. It simply cannot be done; you cannot take them away now and urbanize them. It is not segregation which is going to be brought about by these Bills. It was talked about at the last election, but the segregation of natives in South Africa is impossible, and these Bills certainly do not go in that direction. I hope my hon. friend will himself see the various aspects of this case, which have got to be considered and which are of paramount importance. More study within reason and more reflection and investigation must be devoted to the question. The natives themselves are suspicious of anything of this kind. If you can carry them with you in some degree it is all to the good. Personally, I don’t think this legislation is necessary. I think it is a step in the wrong direction, but if you must do it, do it in the best way possible, if you can. I hope the Prime Minister will consider the recommendations that have been put forward. You cannot rush them through towards the end of the session. We even know what Bills will have to be dropped. The Liquor Bill will never go through this session, no doubt owing to the illness of my friend, the Minister of Justice, but there are others as well, so that how we can get this through with adequate consideration I cannot see. The best way will be to appoint a commission and let them be thoroughly examined.

The hon. member for Pretoria South (Dr. van Broekhuizen) has called upon us to express our opinion. I think he knows that I was born in South Africa and have grown up with the natives, and that under the old republic I was a native official. I have had considerable experience. What the hon. member has referred to with regard to the late Gen. Botha is correct, but I ask If they hon. member supported Gen. Botha in those days in his policy.

Oh yes.

If they hon. members who served under him at that time had supported him then, the question would have been solved, at any rate to a great extent.

We did.

To-day Gen. Botha is under the ground, and now he was a good man, but not at that time. I cannot see why the Prime Minister does not concede a bit. We must work together and should not make a party matter of this. All sides ought to concede a little. The difference is not great. The Prime Minister proposes to refer the matter to a Select Committee, and wants to push the Bills through during this session, I think. We propose to appoint a commission to enquire carefully into the matter, and then to bring the Bills before the House again. It is a very important matter and must be thoroughly gone into. We must ascertain where the differences lie, and attempt to get legislation which will satisfy all parties and under which the natives will feel at home. I do not wish to go into the merits, but I have explained the Bills in my constituency, and I can give hon. members the assurance that there is great dissatisfaction there with regard to them.

How did you represent the matter?

In the Bills political rights are given to the coloured people and the Nationalists and the S.A. Party in the Transvaal are not going to support that. I have definite instructions to vote against it. We ought to get the evidence of those people and look for a solution which will give satisfaction. The Prime Minister is having difficulty with his own party. When the Prime Minister and I were still in one party we discussed the matter, and he said that he had a solution in mind which was practicable. Why can we to-day not get back to the point where we were then and solve the matter together. Let us take time and give the country and the public a chance, and then deal with the legislation in the next session. My mandate from Nationalists as well as from S.A.P. men is to vote against the bills as long as political rights are given therein on the lines proposed. The session is already half gone and there is a great deal of work, so that I appeal to the Prime Minister to be conciliatory and refer the matter to a commission in order to obtain a solution which will be acceptable to all parties.

I believe that every member of this side of the House is anxious and ready to give to the Prime Minister unqualified assistance in this matter. A call has been made by the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. Van Broekhuizen) upon Dutch-speaking Afrikanders on this side, to support them. The English-speaking Afrikanders on this side are just as anxious as we are to give unqualified assistance to members on the other side. This question is not a party political question; it is a national question. Many of us on this side know a little about this question. Some of us spoke the native language before we could speak any other. We know probably more about the native question than many members who are so anxious to express their views on the subject. There are many difficulties which arise in connection with this question. You cannot look at this from only one point of view. The natives in the different provinces are in different stages of civilization, and they have different outlooks. What may be good legislation for natives in the Cape may be very bad and detrimental legislation for the natives in the northern Transvaal and in Natal. The natives in the Cape have been brought up under quite a different system, different policy and different outlook, from the natives in Natal and the eastern Transvaal. The policy in the Cape has been to break down the tribal system; the policy in Natal and the eastern Transvaal has been to uphold the tribal system. That policy of upholding the tribal system has been the safeguard of white civilization in Natal and the eastern Transvaal. The natives in Natal and the eastern Transvaal are 50 years behind the natives in the Cape. To start a new policy of extending even encircled franchise rights to the natives in Natal would be, I submit, a very bad and fatal policy indeed. The direct effects of the national council that is proposed under this legislation would also be to break down the tribal system. The Native Council system today is more local than the system proposed under this Bill. I have no objection to the system of local councils in respect of certain areas or in respect of native tribes, who can collaborate with the District Native Commissioner or Magistrate, but I foresee very grave dangers in establishing the national council, with the powers proposed under the Bill. It is going to mean the co-ordination of native opinion and the creation of an organization which is going to grow. You are establishing a system which means eventually that it must grow to such an extent that it may claim usurpation of Parliament. What we want is better control and administration of the natives. Until we get better control there is no use dealing with the native Bills such as we have before us. We want Bills that will strengthen the powers of the Chief, expand the tribal system and reinstate the kraal head system. That is the first and essential step. I can only express an opinion as it appeals to me, and in doing so I am not doing it from a party point of view. There should be appointed a convention for each province and from that should be appointed the convention for the Union. The outlook in the Orange Free State on the native question is quite different from that of the man in Natal. There are comparatively few natives in the Free State. There are practically no reserves there at all.

Of course they have reserves.

There are two very small reserves in the Orange Free State, which are only missionary reserves. As I have already remarked native legislation that might be quite good for one Province may be very bad for another Province. The Natal outlook on this matter is almost exactly the same as that of the Transvaal, which is certainly not the Cape outlook. We feel that to extend any form of franchise to the natives in Natal would be wrong, not only from the point of view of the whites, but also from the point of view of the natives. Through these Bills the natives will be brought up to the idea of having some representation in Parliament, although they do not want it and have never asked for it, and do not understand it. The natives expect justice from the Europeans, and in Natal we have always treated them very fairly. We have on our properties the descendants of natives whose forebears were there in 1838 when my grandparents, who were amongst the voortrekkers, occupied it. We have always taken native rights into consideration, have carried out the native code of laws and our policy has been advised to gradually allow them to evolve into our civilization. At a time when the Zulus were being killed off by Chaka the natives came into Natal and ever since they have been treated perfectly fairly. To attempt to pass a law to be applied to all the natives in South Africa will never work. These Bills should not be rushed through.

You call it rushing to send them to a select committee before second reading?

How long will they be there? Are these Bills to be pushed through this session? If so it will be impossible for the House to deal fairly with them or for us to give the Prime Minister the assistance we have offered. The only way is that they should go to a convention and ge considered outside the atmosphere of Parliament altogether. Parliamentarians have so many duties that they cannot give their best to a question of this kind and it is one of the biggest questions we have ever had to deal with.