I move—

Wonderful.

Something you did not know.

And let me say at once that this surplus will be applied to redemption of debt.

The revenue for the year is thus some £1,700,000 greater than the estimate, and the principal variations between the original estimates of revenue and the latest revised estimates are as follows—

This, however, was necessitated by the delay in handing over the Colenso power station to the Electricity Commission.

The excess of customs revenue over the estimate of £850,000, or about 11 per cent., is remarkable, and as I have been severely criticised for a bad estimate, some words of explanation of my reasons for framing the estimate as I did may not be out of place.

The figure of £7,700,000 was based on the estimated collections of customs revenue for 1925-’26 which at the time of last year’s Budget statement were put at £8,160,000. In view of the bad season and the certainty of a deficient maize crop, I expected a reduction of exports and a corresponding reduction of imports, so I cut the figure for customs for 1925-’26 by £460,000.

The export of farm products in 1926 was some £8,400,000 less than in 1925, but the position was mitigated to some extent by increased production and export of mineral products, notably diamonds and gold, and in the aggregate the exports were 3¾ millions below the 1925 figure. Notwithstanding this falling off in the exports, the imports increased by £5,000,000 over the 1925 figure, and the monthly collections of customs duty have almost invariably exceeded the collections for the corresponding month in the previous year.

I am not singular in being surprised by the continued high level of importations and believe that most of the commercial community have been equally surprised. I want to remind hon. members that an authoritative business man in the House, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) said during the debate on the Revenue Estimates last year—

I naturally at the time enquired of the business people in the country, and I therefore repeat that the abnormally high importation, not only surprised me but the whole country.

Who pays for it?

The explanation is probably that the influence of the excellent season experienced in 1925-’26 has lasted longer than might have been expected, and that the extraordinarily large production of alluvial diamonds has brought large sums of money into circulation very rapidly. For it is notorious that a great proportion of the proceeds of alluvial diamonds are spent as soon as they are realized, and largely upon imported objects which carry substantial rates of duty— motor cars and petrol, for instance.

I shall refer again to the more important features of the import and export trade later in this statement.

I proceed to give details of the other specific heads of revenue.

Excise duties have followed the same course as customs duties, recording an increase over the estimate of £155,000, or 8½ per cent.

There has been a large increase of £65,000, or 10 per cent. in the duties from Union spirit, one of £75,000, or over 10 per cent. on cigarettes, and a smaller increase of £15,000 on beer. Sugar and matches have produced the estimated amounts.

It is remarkable to see what a noteworthy increase was obtained from cigarettes in comparison with three years ago.

The girls also smoke now.

It is not only ladies, but other people also smoke more cigarettes.

Post office revenue is close to the amount anticipated. Postage and telephones being over the estimate and telegraphs £18,000 below it. The increase of £45,000 under postage is due to expansion, to which the reduction of the letter rate to 1d. may have contributed to some extent.

The telephone revenue continues to expand as the system is extended. During the year 100 new telephone exchanges have been established, the number of telephones has been increased by nearly 8,000 to 82,100. The policy of linking up the country districts has been steadily pursued, and some 2,700 farmers have been provided with the service during the year. Post office revenue for the year has exceeded the voted expenditure by about £525,000. This does not, of course, reflect the position of the department on a commercial basis. To do this, an account is kept in which are introduced interest charges, rents, pension liabilities, depreciation and the value of all the various services rendered mutually between the post office and other Government departments. This account for 1925-’26 showed a profit of £303,000. It is anticipated that for 1926-’27 it will show a small balance of profit. This year is, of course, the first in which the full effect of the reduction of the letter rate is reflected.

Are they all whites?

No; only the two first-named. The other firms are: Monat’s clothing factory, Wynberg, 90 employees; Spicers’ stationery factory, Durban, 70 employees; bolt and nut factory, Johannesburg, 90 employees.

Moreover, a large number of important factories are in course of construction or about to be erected, relating to the manufacture of leather, clothing, hats and caps, hosiery, wire and other metal manufactures, electric batteries, cement, etc., and an interesting as well as encouraging development is the continued entry of big wholesale firms into the ranks of local industries, which is indeed to be heartily welcomed, as these firms have the necessary distribution facilities and command a wide market.

As further evidence of industrial expansion may be mentioned the increased importation of industrial machinery and materials for manufacturing purposes. In 1926 the value of materials for industrial purposes admitted free under rebate amounted to £1,282,000, compared with £903,000 in 1925 and £435,000 in 1924, while in 1926 the imports of industrial machinery amounted to £1,441,000, compared with £1,210,000 in 1925. There is, therefore, a steady increase in the importation of machinery for industrial purposes in the two years taken by me. The value of fixed plant and machinery imported for installation in new factories and for additions (not replacements or substitutions) to existing factories was £386,000 in 1926.

These data regarding the first fruits of protection are strongly confirmed by the views of industrialists, and, according to the Board of Trade and Industries, are also fully borne out by personal observation. The new tariff appears to have given industrialists that confidence in the future which is of the utmost importance to the industrial development of the Union. One of the leading industrialists is reported to have said that—

Finally, the protective policy, which has been the means of providing for substantially increased employment in manufacturing industries in the Union, has not had the effect of increasing the cost of living to the ordinary consumer, partly owing to the various safeguards which have been introduced into the tariff in order to obviate a rise in the prices of local manufactures, and partly as a result of the tariff readjustments designed to shift a part of the burden from the poor to the rich. This is clearly borne out by the index numbers of retail prices compiled by the Department of Census and Statistics. The index number of retail prices of food, fuel, light, rent and sundries in the Union dropped from 1464 in April, 1925, to 1435 in April, 1926, and 1420 in January, 1927, i.e., a decrease of 3 per cent.

Where are the “ Hear, hears ” now?

Hon. members are quite entitled to say “ Hear, hear.” I want to tell hon. members opposite that the amount we borrow shows the measure of our development. The point I want to refer to is that this money which is voted for capital expenditure is all of such a nature that no objection can be made as to its being in the interests of the development of the country, and that it cannot properly be covered out of loan funds.

This position has been arrived at in the following way:—

Of these moneys the revenue surplus for 1924-’25, £808,000 and £1,110,000, of the custodian’s surplus were applied to extinction of the revenue deficit accumulated to 31.3.24, leaving £3,829,000 applicable to redemption of debt proper. Deducting this sum, together with the balance to credit of the loan account £305,000 from the figure of £25,791,000 for loans raised, we get £21,657,000, representing the increase in debt during the period.

To sum up: A deficit of £1,918,000 on the revenue account has been extinguished.

The debt has been increased by £22 million and we have made capital expenditure amounting to £38 million. In this connection the fact that we had a credit balance on the loan account at the commencement of the period must not be overlooked. During the same period accretions to the sinking funds have been £3,153,000.

So much for the transactions of the last three years. Taking the capital account as a whole, we shall have made capital expenditure amounting to £260,399,000, against a debt of £228,760,000, and £211,343,000 after deducting the amount of the securities held by the sinking funds. The difference being accounted for by the fact that £22,266,000 of debt has been paid off without reborrowing and £9,365,000 has been derived from sources other than borrowing and credited to the loan account. One year’s interest on the debt is approximately £9,413,000, of which £7,380,000 is recoverable from the objects and £2,033,000 is a charge on revenue. Capitalizing this last figure at the average rate of interest on the debt, the unproductive part of the debt can be put down at £49,500,000. This, of course, includes solid and lasting assets, such as buildings, etc., which do not return interest, and works which in the future will be revenue producing, but in their initial stages are not, e.g., irrigation and afforestation works.

seconded the motion.

We have had a long debate on this subject, and most of us, I think, on this side of the House are somewhat in the dark as to the reasons for which, apparently, the Government decline to agree to the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). It seems to me that the procedure which the right hon. member has proposed is a common-sense one, and the only practical way of dealing with the position, for it is perfectly obvious that on the subjects with which the Bills deal there is a very wide divergence of opinion. One hon. member on this side has said that in his opinion none of this legislation is necessary, I could understand the Prime Minister’s proposal if he were determined to put the Bills through in the form in which they have been laid before the House. That procedure has been followed in regard to other Bills, Government using its majority on the select committees and putting the Bills through in practically the same form as that in which the select committees receive them from the House, but in this case the Prime Minister does not propose to do any such thing, and I think he is wise. He said the matter is to be dealt with, as far as possible, from a non-party point of view, and in that we entirely agree with him. He has, therefore, proposed that the subject-matter of the Bills be referred to a select committee, thereby indicating that there are many matters of principle that have to be decided, and on these matters it is desirable that there should be something like unanimity between the two parties in this House. It is perfectly plain that on the fundamental principles there is a great difference of opinion. Broadly speaking, there are two widely different points of view regarding native matters. One point of view is that, as far as possible, the native should be prevented from rising, lest he should compete with the white man. That is a view which is held by a large number of people, although some of them would probably not admit it, but they would give effect to that view by legislation If they had the opportunity. There is the other point of view, which is that natives should be encouraged to rise in the scale of civilization, and as they become fit for it, to be given increased political rights, and so forth. Between these points of view there is a great gap, and on both sides there are people who would not go to the full length of either side. These subjects should lie dealt with in a committee by people who are not partisans, and on the committee there should be persons who are students of native affairs, who can look on all these questions from a more or less impartial standpoint. Only if that is done are we likely to arrive at any reasonable form of agreement, because the fundamental differences of opinion are such that if we are to reach any satisfactory working agreement, there must be give and take on both sides, and some via media between the two extreme schools of thought. How, however, is that to be done if we have a select committee appointed in the ordinary way by this House? What happens on a select committee is that the Government usually has a majority, which will be used to get through the legislation as far as possible on the lines on which the Bills have been introduced. As I said at the beginning, it would be a perfectly intelligible policy If they Prime Minister had decided on all the principles of the Bills and was determined to get them through, if possible, in the form in which they are printed. The Prime Minister has stated that he does not want that. Now the Prime Minister is Minister for Native Affairs, and it seems to me that he himself should take an active part on the committee. Is the Prime Minister willing to take the chair of a committee appointed by this House and devote the time necessary to it if any good is to follow? Then it is desirable that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) should also be a member of this committee. How is it possible for my right hon. friend during this session to give the time necessary to take part in the deliberations of the committee? The inevitable result will be that it will drift down to a party squabble, to an attempt on one side to get the Bills through as they are printed, and on the other side to amend them. I hope the Prime Minister will accede to the proposal of my right hon. friend. No member of the Government has yet spoken on the subject, and the defence of procedure has been left to the back benchers. I think it is time we should be informed whether definitely the Prime Minister refuses to accede to these proposals, and, if he does, what reasons actuate him in so refusing. How does he expect to bring the deliberations of the special committee to a satisfactory result? The party element is sure to get in, and even if it was kept out, it is humanly impossible for any committee appointed to deal adequately with the principles of the Bills and come to a satisfactory conclusion before the end of this session. That is a physical impossibility, and I cannot think that any good can result from the procedure proposed by the Prime Minister.

I should like to refer to the taunt made by an hon. member that only those members born in South Africa have a right to speak on this subject. I think in all probability before the hon. member’s father was born, my grandfather was a missionary out here. I remember that prior to the present Government taking office we heard a great deal about segregation of the natives, and the Prime Minister, then leader of the Opposition, contended that the time had arrived for us to settle the native question once and for all, to which some of us on the other side of the House interposed with the argument that it was a question that could not be settled once and for all. We cannot settle our own European problems once and for all. Who could have foreseen, 15 or 20 years ago, that we should have had at this time a Pact Government, and that the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) would have taken unto himself a companion in the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), and that members representing farming constituencies like Albert, Graaff-Reinet and Harrismith would have been sitting at the back of the Minister of Public Works and endorsing the policy he is putting before the country? I compliment the Minister of Native Affairs for having had the courage to focus public opinion on this most thorny of our subjects. It is a subject to which we must give the most consistent attention on the part of those most capable of dealing with the matter. It follows that we should have the best possible brains to deal with this matter, and I endorse what was emphasized by the hon. member who spoke before me (Sir Drummond Chaplin), that is, are we going to have the Prime Minister as a member of the committee, and the leader of the Opposition, and other members whose knowledge, intelligence and brains are essential if we are going to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion in regard to the shaping of our native policy? We want all these sections represented, and I think, further, we need to have the natives themselves represented on an inquiry or commission of this kind. It might not be advisable to have natives sitting on the commission, but they should have a voice in the choice of members who would be able to represent their views and their standpoint. It is only by acting in concert on this question that we can hope to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. I do not share the fear of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) when he foreshadowed the strangulation of the European population in this country. What I do think is a distinct menace to the white population in this country is the doctrine which has been introduced from overseas, the communistic and socialistic doctrine brought straight from Russia. We shall find our disintegration is going to be the result of bringing them inside our Government. If we are going to have ideas that will restrict private enter-prize and level everybody to the weakest link amongst us, the sort of thing we have to-day in the bricklayers’ union, where the men are not encouraged to give of their best, then we shall find consistently in our policy an element of communism which will be an infinitely greater menace to the continued civilization of the country than ever the native is going to be. As long as we remain true to our traditions and the traditions of the past and do the best we can and deal justly by everybody, we shall be adopting a safe line. I want to touch on one or two of the Bills. As I pointed out earlier, the Government professed to be in favour of a policy of segregation. What do we find in the Bills? Released areas are set apart in which Europeans will compete on equal terms with natives for the acquisition of land. Are we perpetuating under this Act the principle which was made the occasion of a great cry through the country, that of segregation? We cannot segregate the European from the natives in this country. In the Free State and the Transvaal we find natives from all over the Union living in close proximity to the European. There is no practical possibility of segregating these people, that is, territorially. It is impossible. Then what about industrial segregation? The native has entered into the life of this country in a manner in which he cannot be segregated. What would happen to those who have farms, to our divisional council and to the general and economic conditions of the country if you chased the native away? I think the only way is to treat the matter in a non-party spirit, and that it should not be dealt with by a committee of this House which has not the time to go into this Bill. We want a commission or a convention to deal with the matter, and I therefore feel strongly constrained to support the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition.

One cannot give a silent vote on a matter of this kind. Personally, I would have preferred not to have spoken on these Bills until they emerge from the Select Committee or the commission, because I think they will come back in an altered form. A general debate having taken place as the result of the amendment I feel it is necessary that those who represent minority points of view on this matter should say a few words. I regret the course of action which has been proposed in the amendment should not have met with the consent of all sides of the House. It is a great pity that the proposal which has been brought forward has not been accepted. The result will be, I suppose, a division more or less upon party lines in regard to what is to happen to these four Bills. It has always been my opinion that there was no necessity for this legislation at all. Legislation which attempts to deal with particular races and classes, on class lines, has never met with my approval. It seems to me that in South Africa, as in every other country, there is only one way in which to treat your population, whatever section it may belong to, and that is on the basis of their individual character and their individual conduct, and legislation which is aimed at a large section of the people, purely on the grounds of race and colour, can never be a success. It is born of fear and panic. The history of every country has been that where a small section is afraid of a larger section, on account of competition, etc., and tries to keep that larger section under, in the long run that smaller section is dragged down further and further.

What about the Glen Grey Act?

I was not responsible for the Glen Grey Act. You are now going far back, to 1894. That is a matter of past history. I have never been in favour of legislation for a particular section. You cannot compare the Glen Grey Act with legislation of the character now before the House. It I had been in Parliament in 1894, I can assure my hon. friend that that Bill would not have met with my approval. You have not got to talk about white civilization or any other sort of civilization. You have got to talk about civilization. My hon. friends on the cross-benches think they can help the white working man by the views that they adopt on this question. My view is that you will by this legislation do the white working man the greatest possible disservice. It is said that competition, on the part of the uncivilized man, is so serious that special legislation is required. You have brought in your special legislation, your Wage Board legislation, but, at the same time, as you have that legislation, you bring in legislation which keeps these people permanently degraded. While you want to prevent them from competing with you, you want to keep them permanently back in the matter of civilization. How mistaken is that point of view! We hear about the danger of the uncivilized man, and yet hon. members are supporting legislation which is going to permanently keep these people uncivilized. Surely they ought to be in favour of uplifting these people, and making them civilized.

Hear, hear,

This legislation is not going to do that. This legislation is going to keep them permanently uncivilized. You have got two inconsistent ideas. You want to prevent the uncivilized man from competing, and you have got your Wage Board, etc., but, at the same time, hon. members favour legislation which is going to permanently keep a large section of the people in an uncivilized state. I appeal to those hon. members who are in favour of the establishment of a protectionist policy in this country. Look how few consumers we have. Surely, instead of legislation of this kind, we should have legislation brought before us which aims directly at uplifting these people. We have heard about the factories which are being established. What is the chief reason why there is such difficulty in this country? Because our home market is so small. If these millions of men affected by this legislation were given a chance in South Africa of uplifting themselves, as they ought to be, what would be the result in a very short time? You would enormously extend the home market for South African manufacturers. They would be able to earn very much better wages than they are earning to-day. My hon. friends here might say that they would be competing. Of course, you cannot help this competition. This is a big country. Would my hon. friends urge that this is the last we shall hear of South Africa, with a million and a half of whites, and the rest non-European? This enormous area of land is going to be peopled in times to come, I suppose, by millions and millions of whites. South Africa can maintain a very much larger white population than it is maintaining at the present time.

Do you want to mix them all up together?

The question of mixing them up is another question altogether. I am dealing with the industrial and political aspects of these Bills. These Bills do not touch the social question at all. Civilization is not a question of colour. It never was a question of colour. Would my hon. friend (Mr. Waterston) object to living next door to a Japanese?

Certainly.

I cannot agree with my hon. friend there. My hon. friend has got a kink in his mind, as so many other people have got, and that is that the only perfect man is the man with a white skin. There are other races and other civilizations on quite as high a plane as people who belong to the white races. It is not a question of colour; it is a question of civilization, a question of character and a question of conduct. I think legislation of this kind is entirely upon wrong lines. There is always that dangerous person in every community who runs about saying—

My problem is the way to do it by uplifting them. I do not see how you can do anything by legislation. To try and solve the native problem by legislation is absolutely futile. You have admitted the factor of uplift with regard to the Indian settlement, but apparently that does not apply to your natives according to these hon. members. Seeing so many people have said we must do something, the Prime Minister has done something and has put certain Bills before us, and I would like to deal with that aspect. If there is to be legislation, which is the best way of settling the form of that legislation? At this stage of the session I should regard a Select Committee as the very worst way. In the first place we know that the Select Committee would be purely a party machine and the matter would be debated and dealt with purely on party lines. I thought it was agreed on all sides that if legislation was introduced into this problem it should not be dealt with on party lines. It is impossible in a Select Committee to deal with it in any other way than on party lines. It could be done only with great difficulty. It is not a question of bias I am referring to. A member would vote, not according to his own ideas, but according as he was told by the party whip. May I say that this would be one of my reasons in voting for this amendment that has been moved, because I believe the Select Committee tribunal is not the right tribunal to set up. Supposing it were the right tribunal, it has not enough time. You want to get on with this problem and you refer it to a Committee which will not be able to deal with it this session and you will have to begin all over again next session. Then against you must not forget that the people you are legislating for are voteless and voiceless in this House taking them all in all. The bulk of the people you are dealing with here have no representation in Parliament at all. Is it fair to leave them to a Select Committee of members of Parliament none of whom represent them? The large numbers in Natal, the Transvaal and the Free State—are those not to be represented at all? That is an aspect I would draw hon. members’ attention to. It is much better that you should have an impartial tribunal on which no doubt there will be some members of Parliament, but others also who would be there because of their interest in native affairs though not members of Parliament. They would constitute a very much better tribunal to handle this than the one proposed. If you are going to have legislation then the legislation will have to be very carefully and closely scrutinized. I must confess a number of things occur to one in connection with this legislation. There is the native council. With regard to that, although it has been suggested by some people that it would be a danger, I think some sort of native council ought to be constituted. I have no particular fault to find with regard to that Bill, except that the council should meet in Cape Town and not Pretoria, but with regard to the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill, this has given rise to an enormous amount of discontent. We have always been told that the idea of the Government is that the coloured man must be treated alongside the European. If you read this Bill, I cannot see that that intention is carried out, because although certain rights are given to certain persons outside the Cape Province it looks as if they coloured man in the Cape would be put in an inferior position to that which he occupies at the present time. I understand there has been a deputation to the Prime Minister and he has told them that is not so. I have read the Bill very carefully and it does seem to me that is the effect of the Bill; and instead of being classed with Europeans they are treated separately and distinctly, and although the coloured people outside the Cape Province get a better status, those inside the Cape Province will get an inferior status. That is a thing I would strongly oppose. I do not want to see them lowered; I would rather see the status of the coloured man raised throughout the Union. There is the position, too, with regard to the coloured men whom you are to treat as equals that their own representatives are not allowed to come into Parliament. What is the use of talking about treating them as equals when you still retain the colour bar in the Act of Union? So there does not seem to be much for the coloured people in this Bill when you regard those outside the Cape Province as well as those inside the Cape Province. When we come to the Native Bill, or that dealing with the representation of the natives in Parliament, I find one’s difficulties become very much greater. Personally, even as regards the intelligent native, I must confess he would be satisfied with very little if he is satisfied with the representation that is being given under this Bill. I should think no representation could be worse than this representation. He cannot vote for whom he pleases; it must be a European; he cannot vote in the ordinary way, but must vote in a way so carefully laid down that it is like taking a bowl and feeding him with a spoon. It seems to be an absolute farce.

The bulk are not civilized.

My hon. friend says the bulk are not civilized, and that is why he should see that a law is passed that the vote is given to every man who is civilized. There is Dr. Rubusana, who was a member of the Cape Provincial Council, and I can assure my hon. friend he is as civilized as a white man, but he will get the same rights. My hon. friend must be careful about the word “ civilized,” or he will get into waters out of which he cannot swim. If I may sum up my objections, they are that I feel that such legislation is entirely unnecessary, and if it should be brought forward it should be brought before an impartial tribunal, which a select committee is not. Such legislation should be differently drafted, if you give the natives representation. Give them real and not a sham representation. Do not lift them up in one province and give them an inferior status in another province. If you are not going to get a good result, rather scrap this legislation altogether, and get on with some other work. If legislation is passed as it is on these lines, it will prove to have been a very bad day for South Africa when these particular Bills were introduced.

If I may use a phrase which has been frequently used in another connection, it is that if any hon. member flatters himself he understands the native question, he flatters himself, and If they aggregate wisdom of all these hon. members were pooled we would still be a long way short of the information we ought to have before dealing with such an important matter. It has often been argued, both inside and outside this House, that you cannot understand the mentality of peoples, and you cannot possibly get to know them, their psychology and so forth, and their mode of thinking, unless you can speak their language. How many members of this honourable House know even one native language? You can count them on the fingers of one hand. Only a few know two native languages, and none know all the native languages. Yet we propose to legislate, for a long period, on matters vitally affecting the present and the future of the natives. How many hon. members know more than one tribe in this country? I know hon. members who, perhaps, understand the Zulu, and others who understand the Basuto, but it does not follow that they know the Fingoes, Ovambos, Hottentots or other native tribes, and yet here we have legislation that will bind the whole black population of South Africa. All that, in itself alone, would furnish a strong argument for not referring this matter to a select committee, but doing all in our power to get all the information with the means at our disposal in such a form as the Native Commission, which sat between 1903 and 1905, and furnished a very valuable report. How is it possible, after only a few weeks, to bring in a report dealing with so important a matter? One of the greatest blots on such legislation is this— it was evolved with no reference whatever to native opinion, and with no endeavour to obtain the native view on these important matters, so vitally affecting, not only their present, but their future, for a long period to come. The importance can hardly be exaggerated, but from all sides of the House, as far as I have been able to follow, there has been a complaint that the underlying principle of this legislation has not been clearly disclosed. It is impossible to get at the principles from the Bills themselves, so we have to go to outside sources as to what is behind them. We go to the Prime Minister himself. It is well known, and it is to his credit, that the matter has engaged his attention for thirteen or fourteen years, and he has studied it carefully. He has modified his views from time to time, and he has approached the matter in a statesmanlike, and not a bigoted, manner. We have to consider his public utterances. He spoke at Smithfield, where he said—

On a later occasion, in dealing with the colour bar Bill, the Prime Minister said—

He wants, on the one hand, the protection of white civilization from the natives, and on the other hand, the protection of the natives from white civilization. I do not pretend to understand how these two ideals are parallel, supplementary or complementary to each other. It is a little beyond me, nor can I see how the proposed legislation can affect these objects. Here we have these four comprehensive measures brought in to protect the native from white civilization, and to protect white civilization from the native! These measures are partly political and partly economical. Three of the Bills deal with the political situation. I am informed this is the first time in human history where colour, and colour alone, has been taken as forming a legislative disability, and yet we are asked to make this grave departure with a modicum of information and a minimum of time for full consideration and discussion.

What about the Act of Union?

That does not affect the franchise.

It affects their right to sit in this House.

Even in the old republics I am not aware of any law that deprived a man of the right to vote simply on account of his colour.

What about the Transvaal? What about the constitution promulgated in 1896 where the franchise was confined to Europeans?

It was not a matter of colour, and colour alone. This is a matter which deprives a man of his franchise on account of his colour. If we are to believe what we have heard so much of late that South Africa has recently annexed the British empire and South Africa must necessarily, from its in dependent position, be assuming more and more responsibilities—we hear a lot of privileges and responsibilities—we now ought to pay a little more attention to duties. As component parts of the British empire we ought to take serious stock of the position and see that we comport ourselves in a proper way, and not in a manner harmful to the destiny of the empire as a whole. The British empire consists of 65 million whites and some 384,000,000 of black and coloured people. Whatever people may think about the British Empire and whatever its faults may have been in detail, the policy adopted by the British Empire, the policy it adopted of not discriminating between its subjects on account of colour, has had a most wonderful effect in making it the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. Do we recognize the results of this legislation, and do we admit the necessity of preserving South Africa for our civilization? Are we going about it in precisely the right way? If this country is to be preserved for civilization is this legislation the best means of attaining that object? We have not only the eyes of the British Empire before us, but the eyes of the whole civilized world, and whether we like it or not, we shall more and more be subjected to the influences of the opinion of the civilized world, more especially as they are expressed through the League of Nations. That league consists of 54 members, and it has laid down in the clearest terms what the duties are of advanced people towards backward people. We are departing from the lofty principles laid down not by theorists or professors, but by the covenant of the League of Nations which is intended to preserve the world’s peace. It has laid down the lofty principle of treating backward people as a sacred trust to civilization. Does this legislation conform to this lofty ideal? I am afraid the opinion of the world will not be able to answer that in the affirmative. Let us give every credit for the good intentions underlying these principles, but they are not enough, and we know where good intentions sometimes lead us. No case has been made out for the urgency of these proposals. Who has asked for them? There is a native problem, and there always will be, but why the particular urgency for forcing this legislation through? We have in the Cape Province a great experiment in leading people towards civilization, and on the whole, that experiment has been a great success. It is not perfect; no human device is perfect, but it has in it much promise for the future, and if hon. members—and more especially those from the North—would visit the eastern portion of the Cape Province, and especially the Transkei, they would see a great deal that would modify their views as to the potentiality of the development of the native peoples. It would be interesting if hon. members read the reports of the debates in the Transkei Native Council which disclose a considerable amount of statesmanship. We must frankly and freely admit that the native is a human being capable, like the rest of us, of development and of being brought slowly towards the light. The means of doing that demand the most careful consideration, and the means as foreshadowed in these four Bills ought to make us exceedingly thoughtful, and we ought to hesitate before finally committing ourselves to these proposals. Time after time we hear it stated that the native is really a child, and must be treated as a child, kindly, paternally and gently. If you use the term child, it presupposes that some day the child will be an adult. How long is he to be kept in the stage of childhood? The decision has to be made by the dominant class. We must go on as we are, giving him opportunities of development, so that he might gradually take his place in the civilized world. Admittedly this Native Representation Bill is intended to obviate the danger felt by some, the swamping of the legislature by the coloured vote. I think the danger has been exaggerated. Since the Cape had a constitution, no restriction has been made on account of colour, yet the number of coloured and native voters on the roll is only between 14,000 and 15,000, and by no means can that number, or any increase in the near future, be considered a danger. It means only 1 in 30 of the voting power of the Union, and surely we do not expect that to endanger civilization.

What about the future?

Must the native never have a vote? Is he to be prohibited from ever using the natural right of man, the franchise. If they hon. member takes that view, I cannot agree with him. It will not find acceptance in this country or any other part of the world.

Would you receive him into this House?

Why not, in time? The hon. member would not object surely if he had a clean, intelligent, black man seated beside him, possibly belonging to his own party? Don’t let us be frightened by imaginary dangers. Don’t take counsel of fears and apprehensions which have no solid basis. We cannot anticipate what the position in 50 or 60 years may be; we cannot contemplate that natives and coloured will be no better than to-day. In the course of time the number of qualified natives and coloured—qualified for the vote-will increase, but not to the extent that it will threaten civilization. We are going to bring this country to civilization, but it can never be a white man’s country in the sense of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Why not?

Not unless you exterminate the native. The policy of segregation has been found to be impracticable, and is not likely to be brought up in the near future. We have our duties to the empire, and if it is to continue, with all its disadvantages, it behoves us to carry out our duties and not seriously embarrass the continuance of the empire which hon. members will agree is one of the most potent powers for peace in the world. It preserves the pax Britannica throughout its own borders, and there has been no attempt to disturb that for two generations now. If we try to shut the native out what would be the effect of a colour stigma on 320,000,000 of Indians who own allegiance to the British Empire?

How many of them have the franchise?

They are not qualified, only about 3 per cent. can read or write, but If there is anything which makes them dissatisfied, it is any stigma cast upon their race or colour. People are moved to revolt and appeals to force by repression, rather than oppression. If you repress them, and keep them back, it urges them more to violence than actual oppression. We have to consider the influence of this 320,000,000 of black Indians upon the rest of the world. Members are surely not blind to the movement in the far east just now. Events are moving rapidly, and nothing should be done to aggravate what is undoubtedly a world movement, a rising of people to race and class consciousness. There is no need for urgency. Let the experiment go on for a little while longer, and let us continue to get further information. Don’t let it be said that legislation was brought in without taking advice from people whose future it will most affect. We shall have to bear the consequences, whatever form they may take. It is a worthless substitution, that of having seven members to represent natives, with an extraordinary limit to their powers in this House. They have been described as—

and if a member enjoys one function more than another in this House, it is his voice in deciding the fate of Government in the country. This Union Native Council Bill is a Bill which, if details were altered, and altered considerably, I am convinced would be received with open arms by the natives. How can enthusiasm be felt by a council with such limited powers, elected by a franchise definied by regulation, not yet before us, and which may be altered at any time at the whim of the Minister of the day, and a council which can only discuss matters on the recommendations of the Minister of Native Affairs They will be presided over by a member of the Department of Native Affairs who will have power for adjourning the council or dismissing it, a power not possessed by any other presiding officer of any deliberate assembly in the world, as far as I know. It is quite illusory. It will not even have the status of a respectable debating society. It must follow the lines that will be dictated to it by the presiding officer. I think that a very strong case has been made out for not sending these Bills to a select committee of this House, whose proceedings will be futile, whose report, I do not like to say will be valueless, but it will not have the value which is requisite for a matter of this sort, and we must, whether we like it or not, get rid of the idea that we can usefully or permanently or justly carry on a policy of repression towards the natives. What puzzles me is this, looking at it from the economic standpoint, surely the wealth of any country consists in the utilization of the resources of that country, directed by brains, by the means of capital and with the aid of labour, and if we restrict our natives from developing the resources of this country as they might do, we are keeping ourselves poor, whereas, by enabling the natives to earn higher wages we will increase our markets.

Who stops them?

All your policy is against it.

No, we have not introduced a colour bar Bill, we have introduced no measures to prevent natives from earning good wages; we have introduced no measures that will keep them permanently in the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water. I believe that peoples should be allowed to develop naturally, and that there should be no artificial restrictions on their powers of development and their ambitions. We are depriving this country of a more rapid development than is reasonably possible by our legislative restrictions, and keeping the people on whom the great industries of this country largely depend in a position from adding their full weight to the development of these industries. We have listened to a very able and interesting exposition as to our finances this afternoon. We have heard for years past that we have reached the taxable capacity of the people of this country, that it is hardly possible to increase our taxes beyond what they are at present without doing great harm to the country. Surely if we can in any way relieve the industrial burdens by developing the resources of this country, by utilizing more labour, by paying higher wages all round to white and black, then we add to the number of our taxpayers, and we will divide the incidence of taxation more fairly than it is at present. But we have not done that. Although I am not perhaps in order in alluding at length, at all events, to the colour bar Bill, yet we must treat this—

I am afraid the hon. member has been rather off the point.

I apologize if I am off the point, but with all due submission, I am dealing with the general subject of repression. I say that any measure of repression, whether you call it colour bar or anything else, is not good for this country from any point of view. It is not ethically sound; it is not economically sound.

I think that hon. members should not discuss in that strain a law that has been validly passed by this House.

No, I am discussing the four Bills before the House, which, I say, are largely Bills of repression.

The hon. member was alluding to the law which was passed last session.

I will confine myself exclusively to the four Bills we are now discussing. I say that the policy of repression is continued that has been very distinctly marked in former Bills, and I say that policy is ethically wrong and economically wrong, and that we cannot pursue that policy, even in the form it takes in these Bills, without grave disadvantage to our country. I stand for this, that we should allow the native to enjoy the benefits of civilization as and when he fits himself for those benefits, and that we should encourage him in every possible way to become civilized, and not, as I fear these Bills will do, drive him back into the ranks of savagery.

I think that the imaginations of both black and white have been appealed to by the Prime Minister in introducing these Bills. I believe there is no question that the Europeans of this country are impressed with the feeling that something is being attempted, and it is exactly the same with the natives. The natives realize that there are many points in the relations between black and white that do require legislative attention, and they are buoyed up in hopes that they are going to gain something from the introduction of these Bills. I do not want to give the impression for one minute that they accept these Bills in their entirety; there are many principles involved with which they are in total disagreement. I think that that is an added reason for the appointment of some body, apart from a select committee of this House, some commission which can get into touch with native opinion in respect of these matters which have to be discussed before these Bills finally come before the House. It is correct that the Native Affairs Commission have visited the bigger native centres of the Union and explained these Bills, but they have not in any shape or form taken native opinion on these Bills. There never has been time for that. They never gave opportunities for discussion and interchange of ideas. I do think it is very necessary that some commission should be appointed that can go round, where the Native Affairs Commission went, to the chief native centres of the Union, and say to the natives—

I cannot see how anything of that nature can possibly be carried out by a select committee of this House, which has only got about six weeks at the outside in which to sit. I think If there is one factor which stands out in regard to this legislation, it is the necessity of carrying the natives with us, and in some form arriving at a mutual agreement between black and white. It has been said that the great necessity is to approach these Bills in a non-party spirit, but I think I would rather word it differently. I would rather say the principal necessity, the vital factor is, not to give the natives themselves the opinion that this question is being settled politically. That is the impression they are bound to get if we follow the ordinary procedure of a select committee. I only want to give two instances which appeal to me as reasons for further investigation and for a certain amount of delay. We have two Bills which profess to give the natives additional representation. The commission goes to the natives and says—

I am not alluding to the natives in the Cape. It says to them it is a step in the direction of greater powers as far as local government is concerned. Then we have another Bill, the principal effect of which is to extend the system of proclamation throughout the Union, which specifically gives the Governor-General right to make laws for natives, and that is the Native Administration Bill. To my mind, the two principles in these Bills are as wide apart as the poles. One says—

and the other says—

Surely that is a reason for further delay, and for study of these Bills. The principal point which appeals to me is the land question. There is no doubt that the natives in the Cape Province view with the utmost alarm the giving up of the privilege of the franchise, and I feel that they have right on their side. It is firmly fixed in their minds as a great right that they have, and any attempt to take it away will be met with extreme resentment on their part. If you discuss it with the natives who are still under the tribal system, you will find it is the land which is agitating their minds. You will find they are looking to the Government to provide them with sufficient land to develop in their own way. That is what this Bill seems to absolutely fail to do. The Prime Minister has adopted the 1913 Act in its entirety, with this difference, that where that Act laid down, on the report of the commission, that certain areas represented the minimum native requirements, this Bill has departed entirely from that, and it says these areas are now to be released areas, and both Europeans and natives are to have equal rights. That is a position which is arousing the utmost distress in the minds of the native. There has been no investigation. That Act has simply been adopted en bloc, although it is the result of a commission sitting as far back as 1913. That means that the select committee will have no first-hand information, no information later than 1913, since when the position has entirely altered. That is another reason for the appointment of a body with the fullest opportunities for looking further into this question of necessary land for the natives. This Bill will mean that a large number of natives will have to leave the land on which they have lived, that they will have to leave the homes which, in some cases, have been their homes for generations, and this Bill is making no provision for land to be set aside where they can find a permanent abiding place. That is a very serious matter. We all know that we cannot go on giving land indefinitely to the natives in this country. We know there is not sufficient land, and we know that land in European occupation cannot be indiscriminately alienated. Here I want to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister. If you are going to use the land to its best advantage, then I say, before these Bills come to the second reading, we should make a very full inquiry into the system of individual tenure which exists in some of the districts in the native territories. That is one of the finest adminstrative Acts we ever brought in. As the Prime Minister knows, in many districts, while the grazing remains common, the arable land has been surveyed and is now to all intents and purposes the property of the native to whom it is allotted. By doing this, by giving the native a direct ownership, although it is only leasehold, in certain portions of land, you are inculcating a feeling of responsibility. You are making them feel that this is the only piece of land they are likely to have in this country, and it is up to them to conserve it and avoid the terrible wastage that is going on in our native locations. I think it is accepted that these districts are capable of carrying 25 per cent. for 30 per cent more population than the unsurveyed districts. The land question in these Bills is the crux of the whole thing. I want to emphasize that the only path by which the Government can make this legislation successful is by keeping the faith of the natives in the European races as far as we possibly can. I think the Prime Minister realizes that, and I hope he will so far relax the opinion that perhaps he has already formed, as to let us have some nonpolitical body—or, if you like, drawn from the best brains in this House—but if expert opinion is necessary, let us get it from outside. Let us have one final body which will deal direct with the natives, and let that be the body which will finally draft these Bills. I believe the Prime Minister is really honest in this legislation, and if he realizes and accepts the point of view we are putting forward, I believe he will accept the principle of not having a select committee which is going to rush through matters at a time when the work is already congested. I do hope that the Minister will try to realize that both sides of the House—and not only his side, and that not only he personally—have an interest in seeing the native question settled; we, on this side of the House, are equally sincere in wishing to assist him, and we are only concerned in arriving at the best method of dealing with what we call—

A detailed examination of the provisions of these four Bills would occupy many hours, and I am not going to attempt that now, especially as I do not consider this germane to the motion before the House. I would, however, like to refer to the critical examination of the Bills as contained in the pamphlets issued by the Johannesburg joint council of Europeans and natives, and I would strongly recommend hon. members who have not done so to read these pamphlets, carefully and weigh and study the arguments therein. The third reading, viz., sub-section 1 of the agreement between the Union and the Indian Government reads—

Very fine and lofty language, to which I am sure we all subscribe unreservedly. But I should like to see this utterance applied to the Bills before the House. Can hon. members on the Government side of the House conscientiously say that by these Bills they are taking—

of the native population to the fullest extent of their capacity and opportunity? We know that these Bills aim at almost the very opposite, and that this has been the object in recent legislation dealing with the natives. If you apply it to the past, these utterances imply insincerity, to use a very mild term. What does surprise one is when one finds the attitude adopted by members of the Labour Party on this policy, which is supposed to be a workers’ party—and, after all, natives are workmen in this country. I should have thought that one of the primary duties of the Labour Party is to uplift fellow workers, to try to see that justice is done to them and, in fact, that they would adopt the official view of the Labour Party in England. I have here this official pronouncement, in the “ Times Weekly ” of the 21st of October last year, of the labour movements policy, as regards the natives of Africa. Mr. J. H. Thomas, who was a Labour Minister, says—

Hear! Hear!

That is the hon. member who voted for the colour bar Bill, and he applauds the statement that the native must be a free man. Yet a few months ago he supported the principle that the native must not be a free man as regards his labour. Mr. Thomas goes on to say—

In my opinion this native question is not going to be solved by legislation. The white man’s supremacy, if he has to maintain it in this country, or any country, must rest on his own work and character. There was a time when I held very different views with regard to this matter, but since then I have thought much, travelled much, and read much, and I can no longer adopt the view that a white skin necessarily connotes superiority. I know of many natives who are superior to many Europeans, have a much finer character, and are better workmen than many white men I know of, and for us to try by legislation—

Will you sub that statement when it appears in Hansard?

Do not make such an insinuation.

I stand by what I say.

We will wait and see.

These Bills are dictated by fear, and they will defeat their very object, for they are unjust, and in my opinion they will lead to a consolidation of native opinion, which is the very thing you wish to avoid.

You want to exploit them.

I do not wish to do so. Repression is exploitation, and that is what your party has done. If legislation is necessary to give the natives a voice in the country do not let a question of that sort be decided merely by parties in this House. Carry out the decision fairly, squarely and honestly.

Manhood suffrage throughout the country?

I am most opposed to manhood suffrage, and I think most of our woes are due to that—the cheap vote that has put that party (the Pact Party) in. Make your test a high, sound and good one, and let the man who has a stake in the country have a vote.

What about pay?

I am not now concerned with pay, but with something far more important. You cannot by economic barriers defeat economic laws. I consider legislation of this sort, for a large part, unnecessary and futile. Do not let us be afraid. If they white man begins to show fear and panic it shows he has a weak case and is wrong. Let him be just and honest to all sections of the population, and carry out the doctrine so beautifully and finely enunciated in this agreement between the Union and the Indian Governments. If we live up to principles of this sort I have no fear for the future of the country, but if we introduce measures of this sort, they will not attain their object. The country is built up on native labour, and we live with the natives in the town and on the farm, and many of you employ natives to look after your children. As a humble representative of a section of the public, I call upon the Government, honestly to carry out its fine sentiments, and If they do that, they will find us behind them. Rut to send a weighty matter of this sort to select committee towards the end of the session is simply evidence of the Government’s intention to force the matter through.

If they hon. gentleman who has just sat down would oppose the colour bar in the Masters and Servants Act and also the economic colour bar obtaining in various industries, he would receive credit for honesty of purpose. Why, he is one of the members responsible for this colour bar.

How?

Because he never raised his voice against it. When we were dealing with the Masters and Servants Bill which created a colour bar, hon. members opposite said—

If a native deserts from them, they inform the police, and the native becomes a criminal— a colour bar which the hon. member supports.

The Masters and Servants Act applied to black and white alike.

But not a white man is prosecuted under it. It is the same with the Stock Act. All these laws are passed presumably to apply to every section, but they are never put into operation against the European. The Trespass Act is never put into operation against a white man. The police in the Cape Province have never arrested a white man for trespassing on a farm, but they have repeatedly arrested natives for doing this. Hon. members opposite ask for a commission to consider these Bills, but supposing they obtain a commission, members would be just as wise after the commission finished its labours as they are to-day, and they are just as capable of dealing with the question now as they would be after receiving a report. If they findings of the commission were in accordance with their views, the commissioners would be right, but If they findings were against their views, the commissioners would be wrong. Hon. members over there talk about doing justice to the natives. Are they prepared to make a start by doing real justice to the natives, and to follow the cry of justice to its logical conclusion, and to extend the franchise to the native on the same terms as it is given to the white man? Very few hon. members are prepared to do that.

We are not taking the franchise away from the natives.

There are only two courses to follow in South Africa. Either you must extend the franchise to the native, and give him every right, economical, political and social—the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) shakes his head. If you plead for justice, you cannot stop, and give him political, social and economic equality. With the full support of his party, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) laid down a colour bar in the wages paid to people on the Government relief works.

No.

Hon. members opposite will do everything for the native except get off his back. The hon. member laid down one scale of wages for the white man, another for the native, and a third for the coloured.

You are wrong.

On a point of order, is the hon. member in order in continuing to accuse the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) of doing a thing which the hon. member denies?

He does not deny it

You said a difference in the wage for the white man and the native?

If they hon. member wishes to explain, he has the ordinary course.

We have the circulars, and can produce them.

Does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) wish to give an explanation?

What we did with the white men when I was in office was this. We put them on a basis of piece-work entirely, and paid them exactly the same that we had to pay the native for the same work. As far as I am aware, we had no relief men on day pay.

I do not think the hon. member must go too far into this question.

I am very sorry, sir, but we have the circulars here.

The hon. member may proceed.

Will the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. dagger) deny having written a letter to the Mayor of Cape Town, or being responsible for its writing, advising them not to pay such high wages to the natives?

I certainly never wrote it.

I want to ask him a straight question. Will he pay a native employee, an unskilled labourer, the same wage he would have to pay a white man? Certainly not. He believes in the colour bar. While we hear them talking about justice to the natives, we should find, If they were living in areas like Woodstock and Salt River, where natives and Europeans live cheek by jowl, they would shift.

Ask Liesbeek what he would do.

I would shift, and so would hon. members on the other side of the House.

Certainly.

Yet they talk about this and that equality, and that is not their intention at all. If you want to be just to him, you must give the native the franchise all over the country and eliminate the colour bar from the Union, so to allow him to sit in the House of Assembly. Will the hon. members be prepared to remove the colour bar from the Act of Union which prevents them sitting in the House? They are not in favour of that.

You are making a big mistake.

If they were to organize into a big trade union and went on strike to-morrow for high wages, hon. gentlemen would be against them to a man.

It depends upon the circumstances.

Hon. members know that that they want to keep the natives as hewers of wood and drawers of water. If we want to give him complete equality, we must either allow him to sit in Parliament or have a black Parliament, or we must go in for a policy of segregating the natives.

You cannot segregate them.

The great obstacle is the selfishness of the white community. They wish to retain the natives to exploit them. If the natives were not profitable to the white people, we should see a different state of affairs, but, as it is, the white people wish to keep the native in a position of hewers of wood and drawers of water, and to keep him out of certain areas and professions. If hon. members were sincere, they would be in favour of separate areas for the natives; would let them have their own parliament and rule themselves. Hon. members are not in favour of the abolition of the colour bar in the Act of union, or of there being equality on the social and political field.

One does not want to go into the full details of all these Bills, but at least as regards one we shall have to consider very carefully the provisions to show the reasons why it is necessary to have fuller consideration than it is possible for any select committee appointed by this House to give to such an important question in the very short time at our disposal. I do not care which body considers these Bills, whether it is a select committee or a commission, of this I am certain— these Bills must come back to the House in such a condition that the drafters will not be able to recognize them, and feeling that I do not think it profitable at this stage to consider the principles of every Bill. I do not want to prejudice the minds of anybody by saying what one is tempted to say in regard to the provisions, particularly of the Native Bills. Anyone studying these Bills would agree he could not say definitely at this stage what the effect would be if these Bills were passed into law.

At the adjournment I stated that no matter whether a select committee or a commission were appointed the Bills cannot come back to this House in such a condition that anybody would recognize them. A select committee, however, is purely party, and, much as one must regret it, those who attend select committees know that more and more the tendency is to vote there upon purely party lines, and I think If there is any wish for a permanent settlement, the only way to bring this about would be by having a commission go into this very important South African matter. Last year a very serious impression was made as the result of what took place at the select committee on what was known as the colour bar Bill, and we had hoped that the effect was sufficiently disastrous to make every one in this House feel that in future any legislation dealing with natives should be free from that party taint. The very fact that changes are expected—and even the Prime Minister himself I understood the other day to say that he expected there would be many changes were he to send these Bills to a select committee—shows clearly that nothing but the fullest enquiry will have any lasting effect in this country. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) that no good cause has been shown for the introduction of any legislation of this nature. I also feel that what is commonly known as the great native problem cannot be settled by way of legislation, more especially legislation of this kind, which, to my mind, is, under the circumstances, particularly dangerous. The cry is that something must be done, but we know that when men shout—

and rest satisfied there, that is merely a cry of despair. He know that there is nothing more dangerous than to say: “ Something must be done ” when that something has not been very carefully considered beforehand. If we must legislate, then let us admit that there are many grave questions opened up by the Native Bills now before us. Let us admit also that, though there are very strong party cleavages, men of widely divergent political views and feelings have been able at all times to discuss this matter, which is of such vast South African interest, without yielding to the party spirit, and that their desire has been in every way to deal with this question on its merits purely. Let us admit that a spirit of responsibility and earnestness prevails throughout this country. Men have come to see that they must put every energy possible into the endeavour to arrive at some conclusion which will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Let us feel that we should, above all, establish an atmosphere of absolute fairness to all parties. The natives undoubtedly should have a fair deal. If we are to deal fairly with the natives without sacrificing any essential Europeans’ aspirations, we should work towards a policy which would deal adequately and on permanent lines with this great question, and surely the only way to deal with it is by consultation and by appreciating the view-point of every section of the community. The value of such a course must be appreciated by the Prime Minister himself, for he quite lately has experienced what can be gained by mutual trust, by a desire to work together and by a round-table conference. These Bills undoubtedly contain, we must admit, the germs of a policy, and statesmanlike action on our part can possibly lead to a settlement. But we must also admit that these Bills are full of pitfalls and without the amplest enquiry these pitfalls cannot be obviated. To rush legislation, as it is proposed now, would be fatal. We should consider calmly, we should have every representation possible, and by that course alone can we lead to any good in this country. I trust the Prime Minister will give heed to this appeal, and that he will recognize that the only way in which to come to any permanent settlement in this matter is to hear the views of every section of the community and to accept representation from all who wish to give representation in this matter, and then we can look upon the question in a broad and equitable manner, and, by looking at it in that way only, can we come to some settlement which will be lasting to the peace of this country. It has been considered in the past that the native question is in the nature of a disagreement between the people of the north and the people of the south. I, fortunately, a little while ago, had an interesting trip through the eastern Transvaal, and I was very much impressed by the view point of the people there on these very Bills. They are not, as I had supposed, entirely at one with the Prime Minister. Many differ, and differ very widely, from him in his views as expressed in these Bills. We, therefore, should consider the views of all sections; we should have every part of the country represented. I would like to tell the Prime Minister, for his information, what the farmers in the eastern Transvaal resolved. At a meeting of the Drakensberg Farmers’ Association, a body, composed of members of all the political parties, they passed the following resolution—

They go on to say—

There we have the unanimous view of a body of men, not of one political party only, but of all political parties. Now, surely, if men can come together as they did and deliberately pass such a resolution they should be heard by any body which has to decide on these Bills. I do not propose to consider the principles of what might de termed the purely native Bills, but there is one of the Bills to which I feel I must give some consideration, as that Bill contains provisions which are really grotesque, if it were for no other purpose than to show the necessity of having the very best men, men representative of all parties, men who are best able—not necessarily members of Parliament—to consider these matters and to go into every detail very carefully and advise thereon. The Bill to which I specially refer is what is called the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill. To appreciate the position under this Bill it is perhaps necessary that I explain, as far as the Cape is concerned, what the present position is. The South Africa Act lays down very clearly what the qualifications of voters should be, and it states that no person should be disqualified under any circumstances by reason of his race or colour alone, and that no person who at the passing of any such law is registered shall be removed from the register by reason of any disqualification based on race or colour. That we must remember. That was a resolution passed by the National Conference and confirmed by an Act passed by the British House and Acts passed by every parliament in South Africa. That section of the Act was deliberately passed. Then the sub-section to this section says that no person who, at the passing of that law, is registered, shall be removed from the register merely on the ground of his race or colour. That is the position of the coloured person and the natives in the Cape Province to-day. According to our own Acts in this Province there are certain qualifications. There is no distinction of race or colour, the native, the coloured man or the white man, if he can conform to these qualifications he is entitled to go on the register. He also has to pass an educational test, which is a very small one, but the fact remains that that test equally applies to all persons. The proposal to remove the names of these natives from the electoral roll is, in my opinion, a distinct violation of the spirit and intention of the constitution of this country. It is quite true the South Africa Act provides that certain of these rights can be done away with by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament, but there again, the intention of sub-section 2 of that section is that those already on the register shall not have their names removed. It may be held that that is not the legal position I, personally, think it is, but then I say there is an absolute contract with these people, a contract deliberately made by the British House and by the Houses of the different colonies in South Africa at that time. To tamper with that privilege, therefore, is a gross violation of existing rights and a breach of contract. Let us consider the Bill itself. If that Bill passes, then the rights of natives will disappear from a fixed date and the coloured person, that is the 20,000 odd in the Cape Province and the 326 in Natal, must then submit to the decision of a board. That board decides whether or not the names of coloured men shall go on a special list, This special list, which to my mind is clearly a new colour bar in this country, is a permanent list, a permanent record as to who are and who are not coloured. The distinction is as to whether a man is a coloured man or a native. By this, not only may we for ever brand a coloured man as a native, but we may also permanently brand a white man who by mistake comes on this list as a coloured man. We ought to have the very best men to decide as to what really the position in the country is to be. Then we have other lists. This first list is the basis and from this list the Minister makes a new list; he makes what is called a district list. This list forms the basis for the coloured persons voters’ list. In future, therefore, a coloured person’s name must appear on the district list before he can become a voter. This list will govern for ever these peoples’ future political rights. Many who now are registered may find that they cannot get on to this list, no matter how long they have enjoyed the privilege of being registered, and then they immediately become natives in terms of this Bill. There is no appeal from the finding of this board. True, there is a provision that if a man is left off he can come to Parliament and then by resolution of both Houses have his name placed on the list, but what hope of success has he and remember that otherwise if he goes on he is on for ever; if he is off he is off for ever. This is the first great hurdle the coloured man has to face. Having got on the list he is by no means a voter. He is merely on a list which entitles him in certain circumstances to become a voter. He must pass an educational test; then he must pass what the Bill calls a civilisation test—two tests which the white man has not got to face—and only then may he prove his qualifications, which must be the same as those of the white man. I would like to know how many Europeans in this country would be prepared to face such a test. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have repeatedly told the coloured people that in future they will be completely absorbed into the European community, but in this Bill a distinct difference is made. It seems to me the coloured people instead of having an advance in status are pilloried by another colour bar. In the official memoranda issued by the Prime Minister he says—

Where is the equality here? A coloured man to-day cannot sit in Parliament; he will not be able to sit in Parliament after this Bill is passed. There is a differentiation between coloured and Europeans both in educational and civilization tests. In the northern provinces when this Bill passes they will not have the right to vote for a candidate for the Provincial Council. Where then is the equality? I admit, from what the Prime Minister told a deputation of coloured men the other day, that he does not believe that this Bill means what it really does mean. According to what he said I believe he honestly believes that this Bill in no way handicaps the coloured man, but rather assists him to an equality with the European. But, surely, the terms of the Bill are clearly against the coloured man. Let us consider the definition of “ coloured man ” No definite definition is given but judging from the provisions of the Bill, it is—

After the Act is passed there cannot be any more coloured persons unless specially declared so by resolution of both Houses. A coloured person born after the Act is therefore a native. It seems very absurd, I admit, but I do not see how the Bill can be read in any other way. It is quite impossible definitely to say what this Bill means by—

However, let us consider two positions, and see the absurdity of this Bill. A child born of a coloured father and a native mother, if born before the Act is classed as a coloured person; but a child born of a European father and a coloured mother, if born after the Act, is classed as a native. That is the position, no matter what degree of civilization the mother or the child may have attained. Unless Parliament decides otherwise, this child is branded as a native. This means we are going to have a new class indistinguishable from a “ coloured person,” but who is a “native.” I do not and cannot agree that the Prime Minister ever intended that the Bill which he has placed before the House should contain such provisions. I refrain from criticising further, and I am not going to offer criticism beyond what appears to be the absurdities in the Bill. If the Prime Minister considers these Bills very carefully, he will come to the conclusion that the only way to have legislation satisfactory to the bodies concerned is to accept the amendment of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. The other Bills I deliberately do not criticise now, because I feel that the natives might not consider criticism in the same way as the coloured people would. We may find ourselves in a position which would not be healthy, and I urge that these Bills be considered by a strong commission, which could bring them back in an improved form, and come to some agreement which would have a lasting effect in this country. I submit we would not have such an agreement by a select committee where hon. members are prone to vote on party lines, but let us have a strong commission on which all shades of opinion are represented, and which will decide on the Bills with less harshness more particularly when unfortunates are concerned, those who have no say in the legislation of this House.

I want to confine myself to the motion of the Prime Minister to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The Prime Minister will admit that the principles contained in the Bills are very comprehensive and important; four Bills are being included in the motion. They are not being treated separately, and it is very difficult to put all your arguments on the four Bils alt once. We are now asked to refer the Bills to a Select Committee. We, on this side of the House, agree with the Prime Minister that full information about the Bills is necessary. As Minister of Native Affairs he is anxious to have a thorough enquiry made, and we understand that his responsibility in the matter is great. I take it that he is fully aware of this responsibility. We therefore agree that a proper enquiry is necessary and the only point we differ upon is the method of conducting that enquiry. We want to assist the Prime Minister. He can assume that the motion from this side of the House is bona fide intended to assist him with reference to the information he wants so that data as complete as possible, can be obtained. I think that our motion promotes the end the Prime Minister has in view. We are dealing here with a great national problem which practically touches the foundation of the whole community in South Africa, not only of the coloured people and the natives, but also of the Europeans. Even if there may eventually be disagreement about the contents of the Bill when they again come before the House, we should not now differ about the procedure to be followed in obtaining the information necessary to put the Bills into proper form. Let us agree in this House on the procedure which should be followed to bring the Bills before the House in a form in which both sides of the House, can have full confidence and respect. It is in the interests of this great national matter. It is impossible for the House to deal with the future stages of the Bill before we have full information, and if we want to pass useful legislation then the Prime Minister will agree that adequate enquiry and complete information are absolutely necessary. Short cuts are useless in great national matters, and in my opinion a select committee in the present circumstances is a short cut.

If you wait too long you never reach the destination.

I will answer the hon. member if he gives me a chance. We must not baulk each other and interrupt. Perhaps I shall be able to convince the hon. member that my view is right. If they Select Committee has to complete the work on these Bills this session, how can it do otherwise than take a short cut? The time for handling it will be shortened in every possible way, even if they Select Committee only wants to get part of the necessary information about the subject matters on the Bills. We are dealing in these Bills with the highest human rights when we deal with the franchise of the natives and coloured people in the Cape Province. It is a matter which will find an echo with all the coloured races in South Arica. To confine my argument to the Cape, the coloured people and natives obtained the franchise 75 years ago at the same time as the Europeans. It has never been abused, and hitherto South Africa has suffered no harm through coloured people having exercised the franchise. We are here as statesmen dealing with peoples’ rights. The coloured people are not represented directly in the House, because no coloured persons may sit in the House, but the responsibility rests upon us European representatives in this House. I think the only way that we can do justice to them is by placing ourselves more or less in their position so that we can appreciate the great value they attach to the franchise. How will these people feel if we touch their rights?

What people?

The natives and the coloured people.

Is the franchise being taken away from the coloured man?

If they hon. member reads the definition of “ coloured ” he will see how the rights of the coloured people to the franchise are encroached upon. The Prime Minister admits that the rights of the people are affected, because it is proposed to take away the native franchise and the vested rights of the coloured people are also being encroached upon to a certain extent.

No.

If they hon. member will look at the Bills he will notice that a separate list of coloured persons above 21 years must be prepared before they can get on the voters’ roll.

That is to clear up the rolls.

The coloured person can only get on to the voters’ roll after he is on the separate list, and he is therefore taken out of the roll on which his name now is, and put on to another list. If they Bills are referred to a Select Committee, the committee will not have an opportunity to take evidence in six weeks throughout South Africa in connection with even one of the important Bills. The ordinary native franchise in the Cape is being taken away and the franchise is being extended in a different way to the other provinces as well. With regard to this, detailed evidence will be required not only from the natives, but also from the Europeans in the other provinces. The provision does not only concern the point of view and the rights of natives, but also the established view in the northern province of the Europeans. Both the Europeans and the natives of the Free State, Transvaal and Natal ought to have an opportunity to give detailed evidence about that Bill, whether they think that it is advisable and whether the natives are fit for the indirect method of voting, proposed in the Bill. The taking away of the ordinary native franchise in the Cape is also a vital matter and when it is proposed to take away immediately the vested rights of the natives in the Cape, all the influential natives and also the Europeans should be consulted. The Bill on the parliamentary representation of natives is in itself sufficient to keep the select committee busy for the whole session. Then the Coloured Persons’ Rights Bill which extends their franchise to the other provinces is also a very important. The Bill contains a certain additional colour line by the provision with regard to a separate list on which they are to be put before they can get on the voters’ roll. The definition of the word “kleurling” in the Bill is another matter which requires consideration. The Union Native Councils Bill is also of very great importance. The nature, circumstances and rights which are being given to the native council, are all matters about which the leaders of the natives, and also ordinary natives, must be consulted. Then there is the Native Land Bill in which not only the natives but also Europeans have intimate concern. How will a select committee in at most six weeks of the session be able to deliberate about such matters and take evidence. If they Easter vacation is subtracted then the question is whether there are six weeks left. The Bills affect the Europeans and the coloured people very deeply, and they touch the foundations of the people’s existence. We are now, however, sending to a select committee Bills which possibly contain one of the most important constitutional points which, in the history of Parliament, has been referred to a select committee, and then the committee has to deliberate during the rest of the session and make a full report to the House with complete draft Bills. The Prime Minister knows, much better than I, how important the matter is. He is the leader of the House and knows how its machinery works. I ask him whether it is possible, if he will express his true opinion, for us to have an authoritative report in the limited time for which the Bills will be considered by the select committee. I am not speaking from a party point of view, and if there is anyone who would try to keep the question free from party politics it is I. I can therefore tell the Prime Minister that our attitude is quite bona fide, both in the interests of the objects the Prime Minister has in view, and also in the interests of South Africa. I just want to say a few words about the amendment. The amendment proposes to refer the Bill to a strong and representative commission instead of to a select committee. Let me say at once in connection with a select committee that the Prime Minister with us wants to keep the matter out of party politics. Does he think that that will happen If they matter is sent to a select committee? There is the temptation to regard the matter from a political standpoint, because the committee is made up from the various parties in the House. We know that you, Mr. Speaker, in connection with select committees, have almost daily to deal with constitutional points about which there is confusion. With what objects are the points raised? Not in order to extend the enquiry further, but to shorten it. How can a select committee do justice to four important Bills? With regard to a commission, I want to say in the first place that, in my opinion it should not consist exclusively of party politicians, but especially of persons who have had experience of native affairs and coloured people, persons who are more or less outside of politics, of whom there are enough in South Africa for the purposes of appointing a commission.

May I ask what the value would be of the decision of such a commission?

I will reply to it. I say that a select committee cannot possibly deal with the matter during this session.

I asked you what the binding power of such a commission would be.

When I have done the Minister will see what my view is. I have no objection to members of Parliament being on the commission, but there should also be other people who have made a study of the problem, and who are outside of politics. I further want to point out that we have here to do with the greatest privileges of human beings. We propose to take away the vote of the native, at any rate so far as the Cape Province is concerned. Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be politic to put some of the leaders of the people whose rights are affected on such a commission, some of the natives in the Cape Province and of other parts of South Africa? Must not the Cape coloured people also be represented?

Any others?

Does the hon. member not wish that? Is the hon. member opposed to the coloured people being represented on the commission?

It is not necessary.

I do not wish to go into the principle, but the Government, during the recess, set an example worthy of imitation in connection with the Indian question. They sat round the table with the Indians to find a solution of the Indian question. It is an example worth following in connection with our own natives and coloured people. I do not say that they are as highly developed as the Indians who took part in the conference, but with regard to their own interests, there are natives and coloured people enough who have just as good a view about their own affairs as the Indians have about theirs. If we do that then we ask the natives and coloured people to bear the responsibility with us of any vital alteration in the future of their constitutional rights. I do not see how we can avoid giving these people in some way or other a direct say with regard to the proposed solution of the great problem by the Prime Minister. Do not let us follow the policy which was pursued in connection with the Colour Bar Act when we refused to give the natives a hearing. Then we shall have a dark period in South Africa. The Prime Minister is the leader of this House. Let him try to come to an agreement. If he does that, If they House of Assembly takes the first step in settling this great national question jointly and as speaking with one voice then the circumstances will greatly contribute to reach a sound and effective settlement of this great national question.

Although it is late in the debate, I want to make a few remarks before the vote is taken. It seems almost as if it were a hopeless matter to arrive at unanimity because we are as divided as it is possible to be During the debate we were reproached for making a political matter of it. Last year when the Bills were published I did my best to explain them, and I don’t think anyone can accuse me of trying to make party profit out of them. As to us in the north, it cannot possibly be said that we can agree with the Bills. At my meetings I had not only one section of the people, but I had special meetings in connection with the native Bills. All the parties on the countryside were represented at the meetings, the most important clauses in the Bills were explained, and no one agreed with the Bills as they were drafted.

On what points?

Just to mention one point, the extension of the franchise of the coloured people to the northern provinces. One of the Bills proposes, after they have all been passed, that a separate list of coloured persons shall be prepared in the Free State Transvaal and Natal. They will then remain for seven years on the separate list, and then be enrolled with Europeans as voters. They will then have equal rights with the Europeans to go to the ballot box and vote.

Do you not want that?

I will answer that. When the Union was established a large section of the non-Europeans in the Cape Province had a franchise, and the constitution then laid down that they should retain it, but that it should not be extended to the northern provinces. The Bills of the Minister of Native Affairs propose to extend the franchise to the northern provinces, and I want to ask hon. members from the Free State whether they are prepared to swallow that pill.

I am.

So am I.

I am surprised to hear that from the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels). A few days ago he was calling upon his ancestors. What would they have to say about this? I also appeal to my ancestors and I am certain that they would not approve of that step.

His ancestors would prevent the hon. member from mis-understanding me just as much as he does the Bills.

We have to do here with a great national question, and every member ought to express his views. I differ from some members of my own party. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is prepared to sit with a native on the same bench in this House. I am not prepared to do that, nor am I prepared to allow coloured people to sit in this House, but still less am I prepared to allow the constitution to be broken to give the vote to the coloured people in the north. The Prime Minister knows that there is no time to have the matter completed by a Select Committee. I should also like to see an improvement in the existing legislation, and I am prepared to support any legislation in a good direction, but there is not sufficient time for a thorough enquiry during this session. I wonder whether the hon. member for Frankfort has explained the Bills to the farming population. I have received letter after letter about the matter, not only from supporters of my party, but also from opponents, and I can assure the Prime Minister that there will be great dissatisfaction If they matter is dealt with by a Select Committee. As for the Franchise, I am prepared to support the proposal to take it away from the natives in the Cape Province. They get compensation under the Bills, but I am not prepared to extend the franchise to the north. With a few exceptions the natives are at present not yet sufficiently developed to discuss matters together with us. A large section of the six million natives are entirely ignorant of all affairs, and ask nothing else than to be left in peace. We are ourselves the cause of the dissatisfaction which exists because we have raised and discussed the question of putting them on the same footing as Europeans.

What about the future?

It will be centuries and centuries before they are developed to that extent, but we ourselves suggested their trying to reach our level. When the English farmers visited our country I spoke to one of them after they had travelled all about the country, and had seen the natives who were still leading the tribal life. His opinion was that the Europeans themselves were the cause of the dissatisfaction among the natives, and that they lived happily in their native state. I am not opposed to the establishment of a native council. Let them decide their own matter subject to the Union Government. I asked the natives themselves whether they wished to vote for a European to represent them. They do not wish it. They say that the white men are their guardians, and must do the proper thing for them. By this legislation we shall break up tribal life and encourage the native to no longer be subordinate to their chiefs, but to live like Europeans. In the Transvaal we do not wish to give the franchise to the coloured people. The right is given to the natives to elect seven European representatives in Parliament. This is only the thin edge of the wedge. Will not the six million natives subsequently say that they want more than seven members? They are already talking of that now. I shall be sorry If there is a division on this matter. Let us try by every possible means to arrange a compromise and not to have a division.

The advantage of discussing the native question is that we are debating a problem that everybody understands. There is nobody ignorant, as far as I have ever seen, on the native question, and everybody has a solution. The last comer to the country knows most about it. We who have been born in this country and who have tried to understand the native, find ourselves rather at a loss as compared with people who are going to decide this matter “ once and for all.”—thrice blessed phrase. Yes, we all fully understand this native question. It reminds me rather of Mark Twain, who said that he had no difficulty whatever in speaking German; his only difficulty was to find people who understood him. As far as the native himself is concerned, his one and only problem from the time I had the pleasure of going round the country with the first Minister for Native Affairs, the hon. Charles Brownlee, from tribe to tribe and from time to time, is land. Everywhere we went the one thing they asked for was—

and to-day it is still more land and more cattle, and we seem to have hardly touched the real problem. However, we are once more to try. Somehow or other the idea has grown that a partial solution of the trouble is that we are going to find just a little more land for them, and to purchase this land from funds which we will, in some mysterious way, supply. I hope it will work out, but I “ have my doots.” Let me take one little illustration in the case of the Fingoes. They were a broken people, slaves of the Gcalekas, and they were liberated and settled down at Peddie. There was plenty of land and they occupied it. By and by they put forward the usual request for more land. More land was found for them in the King Williamstown district. A few short years afterwards they wanted more land and Fingoland was found for them. To-day we have these large stettlements crowded again. They always sent a contingent forward and a number remained behind, so securing both old and new areas. The natives are always pressing. When they challenged us to arms and our right to supremacy we had a simple task, but now that we have peaceful penetration our task is growing more and more difficult, and there are those who tell us that segregation is now an impossible thing. I hope not, because I look upon that as essential to good government both in their interest and in ours. For three years the Prime Minister has to our knowledge devoted himself wholeheartedly to find a solution of this problem, and if he succeeds nobody will begrudge him the credit and honour of a far greater achievement than when he returned with full hands from England the other day. But I am sorry to say that in a sense his pitch is queered. The atmosphere in which this problem could have been reasonably settled has been disturbed. We have not that peaceful and quiet atmosphere which is so desirable if not absolutely necessary. Already we have engendered in the minds of the natives a suspicion, that all is not well; that there is a great movement on foot which will bring about different conditions in South Africa, conditions under which the native will not enjoy the security which he has had hitherto.

The Colour Bar gave him that suspicion.

I do not want to turn off to the Colour Bar controversy, but will remind hon. members opposite that If they want to be considered fair and square and honest, let them accept the challenge given by this side. Let them say they are out to fight against the fundamental constitutional colour law, and that we are to have natives sitting in this House. Let them go on public platforms and say that in their place they are willing to see black men—that challenge, the fundamental challenge of the South Africa Act, the foundation of our representation. It is all very well to cavil at the colour bar, but go out and honestly and bravely say—

That is the acid test. Not one of the hon. gentlemen opposite can stand up and say—

I ask the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who represents a constituency in which the native votes determine the representation, to express his willingness to see a black man sitting in his place. No, of course not. The problem is growing. Let us cease flinging the colour bar question across the floor of the House. The menace is coming nearer, and to-day our towns are being flooded with more and more natives. Once again we are trying to start at the top of the ladder when we ought to be putting right things which should be attended to first. Not that I object to the problem being dealt with in a large way, but you have native men in domestic service, a menace to social peace. We have the Urban Areas Act. What is the result? More and more money is to be spent. Upon what? In providing for natives in urban centres. While we are not providing sufficient accommodation for our white people, we must compel all towns to provide sufficient accommodation for the natives. It already is a great menace to our towns in the social life of our own people. We are asked by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) not to take away Native rights, particularly franchise rights. His rights to political equality of the franchise indeed! What rights had he? Under a Chaka a Dingaan; or even a Moshesh, a Macomo, or a Kreli. None. It would have been better if he had never had this franchise; better for him and for us. I know how it started, why it was started, and the pity of it all—simply for a momentary political advantage in the field in the early days. It was put forward that the native had the then extremely low qualification and could be put on the register as a voter. The penalty has to be paid by a later white generation. So long as the native is not deprived of the right of working in a free labour market for a fair rate of pay, so long as he has justice, I have no objection to his being deprived of franchise rights. But we have taken away rights from him. He had the right to carry arms. Also he enjoyed another right, the right to fill himself full of drink of any kind, but we now say—

He had the right to his tribal system, his own laws and customs. We have taken that liberty away. We have left him one right, the right to polygamy. Let him have many wives and breed labourers for service with us. That right is one which I would rather challenge. We are not the only people who believe segregation to be necessary. I find that in the United States, of all places, the question was raised in the latter part of last year, on a question as to whether the negro and coloured person should be allowed to buy property amongst white people, the whites in that part of a city having agreed they should not allow coloured people to dwell amongst them. A coloured purchaser brought an action in the Supreme Court of America, and the Court laid down that, according to the Constitution, a negro or coloured person had no such rights as to force his residence among white people. In fact, they agreed to the principle of segregation, yet America has no such problem as we have, because there are only 12,000,000 coloured people in a population of 110,000,000, whereas we have five or six of the coloured race to one of ourselves. Whether Parliament decides on a Commission or a Select Committee, the only thing that can be done is to try and impress the native that all round we wish to give him a square deal, and to thrash differences out in a friendly way without flinging across the House the question of whether we want a colour bar or not. What we require in this country is absolute peace in regard to the native; that he shall be encouraged to go on his own way as a native, and not be misled by the visionary ideal of equal rights in every way. We should simply treat him as a ward of the State, and try and restore what, for a moment, has been lost—his confidence in the white man. In education, we have raised the same difficulty I saw in India. We have to deal with it, and we shall suffer for it, leading the educated native to believe that he is a superior being, and can lead his people in the place of chiefs, and also take his place on a social equality with Europeans. We have created that native class, just as we have created the entire coloured class. Such a man, finding no place in our social system for himself, becomes an educated agitator. We have dealt fairly with the black races. The total contribution of the natives to the general revenue is about £2,000,000 directly and indirectly, at the very highest official estimate. The Native Department alone costs £350,000 a year, and we spend in native education about another £350,000. If you take that expenditure and all he enjoys in regard to public services we enjoy, I think the native is getting a very square deal. If we can approach this question with a large mind, and if we can restore the confidence recently lost, then we shall succeed, perhaps, in governing him to mutual advantage. But, finally, we have either to govern, or go. It is our responsibility, and we cannot escape it if we would. We certainly will not go.

I do not intend to speak about the Bills themselves, but I cannot omit to protest against the statement and suspicion, almost the accusation, that the South African party wants to make political capital out of the question, and wants to treat it on party lines to obtain party benefits. It is almost impossible to think that hon. members on the opposite side of the House could say such a thing. This matter is of too serious a nature to permit of any party advantage being got out of it. I can assure the Prime Minister that the most honourable desire exists on our part to support him in solving this difficult problem, and If there is a difference in opinion over the means of attaining that, then I am sure that the Prime Minister himself would not wish to assist in preventing a proper solution of the question being arrived at. In August last the Prime Minister convened a small conference of farmers to deliberate together upon the proposed legislation about native land, and I considered it an honour, as a representative of the district with a large number of natives to be among the delegates. The meeting in Pretoria lasted two days and during that time, in so far as the Bill in question is concerned, the Prime Minister laid all his cards on the Table and said: “ These are my proposals, criticise as much as you wish. ” The Prime Minister will admit that there was no question of any party. There were other members of Parliament, but as for the rest I must honestly say that I did not know in the least, and do not yet know what party they belonged to, nor was I, nor am I to-day inquisitive about it. There was no question of any party spirit or of any party question. Everyone most frankly expressed his views on the various points, and the criticism that took place—as the Minister will admit—was rather sharp. But as regards the members of the South African party who were present, not for one moment was criticism made from a party point of view, or criticism at all concerned with the party itself. Moreover I usually hold my meetings in my district in October to explain to the voters the Acts passed during last session. It is an old custom existing since the days of the old republic, to which I am still attached. I made a special point of explaining the four native Bills of the Prime Minister to the public, and I did so as impartially as possible. I was, of course, fairly well informed, because I had studied the Bills carefully, and had also taken part in the Pretoria conference in August when the Prime Minister made all the points in the Bills clear. It is not necessary to say what actually happened at the meetings, but what was the result of all the meetings, and included in them was the meeting to which the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj G. B. van Zyl) has referred, viz., that of the Drakensberg Farmers Association. The meetings were well attended by supporters of the two parties and the good attendance was also due to the fact that I had mentioned in my notices that I would explain the native Bills of the Prime Minister, and that they would be discussed, and after an attentive hearing at the meetings it was decided every time (1) As to the Native Land Bill which contains segregation, and the Native Council Bill with the exception of a few provisions in regard to a definite area which my constituents wished to be altered, but which are of minor importance, I was instructed as the representative with regard to these Bills to act according to the best of my knowledge and according to circumstances. That was really liberal and really a little too liberal to my liking. But regarding the extension of the franchise to the north, I was instructed to vote against it if it came up in Parliament. This resolution was unanimously passed with the exception of three or four members of the Nationalist party. In many cases the motion was proposed by a member of the Nationalist party and seconded by a member of the S.A. party. When the three or four individuals were asked why they did not concur in the resolution they replied that they were loyal members of the Nationalist party, that Gen. Hertzog was the leader and chief of their party and that what he did was right. It is of course flattering to the Prime Minister, but I do not think that he would agree with his followers trusting him like children, I might almost say on the faith of his authority. I do not think that that is in accordance with the wishes of the Prime Minister. He wishes his followers to follow him from conviction, and trusting that what he proposes is the best. Then I ask what I have done to make a party matter of it, why the reproaches are thrown at our heads. It is surely permissible for everybody to make remarks and offer criticism on the proposed legislation. Is it then a sin and a crime in the South African party to do what is done by the Nationalist party itself? Because notwithstanding what has been said by various members opposite on this question, it was said to the members for Bethal (Lt.Col. II. S. Grobler) and Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) that they had not properly explained the Bills. That I could not understand in view of the resolutions passed by the Nationalist party itself. To prove this I have here a report about a resolution passed by the Nationalist party of the Transvaal, itself. A special committee was appointed by the central committee of the Nationalist party in the Transvaal to draft a resolution and hand it over to Gen. Hertzog. And the resolution provided inter alia—it was a resolution passed on the 19th November — (a) “ Political segregation.” The Nationalist party of the Transvaal gives notice with regard to political segregation that it does not wish the franchise to be granted to natives for parliamentary elections, the Provincial Council and the municipalities, and the Nationalist party of the Transvaal will, under no circumstances, permit natives to be given the franchise in the north, and that the party is strongly of opinion that the native franchise in the Cape Province should be taken away. And further that the Nationalist party of the Transvaal is not in favour of the direct representation of natives in Parliament, even If their representatives have only an advisory status; fourthly, that the committee is of opinion that the Transvaal public apart from parties will never agree to grant direct representation to natives in Parliament, or in the Transvaal Provincial Council.” It seems to me that this resolution is a hundred times stronger than the resolutions which were passed at my ordinary district meetings. Is it then such a crime of the South African party when the Minister’s own party passes such a resolution. It does not, however, follow at all, and I do not hope that I have given the impression, that the South African party, merely for the sake of political advantage, does not agree with all the points in the Bill. With regard to the appointment of a commission, to tell the truth, people in my district are a little tired of commissions. With regard to commissions on native affairs, the opinion is not particularly favourable. In 1915-’19 the Beaumont Commission made certain recommendations in connection with native land, that met with entire approval of the population. Recommendations were then made to the commission, and the commission followed up the recommendations. Three years later the Provincial committee was appointed and threw over the first recommendations, and made suggestions which were entirely opposed to the view of my constituents, and about which a great deal will yet be heard, and evidence will be given to nullify the work of the commission. In connection with a commission, much has been said about specialists, but I must say that I have read very closely what experts have said in books, pamphlets, newspapers, writings etc., about a solution of the native question, and I must say that there is too much theory in them which is of no use to us, especially as they so often contradict each other. The professor says that the franchise must be given and the doctor says no. Accordingly if we were to have a commission of experts I should not expect much from it, and I think that we should rest content with a committee of members of Parliament.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and do not quite agree with what the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has said because, if a select committee is appointed consisting of members from all parties, the danger will be too great that in many cases the matter will once more be decided by a majority of votes on party lines. I believe I am the only man in this House who was present at the meeting of coloured people which the Prime Minister addressed at Stellenbosch. I made notes at the time, but unfortunately have not got them with me. If I am wrong, however, in my quotations, the Prime Minister must kindly correct me. Before the last election the Prime Minister said to the coloured people that if his party got into office, the coloured people would be placed on the same basis as the Europeans in political matters. He added, “ not socially.” And I entirely concur. He further said that the native should go back to his country, and govern himself, because we did not want him among us here. To-day the Prime Minister has drawn up a Bill which does not give equal rights to the coloured people. In the first place he wants to amend section 35 of the Act of Union, the clause which is the main pillar of the coloured people in retaining their franchise. Secondly the coloured people are not treated on the same basis as the Europeans because, before they can get on to the voters’ roll, a Board has to say whether they are coloured, and further the coloured people must make written application to be put on the roll. A Board of three members has to decide whether anyone is a coloured person, and an injustice might be done to people to whom the Prime Minister has promised the same rights as the Europeans. I was astonished that evening, but I now find out that the Bill does not coincide with what the Prime Minister promised to the coloured people. They have now to apply and no one can be on the voters’ roll if he has not first been on the list of coloured persons. I have seen coloured people who have had a fair education and who have put all the necessary writing on labels and on fruit baskets, but if you tell them to sign their names then they are hopeless, because they become absolutely nervous. If a policeman were to stand at a man’s back to see him write then he would not be able to write his name. The greatest discouragement to the coloured person is the definition in the Bill of what a coloured person is. It says—

If you call a Moslem a Malay it is a great insult and here a coloured person is now called a Malay. I reckon that If they Board of three members had to discriminate among the coloured people and to say who was a coloured man because he looked like a Malay, then I do not know what the Board must do. I have seen families among whom you find pitch black, almost white and yellow persons, and If they Board must decide about the family then brothers may be divided into various groups. I may be put on the list of coloured people, and another may even be regarded as a European while the third will probably be treated as a native. We are going to do an injustice to the persons and therefore I wish the Prime Minister to yield the point so that the matter can be properly gone into. The coloured people can possibly be better known by their speech than by their colour. Yesterday afternoon I heard the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) say that when he was amongst the natives they were quite satisfied. I can assure the Prime Minister, that as far as I know, the natives are not so stupid as to be satisfied if their franchise is taken away. They appreciate it very highly having the vote in the Cape Province. I do not want to meddle with other provinces, but the hearts of the natives in the Cape Province will break If they right they were given is taken away. It will be a great injustice to take away the franchise. In 1885 the old electoral law of the Cape Colony was altered. Previously a man who could not read and write could not get on to the voters roll, but this was amended and the property and salary qualifications were raised. No person was, however, as a result of the amendment taken off the voters’ roll. To-day perhaps a person will not find 50 of them on the voters’ roll in the Cape Province, because all the others have died out. I want to ask the Prime Minister to allow the people who are now on the voters’ roll to remain on it. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) tried this afternoon to put a hare because he wanted to make out that hon. members on this side were the greatest enemies of the coloured people and natives. The natives are, however, not so stupid as to believe that, because they know that their greatest enemies are on the cross benches. Has this side of the House given out contracts stipulating “ only Europeans are to be employed? ” Is it now the present Government which did that?

What contract?

There is e.g. the contract for the building of a post office at Somerset West.

What date?

I do not want to go into that now, but the hon. member can himself go into the contract which I mentioned.

Have you seen the contract yourself?

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) also spoke of the buying of the native vote for 3d, but that is no longer done. I should be very glad If they Prime Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) so that a Commission can go into the question, and so that we can appoint people who will be able to keep this important matter outside of party politics.

I do not propose to discuss the merits or the principles of these Bills because I think the discussion now will be premature and unprofitable. But we have before the House the motion of the Prime Minister to refer these Bills to a Select Committee to which there is an amendment by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that they be referred instead to a Royal Commission. Now If they are referred to a Select Committee it really means the constitution of that Committee will be more or less of a packed character. It necessarily follows the Government, in appointing the members, will see they have a sympathetic majority on the Committee, and further than that the time at the disposal of the Committee is necessarily very short. They will have to deal with a grave duty in a very hurried manner, for, If they do not push the work along the report will not be returned in time for the consideration of it and carrying of it into effect before the time of the prorogation. Against that course the right hon. member for Standerton offers a proposition to the Prime Minister, in view of the importance, the vital importance and the farreaching consequences of these measures, that they should be sent to a Commission composed of the very best men, the most knowledgeable men South Africa can produce in native affairs, whether they be representatives of Parliament or outside this House. Surely that is a proposition which ought to recommend itself to everyone. Now let us follow out the suggestion of the Prime Minister, let us see for ourselves what it may lead to. I am satisfied in my own mind that if the Prime Minister gets his way, or rather insists upon having his way, he is adopting a course which is fraught with the gravest peril. These Bills are to be sent to a Select Committee, who are instructed to report on measures which include within their provisions fundamental alterations of the Act of Union. Let us suppose that the majority of the Committee decide to return these Bills to the House very much in the form in which they are submitted, then I think the trouble will only just commence, because one of the first points which will arise is that very likely Mr. Speaker’s ruling will be taken as to whether certain provisions in those measures are within the scope of this House to deal with, or whether they deal with matters specially entrenched in the Act of Union. I will not presume, Mr. Speaker, to anticipate what your ruling will be in connection with that, but we must admit that in the way in which we propose to deal with these fundamental alterations which are being introduced and spatchcocked into Bills of this sort, we are endeavouring to establish a tremendous precedent, a precedent which is very naturally disturbing the minds of the people of South Africa. These are measures, and they are conditions which it is perfectly clear to every member of this House have been specially safeguarded under the Act of Union and reserved for a special legislative body consisting of the Assembly and the Senate sitting in unison, and we propose to deal with them in this manner, discuss them, without reference to the other portion of the legislative body.

Is the hon. member questioning the ruling I gave the other day?

Not at all, Sir. On the contrary I say that that particular point has not been discussed, and you, Sir, never sounded a warning in that direction. I am assuming that they come back from the Committee with these provisions in them, and I am trying to argue as to what will be the effect, and what position we will find ourselves in. My argument is that it is a dangerous thing to send these Bills to a Select Committee of this House under present conditions, where a much safer course would be followed If they were submitted to a Commission consisting of a very much wider representation on which both Houses, if necessary, could be represented. I venture to think, Sir, that that does not conflict with your ruling. Supposing that these Bills come from this Committee very much in the same form as that in which they are submitted and this House accepts the report, what is the position of the other House? Is it not within their power also to appoint a Committee to deal with these very same measures and discuss what their position is likely to be. They are equally deeply concerned, they are just as responsible for the maintenance of the Act of Union as we are, and for carrying it out in its entirety. Supposing the position arises that a Committee of this House comes to one conclusion in regard to these Bills, and a Committee of the other House comes to another conclusion, where then do we stand? Now, as against that possibility arising, we have the proposition of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). All these perils, all these dangers and all this confusion which may arise can be avoided if Parliament in its wisdom will decide to submit these Bills to an independent Commission. I do not know, nor can I see, what advantage the Government can hope to gain by forcing this motion through, even with their majority at their back. We must presume that these Bills will have eventually to come before the combined Houses, this specially provided legislative body, and that they still contain these clauses, then, so far as the Act of Union is concerned, before they can become law, they will have to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the members of both Houses, that is to say, a two-thirds majority of 175 members, that means If there are only 120 members present 117 must vote for the Bill before it can become law. That is the position which the Government will be faced with sooner or later. It is going to be a very grave difficulty. Why deliberately go and place yourself in a position which sooner or later is going to land us in an impasse? If they Government, in spite of the warnings, insist on taking this line of action it looks as If they were doing it with the deliberate object of getting their Bills thrown out so that they can throw the responsibility and odium on somebody else and say to the people—

The Prime Minister seems to be under the impression that this legislation is acceptable to the people of South Africa, and particularly to the natives. If he thinks that he is fundamentally wrong. There is a widespread spirit of hostility to these proposals for different reasons in every part of the Union. A good deal of it is misinformed, owing to the agitators who are going about, owing to the false information which is being scattered, and owing to the lack of opportunity of bringing clearly before the natives exactly what is intended. In my own district and on my own farm practically the whole of my natives are on strike. I asked the reason, and they said—

Who tells them that?

I believe it is a coloured man who was educated in America. Why the Prime Minister has not dealt with that man I do not know. But he is not the only one; there are others carrying on in exactly the same way. Now there is no hostility on this side of the House to the Prime Minister’s desire to solve the native problem and generally speaking be has the sympathy of the people of South Africa in his desire to do the right thing. But If the wrong thing is done it will be irreparable, and now is the time to give pause. I urge the Prime Minister even at the eleventh hour to pocket his pride and accept the suggestion of a commission and give the people of this country time to find out for themselves exactly what is going on.

It is quite clear to me that the majority of hon. members were eager to have a Second reading debate. I congratulate them on that, but whether they have done any good is another matter. Now I want to say at once that I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I think it must be clear to everyone that has attended the debate why I cannot do that. One thing is very clear to me viz., that practically 90 per cent. of those who have spoken are not desirous of obtaining a report, either good or bad. I speak here for instance of the hon. members for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and Caledon (Mr. Krige). There were one or two exceptions, for example, the hon. members for Lydenbnrg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) and Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). What the first-mentioned gentlemen actually want is that there shall be no report. That is quite clear. The hon. member for Zululand e.g., said—

I can inform the hon. member that he has expressed his opinion quite frankly, but his whole speech was not a plea that the Bill should be referred to a commission instead of a select committee. I cannot say the same of the hon. members for Caledon and Cape Town (Harbour), because their speeches were really amusing. At the same time I want to congratulate those two hon. members heartily, because if they remember rightly, six or nine months ago, after my speech at Smithfield, and after my appeal to keep the matter out of the arena of party politics, they condemned my plans from platform to platform.

Do you include me?

Unless the newspaper reports are inaccurate.

I deny that once and for all.

Then I am very glad that the reports were in-accurate.

Tell us when?

All that I can say is that after I spoke at Smithfield the two members were reported in that way.

I would like to make an explanation. I deny it once and for all. I made two speeches in connection with the matter to my coloured voters, one at Genadendal and one at Caledon, and neither of the speeches was reported.

I certainly saw speeches of the hon. member reported in which he very strongly condemned my whole policy, that is to say, the policy comprised in the Bills. Did the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) not do the same thing?

On a point of explanation I can say that in my speeches I did not say a single thing I did not say this evening.

The hon. member has been alternately blowing hot and cold to-night, and he has said more than once that he actually cannot see why there should be legislation.

I said that it is stupid legislation.

That is exactly what I say. After my speech at Smithfield the hon. member said that, and threw the natives into confusion. He employed his best efforts to do that, and actually did throw them into confusion. I am glad to find that a reasonable spirit reigns here, and that as the hon. member for Caledon has repeatedly said they are not now going to deal with the matter in a party spirit. I read their speeches, but I accept now without qualification that they do not wish to deal with the matter in a party spirit. Allow me to refer to the criticism that has been offered here. It is quite clear to me that 90 per cent. of the criticism comes down to this, that they would rather that this legislation be not passed. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has referred to the conference which was held in August of last year, and mentioned that it was such a success and that the co-operation there was especially good. He is quite right, because everybody who attended the conference felt that it was necessary to do something in the direction indicated in the Bills in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution. The speeches that were made expressed the wish that this should be done; there is no doubt about that, and that was my opinion. It is quite clear to me that just as it was a success at that time it can again be made to be a success. Although at present I have had no encouragement in that direction, I have not yet lost hope that the matter may remain above party politics. I shall do everything in my power to see to it that the House deals with this matter in a spirit above that of party politics, and in a spirit which will take into account the interests of the population as a whole I am still convinced that this can be done because I am convinced that it should. Now it is said that this should not be done by means of a select committee. Why? Why can we, the representatives sent by the people of the Union to this House, and who are the men who, in general, can be taken to have not only the confidence of the people, but who also, in their opinion have the necessary intellectual capacity to be able to do, and to want to do what is good, not deal with the matter? In my opinion there is no other group of persons so clearly and specially indicated for the task as we are. It is not for us to shelve that responsibility. If we are men who believe that what we want to do is the right thing, and that we can do the right thing, then we ought to do it we should not run away from our responsibilities and put them on to others. We are the people indicated for the task, but now it is said that we cannot do it. I just wish to refer to something else. The hon. member for Caledon, and amongst others also, the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) have said that we should have a body composed not only of members of Parliament, but of influential and capable persons outside. I immediately asked him what the binding force of a resolution taken by such a body would be, and he said he would answer me. Shortly after that, however, he sat down without doing so.

I gave the reason for it.

I should be glad to get another answer to the question. Immediately after my speech at Smithfield I wrote this to the hon. leader of the Opposition—

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) answered in Cape Town that he wished to consult the leaders of his party, and that he would let me know later. Immediately after my speech at Smithfield I wrote to the hon. member that I had placed the matter as put to him shortly at that time in my office in Cape Town, before the public, and I asked him whether he was prepared to co-operate with me apart from party politics in finding a solution. I received an answer from the hon. member that that was not his work, but on another occasion he had already given expression to the idea of a national convention, and he wished to suggest it again. I then said that I did not believe much in a national convention of that nature, but that I could possibly concede the point to him if he could give me more information with regard to the following points—

1. (1) Who should attend a national convention of that sort, and who should send them? Should the natives also attend?
2. (2) What would the binding force be of resolutions taken by such a convention? (The hon. member said in an earlier letter that he could not identify himself with what I had laid down at Smithfield.)
3. (3) Assuming that the convention approved of my policy as explained at Smithfield, what is your attitude going to be?

My three questions to the leader of the Opposition were therefore how the convention should be composed and whether the natives should be there too; in the second place what would be the binding force of the resolutions, and in the third place what he was going to do If they convention approved my policy. I am still waiting for his answer. Hon. members will at once understand what all this agitation for a commission will eventually mean. I ask again, and I ask here now, who will be members of a commission of that sort. An answer to that has now come from the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). He said that the natives also should sit on it. He has therefore answered what the hon. member for Standerton could not answer. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) also said that natives should be on the commission.

Coloured people and natives.

Very well, coloured people also. But now I ask again what is going to be the binding force of resolutions taken? Must the opinion of the majority be binding on the minority or not? Whichever way the answer goes, it is a very important thing to settle first. But what in my opinion, is of much greater importance to the Government, and to the people, is that if the majority of that commission should decide that the Bills, as they are here, are adequate and must be passed, then I ask the hon. member for Caledon if he will bow his head to that decision and support it.

The answer is that this House is not bound by the Select Committee or by the commission.

Exactly. My question was not to what this House shall be bound, but what will bind my friend the hon. member for Caledon.

We are asking for information.

But how far have we got now. The report comes to Parliament again with the same Bills, and we are just as far as we were before. That is as clear as crystal.

Should the Select Committee condemn your Bills are you going to submit to that?

I have not the slightest doubt that the Select Committee is not going to do that. The Select Committee will certainly alter some points, with which I shall agree, but I will say this, that If they Select Committee condemn something which I think should not be condemned, and which the Government also thinks ought to be accepted, then we shall come here and ask Parliament to approve of our policy.

Knowing that you have a majority here.

It is quite clear that hon. members are getting no further with their commission.

Just as far as with the Select Committee.

But then there is no reason for departing from the customary method or Select Committees and following an unsatisfactory course. What the hon. member wants is not the report of the Commission. From the speeches of several of the hon. members it appears that they do not want the report of the Commission in order to obtain a solution, but they want to postpone things. They want to have a discussion which will enable them to go to the people outside and say—

That is what the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) wants, and, according to his speech, the hon. member for Caledon also.

How can you attribute an intention of that sort to me after my speech? *

If I am not mistaken then, the hon. member said that he actually does not see why legislation is necessary, he saw no reason for legislation.

I never said any such thing.

Then I withdraw that, but one thing is certain, and that is that it has been said by other members. It is clear to me that with regard to those members they cannot expect that I shall adopt the course indicated in order to meet them, and, in so doing, frustrate legislation. But there are other members, who, I am convinced, do not want the Commission for that reason. As loyal party men, however, they support the policy suggested by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Let me say at once that I have not the slightest reason to assume that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), from what he said, was inspired with the idea of frustrating legislation in that way, but undoubtedly his motion would bring about that result. I knew that I should give satisfaction not only to this House, but also to the people in general if we together got the Bills through this House. I know that whatever the opinion of hon. members of the Opposition is, the House here, and the people outside, want legislation and want it passed by Parliament as soon as possible, but with regard to those to whom I have referred, I must say that I do not see the slightest reason for accepting a Commission, simply because the Commission can carry us no further, even granting that you get a Commission composed of others than members of Parliament, and that Commission deals with the matter just as well as, or better than a Select Committee could, then I still say that that is no reason for taking upon ourselves the further difficulties which a Commission of that sort carries with it. But now it is said in connection with the Select Committee that there is not enough time. Well, If there is not enough time, the Committee goes as far as it is able. There is not the slightest reason why the Select Committee should not have dealt by the end of this season with at least one or two of the Bills. In my opinion there is no reason why all the Bills should not be dealt with.

But you make the one dependent on the other.

It can be done easily enough. That cuts no ice. The Select Committee can always take a reserved resolution under which the four Bills can be revised, but allow me to put this question. What do hon. members wish the Select Committee to do. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) gave as one of his arguments which otherwise would be, in all respects a well-founded argument, that the natives ought to be consulted. Now I want to ask hon. members If they really mean that. Is that still their contention? Will the hon. member for Caledon answer me on that. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said in his speech that the natives of the Free State, Transvaal and Natal ought to be consulted. May I ask the hon. member why?

I said Europeans as well.

But you did say that the natives of the Transvaal, Free State and Natal ought to be consulted. His reason was that they should say whether they thought it advisable that they should be given the limited franchise.

I said that they should be consulted in connection with the land question, the franchise and the native councils.

Was the hon. member in earnest when he said that the natives should say whether they thought that they should have the limited franchise. Was the hon. member in earnest. I ask him again?

Do you think that I was not in earnest, that I was playing the fool?

Very well, the hon. member did intend to convey that. The natives must be consulted as to whether they would be satisfied with the limited franchise. I assume now that the natives say “ No.” Then I ask the hon. member whether he will plead for greater rights to be given to them, for a wider franchise? Is the hon. member prepared to do that? The hon. member cannot answer me.

I am not a Minister,

No, because the hon. member sits on the Opposition benches he may only criticise. I ask the hon. member again if he was in earnest. If it is not taken seriously then it shows a lack of honesty. It cannot be otherwise. We must not have a lot of talk here and make the natives believe we are going to give them what we cannot give them.

I said that the natives and the Europeans should be consulted.

Leave the Europeans alone, I am speaking of the natives. Now I want to know If they Europeans in the Transvaal have not been consulted? No, there is no one who can say that.

In what way?

The Europeans have disapproved of it,

I do not ask whether they disapproved, but whether they were consulted. That at once gives the denial to what the hon. member for Caledon wants us to believe, namely, that it should be done. Allow me to tell the hon. member that we have already done our duty, and have consulted our constituents. When he says that the natives of the Transvaal, Free State and Natal should first be consulted as to whether they will accept the lesser franchise, or whether they do not want more, and he knows that he is not prepared to argue that they should get more, then he is dishonest.

On a point of order. Is the hon. Minister justified in accusing me of dishonesty? *

The hon. Minister said it with a qualification “ if ” the position is so and so, then he would be dishonest. The hon. Minister must not accuse any member of the House of dishonesty.

I made it quite clear that the Select Committee would not have the same opportunity as a commission would of consulting both the Europeans and the natives with regard to the land and franchise question. That’s all I said.

No, I am prepared to refer to the Hansard report. I remember the words of the hon. member well enough. If I cannot say that someone is dishonest it is going a bit far, but I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make the reservation that it is going a little far, because honest and dishonest are good words. While I was sitting here this evening and this afternoon listening to some of the speeches, a well-known little verse occurred to me—[verse read] One cannot say that it was honest and I cannot help it. However, I don’t wish to go further into that. To come back to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) I want to ask him now whether he is in favour, and whether the natives are in favour, that they—and he said here this afternoon that the natives of the Cape Province must specially be consulted— should be consulted. Will the hon. member be so kind as to tell me in what way they should be consulted. We have now had the census figures from which it appears that more than 20 members in this House are supported by more than 200 native votes; three members are supported by more than 1,000; nine members by more than 500. The natives have precisely the same franchise as the Europeans.

That is no reason for this legislation.

Is there any reason why the natives should be more consulted than the Europeans. What are the members doing who sit on those seats? Are they not all representatives of the natives? Have they not done their duty towards the natives and consulted them? Have the hon. members consulted their native voters?

Which members?

I speak of the Cape members, e.g., the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). But if he has not done that why should I do it? They do not do their duty and want us to do it for them. But what is more, can the hon. member indicate any way in which the natives can be consulted by me, or by the department, that has not yet been taken? The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) said that should the Bills go to a select committee they will be unrecognizable when they come back.

Yes.

But why are the hon. members so anxious about a select committee. Does it not show a lack of honesty if they are convinced that it is going to be so. I cannot understand the hon. members. I invite them, and repeatedly request them to tell me in what way my Bills can be improved. I invite them to come and help me. I say that the Bills shall be referred to a select committee before the second reading and ask them to help me to improve them, and now the hon. members say that I have not done, all in my power to get good legislation. Is that honest? No, I say again that I cannot take it otherwise than that hon. members who talk so foolishly do not want us to have legislation. Members can say what they like, but I think I am certain that the people outside want the legislation, and what is more, the people outside expect that this Parliament will give it to them.

They do not want it in the Transvaal.