I move—

The motion arises out of an incident which happened at the end of the sitting on Friday afternoon. After the vote had been taken on the approval of the German trade treaty, the Prime Minister immediately moved the adjournment of the House. I then rose and raised the point about the transmission of the resolution taken by this House to the Senate for its concurrence in the usual way. I asked you, Mr. Speaker, whether it was competent for me to raise a debate on the matter on the motion for the adjournment of the House. In the course of the debate which followed, the Prime Minister said that it was not the intention of the Government to send this resolution as a message to the Senate. It was quite clear from the attitude taken up by the Government that it is not the intention of the Government to consult the Senate on this matter, but to abide by the resolution of approval which was come to by this House, and it is because of that that I raise the matter to-day. It seems to me quite clear that unless we do so the Senate will not he consulted, and the result will be that his Majesty the King will be advised by the Government to ratify this treaty without having consulted the Senate. Irreparable harm may be done in this way, and that is why I raise this matter as one of urgent importance. If we do not take this action and the matter is not brought before the Senate by the Government, it is quite likely that his Majesty will be advised to ratify, and ratification will take place before the other House has been consulted. I feel very strongly, and this side of the House feels very strongly, that such a position, so unprecedented and so dangerous to the constitutional liberties of the people of this country, ought not to be allowed for a moment. We, therefore, want to raise the matter as one of urgency in order that, even at this last moment, we may repair, what I submit is the mistake the Government has made. We have asked whether it was possible to raise the matter on the motion for the adjournment, and you have ruled—and we bow to your ruling—that that would not be in accordance with the practice which we have followed in this House so far. Nothing remains for us, therefore, but to raise this matter as one of urgent public importance and on the grounds that if this matter is not sent to the Senate, ratification of this treaty may take place without our having had the opinion of the other member of the legislature. The grounds on which I ask the House to take this action is the action of the Government in regarding the treaty of commerce and navigation with the German Reich as having the approval required by law, and in terms of the treaty, without having submitted it to the Senate.

I have carefully considered the whole position that has arisen in connection with this matter, and several hon. members have seen me with regard to it. I do not regard the matter as one that can be dealt with under Standing Order No. 33, which provides for the motion for the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance. Not only can this matter be raised on the financial measures, which will soon be before Parliament, but it is open to the right hon. member, or any other hon. member, to move without notice under Standing Order No. 51 a motion communicating the resolution of the House taken on Friday to the Senate by message. That seems to be the way open to any member who wishes to have the matter discussed, and I do not think that recourse should be had to Standing Order No. 33 while there is another way open.

Will you allow me to make a submission to you on that last point, that it is open to any member on this side of the House to move under Rule 51, which provides that without notice of motion a resolution may be submitted to this House communicating a resolution to the Senate. I submit, with all deference, that that is not a way out for us who wish to bring this matter for discussion in this House. The matter has already been communicated to the Senate. The treaty has been laid on the Table of that House, and his Excellency, in his speech at the opening of Parliament, informed the Senate and this House that this treaty would be duly submitted. The matter is before them. The treaty is on their Table, and I submit it would not be competent or proper for a member on this side to move a resolution simply communicating to the other House, a resolution of this House. It would be quite competent, I agree, and I think proper, for the Government to move that a resolution adopted by this House should be submitted to the other House for its concurrence. That is the usual course, but that is not a course open for any of us.

What do you want to move, then?

We want to have an opportunity of discussing the unconstitutional action of the Government. The Senate have the solemn undertaking of the Government that this matter will be submitted to them. Therefore, in all respect, I submit that the last reason adduced by you, sir, is not an adequate reason against the urgency of the motion by the right hon. member.

Would we be allowed to address you on a point of order in regard to your ruling as to the application of the right hon. member to raise this as a matter of urgency?

I have already given my ruling. The matter has had my very careful consideration, and it seems to me that a motion under Standing Order 51 would meet all the requirements of the right hon. member. That being the case, it seems to me that the rule with regard to a motion for adjournment on a matter of urgent public policy, does not come in as there is another way open.

If we were fortunate enough to convince you that the remedy open to the Opposition under Rule 51, was not a remedy that would provide the relief we are seeking, would we not be in order to come back to the rule under which the right hon. member moved his resolution? The point put by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) shows that it is not practical for members on this side to avail themselves of the relief under Rule 51. The Government have not moved such a message. We cannot move a resolution asking the Senate to approve of a treaty of which we do not approve. Therefore, to all practical purposes, Rule 51 is a dead letter. I would like to put before you certain considerations, if I might address you on the point of urgency. This has really come before you officially for the first time now, and there may be certain considerations which have not yet reached your notice in regard to your decision. I take it your decision is not irrevocable.

I do not think the hon. member should say that. I have given my decision. If the hon. member wishes to address me on the other matter, he can do so. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has spoken of the treaty having been laid on the Table of the other House, but a message as contemplated by Standing Order No. 51 is one with regard to an actual resolution of this House. This House has passed a resolution and under Standing Order No. 51, a motion can be made without notice that that resolution shall be conveyed to the hon. the Senate. Nor is it necessary to ask for concurrence. Any hon. member can move that the resolution taken on Friday by this hon. House shall be conveyed to the hon. the Senate.

As far as I remember, I do not think this has ever been applied to a resolution contemplated by the Government. Standing Order No. 51 gives power to the Government to move without notice, to facilitate business, and the Government has power, without notice, to move that this resolution be sent to the other place. I do not say no other hon. members have the power to do so, but in practice I submit it has never been done. If I may be allowed to say so, in your ruling you said we can discuss this matter on other financial matters which may come on the Order Paper in future. I think, with all due submission, Rule 33 says there must be something on the Order Paper, and there is nothing on the Order Paper on which we can discuss this.

Do I understand that it is possible to send the resolution to the hon. the Senate for its consideration?

That would be in order.

I move—

In reply to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), I may say he is perfectly right. There is no precedent with regard to this matter, and I do not think the position has ever arisen. But Standing Order No. 51 is very clear. There is nothing in the standing order to confine a motion such as this to the Government or to hon. members on the Government side.

I second the motion, and in doing so I would appeal to the democratic principles to which the party with which I am associated are so fully committed. As to constitutional practice, we do not want to escape from the practice which has obtained ever since the grant of responsible Government. I ask hon. members to support us in our democratic position, and that this treaty should go through the usual process. This action of the Government is an attempt to escape seeking a decision of the people with regard to this most important agreement. It is not merely “window-dressing”, to quote the Minister of Defence, but a very deliberate attempt to escape submitting to the wishes of the people. From this House the treaty should go to the hon. the Senate, and we should have its opinion. When the Minister of Mines and Industries terminated his speech the other day, he did so saying definitely it was for the people to decide. What I want to know from the Prime Minister is if it is the intention of the Government to consider that this treaty, is validated by the vote recorded; if so we are talking in the air. If not, the Senate should have an opportunity of considering a treaty of such vital importance, and which certainly has not been referred to the people in any way. Indeed, no opinion has been taken from any one outside Government, and those engaged in commerce were not consulted. Labour representatives the world over are opposed to secret diplomacy, and the Minister even refuses to place the correspondence on the Table. Will our dumb associates stand for this also?

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I am trying to get this House to see the importance of sending the treaty to the Senate, and it was in pursuance of that that I tried to induce hon. members on the other side to send it there, and I think I am within my rights in doing so. The Minister of Mines and Industries distinctly promised at the end of his speech that this question should go to the people. We on these Labour benches earnestly appeal to those on the other Labour benches to support us.

God save our House of Lords.

If the Ministry will give us the assurance that they do not intend to validate this agreement and that it shall not go out from this House as a valid treaty, then I have nothing more to say. I appeal also to the Minister of Defence, notwithstanding his dereliction of duty and breach of faith under the Pact, to remember we put him where he is to stand up for our rights, including those of democracy as opposed to autocracy.

The hon. member who has just spoken is indeed an optimist. He appeals to the Minister of Defence for a defence of the people’s rights, but it seems to me that he is leaning upon a very broken reed. He is indeed an optimist in another sense, for he expresses the opinion that the Government will not take action under the resolution adopted by this House, but will leave the matter there and not proceed with the ratification of that treaty. I believe that the Government is determined to see this matter through, and they want to put it through without complying with the constitutional forms of this country. This is not a case for optimism, but a case calling for very severe criticism. I do not wish myself, nor does any member of my party wish to take the course which you, sir, suggested under Section 27 of the Act. Another party has moved a motion which has been accepted, and I avail myself of that motion to say what I wish to say on this matter. My first point is that this treaty with the German Reich, according to the constitutional procedure and the law of this country, requires the vote of both Houses of Parliament, and that the Government is not acting rightly in accepting as final the resolution passed by this House last Friday. I first want to call the attention of the House to the Act under which this treaty was drawn up. Act 36 of 1925, Section 8, says—

Then take Section 7 of the same Act, which reads—

Then it goes on to refer to customs duties and other matters. Section 7 lays down that we may conclude an agreement for the most-favoured-nation treatment with any foreign nation, and Section 8 says that any agreement in regard to the most-favoured-nation treatment requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I turn now to this treaty, and I read in almost the whole of its clauses that it gives most-favoured-nation treatment to Germany. There is no other way of looking at this treaty. I need not go into all the clauses of the treaty which, with one or two exceptions, are clauses for the most favoured-nation treatment. Now, as I have pointed out, Section 8 of the Customs Act of 1925 states that when a treaty for most-favoured-nation treatment is concluded, it shall have no force or effect until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Whatever view one might take of the case, that is the clear meaning. Our law requires that there must be a resolution of approval by both Houses, and if that is not done, and if the Government refuses to submit this treaty to both Houses, and only submits it to one House, they are not acting in accordance with Section 8 of the Customs Act, but they are breaking that Act, and therefore in those circumstances the resolution cannot be ratified. I think that is a complete and conclusive reason. I do not see how you are going to get out of it. Under the law governing most-favoured-nation treatment it is definitely laid down that the approval of both Houses of Parliament is required. The Government says that they are satisfied with the resolution of approval, and they do not think that they are breaking the law, but if they request his Majesty the King to ratify this treaty they are acting unconstitutionally and illegally, and they are placing this country in a very humiliating position. That is the first point. For my second point I turn to the terms of this treaty, and I find that the last clause reads as follows—

Therefore this treaty has not only to be ratified, but it has also to be approved by the competent legislative authority of the contracting parties. The German Reich has complied with Article 26 of the treaty in this respect, and as yet no objection has been lodged. The Government has not obtained the approval of the competent legislative authority of this country. What is that competent authority? Is it the House of Assembly? By no stretch of language can this House of Assembly be considered the competent legislative authority. We have a constitution which lays down what constitutes this legislative authority, and in Section 19 of the South Africa Act it is laid down that the legislative powers of the Union shall be vested in the King, a Senate and a House of Assembly, co-operating as the legislative authority. I say there is no doubt whatever as to what constitutes the Union Parliament, and this treaty should have been submitted to both Houses for their approval before it can be ratified. The Prime Minister has intimated on previous occasions as if the legislature is not a co-operative authority for the making of treaties; that the legislature has not a treatymaking power. That is not the contemplation, whatever the constitutional position with regard to that may be, of Article 26. If it was intended that this treaty should never come before Parliament in this country, then it was quite unnecessary to refer to the competent legislative authorities of the contracting parties. I know that under the German constitution, the approval of the legislature is necessary for treaty-making, but here in this country this clause does not refer merely to Germany. It refers to the competent legislative authorities of the contracting parties, and it is clear that what this treaty contemplated was that the parliamentary authorities in both countries should approve. To my mind there is no other way of considering this term. If the Prime Minister is right that in a matter like this constitutionally Parliament can be ignored, then I should like to know why he brought this matter before this House. If this were a matter entirely of the royal prerogative, and if all that was necessary for the Government of this country was to advise his Majesty to ratify it, why did he bring this matter before this House; and, if he brought this matter before this House, why did he not bring it before the other House? There is no difference between the two Houses of Parliament I should like to know what was the reason of the Government, if they think one House of Parliament can be ignored, for bringing it before the other House. To my mind, the Government have taken a course which is unconstitutional, which is illegal, and which is bound to open the door to very grave dangers to settled government in this country. They seem to have come to this view only quite recently, because as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has pointed out, only as far back as the opening of Parliament, his Excellency the Governor-General was made to say in the King’s speech, that these treaties would be submitted to both Houses. It was promised in the King’s speech to both Houses that these treaties should be submitted to them. All that the Government has done is to lay the treaties on the Table of the Senate. That is not sufficient. Submission is what the Prime Minister did in the present case in this House, namely, submitting the matter for approval or disapproval to the House. It is one thing to lay papers on the Table; it is quite another thing to submit a matter to the judgment of the House. The Prime Minister has submitted this treaty to us, but he has not submitted it to the other House. He has simply laid it on the Table. That is drawing a distinction between the two Houses which is entirely unwarranted, and which is unconstitutional, and which seems to be an afterthought on the part of the Government. The Government, only a month back, or two months back, still had the impression that it was its duty to submit the treaty to both Houses. Now it has changed its opinion, and it has ignored the Senate. I can conceive very great difficulties arising in this matter. Does the Prime Minister think this is a safe precedent to follow in the future? Does he want to proceed with the treaty, and have it ratified, when conceivably one branch of the legislature is opposed to it, because that is evidently the position which he is afraid of, and which he does not want to face. But he may have to face it. The House of Commons procedure is quite a different matter.

Why?

Because there is no such law as I have quoted on the statute book; there is no such treaty providing for ratification by the competent legislative authorities. The House of Commons may be called upon by the Government to act in cases where the Government consult it, but this is a case where both the law of the land and the actual treaty with which we are dealing require submission to both branches of the legislature. I submit that the Government is making a very grave mistake. The Prime Minister said last Friday, in referring to this matter, that if the constitutional requirements are not complied with, then the whole procedure is invalid, and why do we complain? The answer to that is simply that in this case the Prime Minister and the Government may be asking for ratification, whereas the proper procedure has not been followed, and the king may be advised to take action in a case when he should not do so at all. Supposing we had in this legislature two resolutions, one from this House approving the treaty, and one from the Senate disapproving the treaty, would the Government go forward and advise his Majesty to ratify it in such a case? That is the position as it probably exists to-day, and the Prime Minister to get out of that position intends to advise his Majesty to ratify simply on the resolution of this House. I ask him what is his authority for such an action? Why consult this House? If any approval is necessary at all, it must be the approval of both Houses, and if approval is not necessary, why come to us in this lower House? Surely that was mere surplusage and quite unnecessary. The Prime Minister and the Government want to comply with the terms of the law and the terms of this treaty in the most niggardly way. They wish to comply to the extent to which in their political power they can comply; that is, pass it through this House where they have a majority, and ignore the other House where, I do not know, but where conceivably they may not have a majority. I say conceivably advisedly, because nobody can assure us what action the Senate will take in this matter. It is conceivable the Senate may agree with the Government in approving of this treaty. It seems to me perfectly clear that the Government has got itself into a hole, and they now want, on the approval of this House, merely, and with the fear of disapproval in the other House, they want to advise his Majesty to ratify this treaty. Is that fair to his Majesty? Is that—

I do not think that the right hon. gentleman should bring in the name of his Majesty.

I do not wish to do that, sir, except in so far that ratification has to be given by the King; it is only in reference to ratification that I happened to mention his Majesty at all. I think the Prime Minister is making a very grave mistake; he knows that he is on dangerous ground and that he has not the complete and full Legislature of this country behind him. If he does not feel that he is on safe ground, it would be far better to take no action at present and to say: “Well, the people of this country are going to be consulted in a couple of months time, and they will settle in the next few months who are going to form the Legislature.” The position of both Houses of Parliament will be affected by the coming general election, and in a spirit of consulting with the people and in a spirit of democratic government, the Prime Minister should not proceed with the treaty. That would be the proper thing to do and it would be keeping faith with the people. But to go forward without having Parliament behind him and trying to get the approval of that section of the Legislature which gives him a majority, but ignoring the other section which may conceivably be against him, is not playing fair with the people or acting under the constitution. The Government is opening up a very deep constitutional question. At our recent party conference we dealt with our party programme, and we inserted a clause in favour of the maintenance of the South Africa Act. The Prime Minister shortly after referred to this, pooh-poohing the idea and asked: “Who are against the South Africa Act? It may be a very brave thing to stand up for the South Africa Act, but who attacks it?” There sits the gentleman who attacks it. The South Africa Act, under which we have two Houses for legislative purposes, is ignored by the Prime Minister, who has singled out one House only for submitting this treaty to. That is acting unconstitutionally and is dealing with the Senate in a manner in which no legislative body should be dealt with. This is a matter of very great importance; this is a treaty of far-reaching importance, and for good or for ill, if it remains, it will have very far-reaching consequences.

Beneficial consequences.

It depends upon what view you take; some people say the treaty is a grave blunder, and others say it will have a very beneficial effect; but whatever view you take the importance of the treaty to the country, its people, its trade and its commerce is not being questioned. It is not a matter of academic importance. A House, which has exactly the same right to be heard as we have, is being ignored. On what principle can you differentiate in this matter between the Assembly and the Senate? The rights of the people are being affected. The step taken by the Government is undemocratic, is a flaunting of the constitution, is establishing a precedent which may have very dangerous consequences in the future, and I hope that even now the Government will pause and not proceed to advise his Majesty to ratify this instrument before the Government has ascertained the will of the people, and before the Prime Minister knows that he has behind him the whole of the people of South Africa as represented by both Houses of Parliament.

Yes, it is just because we wanted to know the will of the people that the trade treaty was laid before this House. I know of no other way of ascertaining the wishes of the people of South Africa on any matter. There I agree with my hon. friend, but he forgets that we have asked for the will of the people and have obtained it by the resolution which the House of Assembly passed. The speech which we have just listened to is typical of those which we have so often had from the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). It is a repetition of the old plea that nothing must be done, and that the matter must be postponed again. He calls out: “Go to the people,” but at the same time he forgets that we learned the will of the people on Friday, I am only surprised that my hon. friend did not ask for a national convention. He need only have added that, because as soon as we tackle any important matter he says there ought first to be a national convention, and that unanimity and agreement must be reached. I think he will concede the point when we say that we are convinced that so long as the South African party are in opposition we shall never have agreement about any matter in South Africa. No, the Government intends in this case to act in the same way as it has acted in all cases up to the present—not to transfer the responsibility from its own shoulders to another’s, not to be frightened, and to do what it thinks ought to he done, and to bear the responsibility for it. Here I can assure my hon. friend that the Government here is firmly resolved—when it is nothing more than an administrative function pertaining to the Government of the country—to assume and carry out that function, so much the more after the approval which the Government obtained from the people as resolved by the representatives of the people in the House of Assembly. Now I want to correct my hon. friend on a few points. He asks why we said in the speech of the Governor-General that the treaty would be laid before the two Houses. The reply is that we wanted to lay it on the Table, and we did so. My hon. friend says this afternoon that it was merely an afterthought of ours to act as we did. No, let me assure him that the question whether we should ask for the approval—not the ratification—was fully discussed, and from the first moment we were sure that it did not belong either to this House or the Senate—with the legislative authority—but was a question for the King to do as is usually done in treaties of this kind. The question was whether wo should submilt it to this House for approval, and whether we should go further to submit it to the Senate for approval. We simply said: To the House of Assembly, yes. We thought it was advisable for the reason that my hon. friend and his friends had been making noisy speeches all that time which re-echoed throughout the country. They made so many misrepresentations and distortions that we said we would lay the treaty before the House of Assembly, and give them the opportunity there to bring forward their arguments and objections so that we could answer them. We said that we would get the approval in the House of Assembly of those who represented the people of the Union, and who express their will. We came to this House for approval— not ratification. As I said it was for two reasons, namely that we were compelled by the shouting distortions, and misrepresentations, and secondly that we wanted the will of the people here. Will the hon. member for Standerton tell me that the House of Assembly does not represent the public outside? I now come to the Senate. We said that we were not going to ask the approval of the Senate for two reasons. The first is that if we did so then the wrong ideas as to what the law is would actually arise —what the hon. member now represents the Constitution as actually demanding, namely that the approval of both Houses is necessary to such treaties. As we are convinced that neither of the two Houses need be consulted—just as little as about any other administrative act—we decided not to take it beyond this House in any circumstances. Moreover there is something which weighed personally with me, and still weighs with me. Whom does the Senate represent? Who in— the whole country is represented by the Senate? How is it constituted? While in this House the majority of the people is represented, and while the will of the people is expressed here, the Senate is practically a packed body. By whom was it packed? By my hon. friend opposite. In answer to a question of mine whether, in appointing the eight Senators, he would consider the other parties he said loudly across the floor of the House: “No, I shall not do so.” He kept to that and only appointed his own followers. Now we must go and get the approval of a body in which the South African party majority is obtained through his followers whom he personally put there. If the Senate were not packed in that way—

To a point of order I want to ask whether the Prime Minister is entitled to reflect on another part of the Legislature in the way he has done.

I will ask the Prime Minister not to use that word.

I shall not use the word, but I think I am entitled to show that the Senate consists of a majority of members whom my hon. friend has put there, and who are his followers.

They were elected in accordance with the Constitution.

That may be, but how were the eight nominated Senators appointed? It may be according to the Constitution, but not according to the will of the people, and I have here only to do with the people’s will. The result was that we discussed the matter and said: “No, all we shall do is merely lay it on the Table and ask the approval of this House.” If the Senate wants to express its views it can do so at any time, and that can take place without the treaty being sent over to it.

Without its having any value.

Of course we shall not attach any value to it, and suppose that this motion is passed and they consider the treaty and disapprove of it, do you think that I will take any notice of it? Why? I should bother about it just as little as about the meeting held in Durban. Of course our hon. friends opposite take notice of it. They think of course that they will get a little additional benefit at the elections if they can get the views of the Senate and the rejection of the treaty. We are not, however, concerned about the election. We are not out for support, but for the administration of the country’s interests We have laid the treaty on the Table of both Houses, but we are not prepared to ask unnecessarily for a decision of the other place. Now the hon. member has asked why we have in fact submitted the treaty to this House. I can give an additional reason for it. It was quite possible that this House might reject it, and if that happened I should be quite prepared to take it at once as an expression of the people’s will. But do not expect me to consider as the people’s will the expressions of opinion of a House which does not represent the people at all. Then I come to the point of the law. The hon. member for Standerton will forgive me if I say that I differ entirely from him in his view of the law, and he will excuse me for saying that all the lawyers as far as I know, differ entirely from him. Nor can there be any doubt about it. The hon. member mentioned two things. He said in the first place that the treaty provided that the ratification of the “competent legislative authority” was necessary. Now I want to ask him whether a treaty between two Governments will lay down the law? Suppose his view is correct, then he wishes that because the two parties in the treaty talk of the “competent legislative authority”, therefore on that account it is legislation requiring ratification by both Houses. An agreement between you and me cannot pass an Act, though it makes a contract between two parties. Suppose that the two parties agree, then it can be cancelled at any time if it is an essential matter. The hon. member pretends that we are concerned with a law which was laid down by the two parties. That is nonsense He himself acknowledges, so far as Germany is concerned, that the “competent legislative authority” must be consulted, and the treaty was submitted to the Reichstag. My contention, and it is that of all lawyers, is that it must be submitted to the “competent legislative authority” so far as it is necessary and if it is necessary. The two parties never dreamt of laying down the law, nor could they do so. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs. Does he contend that the law is being violated? They probably want that to-day. I am certain that the time will come one of these days when they will condemn the opposite. I come then to the law. It is clear that it is a customs Act, and that Act says nothing else except that when a treaty is entered into—

Agreement.

… You can call it what you like, that when an agreement is entered into concerning tariffs it cannot be confirmed except by resolution of both Houses. We have had here however a debate of three days, and we asked the hon. member for Standerton and his supporters to say where the tariff would be affected, and they would, and could not do so. No tariffs are being interfered with in the treaty, and how can they then appeal to the law to-day? Can the hon. member for Standerton mention a single tariff which is being affected? As I said on a former occasion hon. members on the other side proceed from the wrong assumption that they will have a fine sjambok for the election in this great campaign which they have begun. Subsequently they found that they were entirely wrong, that no tariffs are being affected, and so they dropped it in the debate. To-day for lack of anything else they want to resort to it again, but not a single tariff is being affected, and the agreement is nothing else than a treaty of trade friendship between two nations on which further negotiations can be based. Until such time however as a protocol is fixed, and another agreement is concluded, not a single tariff is being affected, and it is not necessary to submit the treaty to the two Houses. I am not going to add anything in order to give the Senate a slap in the face, because for my part the Senate can have a debate, but it will not influence me. The hon. member for Standerton says that he does not know what they will decide upon, but I know it quite well. The Senate will not do what this House has done, but will reject the treaty, and then the Government and I will feel obliged to give the Senate a slap in the face by taking no notice of the matter. I think that would not be right and that it would not be right for any hon. member to expose the Senate to that.

I have listened to the Prime Minister on many an occasion in this House; I have never listened to him when he has been so weak, so flabby and so unconvincing as he has been here this afternoon. Some of the arguments he endeavoured to use would not be fit to put before a child of ten. He tried to explain what was meant by Article 26. [Read.] These words are perfectly plain: “competent legislative authority.” The Dutch is “wetgewende gesag”—the body which passes the laws of the country. The administration of any country is divided into the legislative, the executive and the judicial; and here, in the plainest possible terms, as plain as the English. Dutch and German languages can make it, it is stated that this treaty, after having been ratified by the “competent legislative authority,” shall be deemed to be ratified. The Prime Minister says “that means where necessary.” Anything more feeble and more puerile, I have never listened to from any Minister in this House. He would never dare, if this treaty comes before the courts of the country, and it will if he persists in his present course, addresses any such arguments to the judge on the bench. He would be laughed out of court. The treaty means what it says. Section 19 of the South Africa Act [read] defines, for this country, at any rate, what is the “competent legislative authority.” To suggest that this treaty can be ratified by the one House without the other is to expect that you can get scissors to cut with one blade only.

No one suggested this.

I can see the Minister of Finance is unhappy over this. What did the Prime Minister mean when he said “if necessary”? Is the whole issue to be evaded in this country? Either it is to go before Parliament, or it is not; if it is to go before Parliament it is to go before Parliament as a whole—Parliament as defined by the South Africa Act.

made an interjection. [Inaudible.]

Why does the Minister come only to the House which he thinks is favourable? It is the act of a trickster; what you would expect from a pettifogging attorney. This is on a par with the arguments of the Prime Minister when he attempted an explanation of the word “submit.” The Prime Minister is confronted with the message submitted by the Governor-General at the opening of Parliament, in which it is stated—

What does the Prime Minister say now? He says, “Of course. I have submitted it, I have laid it on the Table of the House.” This House knows perfectly well that the word “submit” was never intended to be used in that way. Look at the words. Do they mean that the treaty would be merely laid on the Table for members to look at? Such a contention is unworthy of the veriest schoolboy. Surely if the words were used in regard to the House of Assembly, they were used in the same sense in respect of the Senate. I put this to the Minister—that when this treaty was being prepared it was the intention of the Government to submit both this treaty and the Kellogg pact to both Houses for their approval, but some lawyer suddenly discovered that a way out of this dilemma could be found, and in pursuance of that policy the Government deliberately referred the Kellogg pact to this House alone, and not to the Senate, so that they could allude to that precedent in order to justify their present attitude. I wish I could use language in this House to adequately describe conduct of that kind. The Prime Minister was good enough to say that he would not submit it to the Senate, because he did not think the Senate was representative of the public of the country, and that it had a majority adverse to the Government. We had it from the Minister of Mines and Industries that this treaty has been in view for years past. It is not a matter of a day, a month, or a year; there is no urgency about it, and yet now there is to be a general election in three months from now, and knowing that the Government can take power to dissolve the Senate, and that within a short period following the election they can, if successful, get a majority in the Senate, yet they take this extraordinary and unprecedented step. A Prime Minister with any sense of dignity would say, “I will submit this treaty to the Senate, and if they throw it out I will go to the country, and if the country gives me such a majority, I can come back and elect a Senate of my own.” But he does not do that, but takes a course which is not a course of a Prime Minister, but of a trickster.

The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw the word trickster.”

All this abuse and offensive terms used by the hon. member is more applicable to himself, and I won’t take any notice of it. The simple question is whether this treaty comes within the Act of 1925 or not. If it does come within that Act, then obviously it has to be approved by resolution not only of the Assembly, but of another House, and further argument is unnecessary. It is perfectly clear that this treaty does not fall within the terms of the Act of 1925. It was never intended to fall within that Act, and the constitutional right of His Majesty the King on the advice of the Government in South Africa to negotiate and conclude treaties is of such importance and of such strength that it would require a very specific provision in a statute of this country to negative or derogate from it. Can members point out to me a single section which purports to derogate from His Majesty’s rights in this respect? We have been referred to Section 7 of the Act. That relates in terms to an agreement by the Governor-General, and not to a treaty which refers in specific terms to a treaty dealing with customs. I pointed out the other day that the treaty is comprehensive. It is a treaty of trade and navigation, and as regards customs or tariff concessions, we only reach that stage when an agreement is discussed and concluded in terms of Section 7 of the protocol. That is the simple standpoint of the Government. Now recourse is taken to this word “submission.” It is mere hair-splitting. The word “submit” will cover the laying of a document before any responsible assembly, or any responsible authority for their information, and when the Governor-General’s speech was read the Government had already decided to get the approval of this Chamber and not of the other. The argument is used that within Article 26 of the treaty “competent legislative authorities” are referred to. As my hon. leader has pointed out, how can an agreement between parties constitute a law? It is begging the question. If it is within the Act you need not refer to Article 26, and if it is outside of the Act Article 26 does not apply to it.

Why did you put it in then?

It is perfectly clear that according to the German constitution it had to be submitted to the legislative authority of Germany. Section 453 requires that alliances and treaties with foreign states require the assent of the national assembly. These words are of a general nature, and they apply in any case in the case of Germany, but they also clearly mean in so far as they may be necessary. That is a fair construction of these words, and that is the legal construction. I am prepared to argue that point in any court of law, and to back the opinion of the Government on that point. As I say under section 7 of the protocol, if we reach that one day, the applicability of Act 25 will come in. The question is asked why did we come to this House? Surely there is nothing to prevent us from submitting a matter of this kind to the popular Assembly.

You said you would leave it to the people.

I am quite willing to leave what we have done, and what we intend doing in the immediate future, to the verdict of the people, but I never undertook, nor do I undertake now, to leave this matter in suspense until the election or after. That was the motto of the previous Government; this Government is not following it—a laissez fer motto. A great cry is made that this is undemocratic, and that we are not following the will of the people. It is almost amusing to speak of the will of the people when the suggestion is that we should refer this resolution for the approval of a Chamber that has already thwarted the will of the people in the past. I want to put this to you: Assuming that the Senate were to disapprove of this resolution, if we submitted it for concurrence, would we be bound by it? If the Senate, in its wisdom, passed a resolution of no confidence in the Government, would well be bound by it? Naturally not. I want to point out that the resolutions of both this hon. Chamber and of the Senate would, in any case, have no force in law if the agreement or treaty does not come within the terms of the Act of 1925. The resolution is a mere pious expression of opinion, and this Government never approached this Chamber with a view to giving validity to the treaty, but we acted democratically by submitting the treaty for approval to the popular Chamber. Now it is argued that there is no such law as this of 1925 on the British statute book. Surely that is again begging the question. If this law is not applicable, what is the value of the point? There is no intention to submit the treaty to the hon. the Senate. As a matter of fact, when the Bill of 1925 was before the House it was the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) who suggested that in place of the word “treaty” there should be substituted the word “agreement.” The Act of 1925 speaks of an agreement with a foreign country with a most-favoured-nation clause, with regard to duties that may be placed on goods, and secondly that makes provision for tariff concessions. That is all that it speaks of. One cannot fairly contend that it was ever the intention of that Act to derogate from the prerogative of the Crown to act on the advice of responsible Ministers.

My sole reason for taking part in the debate is that this is a constitutional question of the very greatest importance. I very much regret that since 1924 various difficulties have arisen as the result of a very serious defect in the South Africa Act, a defect which enabled the then Prime Minister on going to the country to advise the Governor-General to dissolve the Assembly and not the Senate. The then Prime Minister had a perfect right under the constitution to do that, and he appealed to the country regarding the Assembly only. Knowing that a weapon would remain in his hands, for whatever the verdict of the country was, he still had a majority in the Upper House. That position, however, has since been altered, so I do not think the question will arise again. If the Government had not a hostile Senate, the treaty would have gone forward, and the Opposition would not have been in the happy position of having a majority in the Senate, and would not have been so keen to bring the matter forward. To come to the legal and constitutional question involved, I have, in the limited time at my disposal, gone as far as I can very carefully into the matter of treaty-making. The position seems to be this: a treaty itself is only a bargain which can be enforced by sovereign against sovereign. Treaty-making is one of the perogatives of the Crown, but different countries have altered the position in some respects. American treaties have to be ratified by the Senate, which is not elected by the people but indirectly like our Senate is, so that in the greatest democratic country in the world the Senate may ratify or reject a treaty. In Portugal the Cortes—the popular assembly—could ratify or veto a treaty and in England the executive has the right to ratify or veto. [Hear, hear.] It is too soon to say “hear hear.” That is the old theory. The old right of purchase in the British Army was done away with by Act of Parliament, and the Royal prerogative can be interfered with by Acts of Parliament. Anson’s “Law and custom of the Constitution” points out that—

If there had been no Act of 1925, and if there was nothing in the treaty about ratification, the two Governments could have completed the treaty without coming to Parliament. Anson states that there is one class of treaty which must be submitted to the British Parliament, and that is the very class of treaty we are dealing with to-day, his words being—

The German trade treaty shows that changes are to be made in the tariff. There is not a word in article 7 of the protocol which refers to Parliament.

It is obvious.

If it were obvious, then it was obvious that the whole thing must be ratified by Parliament. Article 7 does not say anything about Parliament, but it needs an Act of Parliament. Article 26 of the treaty, however, which precedes the protocol, says—

It is perfectly clear if you read article 7 of the protocol and article 26 of the treaty, that it was intended that the treaty and the tariff bill should be brought before Parliament at the same time for that is the only way in which you can properly deal with the matter. Article 7 of the protocol does not mention Parliament, because it has to be read in conjunction with article 26 of the treaty. You cannot take the protocol away from the treaty. You have to read the treaty as a whole, and if the protocol comes under the Act of 1925, the whole of the treaty comes under that Act. If the treaty had been made in England, it is perfectly clear that it would need the sanction of the British Parliament. In 1890, when Queen Victoria concluded a treaty with the Emperor of Germany regarding the cession of Heligoland, she was advised by her Ministers to make the cession conditional on the approval of Parliament, but many constitutional authorities criticized the British Government for laying the treaty before Parliament. That, however, was not a treaty affecting the customs or making a charge on the people. Let us suppose there is something in the argument that we must not look upon this as a treaty, but as an agreement. That argument is very subtle, for a treaty is simply an agreement between Governments, and the difference is the same as that between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. We have agreements brought before us for ratification; for instance, the agreements under the Gold Law for giving leases and the diamond cutting agreement. There have been a number of cases in the old Cape Parliament, and also in this Parliament, where agreements have been placed before the Legislature although it was not legally necessary for the Government to do so. It has been the universal practice when an important agreement is concluded to bring it before Parliament. When you are dealing with an ordinary agreement in a court of law, if the words of the agreement are not clear, the judge considers what was the intention of the parties. The Governor-General’s speech certainly indicated that the treaty would be submitted to both Houses of Parliament. When it is clear from the Governor-General’s speech that a treaty is to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament, we are entitled to assume that is the intention of the Government, unless the speech has been wrongly drawn up. Let us further suppose this was an agreement and it did not require ratification. Then clearly it was waste of time to bring it before Parliament, because it would be complete when it was signed and copies exchanged, but it has been brought before us. It has been said “you are not asked to ratify; you are asked to approve of the treaty.” I see no difference, as a lawyer, between the use of the word “approve” and the use of the word “ratify,” whether it be in English or Dutch. They mean exactly the same thing, there is no difference. I would raise another point which I consider of some constitutional importance. If this is purely an administrative and executive matter, as is contended by the Government, then they have no right to bring it before Parliament. I am known in my humble way as the “Minister of Injustice,” and all sorts of petitions come my way, but I have had many petitions ruled out on the ground that they dealt with executive matters with which Parliament has nothing to do.

We are dealing with motions now.

In the case of the petitions you have not come to the motion stage yet. If a petition dealing with a purely administrative matter cannot be brought before Parliament, unless you cannot bring forward a purely executive matter to word your motion in such a way as to get round that. You cannot put on the paper a direct motion, for example, for the re-instatement of a man in the public service. You cannot put forward a definite motion dealing with an executive matter and asking that it be put right, except in a round-about way in order to comply with the rules of the House. If this is a purely executive or administrative matter, it should not be brought before the House in this way at all. With regard to the Act of 1925, I must confess I find it difficult to follow the position taken up by the Government. If there had been no Act of 1925, then admittedly, there would have been something in what they say, but the Act of 1925 intended to give Parliament full control over treaties of this kind. That is how I read it. It says the Governor-General may enter into an agreement with a foreign state. Surely that means a treaty? When this Act of 1925 was passed I do submit it was intended to give this Parliament full control over all treaties. I must follow the terms of the section, of course. I am referring to ordinary treaties with regard to commercial privileges and so forth, treaties like this treaty. Every treaty in the same position as the German treaty we were given full control over by the Act. Section 7 says—

Section 8 says—

What could be clearer? The Governor-General may make a treaty, but it can have no effect until it is approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Government have lost sight of the little word “or”. The Act provides—

And so forth. That needs the consent of both Houses of Parliament, just as much as the later tariff Bill that will be brought up later on. We are asked to approve a treaty which gives the German government most-favoured-nation treatment and we are told we are going to have a further agreement put before us, but this treaty distinctly recognizes Germany as a most-favoured-nation in regard to customs’ duties, and I say emphatically that in my view as a lawyer, if this were interpreted in a Court of law, there is no shadow of doubt this treaty would be held to be subject, as Section 8 says, to have no force or effect until approved of by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I hope there will be some way of testing that because it would be a bad thing, if there were a dispute about an important constitutional position and it were only settled on party lines. It should be settled in some other way than by a party vote. I submit that the royal prerogative was limited by our Act of 1925. The royal prerogative in regard to making treaties is no longer in force to the same extent as before. In regard to commercial treaties the Royal prerogative is conditioned by the consent of both Houses of Parliament, so that it seems to me that if we look at it from the point of view of an agreement it provides for ratification by both Houses and if we leave the agreement alone and look at the law, the Act of 1925 provides for ratification by both Houses. If we look at the constitutional practice of England which we have been asked to look to, there is a limitation making all treaties that deal with commercial questions conditional on the consent of both Houses of Parliament. In whatever way we look at it, it seems to me that there can be no question that this particular motion needed a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. We are much indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, for suggesting a way in which debate can take place; it would have been lamentable if we could not have done so. We are also indebted to the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) for his motion.

One knows perfectly well that no matter what discussion you may have in this House, the vote will be on strict party lines, which is regrettable, because we are not discussing a party question.

That you will get in the Senate!

How does the Minister know that? The question that will be decided in the other House—the treaty—will be a question of policy. Here we are discussing a point of the greatest constitutional importance. This is a question that is going to be decided by the people of this country—whether they are going to see the constitution of this country torn up? If what the Prime Minister said about the other House represents the views of the Government, they ought to introduce legislation to abolish the Senate. To speak of that House in a way which I submit is entirely disrespectful, is entirely ignoring the fact that the second Chamber of this country is an important part of the Constitution. So long as it is, you ought to think of it as one of the component parts of our Constitution. Although this House is more directly in touch with the people than the other House is, the public are represented by both Houses. I was surprised that the Prime Minister allowed himself to talk of the other branch of the legislature in the way he did. If that is the sentiment which rules in the Government, it is quite clear to my mind they are against a second chamber altogether. In Canada, the upper House, the Senate, is more out of touch with popular sentiment than our Senate, and the senators there are appointed for life; and yet I know of no case where a treaty has not been considered by the Senate. I was also surprised at the argument used by the Prime Minister, and by the Minister of Mines and Industries in regard to the interpretation of Clause 26 of the treaty. [Read.] It seems plain enough. Certain legal minds find a difficulty even here and say, “No, that only means if the parties think it necessary to ask for the approval of the competent legislative authority—not that they must—only if the Government think it necessary.”

If it is necessary according to law.

If that is the Minister’s interpretation, why does he not say so?

I did.

Why did he not say so on the treaty itself? It is rather a curious fact that the Anglo-German treaty which was followed “almost slavishly word for word” had that qualification put in, and says it shall be approved by the competent legislative authority if necessary. Why did the Government leave out these words? The words of the Anglo-German treaty make it quite clear—only if the necessary legislative or administrative authority be given. If the Government in power regard the signing of the treaty as purely an administrative act, and it is not necessary for legislative action, it would be ratified without legislative assent. This is a deliberate departure from that wording.

In England that was done in a special Act which embodied the treaty.

The Government put in not “competent authority,” but “approval by competent legislative authority.” I say to the Minister, with all respect for his legal knowledge and abilities, that if language has any meaning these words mean that this treaty ought to be approved by the competent legislative authority of the country. There could be no doubt about it in any person’s mind what competent legislative authority is. I do not want to carry the matter any further. Most of the points have been brought out, but I would like to say and to repeat, has there been any possibility of doubt as to what section 26 means and that the other part of the legislature of the country, a section which is constitutionally of equal standing with our House, although not so directly vested in the will of the people, should be treated as we have heard here? The other place has not the same power as we have. For instance, as regards finance, but financial measures cannot become law unless approved of by the Senate, and if so minded, the Senate can throw out an appropriation Bill. I think the step the Government is taking to-day in dealing with this treaty is not only acting disrespectfully to the other branch of the legislature, but it is doing a revolutionary act. It is a disappointment to me to find the other branch of the legislature referred to in such terms as the Prime Minister did, and the Government is not only departing from the express terms of the treaty, but is doing something of constitutional importance to this country.

I should like to deal with the argument of the Minister of Mines and Industries that the Act of 1925 draws a clear distinction between a treaty and an agreement, and that a treaty does not require the approval of Parliament though if it were an agreement it would have fallen within the terms of Section 7 of the Act and would require that approval. I should like to follow that argument through Hansard, and refer to the records of this House, because they show that a statement is entirely fallacious and incorrect, and that the contention advanced by this side that both Houses are entitled to express an opinion is perfectly correct. We find that Section 7 of the Bill of 1925 read when first introduced as follows—

and Section 8 provides—

When the matter came before this House the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance dealt with this point. The Prime Minister explained the policy of the Government, and the Minister of Finance also stated definitely what the procedure would be with reference to treaties. In the course of discussion the Prime Minister drew attention to the resolutions passed at the Imperial Conference in 1923, as to the procedure to be adopted were different parts of the empire would be concerned. Then he went on to say that any agreements made would be laid upon the Table of the House, and that we were not going to enter into any treaties without their being confirmed by the House. In winding up the discussion, the Minister of Finance made it perfectly clear that Parliament would be consulted; therefore the Bill of 1925 passed its second reading on a definite and deliberate assurance by the Government that Parliament would be consulted. The whole of that discussion proceeded on the understanding that we were dealing with a treaty, but the Minister now draws a distinction between a treaty and an agreement. My contention is that it was the intention of Section 6 to limit the prerogative of the King. When the Bill of 1925 came before the Committee of the House the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) took exception to the use of the word “treaty,” and moved that it be omitted, and the word “agreement” substituted in its place. In reply to this the Minister of Finance said “I do not know whether it matters much whether we use the word “treaty” or the word “agreement.” The only reason that the word treaty was eliminated was not the reason now brought forward by the Minister, but because it was thought more advisable from the constitutional point of view, and nevertheless that it should fall within Section 7 and be submitted to this House. Why this present attempt at evasion on the part of the Minister? The language used by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was scarcely too strong in condemning such an attitude. Let me take the point further to show that there was no such subtle distinction as is suggested by the Minister of Mines and Industries. I have before me the full powers under which he was authorised to enter into these negotiations, and it is interesting to note that there is no distinction drawn between a treaty and an agreement. I imagine that if the hon. gentleman at that time had held the opinion he expressed this afternoon, he would have been careful to see that there was no possible ambiguity in this document. I have this document before me, which incidentally refers to the “especial trust and confidence which is reposed in the wisdom and loyalty of the worthy and honourable Fredrik William Beyers.” This worthy gentleman is authorized to treat, adjust and conclude any treaty, convention or agreement; in other words, this document at that time clearly drew no distinction between a treaty or an agreement, and the Minister, when ne entered upon this diplomatic discussion with our visitors from Europe in which he has been so signally worsted, exercised his powers under this document. At the time it was granted it must have been granted in the belief that such a treaty or agreement must be eventually submitted to both Houses of Parliament. I would like to take a further point. We have been told that this matter does not concern the ordinary legislative authority of the Union, which consists, of course, of three distinct bodies or persons, and that it would be quite competent for the King, by virtue of his prerogative, to approve of the treaty. This brings me to the point as to the extent to which other members of the commonwealth should be consulted. We know that in resolutions passed in 1923, it was laid down that where a treaty might affect the interests of more than one particular part of the empire, then that particular part should concur and should join in signing any such treaty with the other parts affected. If this is felt by other portions of the empire to affect them, then obviously they should not only be consulted but the treaty should be signed on their behalf. I hold that where a treaty makes a breach in the whole system of empire preference, the other parts of the empire should have been consulted, and it should have been signed on their behalf, if they agreed thereto—

The hon. member should keep within the scope of the motion.

I was endeavouring to do so, and I will content myself with saying that so far as the people of this country are concerned, I do not think that they will be so deeply interested in this constitutional question, important though it may be, as they will be in this indication on the part of the Government that when it suits them, they will ignore the representatives of the people, and that they will so far from acting on the will of the people, take such steps and follow such manoeuvres as to exclude one section of the representatives of the people from expressing their opinion on any important matter of this kind. I think this will be regarded as a very far-reaching and important departure. If the Government left that they desired to have the will of both sections of the representatives of the people recorded, the moment they felt that they could not secure a majority in another place, the proper course was not to evade going to that other place, but to go to the people and say quite frankly that at the moment they found that the representatives of the people in the Senate do not agree with this treaty.

We are going to the people.

The hon. member is going in a way that will earn from the people a very clear verdict upon this defiance of their legal rights. Hon. members opposite know from the discussion which took place in this House last week that, having nothing whatever to say in its favour, it will be impossible to convince any reasonable body of people that this treaty should be approved. They are now endeavouring by a manoeuvre to escape the provisions of the constitution, and I would like to ask the hon. member who interrupted me if he is prepared to go back to his constituents and acknowledge that the Act of Union should be lightly tampered with in the interests of a temporary majority. Hon. members opposite know that their days are numbered, and by hook or by crook at the last moment they are engineering to force a treaty upon the people which they are not in favour of.

The hon. member must keep within the terms of the motion.

I will not put the matter in any stronger form than this. I do feel that this other body is entitled to be consulted, and the action of the Government is a mere manoeuvre to escape consulting them. I venture to say that within a very short period of time hon. members on the other side who manifest such strong confidence in the people of the country will find that we on this side of the House are correct, and that the people are not prepared to endorse this treaty.

Listening to the debate I have come to the conclusion that, although lawyers may be eminently desirable in a court of law, in a House like this they are somewhat of a nuisance, and when a Government consists of a large proportion of them they are a positive danger. If it be true, as the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) stated, that the Government do not desire to send the treaty to the Senate because the Government have not a majority there, while the Opposition want the treaty to be submitted to the Senate because they have a majority in the Upper House, that appears to me to be bringing about a very dangerous state of affairs. There is a possibility of playing about with the constitution on the strength of a Government having, or not having, a majority in the Senate. If the Government really intended not to put the matter before the Senate, it should not have brought the treaty before this House either. With a great deal of what the Prime Minister said I am in absolute agreement: he said this House represents the popular will, in short, it is the House that directly represents the people. I take the plain man’s interpretation of the Prime Minister’s statement. Whilst I agree entirely with the Prime Minister’s sentiments, it is a great pity he did not translate his belief into action when the opportunity arose of ending or drastically amending the Senate. The popular will is represented in a very attenuated form in the Senate but I am not speaking in an individious way of that body. That being well-known to the Government, it is inexplicable why the Government should not take the bull by the horns and deliberately advocate the abolition of the Senate. I do not believe in the bicameral system. I believe legislative agreements should be carried through by this House alone, but whether we like it or not, the fact remains that Parliament comprises two Houses —the Senate and the Assembly. What is more the South Africa Act puts the Senate before the Assembly which rather wounds our vanity. The Senate was regarded by the framers of the Act of Union and by the Parliaments which confirmed the Act as an integral portion of the legislative machine and under these circumstances the Government have no right whatsoever to submit the treaty for approval to the Assembly without also submitting it to the Senate. That is why I am wholeheartedly supporting the motion that the matter be referred to the Senate. Something else, however, has emerged from this debate which alarms me very much indeed. We owe a debt of gratitude to lawyers on this occasion at all events, for having made us acquainted with the real facts of the case. The lawyers have pointed out that it is not necessary to submit any agreement such as this to the legislature. That opens up a vista of a most dangerous character. I am not telling tales out of school, but the Prime Minister will remember that when this very treaty was under discussion by the Cabinet I made it perfectly clear that as we were a democratic party the Government should have nothing to do with anything that savoured of secret diplomacy. I was very clear on that point, especially on the protocol to the treaty. For two days I enunciated the principle to the utmost of my power that it savoured of secret diplomacy. I insisted that every fact that had to be given effect to should be put clearly in the treaty itself, for I have a distinct horror of having anything to do with secret diplomacy. Being a plain man I drew no other conclusion from the Governor-General’s speech at the opening of Parliament than that the treaty was to be submitted to Parliament.[Extract read (already given).] That is, “Mr. President and gentlemen of the Senate, and Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House of Assembly.” That is what the plain man presumes from the language. What on earth is the use of talking about the possibility of submitting something to somebody merely as a show-piece? Why not frame it and put it on the wall? What is the ordinary language used for submission? To lay on the Table of the House. If the Ministry desires to lay important Government notices before Parliament without submitting them for ratification or consideration, it asks leave to lay them on the Table. When you talk about submitting some-thing, a treaty or a document or an agreement of any description to a House such as this, you mean—and I believe they meant it to mean—that you are submitting it for serious consideration and for deliberation, final decision and ultimate ratification. Still, I am not a lawyer; still I am speaking as a plain man. I find in Article 26—

What would you have done if this Assembly had not agreed? That would be interesting to know. Would the Government have dropped the treaty, or would they have gone on with it? That is a very interesting question and a reply would be very interesting. I do not believe even our friends across there would have dared to flout the opinion of this House expressed in a concrete resolution. If language means anything at all it means that in the actual agreement when they were negotiating, the contracting parties were of the opinion that it had to be approved by the Parliament of the Union as well as the Parliament of Germany before ratification could be obtained. This brings me back to the point that the Act of Union lays it down that Parliament does not consist of one chamber, of the Assembly alone—I wish it did—but Parliament does consist by the Act of Union, of the King, the Senate and the House of Assembly. That means, seeing the Government has seen fit to submit this for consideration to the Assembly, they ought to carry it to the logical conclusion and submit it to the Senate. I ask the Government what on earth is the hurry? It has been put forward we are going to the country in two months’ time. When the decision of the country, they claim as optimists, is going to be overwhelmingly in their favour, why need they hurry? Our trade has existed all these years without this agreement. It is not necessary for us to complete it to-morrow to prevent the whole trade of the Union from going to pieces. There is no urgency in the matter whatever. In fact, they themselves have brought the utmost diffidence to bear in that they only made it binding for two years, and then subject to six months’ notice it may be abrogated. Taking all the circumstances into consideration I cannot see what is the hurry the Government feel themselves in. Why not wait until the general election is over, when you have that overwhelming majority, and you can so alter the complexion of the Senate as to make it something more in keeping with the popular opinion expressed in the election of the Government. Then you will have no difficulty in referring it to the Senate, and you will obviate this dangerous constitutional practice upon which you are embarking. I think it is dangerous, and I appeal to the Government to accept the motion. I, who detest the very idea of having a Senate, appeal to the Government to send this to the Senate.

Hon. members opposite say we are tearing up the Constitution, but just the opposite is the fact: we are obeying it. In a matter of this kind it is the Governor-General in Council who has the authority. We should make ourselves very ridiculous abroad if we were to put ourselves into the position that every treaty the Governor-General, with the advice of the Government, approved had to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament, because then other countries would never know what the state of parties was in the two Houses. The speech from the Thorne by the Governor-General spoke of three treaties. It is almost certain that if this treaty for instance had to be submitted to both Houses it would be rendered futile. What position will that put our Government in with other nations if we are never certain that a treaty which is entered into can be given effect to, as the result of the attitude of the Opposition. In the first sentences of the treaty it says that after the representatives of the two parties have satisfied themselves of the authority of the Governments. … Is the principle now to be laid down that all such agreements must be submitted to both Houses? In this case the result might be that the Government would be prevented for another five years from entering into any treaty in consequence of the composition of the Senate. Moreover, according to the standing rules and orders we can have a joint sitting and with the will of the people pass an Act. We can therefore rectify matters, but we cannot rectify a motion by a joint sitting. I think it would be a bad principle to make administrative matters of this kind dependent on the decision of the two Houses especially if it has to be done by motion. As for Clause 8 of the treaty, and Clause 7 of the protocol I see nothing which makes it necessary to submit it to the Senate. If, in accordance with Clause 7 of the protocol, tariff alterations are once made, it will probably be necessary to get the approval of both Houses, because then we shall be concerned with an Act in connection with which the ratification by both Houses is necessary.

If anything astonished me it was the speech of the Prime Minister, and the attack he made on the Senate. He went so far as to say that if the Senate disapproved of the treaty the Government would take no notice of the Senate’s decision. In other words, the Prime Minister of South Africa said that he has no respect for one of the legislative bodies under the Constitution. His own treaty says clearly that it must be submitted to the Senate. The Prime Minister gave two reasons why he could not submit the treaty to the Senate, the first was that Clause 26 of the treaty provides that, “if it is necessary,” the treaty will be submitted for approval to the competent authoritative power. I want to ask the Prime Minister what the position would be if Germany took up the same position. Would the Prime Minister be satisfied if Germany had only consulted a part of its legislative authority? Germany has properly followed the constitutional practice and consulted both Houses. The treaty speaks clearly of the “competent legislative authority.” The word “legislative” cannot be argued away. Is this assembly a legislative body under the Constitution? Is there any legislative authority vested in the House of Assembly alone? Of course it is absolutely necessary for both Houses of Parliament to work together to pass an Act, and then there remains the third executive authority, the King. After the approval of both Houses has been obtained there is the third authority, the King, who is entrusted with executive authority. The Prime Minister said that it is a matter of an administrative nature. How can that be? The Prime Minister is himself bound under the treaty to submit it to Parliament, and that it only comes into force after the approval of Parliament has been obtained. The Minister of Mines and Industries bases his statement on the circumstance that the Customs Duty Act, 1925, only requires approval to be obtained when an amendment is made in the customs duties. The Minister of Mines was rather hesitating in his statement with reference to the actual meaning of Act 36 of 1925, and after he listened to the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) I am certain that he had strong doubts whether the approval of Parliament is not necessary. Section 7 of the Act says clearly that the Governor-General can enter into an agreement with a foreign state in consideration of the extension by that state of equivalent reciprocal privileges in respect of goods imported into its territory from the Union, whereby there may be accorded to that state most-favoured-foreign nation treatment in respect of customs duties leviable on goods imported from that state. That is an extract from Section 7.

Where are the customs duties which are being levied under the treaty?

The treaty gives most-favoured-nation treatment to Germany.

No customs duties are mentioned.

By it Germany receives most favoured-nation-treatment, and the clause says that the treaty shall not come into effect before it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Government is not only bound by this provision, but also by the fact that the Governor-General in his speach from the Throne said that the treaty would be submitted to both Houses. Would that have been done if the Government were not of opinion that the treaty ought to be approved by both Houses. I further rely on the treaty itself, on Clause 26. How the Prime Minister can argue that that only means the House of Assembly, and not the Senate, I cannot understand. It shows how one can sometimes do violence to one’s political conscience, and legal knowledge to put one’s case in a favourable light.

That shows how badly you understood the argument of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister said that he only submitted the treaty to this House to test the feeling of the representatives of the people, but that it was unnecessary. It nas been proved over and over in the House that the procedure in the case of trade treaties is quite different from the case of international peace treaties for instance. Here the financial interests of the people are affected, and therefore both Houses of Parliament must decide. I think the Opposition have taken up the right attitude even if we do it merely to protest against the encroachment on the constitutional rights of the people.

There is one aspect of this matter which does not appear to have had sufficient attention. The Government have announced that they do not consider that they are bound to submit this treaty to both Houses of Parliament. Legal opinion on this side of the House goes to show that the Government are not right in that contention. My opinion is that the Government have failed to recognize that if they persist in their attitude, they are taking the risk of arousing considerable uncertainty as to whether this treaty is valid or not. Of course the Government may say that they are prepared to take that risk, and if the German Government say they are not prepared to take that risk, we on this side of the House will not question it very closely. I think the Government will be very foolish if they allow any question of that kind to arise. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) said that the treaty had been placed before the House for ratification. I submit that is not correct. The House may be invited to approve of the treaty, but it does not follow from that that it is invited to ratify it. It is ratified by H.M. the King. The instrument of ratification is issued under the Great Seal of Great Britain. The Great Seal is affixed on the authority of a sign manual warrant, countersigned by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in London. The procedure which has always been in force in regard to ratification has not be altered. That that procedure was followed in 1923 is shown by the report of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference, and there is nothing to show that any alteration was made at the Imperial Conference in 1926. I admit that if undue stress were laid upon the maintenance of that procedure, it would have the effect of establishing that the British Government would have an opportunity of objecting to the ratification of the treaty. That is not likely to occur, but if there is uncertainty as to the validity of the treaty the Secretary of State is placed in a very difficult position. It seems to me to be a very difficult matter to deal with, and the Government should get rid of the uncertainty which is bound to arise in the minds of everyone as the result of the procedure now adopted.

made an interjection. [Inaudible.]

I am only dealing with facts. The question is, what is the procedure? If the Minister tells me that the procedure to which I have referred does not exist, then I stand corrected, but if that procedure does stand to-day, then I say the action of the Government is bound to create a very awkward position. It is not only for the reputation of this Parliament and the country that this treaty should be discussed, but there should not be any uncertainty regarding it. Until that uncertainty is removed, one can only record one’s opposition to the policy the Government has adopted.

Not being a constitutional lawyer, I do not intend dealing with this matter from the legal point of view, but I want to say a few words about it from the point of view of the man in the street. It is rather remarkable that the Government should have to fall back upon His Majesty the King without coming before this House. It is argued that it is not necessary to send the treaty to the Senate, because it is said that this House represents the view of the people. I challenge that. I challenge, at any rate, the statement that this House represents the majority of the people. The Government came into power by a certain arrangement which the people at the time of the last election never contemplated. The Senate stands for the protection of minorities. One of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Senate at the time of Union was the Prime Minister himself. He was then representing a small state, and the small states feared that their interests were going to be swamped in the larger voting power of the larger states. That was why he stood by representation in the Senate at that time, and now he avoids the real result of his own work. He now finds that his old ideas regarding the people’s will and the protection of minorities should disappear. The Senate stands for the representation of minorities, and the Government is flouting the interests of minorities. We are gradually developing a republican institution altogether. The Prime Minister is now becoming the president of a republic. I would like to point out the danger we are getting into as shown by the experience of other parts of the world. In 1917 we had a commission on the constitution of the Senate, and during the course of their enquiries they had certain documents laid before them upon the working of the bicameral system, and in Chapter 2 of these documents we have information to the effect that at the time of the framing of the constitution of the United States of America, the framers of that constitution had the experience of many countries to guide them. Alexander Hamilton, who drew up the constitution, said it was a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administered it might forget their obligations to their constituents. From this point of view the Senate, as the second branch of the legislature, must be in all cases a salutory check on the Government. It doubles the security of the people, and affords a protection against ambition or corruption in the lower chamber. “Two Houses,” said Alexander Hamilton, “are a double security.” He pointed out the many dangers there were in the unchecked rule of a single chamber majority. That is what, we are coming to. In one of the first important international agreements entered into by the Government, the Government, by the procedure it has adopted, is flouting the will of the people as represented in the Senate. We are faced now with a unicameral system, where the Government, put into office by a chance majority, through an election subterfuge, are imposing on the country a treaty which it is not the will of the people to accept. May I say to what state the Union has now fallen? The few legislatures of one champion in the world include Costa Rica, San Salvador and another South American republic, Bulgaria and the kingdom of Siam, and that is the position to which the Minister has reduced the Union of South Africa. We have reduced ourselves to the level of these particular states. I feel that this treaty is a republican treaty. I cannot go into the merits of it, but it is a republican treaty in every word of it. It is carrying republican principles in every line of it, and the Government is adopting the republican principle of having only one Chamber’s approval, and by forcing it through by a chance majority. It is a rush method. I wonder who has led the Prime Minister from the straight path he followed 17 or 18 years ago. He started off with a treaty obviously written with the intention of bringing it before the two Houses in all sincerity, believing possibly that it was going to be accepted by the country, and before we get to that destination someone has taken the Prime Minister by the arm, and led him on to this evil path which, if followed far, is going to corrupt the whole state. During the course of the debate the Minister said that he brought this agreement before the House on order to satisfy the agitation which is taking place outside. It is an extraordinary thing that this treaty was originally drawn up and signed without the public knowing a word of what was in it; yet he gets up in this House and tells us he only brought it before the House in order to satisfy the agitation which is taking place outside. I want to state what the opinion of the man in the street is, that the treaty is going to have a pernicious influence upon the whole of the country, because of the manner in which the Government is seeking to force it through.

If there is anything which would make me vote against my own motion it is the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), for I disagree with practically everything he has said. I did not propose the motion because I believed that the Senate has a beneficial influence on legislation or that it protects minorities, or that the Senate is for the benefit of Natal or any other province, but because I believed in the observance of constitutional practice. While the law is as it is, the proper procedure should be carried out. I was under the impression, which I think ninety-nine per cent, of the people were also under, that the treaty was to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament. That at any rate is the view of the ordinary man. I heard the Governor-General’s Speech which stated that the treaty was to be submitted to the Senate as well as to the Assembly, and I took the word “submit” to mean exactly what it has meant in other speeches by the Governor-General, namely, that the treaty was to be put before both Houses for their approval. I have looked up previous speeches by Governors-General at the opening of Parliament, and find the following: 1924, “the state of the wine industry in the Cape has caused much concern and the Government intends to submit to you proposals in connection with this matter”; in 1925, “my Ministers will also submit to you a Bill to regulate and control the diamond industry”; in 1926, “legislation providing for the survey of land will be submitted for your consideration”; in 1927, “a liquor Bill will be submitted to the House for their consideration.” I took the word “submit” to mean exactly what it means in the ordinary way, but if it meant anything else, we should have been told exactly what it did mean, and the Ministry should not have used an obscure meaning to hide what they did mean. If the word meant that the treaty was to be laid on the Table of the Senate, then the word “submit” was wrongly used and used to deceive. The Minister of Mines and Industries said that when the Governor-General’s speech was delivered it was the deliberate intention of the Government not to put the treaty before the Senate for its consideration. Was that the intention when the treaty was drawn up? Was it then intended to submit it only to the Assembly? I submit that it was then intended to submit it to both Houses of Parliament. In this House the Government has a majority; there are a number of us on these benches who vote according to the merits of a question, but in the other House the Government knows that it has not a majority, and it is aware that the treaty would be beaten there. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) would willingly take a chance on that. Would this constitutional question have arisen if the Ministry had a faithful, docile majority in the Senate? I do not think it would. As a matter of fact, I do not think a constitutional crisis could ever have been raised by this side. You cannot have it both ways. I moved the motion, not to waste time but to enable members to ventilate their views.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—49.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bawden, W.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

NOES—53.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Dost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, 1. van W.

Reitz, H

Rood, W. H.

Sampson, H. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytlec, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Pienaar, B. J.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

As hon. members know, the original estimates of expenditure for 1928-’29 are £28,585,000. The revised estimate will be £28,936,000, showing a net increase of £351,000. The additional supply required is £615,000 and there will be savings approximately of £264,000. The principal votes with regard to which additional supply is required are No. 6, Public Debt £110,000; No. 7, Pensions, £52,000; No. 8, Provincial Administrations, £50,000; No. 19, Defence, £69,500; No. 28, Agriculture, £75,650; No. 31, Posts and Telegraphs, £45,000. The original estimates of expenditure was £28,585,000. The additional supply required is £615,000, but there are a number of smaller votes which are necessary, and which I propose presently to explain to the House why these are included. The figure for public debt is £110,000. which is for payment to the General Sinking Fund, and represents the estimated net receipts from reparation monies to be received in 1928-’29. Then we come to pensions.—£52,000. A further sum of £26,000 is required for oudstryders grants. Then we have a sum of £25,000 required for old age pension schemes. At date 33,000 of these pensioners have been awarded grants, and it is anticipated that the number of additional awards which will be placed on the roll during February and March will be 2,700. This will bring the total to 35,700, made up of 25,000 whites at £30 per annum, 2,100 whites at an average of £20 per annum, 8,300 coloured at £18 per annum and 300 coloured at an average of £10 per annum, making a total at the rate of about £965,000 per annum. For this financial year we want an additional £25,000. For provincial administration we require £49,947. these payments are made up in terms of our statutes laying down grants according to the number of children attending school, and these are the final figures—Cape, increase £12,584; Natal, increase £10,670; Transvaal, increase £26,693; Free State, a decrease of £3,574. A large additional amount is required for the Defence Vote, and includes a special vote for artillery replacement and aircraft replacement. This amount is not required for ordinary expenditure. It was pointed out to us that most of the guns had become obsolete and would have to be replaced, and for this financial year we have decided to make a contribution of £69,500, the amount to be increased in subsequent years.

This is done because you have plenty of money.

If we had been very hard up we would have had to go without the guns, but I think both sides of the House will agree that the expenditure will have to be faced sooner or later, and seeing that we have the funds, it is only reasonable that we should take this opportunity of securing guns to replace those that are obsolete. With regard to aircraft, last year we made a contribution of £100,000 to the funds, and this year we intend to add another £42,000. It will be practicable for them to construct in their own workshops a 1927 type of Royal Air Force ’plane. The old machines will be kept for training purposes. The Department proposes, in addition, to purchase 20 light aeroplanes of the “Moth” type, which are regarded as more economical for training the force. With regard to agriculture, the amount is £75,650, and of this £60,000 is required for locust destruction. Some months ago there was a severe outbreak of locusts, and measures for their destruction were successfully undertaken, as a result of which no locusts reached the flying stage. The balance of £15,000 is for expenditure in connection with the guano islands. Posts and telegraphs require £45,000, due mostly to extensions of the service, and also to the fact that a rather severe cut was made when the original estimates were prepared. It is a business concern, and the system has been extending in all directions, and consequently we have had to provide an additional amount.

When the House suspended business I had explained the increased provision of £45,000 for posts and telegraphs. There are a few other votes which I will explain shortly. Miscellaneous Services: an additional £33,000 is required for exchange on remittances. We made provision on the main estimates for a certain amount as we expected during the year that we would have to arrange a loan in London as usual. We were able, however, to find in South Africa what money we required for capital expenditure, and, as a result, we had to remit a very much larger amount in London to meet our requirements oversea. On the estimates is the sum of £500 as a grant to the Royal Automobile Club of South Africa in connection with preparation of the track at Verneuk Pan. We now propose to add £1,000 to that grant. It seems that the work will cost considerably more than was originally anticipated, and after I had promised £500, representations were made that a very much bigger amount would be needed, and I undertook to put down an additional £1,000, provided the balance was found by the public and that an assurance was given that with this grant the track would be put in such a condition that the project could be carried out. They are still in financial difficulties, but they hope to find the money; as a matter of fact, the public has found a considerable sum. Under vote No. 14, Justice, we ask for an additional £9,100, £9,000 being for legal expenses in connection with certain cases in which the Government was involved, and £100 as a contribution to the International Copyright Bureau. Vote No. 15, Superior Courts, additional amount to be voted £11,500, the increase being due to the heavy sessions of the circuit courts. Under Police, there is an additional amount of £24,750. mainly as a result of increased police activities on the Lichtenburg diamond diggings. Under Mental Hospitals there is also an excess of £17,250, due to an underestimate on various heads and chiefly in connection with the Fort Napier institution, which was opened rather earlier that we had originally expected. Under public health there is also an increase of £12,800, mainly in connection with refunds to local authorities payable under statutes passed by this House. Under Native Affairs there is an increase of £23,377, of which £12,350 is for relief of distress among natives. When the main estimates were under discussion last year, I pointed out that although we had made provision for a relatively small amount, if it appeared that more was required the Government would provide the necessary money. Then there are additional amounts in connection with the Native Appeal Court, subsistence and transport, and on various other heads. Under Mines and Industries, vote 25, there is an excess of £27,526, mainly for urgent hospital accommodation on the diamond diggings and an amount for the miners’ training schools on the Rand. The latter sum is payable under an agreement which exists between the Chamber of Mines and the Government. We have an amount of £15,000 for additional police and other services on the Namaqualand diggings, and I may say I will give all the necessary information in regard to the diggings themselves when I deal with my financial statement, which I propose to deliver to the House shortly. Under the heading “Union Education” there is an excess of £19,325, mainly for the adjustment of statutory grants to universities and colleges. There is also an amount of £7,800, being the first instalment of £10,000 which the Government promised as a contribution towards the expenses of the visit of the British Association for the Advancement of Science which will be held in this country during this year. Child welfare requires another £9,000 extra. I made a desperate effort to curtail this expenditure, but, in the end, we had to surrender and make the increased provision. Then under Public Works there is an excess of £20,100 mainly for rents, rates, lighting, etc., and furniture. Then we come to the loan votes. The original grants from capital expenditure total £11,076,000. The additional sums required are £1,177,375, making a total appropriation of £12,253,375. We deduct from that savings amounting to £343.375 and we get a revised estimate of £11,910,000. In this sum £560,000 is required as additional expenditure for the railways and harbours. It appears that the original provision made for railways and harbours capital expenditure was insufficient, owing to the fact that deliveries of railway material ordered came through rather earlier than was expected. It is always difficult to foretell exactly. Then there is a small sum of £12.000 for public works, and a small sum of £11,000 for irrigation. That is in connection with the Government works at Oliphants River (Van Rhynsdorp). The work had advanced faster than was expected. We shall thus reduce the provision which will have to be re-voted later on. Under Local Works and Loans there is £150.000, being the grant which we are making to the South-West Africa Administration in connection with the repatriation of the Angola Boers. Hon. members will not that £200,000 was made available under the Custodians’ Fund and we undertook to provide £150,000 also for settlement purposes. The conditions are that the land will be allotted to these people under ordinary settlement terms and whatever moneys become available as a result of repayments made by these people will go into the fund and will be available again in South-West Africa for further land settlement.

What is the total?

£350.000 is our commitment, but I understand we shall probably have to find an additional amount, owing to the fact that the costs of boring for water are greater than was originally anticipated. The great difficulty is to provide water on these farms. It is capital expenditure; the ground will be there and the repayments will be paid back into the fund from time to time. Hon. members will see the Government thought it good policy to come to the assistance of these people and get them back to the territory. We realize we are spending money in the mandated territory, outside the Union proper. That is the difficulty. We will have a considerable sum available out of revenue for capital purposes so we are not burdening posterity. It is a mere grant. We are providing another £100,000 for the Land and Agricultural Bank. Last year we cut down the amount very severely. I informed them that they must try to finance their operations under the capital provided, but we put additional work on the bank from time to time, and these fencing and boring loans absorb a good deal of money. Unless we are prepared to face the position that the hank should not lend money to farmers as contemplated under existing legislation, we should give the additional amount, but I can assure the House that it will not be possible, in future, for the bank to make very heavy calls on the central Government for funds. Forestry requires £75,100, of which £66,000 is required to purchase suitable land, which fortunately came into the market, for afforestation purposes. Hon. members will know it is difficult to find suitable land for these purposes. The department came to the Treasury and made representations that it would be in the interests of the state to make these funds available to acquire these farms, some of which are in Barberton or the Sabie district, and some in northern Natal. We are providing an additional £175,000 for the iron and steel industry. In terms of the Act the Government has to take up a certain number of shares. We have made provision for the first call of 1/- per share, or £25,000, but during the year the board represented to us that it would be much better for them, instead of going on the market at once, for the Government to take up shares, and we are now providing this additional amount. Under the Labour vote we are providing £31,750, which is made in connection with the Doornkop scheme. I may explain that this is not an additional vote. My hon. friend (Mr. Bovdell) has the money on the main estimates, and informed the House, during the discussion on the subject, last year, what he was going to do, but in order to give the fullest information to the House the Treasury insisted on the amount being specially voted in this way. It is merely putting the matter right for audit purposes. My hon. friend is saving the same amount on his estimate. But as far as the £1.750 is concerned, it is a half-year’s interest which had to be paid to the British Treasury and was not contemplated when the discussion took place last year. My hon. friend is prepared to give the House all the information when we go into committee. For the relief of distress we require £60,000. Hon. members will remember that we first voted £400,000 under the original Act. The committees have been at work for a long time and have disbursed certain amounts. This £60,000 is to meet further commitments in those districts which are still suffering from drought, and where it will be necessary, when the rains do fall, to enable farmers to restock. I think I have given the House all the information, and hon. members will have a further opportunity of discussing these estimates when we go into committee.

seconded the motion.

I would like some information with regard to Doornkop, the position of which is becoming more serious as time goes on, the Minister having again been playing with the taxpayers’ money. Last year the company’s liability amounted to £130,000. It has now increased to £145,000, the security for which is a property which was purchased only a few years ago for £16,000. Last year I pointed out to the Minister that the value of the estate made the security inadequate, but notwithstanding that warning, further advances have been made, bringing the liability now up to £145,000. As far as can be seen, not a shilling has been paid by way of interest on the money advanced by the department since the inception of the agreement. The department has failed or neglected to have a mortgage bond over the estate registered to secure the department. When the Minister was asked by me only a few days ago whether the bond had been passed, he said there was some little hitch with the Trade Facilities Board. The Minister must bear in mind that we are not school children. He tried to camouflage the position when he said he was not able to pass and register this bond because of some hitch with the Trade Facilities. The real position is that he is not able to obtain a first bond over the estate because Trade Facilities already have a first mortgage preferent claim, and until he liquidates the debt due to the Trade Facilities he cannot pass that bond. Every stick in the estate, including the estate, the Trade Facilities have a bond over. The position—and it is a very serious one from the point of view of the taxpayer’s money—is that until the £70,000 due to the Trade Facilities is paid off we are not able to get any security for our money. I would like the Minister to reconcile if he can a statement he made in this House in connection with this matter. In answer to a question put by me he said that the Doornkop estate had not produced one shilling’s worth of sugar, and that there were no profits at all. The Minister’s estimated profit from the first year’s milling operations was somewhere in the neighbourhood of half the amount owing to the Trades Facilities; that was his estimate in 1927 of the profit which would accrue in 1928. No profits have accrued in 1928. A few days ago there was an article in the “Argus” paper headed, “No more money for Doornkop.” I hope that is true, and that the Minister will see to it that this liability is not to be increased by another penny, because I am convinced that he will never recover the amount now owing much less any additional liabilities the Doornkop Company can hold him up for the next 100 years under the existing arrangement. Now I want to show what really led up to this contract being entered into with the Doornkop Company. The property was bought by one Rosenberg in partnership with one Vine for the sum of £16,000. It was not long before Mr. Rosenberg owned the property and Mr. Vine the experience. Before this happened Rosenberg embarked upon what is known as the “25-acre plot scheme,” in connection with which he obtained the assistance and support of some very highly placed gentlemen to give him advertising boosts such as the Minister of Justice, a judge of the Supreme Court, the chief of the detective department, and one or two magistrates, all of whom gave him a fine advertising boost. These boosts coming from such highly placed persons had the desired effect and the public clamoured to secure these plots. It transpired, after these plots had been foisted on the public, that Rosenberg had obtained this money by misrepresenting the position. Legal proceedings were threatened, and Mr. Rosenberg was advised to disgorge the money and cancel the agreements which he did. That was his first escapade in connection with Doornkop which failed owing to his unprincipled methods—he had to refund the money on the ground of misrepresentation. I should like to tell the House what Mr. Rosenberg wrote in a letter to his partner after he had completed his plans to victimise the public. This is what he wrote—

Mr. Rosenberg goes on to say with a note of glee—

Mr. Rosenberg went on to say—

There you have the truth—the letters were to serve a good purpose in the joint interest of Mr. Vine and Mr. Rosenberg. It became apparent that Mr. Rosenberg, realizing that it was imperative he should have capital to develop the estate, set about to secure that capital. He was unsuccessful until he met a Mr. Maxwell who was induced to subscribe for 30,000 shares in the Doornkop Company and paid as a first call thereon the sum of £10,000. Subsequently Mr. Maxwell found that the position had been misrepresented to him and that he had been induced on false grounds to agree to take up the shares and he took up the attitude that he was not bound to carry out his part of the agreement, and that he was entitled to a refund of the money he had paid. He instituted proceedings against the company for the cancellation of the contract and for a refund of the £10,000 he had paid. The case was heard at Johannesburg, and, after a somewhat protracted hearing, was settled out of Court, Rosenberg agreeing to refund the £10,000 and paying Mr. Maxwell a sum of over £2,000 to cover legal expenses. The result was virtually a judgment for Maxwell for the amount claimed and costs. Now we come to Mr. Rosenberg’s third attempt. Having failed in the first instance to offload the property into the public under his 25 acre plot scheme and having failed in his subsequent attempt to raise capital by the issue of shares to Maxwell, Rosenberg had liquidation staring him in the face as the only alternative to failure to raise capital to work and develop the estate. He was by this time a discredited man, in the business world with a tarnished reputation which made his chances of obtaining financial support more difficult. By some extraordinary means, not yet explained, we find him presenting himself at the office of the Minister of Labour, although he was not then acquainted with the Minister. It was known that he was a friend of the Minister of Justice, and whether the Minister of Justice was the means of bringing them together remains a mystery. But we find him there. He was then in the position that he had been threatened with the compulsory sequestration of his estate at the Doornkop Company called a meeting to decide whether they should not voluntarily sequestrate the estate rather than be compulsory sequestrated. That was the position when this gentleman presented himself at the office of the Minister of Labour. I ask the Minister if he will tell the House who introduced Mr. Rosenberg to him; who gave Rosenberg a letter of introduction, and who recommended him to the Minister for financial support. I think the Minister will do the House a great service if he will say exactly how Mr. Rosenberg came to approach him, and how he knew there was a possibility of money and labour being made available to him in “the Department of Labour. Now this is where the Minister is, in my opinion, very blameworthy. The first business precaution a business man would have taken would have been to consider the moral aspect of the question, which is always a consideration of first importance. Look at the moral risk. Did the Minister do that? He had a man before him who had lost his business reputation, who had had to disgorge his ill-gotten gains on two occasions for gross misrepresentation, who had lost an important lawsuit on the grounds of misrepresentation, and who immediately thereafter presented himself at his, the Minister’s office, soliciting financial support, and before Rosenberg left that office he had succeeded in securing a promise of financial support, and a promise that he would be provided with the necessary labour, not at his expense but at the expense of the taxpayer. What I want to know is how the Minister came to have anything to do with a man of the reputation of Rosenberg, and how he came to stake the taxpayers’ money, something like £140,000, in a venture which was to be controlled by this man. It is inexplicable. The Minister has never attempted to answer that question, and I do not suppose he ever will. Anyhow the country will know what to think of it. The taxpayers know that the Minister is blameworthy in connection with this transaction, a transaction which should never have been entered into. I want the Minister to tell us if when he agreed to advance this money to Rosenberg he knew that this man had been stigmatised by Mr. Justice de Villiers as slippery, unscrupulous, unsatisfactory and thoroughly untrustworthy. That was the reputation this man came to the Minister with, and notwithstanding that the Minister took him to his bosom, and gave him every financial facility he needed without making any further inquiries as to his integrity or financial position. The Minister also knew of the 25-acre plot scheme, because I find in the Hansard some interjections from him when we were debating that matter. Yet we find that he paid money to Rosenberg, placing considerable sums of the taxpayers’ money at his disposal and subsidizing labour to develop the Doornkop Estate. What has been the result? Rosenberg was prepared to agree to anything. His position at that time was desperate, and he actually went the length of agreeing to give two-thirds of the estate to the tenant farmers on a certain date if he could get their labour and get the financial support of the Government. What did Mr. Rosenberg do? He had the use of those labourers to develop the estate, cheap white labour provided and paid for by the Government. No sooner had he got the estate developed than he set to work to jettison the unfortunate tenants who had developed it, to deprive them of their 2-3rd right secured to them under the agreement and to get the estate back into his own hands. And the Minister played right into his hands by agreeing to cancel that agreement. The Minister not only sold the department’s interest to Rosenberg, but he sold the tenant farmers at the same time, and left them to the tender mercies of Mr. Rosenberg with the result that they were forced to abandon everything and leave. They have substituted black labour for this white labour, and are now working with black labour. When the Minister found that this scheme was a complete failure, the scheme to settle white tenant farmers. I maintain that his proper course was to have taken over the estate, sold it, and, if necessary, cut his loss straight away. That was the most businesslike way to deal with it. But he enters into a further agreement with Rosenberg, cancelling the former one, and making provisions which it is impossible to understand he could ever have agreed to. As to Clause 5 in the agreement, why were the shareholders of the Doornkop Company given a preference over the department’s own claim? Clause 5 gives preference to the following 5 per cent, dividend in the shares which at the date of this contract have been issued by the Company to the extent to which such shares have been paid for in cash. The number of shares so issued is 94,330 of the paid-up value of £1 each. Of this 94,330 shares 43,935 have been ceded to the Minister leaving over 50,000 to rank for dividend before the claims of the department. Why these shareholders, who are our debtors, should be given this preference is beyond my comprehension. It is the most extraordinary thing I have ever seen. Can the Minister tell us why he was content to allow the Doornkop Co. to have the use of this money as long as they liked, so long as they paid a portion of the net profit in reduction of their debt. The Minister has tied his hands completely, and has no recourse whatever; even if he thought it desirable to foreclose and liquidate the company, he would not be able to do so, having bound himself to allow repayment to be contingent on whether profits are made. That is most unbusinesslike, and places the company in a position in which it can please itself; if it does not wish to pay its indebtedness to the Government it can very easily see that it makes no profit. Thus redemption of the debt may be held up indefinitely. When does the Minister expect this enormous claim to be liquidated? Can he tell us what the net profits are likely to be—whether they are sufficient to pay the interest on the money advanced? Including the claim of the Trade Facilities Committee and the interest on £60,000, the interest alone on the company’s liabilities will come to £10,000 a year when the £60,000 becomes interest-bearing. Can the Minister tell the House what justification there is for a man like Rosenberg being allowed £60,000 of the taxpayers’ money free of interest for six years, this the basis of six years’ interest being a present to the company of something like £21,000. The interest on the £60,000 should have begun from the day the Minister decided to sell, or at least the date of the new agreement. At first the Minister was going to allow the company the free use of the £60,000 free of interest indefinitely, and it was only because I raised the point last year that the Minister said he would see if he could do anything in regard to the matter. The Minister did not take the slightest trouble to protect the interests of the taxpayer. He is the most expensive Minister we have ever had. The trouble is that the Minister never had a business training, and should never have taken a hand in a thing of this kind, particularly in the case of a man like Rosenberg, an exceedingly clever, unprincipled man, far too clever for the Minister. The Minister had many warnings from this side of the House. This is what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) said as reported in “Hansard”—

I agree entirely with the views of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The Minister is trebly blameworthy, because he not only should never have dealt with this man with his bad record, especially as he had knowledge of his record. Notwithstanding that knowledge, he places himself at the mercy of this man. We, all of us, gave the Minister due warning of what was going to happen. I remember several warnings which have come true. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said this—

In 1927, the hon. member predicted that. How true his words have come! They did not leave of their own free will, however; they were driven away by the Minister entering into that second agreement under which the Minister surrendered to Rosenberg their two-third interest in the estate. I want to come to another important question. I recently raised a series of questions one of which had to do with the class of labour employed at Doornkop. The Minister, in the new agreement—I am quite sure it was by way of camouflage—made provision that the Doornkop Estate should be run on a white labour basis as far as economically possible. I wanted to find out from the Minister what type of labour is being employed there, and I put the question. This was the answer I got: “The manager has supplied this information, but has requested it be not made public.” Yes, I ask why it should not be made public. This is the proper place for publicity. The reason is obvious. I then asked the Minister if he had taken any steps to require the Doornkop Company to create a white settlement there in terms of Clause 7. What was his answer? It was that he had done something, but something more would be done when it was economically possible. I will tell the Minister this, the reason why he was requested not to make the information public was because black labour is being employed at Doornkop to-day.

Shame.

I will tell the Minister something else. Black labour is going to be continued there, because Rosenberg has made the discovery that it is not economically possible to free himself of debt by carrying on a white labour basis, and his only hope is by carrying on with natives and Asiatics. I want to tell the Minister that while he and his department still had control there, black labour was employed with the knowledge and consent of the Minister, notwithstanding that his professed object was to create a white settlement. I challenge the Minister to deny it. I do say that, as far as I am able to judge, this estate is not good security for the sum of £145,000, and never will be. The Minister knows the place perfectly well. It is not an ideal sugar estate, it is very hilly and, therefore, difficult to work economically. [Time limit.]

I rise to support the last speaker. There is no doubt about it that this transaction of the Minister of Labour will go down in the annals of this Parliament and of the country as one of the rottenest transactions that has ever been carried out. It is an extraordinary thing what a tremendous and inexplicable hold Mr. Rosenberg has on the Minister. In 1924, this transaction first started and year after year since then the matter has been brought up, and year after year, we have been warning the Minister that he was going to find himself in a hopeless financial mess with the transaction. The position to-day is the same as it was two years ago. The Minister has now advanced £70,750 according to the statement here and in addition the Government have guaranteed the liability of £70,000 due to the British Trade Facilities Board. He told us a year ago that he was going to raise a bond to secure the liability due to the Government. Why, to-day there is no bond. The Minister, the other day, told us communications had taken place with London and he was sorry the bond could not be passed yet, I will tell him why. It was for the simple reason that the company are in such a bad financial condition that in order to get facilities from the bank they dare not pass this bond. The company knows that as soon as the bond is registered their credit will immediately stop. The Minister to afford further credit for the company has delayed passing this bond. I challenge the Minister to deny that.

Absolutely untrue.

I say any business man, any business Government and any business Minister would have seen that proper security was given when this loan was made. The Minister of Finance is also at fault in not seeing that this was done. The Minister knows that when an advance is made the lender sees he is properly secured with a bond. All the more reason, when you are handling taxpayers’ money, to see it is properly secured. I say, further, that this advance we are now asked to vote for should not be under the Loan Vote; it should be out of revenue, because we shall never recover this money. The Minister of Finance has made a mistake there as well. I would like to know from the Minister of Labour why this £15,000 was not placed on the Estimates last year. Surely he knew last year, when these tenant-farmers were leaving Doornkop, that it was necessary to provide for their compensation. The whole thing is absolutely rotten finance. Have we ever heard of such a thing as a Government having to advance even the interest due by this company? This proves conclusively in what a bad financial position the Doornkop Company is in. I hope the Minister will clear this matter up. As far as I am concerned, I am going to vote against that money being voted. The time has come for the House to call a halt on this unnecessary, wasteful expenditure by the Minister. Are we every year to be asked to advance the taxpayers’ money for Mr. Rosenberg? I would like to ask the Minister a question, which is, that last year he told us we were quite wrong and that in a year’s time the company would be in a position to pay off the amount due to the British Treasury, or that a very substantial amount would be paid off this liability. It was on this statement that the last vote went through. We are tired of these wildly irresponsible statements of the Minister. He has held out that everything was right, that we had nothing to fear, and that he had perfect security, when he knew all the time that he had no security whatever. We were bluffed. We are now told that the Minister has no security whatever. The time has come when the House should pass a vote of censure on the Minister, and refuse to allow any more of the taxpayers’ money being spent on this rotten and unsavoury business. The Minister smiles and laughs. The hon. member for Klip River has referred to the statement made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). What hold has this man Rosenberg on the Minister? Why is he continuously spending the taxpayers’ money on this concern, when he knows that it is not on a sound basis and cannot pay the interest due to his Majesty’s Treasury in England? I should also like to ask the Minister whether his department keeps any check on the expenses of this company or reviews their expenditure and their operations, or whether he takes any steps to restrict Mr. Rosenberg’s salary and keep the company’s overhead expenses down as far as possible. Unless some steps are taken, we will not only lose the whole of the capita] advanced, but not recover the interest on this capital. We are quite justified on this side in saying that we told the Minister so, that he would get into a mess, and that he has undoubtedly got into that mess. Exactly what we predicted has taken place. The Minister would not lend any ear to what we said, and kept on saying that we were prejudiced against the scheme because he was the author of it, He said that he was such a business man, and knew the scheme would be a success. Can the Minister say it has been a success, when these tenant-farmers were so unfairly treated by him? The time has come when this House and the country should know of the maladministration of this particular concern. There has been no propel supervision and business principles applied to it. I certainly think we are perfectly justified in voting against this further expenditure, because if we do vote for it the Minister will come again next year for further money. Will he give the House an assurance that there will be no further expenditure on this concern? We were told what a wonderful co-operative movement it was to be— the boldest, grandest and best scheme of cooperation ever devised. The Minister talked such a lot about delivering the goods, but what did he deliver this year? He has delivered an impossible proposition, one which this side will have to clean up when the Minister has left that seat. I would like to refer the Minister of Finance and the Acting Minister of Justice to a question which is agitating a great number of people in the northern districts of Natal. Some time ago I addressed the Minister of Justice with regard to circuits of the superior courts there, and he promised that where there were three or more cases, these circuit courts would be held.

I may point out that the hon. member is entitled only to discuss increases; he cannot discuss policy.

I would like to know why there has been no increase in Natal, as I see there have been considerable increases elsewhere. If they had circuits in northern Natal, there would be a considerable reduction of expenditure; but in view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this on a later occasion.

I move—

We are all familiar with the genesis of this ill-fated scheme. As far back as 1924 the whole of the circumstances were brought before this House by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) in consequence of a most astounding advertisement appearing in the “Sunday Times” during August. 1924, featuring testimonials which boosted the soundness, financial integrity and good prospects of the Doornkop Estates. These testimonials were written by a Minister of the Crown, a judge of the Supreme Court, the head of the Criminal Investigation Department and the Surveyor-General of the Transvaal, gentlemen who in time repented of having issued these ill-advised testimonials. I want to quote the evidence of the man who induced these gentlemen to issue these statements, in order that we may arrive at a proper appreciation of that remarkable advertisement. Giving evidence in the case of Maxwell v. The Dornkon Estates, Mr. Rosenberg made a most astounding statement. I would remind the House that Mr. Rosenberg had acquired certain blocks of land which he was endeavouring to dispose of in lots of 20 acres, at £25 per acre. Speaking on oath he said he realized then and there that peoples’ minds were polluted, that this was due to their previous experience in land settlement, and that in consequence he had to adopt a different method, showing the public that the intention of the company was to secure them in every possible respect. That, he said, was his primary thought, and he set out to devise ways and means how to secure that, and during May or June, 1924, he approached numerous of his friends to participate with him and take up these plots of ground as he was quite confident that the investment was so good. He went on to say that he approached the Hon. Mr. Justice—whose name I shall not mention—and that it quite appealed to him. Mr. Rosenberg was asked: “Did you approach the various people whose names have been mentioned in this court?” And he replied: “I did.” The names of the gentlemen who had been mentioned in the court—a judge, a Minister of the Crown, a major in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department, and a Surveyor-General. Let us carry this thing one stage further. The next adventure was the “ Sunday Times” advertisement. Although one of these testimonials stated that the writer had long been looking for a small remunerative property to make provision for the future, it was proved that he never bought such a plot, nor had the judge or the Minister bought any, and this proves that these people were certainly not buyers of these plots, and lends colour to the statement that they were participating with Rosenberg—

Does the hon. member suggest that the Minister of Justice was doing that?

I am not suggesting anything dishonourable. A judge or a Minister of the Crown was entitled to buy what he thought fit, though in the minds of the public it might not be expedient that he should participate with Mr. Rosenberg in a land deal! I am simply quoting what was disclosed in court, when the names of a Minister of the Crown, the head of the Criminal Investigation Department and the Surveyor-General were mentioned as having participated with Mr. Rosenberg in taking up this ground. The point I wish to make is the necessity for an enquiry into the circumstances under which the Government came to commit itself to a loan of £76,750 to the Doornkop Estates. Of course it is just possible that the whole statement of Rosenberg about the participation of these gentlemen was an invention, but it is my duty to lay before the House the facts as disclosed, and to press for a select committee of enquiry. I now come to the culpability of the Minister of Labour, who has admitted that Mr. Rosenberg appeared in the door of his office clamouring for a loan. The Minister stated that he had no previous acquaintance with that gentleman. I also want to quote the remarks of Mr. Justice de Villiers, the present Acting Chief Justice, in regard to Rosenberg in a case tried by him, and in the course of which the learned judge described Mr. Rosenberg as a slippery person whose uncorroborated word could not be accepted, and who had shown himself to be unscrupulous in adjusting his evidence to the requirements of the particular case in which he was giving evidence. The learned judge also said—

That occurred some years before the Minister engaged in his financial transactions with Rosenberg, and it would not have taken long for the Minister to have made inquiries as to Mr. Rosenberg’s standing. But Mr. Rosenberg, as stated by my colleague of Klip River (Mr. Anderson), was engaged in a transaction in relation to the sale of this land in which he was very much guided by the principle of “Needs must when the devil drives.” He was constantly on the verge of liquidation. The whole history of that enterprise shows that not once, but several times, he threatened to go into liquidation, and actually in the December preceding his entering into the agreement with the Minister, about the 28th of December, 1925, a meeting had been called, the announced business for which was the liquidation of the company. On the 6th of January, 1926, the Minister had so relieved this gentleman’s anxiety, that he was able to cable to Europe stating that he had come to an agreement with the Minister for 100 tenant-farmers to be put on the land, and for financial support to the extent of £33,000 to be given to him. He was received with open arms by the Minister, and no inquiry was made as to his commercial reputation. The Minister took him to his bosom, and gave him that agreement which, as far as the country is concerned, we regard as a reproach upon the administration of the Minister’s department. What we all fail to understand, what is a mystery to every person in this House and out of it, is the strange infatuation of the Minister for Mr. Rosenberg. What happened three days ago? The Minister stood up in this House, a pathetic figure, unable to open his mouth without the permission of Mr. Rosenberg. The blinded Samson was a fool to him.

Which one?

I am speaking of Samson of old. I should like to remark upon the resemblance between Samson of old and the Minister of Labour. These two public characters both wore their hair long, and I believe it is recorded that Samson met a young lion, which he rent in twain, subsequently returning to draw honey from the carcase. The Minister stroked a young circus lion, and for gallantry drew £5 from his Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, which, of course, he gave to the poor. Now I come to the more pathetic part. His downfall, like the downfall of Samson, was Delilah; let me hasten to add the Delilah of office. Delilah has put out his eyes, shorn off his seven locks of hair, and bound him with fetters of brass— 2,500 of them. I return to the figure the Minister presented to us the other day, almost a quaking, tottering, blind figure, and certainly dumb, unable to open his mouth in this House without the permission of Mr. Rosenberg. Has anybody ever before heard in the history of constitutional Government of a Minister coming into this House and confessing: “I am unable to speak in this House, because a distressed Johannesburg financier has asked me not to.” That is what the statement of the Minister amounted to. The infatuation of the Minister for this gentleman is past finding out, and the miracle under which any man, let alone a distressed Johannesburg financier, can get £60,000 free of interest for six years is a miracle indeed. It is a miracle that the man in the street wants to know about, and he wants to know the source and origin of these things. My suggestion is that we should have an inquiry which will ventilate the source and the origin of these transactions. We have never had half the story told in connection with Mr. Rosenberg and the Minister of Labour.

It has not been your fault.

No, but I propose to read a statement which throws further light on this unexplained miracle. In addition to the statement of Mr. Rosenberg on oath, in which he said that his friends were participating with him in taking up these blocks of land, there has been a great deal of discussion in the law courts in regard to certain bonus shares which were granted to Mr. Rosenberg by the company, and which Mr. Rosenberg claimed that he was using in order to gain a certain advantage for the company. I have a statement here made by Mr. Marius Maxwell, a well-known public man and author, who, in a statement, said—

Another page of Mr. Maxwell’s statement bears upon that very same question—

Are you referring to me?

No.

Is the hon. member insinuating that I had anything to do with that?

I understand the hon. member was not referring to the Minister.

A good job for him.

I mentioned no names at all. The statement is there—it is fully vouched for by Mr. Maxwell.

That was before I met or knew Mr. Rosenberg. Hit straight—don’t hit below the belt.

The Minister knows that I never hit below the belt. I said from the outset that this matter deserves an enquiry. Will the Minister move for an enquiry—will he face a select committee? He dare not.

At any time.

Will the Minister rise and move for one? No one would welcome it more than I. I could produce evidence which would make South Africa ring as far as the origin of this matter is concerned. The Minister would be the sorriest man to have moved for an enquiry. The whole of this business reflects no credit on the country.

The hon. member is hinting at very serious matters. If allegations are made against any Minister it is the hon. member’s duty to move for an enquiry into the Minister’s conduct, and his motion will have precedence over any other business.

Make your charges. I will deal with them.

I have made no allegations beyond the fact that this matter demands the fullest enquiry. As far as the participation of the Minister or judge in any financial transaction is concerned, I suggest nothing dishonourable—it is a matter for the public to judge. If the participation of a Minister in this business is proved after enquiry it is a matter for the public to determine as to how far it is expedient for a Minister to engage in financial transactions which, at a subsequent stage, are assisted by the Government.

The hon. member must realize that when he talks about producing evidence which would make South Africa ring, he is saying something which is very serious.

I said the whole matter is a reproach to the Minister’s department.

The hon. member must be circumspect in reference to these matters. He must not make insinuations of this nature regarding Ministers of the Crown if he has no evidence. But if he has evidence, it is his duty to table a motion of censure on the Minister concerned.

I shall be entirely guided by your ruling, sir. I come to the Minister’s action in regard to the payment of the £15,000 referred to in this vote. We were led to understand, when the matter was brought before us last session, that £150 was to be paid to every tenant who had been more than 18 months on the property. A case was brought to my notice on my return to Natal after last session of one of these unfortunate men who had spent 21 months at Doornkop and established his plot of cane, who had failed to obtain a single sixpence from the Minister. I wrote to the Minister on behalf of this man, Mr. Coleman, on 1st August, 1928, reminding him of the statements he had made in the House on May 24th and 28th, 1928, to the effect than £150 would be payable to any man who had completed his contract. I pressed the Minister to pay Mr. Coleman £150, and I produced proof that he had been there for 21½ months, but the Minister flatly refused to pay him, and I can only remark that the arguments be advanced were puerile. The Minister wrote further—

At no stage, however, did the Minister qualify his statement when he made it in this House. The Minister’s letter proceeded—

I wish to know who is to benefit by the cane this man established, for it is undeniable that Mr. Coleman’s cane was fully established. The Minister has not vouchsafed any information as to whether that cane was handed to Mr. Rosenberg, but Mr. Coleman did not receive a penny benefit from it. The Minister, in the course of last year’s debate on this question, went on to say that after the cane had been planted and was ready to cut, the Government saw no reason why if one of the farmers had to leave he should not have the option of either getting value for what was done on his plot or putting somebody on the vacant plot. This particular man got neither, and to this day he has received no compensation whatever. The position in regard to the whole of this matter is that the Government has advanced £76,250 to the Doornkop Estates. It has taken over the liabilities; it has guaranteed repayment of the £70,000 advanced through the Trade Facilities Board, which held a mortgage bond over every stick of the property belonging to the estate. Yet the Minister has made no provision to restrict the amount of Mr. Rosenberg’s drawings from the income of the estate. The bond of the Trade Facilities Board made suitable provision. They limited the office expenses and they limited the drawings of Rosenberg from the income of the estate, so that the bulk of the income should be rendered towards the payment of the indebtedness to the board. When at the opening of the session I asked the Minister what provision had been made, his reply was to refer me to the agreement which he had laid on the Table. I have examined the agreement, and I find no provision whatever whereby the drawings of Mr. Rosenberg are in any way limited, or the drawings of the Doornkop Estate limited. The whole of the Minister’s attitude towards this House has been to maintain secrecy as to the prospects of this concern. He has never yet taken us into his confidence since the agreement was entered into. He has not told us what cane is to be put through this year, and what amount is likely to he yielded for the Government in repayment of the amount the Doornkop Estate owes, and we are in the position of having lent this enormous amount to this company for the purpose of keeping eleven tenant-farmers employed on the property. The only information we have had from the Minister this session is to the effect that eleven tenant-farmers remain on the estate. As a settlement for tenant-farmers, this property is a hollow fraud. There is no pretence of absorbing Europeans on this property. Mr. Rosenberg has got what he wanted, and so far as the Government is concerned, it will be many a long day before it sees the money back or receives any benefit direct or indirect from Mr. Rosenberg. The whole of this ill-fated enterprise is something which, if it benefits anyone at all, will benefit Mr. Rosenberg. The Government will have to stand by and wait. We are simply at the mercy of that gentleman. We may have the amount liquidated in ten years, or it may be 20 years. It was significant that the Minister last session was unable to commit himself to the period which must elapse before this debt is liquidated. I say that the whole of the circumstances surrounding this case demand the closest investigation. There is not a thing about this matter on which the public is not entitled to have the fullest information, and I think we reached a climax the other day when we had the Minister standing up with a message from the man who is indebted one way and another to the Government of this country for £145,000, expressing the wish that it should not be disclosed to this House how his labour force was made up, when a large proportion of that money was drawn from the Government on the representation that he would absorb Europeans, that he would establish them in life work, that he would cede them two-thirds of the estate. The whole of these things were falsified by the mismanagement of the Minister. The Minister allowed Mr. Rosenberg to be absolved from his liability by getting these men to sign an agreement which would release Mr. Rosenberg from his liability. The Secretary for Labour was sent down to explain to the men certain options. The options in regard to the property were either that they should remain on under the original agreement, or they should remain on as paid servants of Mr. Rosenberg. There was no suggestion that the Government should step in and buy up the property and run it as a European settlement. The only option, so far as staying on the property is concerned, was that they should remain there under Mr. Rosenberg and the tenant-farmers found it impossible to accept that offer. So strongly did they feel that as regards the old agreement, every one declined to remain a party to that any longer. There were breaches of that agreement by the Doornkop Estates, causing bitter complaint on the part of the men. They complained that the written agreement had a provision endorsed thereon by Mr. Rosenberg which promised that £10 per cultivated acre would be allowed to every man holding a plot. The tenant-farmers maintained that that agreement was never fulfilled. Their complaint was brushed aside by the Minister, who maintained that the sum of £150 represented a larger sum than they would have obtained if they had been paid £10 per acre. But at no time were these people at arm’s length in their dealings with the Minister. They were backward people with no previous experience, and whose capacity to look after themselves was very limited. Since their transfer from the Doornkop Estate, they have largely been re-established at another settlement. I understand an inquiry was made there by the chief magistrate of Pretoria. One would like to know what was the nature of that inquiry. We have never been permitted to know. We know the bond passed by the Trade Facilities Board on the 23rd April, 1926, was far-reaching. It bound the assets of the Doornkop Estate, past, present and future, and pledged them every one to the Trade Facilities Board. [Time limit.]

seconded the amendment.

First of all let me say that I am prepared to answer any legitimate criticisms in connection with this scheme, and if hon. members opposite care to speak of my shortcomings, I am prepared to meet every argument put forward and every point raised; but what I take exception to, and the very strongest exception, is the dirty, despicable insinuations—

The hon. Minister must not use those words.

I will withdraw those words, but I wish to take the strongest exception to the insinuations made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) when he made certain references to certain happenings connected with certain bonus shares, and brought in “Minister” without mentioning any name just as if that Minister was myself. He did not have the decency to say that the happenings took place before I ever met Mr. Rosenberg. It shows the methods adopted by the hon. member for Illovo in order to try to discredit unfairly and to hit below the belt. I challenge the hon. member to make his accusations, insinuations or reference in connection with this matter outside this House, and I will have him in court at once and show the public of South Africa who is playing the dirty game for party purposes.

The hon. Minister must not say that.

I will withdraw that. The whole object of to-night’s chorus from Natal is not to criticize Doornkop; it was disclosed by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) when he said it was to try to pitchfork me out of Greyville. If this is the only thing they can get against the Minister of Labour, they are welcome to all the possible capital they can get out of it, because it will react against them; these tactics and insinuations will react on them like a boomerang, and not on members on this side. Let me deal with some of the arguments. First of all, frequent references have been made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that I should not have touched this man with a 6-foot or a 10-foot pole.” If I did negotiate with Rosenberg and entered into an agreement with him, I erred in very good company. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and others have said that no business man would have touched him. One of the keenest and largest business men of Great Britain, Sir William Beardmore, now Lord Invernairn, who holds tremendous financial interests in large undertakings in Great Britain, went into partnership with Mr. Rosenberg. The British Government also went into partnership with him to the extent of advancing him a large sum. All this is ancient history. [Interruption.] The hon. member for Illovo has had a very good innings; let me have my say. As for the speeches to-night, why waste the time of the House this session and pile on the printing costs, when all that hon. members need do is to refer to “Hansard” on page so-and-so, and they will find exactly the same speeches. Everything that has been said to-night has been repeated ad nauseam on previous occasions in this House, and we have dealt with it fully. The only charge is this money, which the Minister of Finance has said was spent last year, is not an additional vote. It is nothing new. I explained fully last session the reason for this expenditure, and I said what we were doing. We were doing it out of money provided then. The money in the loan vote enables the Government to make advances on behalf of pagter trainees, but it must be obvious that as soon as the final agreement was made with Doornkop the money which the Government had voted and advanced to the trainees became a loan to the company; and, consequently, was not voted in that form at the time it was before the House. The money which the House voted previously was, prior to the new agreement made on June 27th, after Parliament had risen. It then became a loan to the company, which it undertook to repay, and as no provision is made in my vote for this purpose, the Auditor-General’s requirements had to be met, and it had to be revoted. It is not something new. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) wants to know why the £60,000 is free of interest. I told him last year. I said they are advanced to all farm owners for training purposes, and are free of interest for six years. I did not treat Mr. Rosenberg as owner of the farm differently from any other farm owners. He was entitled to the same policy and treatment which we were giving effect to in respect of others.

Can you quote any similar case?

Yes, there was one in Zululand. We gave them an amount based upon the number of men they took. We did not give the same amount to anyone else, because no one else took such a large number of men. The hon. member said the original agreement which the company would not accept was free of interest indefinitely. The reason was this—the basis of repayment was different to the basis in this agreement. The two agreements varied in this respect. The first agreement which Mr. Rosenberg accepted provisionally provided that the money had to be repaid in the first year, 40 per cent, of the total revenue produced, and they had to get 60 per cent, to make their working expenses and any other interest. In the second year, we were to get 50 per cent., and in the third year 50 per cent., so we had definite sums out of the total revenue respecting what was produced. Mr. Rosenberg agreed to that principle, but his partners overseas would not. They said they would hand over to the Government all the net profit, whereupon the new agreement was made to meet that. The Government now takes all the revenue after expenses are met. The hon. member asks what control the Government has over the expenses and over what Mr. Rosenberg draws. We [have got every control. Hon. members will see in Clause 5 of the final agreement that the Government is adequately safeguarded and protected to the extent of having a representative on the board of directors, and no expenditure can be incurred by the company which is not approved by the Government’s representative on the board. Can you have anything fairer than that? Lord Invernairn said we could have all the profits with the exception that he got 5 per cent, on his capital of £53,000, which he paid on his £1 shares. Well, we considered that, and said: Here is an overseas investor who puts something in on the strength of the Government’s first agreement, and now we want to cancel that agreement. The 100 men put there had their minds poisoned by South African party propaganda. I gave them the option of continuing with their original agreement, and not one of them decided to do so. If we had treated them so badly, would they have remained with us?

made an interjection.

Because they said the scheme was not sound. Every word used in condemning the scheme in this House was used by those men, who said they wanted to get out, and they did not desire to be in partnership with a Jew. Now you ask why did not the Government take it over? Well, the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) is supposed to be an authority on the sugar industry, and I would remind him that he said that, apart from Mr. Rosenberg’s character, apart from anything else, the proposition was economically unsound, and would never pay, because the mill was so small. He condemned the scheme on that account, and now he comes along and asks us why we did not take it over. You cannot have it both ways. The dual control and interest made the satisfactory working of the scheme very difficult, and the fact that so many of the men had left was quite sufficient justification for the Government taking the steps it did. Then came the question of the value of the work done, which was placed at £15,000, and the company undertook to pay compensation in respect of 100 tenant-farmers on the settlement. I will reply to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), who said I agreed to give the men who worked 18 months £150 each. He also mentioned the name of one man who did not get anything. If I did not say it in the House I implied it, that only those settlers who were there when the scheme closed should be considered. What claim has any settler to compensation who cleared off even before compensation was mentioned, and then, when he saw compensation being paid to those who remained, came along and said: “I worked there for so long. How about my compensation?” I will tell you what has happened since. This man Coleman wrote to me and said: “Give me one-third of the value of the compensation.” I went into it and found there were seven others similarly circumstanced, and I arranged with the department, as we had a small balance of compensation in hand, for the payment of half the compensation as an ex gratia payment to those who left the scheme of their own accord. That has been complied with, so that Mr. Coleman has got half the amount that he would have received had he remained there another month and seen the scheme through, and six others have received half the amount. I refused to make any exception in the case of Coleman merely because he had been there 21 months.

When did you pay Coleman? I have just had a letter from him to-day.

Authority was given several weeks ago to pay him out, and if they have not traced him, what would be more natural than to ask the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) for his address, because he keeps a list of everybody who has a grievance against the Government. This man represented his case to me and to other Ministers, and the hon. member is not the only channel through which his case has been represented. Another argument used is that we should have cut our loss. Why should we? Why should not the Government get back from the company what it cost the country to establish that settlement?

You will get nothing.

The hon. member said cane would never grow, but ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who has been there and seen the magnificent cane which is growing on this estate. The hon. member also said the mill would never be put up, but they have had a very successful test last year, and this year they expect to crush something like three or four thousand tons. I have been accused of not being a business man. If some hon. members on the other side would get into touch with Mr. Rosenberg, and ask him if he thinks he has got the better end of the stick, they will hear a different story.

How much has the Government recovered?

They cannot recover until they start their first crushing season, which is this year. The hon. member is a farmer. Has he ever heard of a farmer not realizing his expectations owing to drought? I have heard of a few cases, and this was one of them. They could have had a small crushing last year, but they preferred to let that cane stand over and have a much larger crushing this year. The Government is secured. One member said that Rosenberg has got a promise from me that the second bond will not be registered until the first bond has been redeemed, and that I postponed the registering of the second bond. I say that is absolutely untrue.

Why is the bond not registered?

The British Government had certain documents— the Trade Facilities Board—it was necessary for us to endorse. It took several months for us to get them. They recently sent out the agreement in printed form and we had to wait. If the hon. member will come over to my office to-morrow morning he will see the records which show that within the last two weeks the British Government have submitted the documents, and we can now go ahead.

Eighteen months!

They do not want the truth—all they are concerned with is party capital. All that they are concerned with is trying to discredit me in Greyville. It will take a good many Doornkops, and a much larger number of members than there are opposite to do that. They can come to Greyville and tell their fairy story, and see how it goes down. I will be there. I was asked by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) why I did not make financial provision previously. The hon. member knows that the Estimates were drawn up in the previous December. At that time there was no talk of closing the scheme down and the final agreement for Doornkop was not signed until June 27, 1928. How is it possible for me to make provision for expenditure which was not contemplated when the Estimates were originally drawn up? What I did do I explained to the House last session, and there has been no variation except with regard to the method of repayment. As to the loan of £15,000 at 5 per cent., I explained that that was made to enable them to reach to the crushing stage. I also explained the item of £15,000 compensation, so there is nothing that has not been fully explained. When the leader of the Opposition goes careering and gallivanting about the country, making irresponsible statements about Doornkop, saying that it has cost the country something like £200,000—

I never said so.

You said the Government had a debt of £200,000 and Mr. Rosenberg had got away with the farm. As a matter of fact, Mr. Rosenberg offered to sell to us the farm on the same basis as he was asked to buy—we to repay him the money expended plus the value of the work done.

You should have taken the farm over, resold it, and cut your loss.

I much prefer to try and get repayment from the estate as it makes the money. There is every indication that the Government will recover its advances. The security we have is on the assets on the whole of the place. The assets include a brand-new mill costing £120,000.

Is it obsolete or up-to-date?

It is the most up-to-date mill in South Africa for its size, and it cost in the neighbourhood of £120,000. In addition there is the land and the value of the sugar cane. Twelve months ago, even before the agreement was signed, and before the cane was as old as it is to-day, the Natal Land Board visited the place at my request and it valued the property, land and cane, at nearly £100,000. Since then, there has been added the mill, so that we are fairly well secured. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is an honest critic, and, as far as he is concerned, there will be no question of making party capital out of this matter. I ask him, as a business man, to go into the final statement with me, and I will be satisfied to rest on his judgment that we have made a sound arrangement. I would not submit the matter to the others, but I will submit it to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), because he is a business man, and is fair and honest. The Government officials are quite satisfied that under the circumstances we have come out very well, and that we shall get the money in the course of time. With regard to not giving information, when we closed down the Government scheme and it reverted to private enterprise, naturally we had not the same control. Mr. Rosenberg said to me, “As soon as I can get on my feet, I want, as far as possible, to employ as many white men as I possibly can.” He said, “I want to show I am out to try and do that, but I must first get on my feet.” I said, “Are you prepared to put that in the agreement?” He said, “Yes, I will put that in the agreement,” and there is a clause in the agreement. But he volunteered.

What about your black labour?

I am explaining that when the scheme closed down as a white settlement he never undertook to employ all white labour. He has to get the thing through the best way he can and I cannot control him. I cannot dictate to him. I have no say at all, but he made the offer. I said, “I am very glad to hear it and I hope you will.” That is the history of it. That is why the clause is in there.

Will you agree to a select committee?

Why should I agree to a select committee? It is wasting the time of the House. But I will agree to a select committee on any point on which my honour or my dealings are impugned. I want that. If the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has any point to make which impugns my honour or my straightforward dealing, then I am going to demand a select committee from this House and I will leave it to the hon. member to put forward charges and allegations as soon as he can, the sooner the better as far as I am concerned.

Amendment put and negatived; original motion put and agreed to; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

Expenditure from Revenue Funds.

Vote 2, “Senate”, £475, put and agreed to.

On Vote 6, “Public Debt”, £110,000,

With regard to this redemption, when is it paid?

We get quarterly payments.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 7, “Pensions”, £52,000, put and agreed to.

Vote 8, “Provincial Administrations”, £49,947, put and agreed to.

On Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services”, £33,500,

I move—

I do not think this club can give more than they have done, but I must have the assurance that the public will provide the rest of the money so that the project can be carried through. And I have this assurance.

£33,000, exchange of remittances, is rather a large sum. Do you call for tenders?

The figure varies from time to time. We use various means.

What we are rather anxious to know is whether it pays us to allow the Reserve Bank to make all the profit on its exchange. We understand that owing to the bank being prevented by law from allowing interest on Government deposits the bank agreed to give very favourable terms for exchange and we want to know whether the result of that agreement has proved advantageous to the Government as compared to the previous system of the commercial banks holding Government deposits and paying interest thereon, the Government paying them the usual rates of exchange on overseas remittances.

Our moneys are invested in London. The Public Accounts Committee will have an opportunity of getting this information and will see that this arrangement works out very much better in the interests of the Government than the old arrangement. We have the figures available to show that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Vote 9, as increased, amounting to £34,500, put and agreed to.

On Vote 10, “High Commissioner in London”, £1,000.

Will the Minister please tell us what is this extra £1,000 for, subsistence and transport?

It represents expenses in connection with Mr. Louw’s going over and taking office.

What is the total now-paid the High Commissioner, apart from allowances?

His salary is laid down by special act—£3,000 per year, plus £1,000 allowances, is provided in the main estimates.

What about income tax?

When new arrangements are made, the old arrangement in regard to income tax will no longer stand.

Will Mr. Louw pay income tax?

He will be free from the English income tax, but he will have to pay South African income tax.

Will the Minister inform us regarding Mr. Louw’s appointment?

Mr. Louw was not appointed in an acting capacity, but there is an understanding that he will only remain there for a year. He does not want to stay longer than a year, and the idea is not to keep him there any longer than that.

I don’t understand. It seems to me optional with Mr. Louw to do what he likes.

He was appointed for one year definitely.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 12, “Customs and Excise”, £2,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 14, “Justice”, £9,100.

Will the Acting Minister of Justice tell us what the costs were in the case of Trustee of Kelly & Ingle vs. the Government?

£850.

Will the Minister tell us the amount awarded to the plaintiff in that case against the Government?

I cannot tell the hon. member.

If I remember aright, it was in connection with a building contract for the Pretoria Post Office, and the amount was under £1,000, but £6,000 was paid in law expenses. I don’t know whether the Minister has inquired into this matter, but it does seem a pity that public funds should be wasted in this way.

The hon. member can be quite sure that the Government had the best legal advice. A much larger sum was claimed than was paid to the plaintiff, but the Government was unfortunately mulcted in the costs.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 15, “Superior Courts”, £11,500,

How is it that the item barristers’ fees and expenses, continually rises. Here we have a revised estimate putting on another £1,000. It seems to me that the Government are keeping budding barristers going until they get on their professional feet. I take it the expenditure is for barristers who go on circuit to undertake the prosecutions on behalf of the Crown. While it may be philanthropic to find the money, what right have we to place all this prosecuting work in the hands of these young barristers? The Government does not seem to use its own departmental officers to the extent they might.