I move—

I move this with the knowledge that Mr. Jansen will fill this office with dignity, and that he will take his place in the ranks of those who in this and other Parliaments have occupied the position with honour. I feel convinced he will follow their good example.

Rev. Mr. MULLINEUX seconded.

I do not think that any other nomination will be forthcoming for the Speakership from this side of the House, and I rise now simply to express my regret that a new precedent, an entirely new precedent, is being laid down in this House—a precedent which, I am afraid, may be followed hereafter, and which is a complete breach of the Parliamentary traditions not only of this House and its predecessors in South Africa, but also of the Mother of Parliaments, the British House of Commons. It has been the invariable practice, both in this House and its predecessors, to consider the Speakership as dissociated from party. Parliaments have changed, parties have changed, governments have changed, but the Speakership has always been looked upon as not a party matter. The Speakership has never been looked upon in the past as one of the spoils of party, but now the position has changed, and I regret it deeply. The Prime Minister had a great opportunity, and he evidently intended to avail himself of it according to the speeches which he has made since becoming Prime Minister, the spirit of which I have heartily applauded. He has expressed the view that the Government should be dissociated as far as possible from party in this country. And it is most regrettable, it is most unfortunate, that the first formal act on the part of the Government is to depart from the traditions of the past and consider the Speakership of the House one of the spoils of party. A great opportunity has been lost. I am afraid a bad precedent has been laid down. I had hoped that the new Government, that the new Party in power, would have considered less the interests of party and more the interests of the country. Whilst I say this, I do not wish in the least to make any remark that is personal to the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. Jansen). I am sure that the traditions of this House will be safe in his hands. We expect from him the same impartial treatment that we have been accustomed to, that the minority have always been accustomed to in this House. And on our part, when ho is elected, as he will be elected, we promise him the same support and the same courtesy as we have extended to his predecessors in that office.

I deeply regret the attitude taken up by the Leader of the Opposition. It makes me fear very much that what we will get in future as regards the relations of the Opposition towards the Government is what we got from the Leader of the Opposition in his speech at Standerton. I only hope that in the interests of the country, the people and Parliament, a different spirit will be allowed to prevail in the future. If there is one thing on which I hope we will act independent of party spirit and party feeling, then it is the election of a Speaker. It is because of that hope that it is necessary that the interests of the House should be taken into consideration, and it is because of that hope that the step has been taken to depart from what was called precedent. It is clear to me that it would have been much better had the necessity not arisen for me to say anything on the matter. I think the dignity and the interest of the House would have been far better served had nothing been said on this point. The right hon. member for Standerton mentioned the spoils system, and it is because of that that I take the opportunity of saying a few words in reply to what he has said. I do not think that a more disastrous system could possibly be introduced, but I must say that it has been the consistent practice of the right hon. member opposite for the past fourteen years. I hope we shall put an end to that. The right hon. member has asked why not now and told us of the customs of the House of Commons. The customs of the British House of Commons as regards the re-election of a Speaker of the previous Parliament are based on this, and this only, that he has kept and does keep himself outside all politics in all elections, and in all by-elections. It is because of his impartiality that he has the right to ask the House to re-elect him to Mr. Speaker’s chair. I do not want to go any further into the matter, but want to say this to the right hon. member opposite—it is largely because of the attitude which the late Speaker adopted during the elections, when he did not keep outside politics, that he has not the right to ask to be re-elected.

“Who forced him into politics?”

If the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition can show me one instance in the British House of Commons where a former Speaker took part in politics and was then re-elected, I shall be greatly surprised. He cannot find a single instance, but I can actually give an instance where the British House of Commons strongly protested because the ex-Speaker had taken part in the political arena, and then he did not take such an active part as the late Speaker had done. If we have to rely on custom, then we must be convinced that that custom is in the interest of the House. I only want to add that in the circumstances I am very sorry that this question has been raised at all, because if there is one thing I want to see, then it is that Mr. Speaker shall be a man who enjoys the fullest respect and confidence of us all, a man who in all his actions in and out of this House enjoys our respect, and who has never taken a part in anything by which he may have given offence to any member of the House, or to anyone else. I ask the right hon. member opposite to help me so that our political life may be placed on as sound a basis as possible. Do not let us, because there are people who think differently from us, go and take over customs which do not apply to us. The British House of Commons has 600 members or more. Here we are in a country with a population of 1½ millions, with a Parliament of 130 to 140 members. I do not blame our former Speaker for having taken part in the elections on behalf of his Party. One cannot expect anything else in a country where our political fighting forces are so small that we cannot get anyone with that same impartiality as is found in the British House of Commons with its large number of members. I would not blame the former Speaker for going forth to fight for his Party during the elections, but that being the position, I hold that it is not right to appeal to the observance of a custom which does not apply here. The former Speaker, having taken up the attitude he has done, cannot expect to be re-elected, because the custom under which he could be re-elected does not apply to South Africa. I am very sorry to have been compelled to say these few words.

was called to the Chair of this House by the Clerk.

Before I take the chair I wish to thank hon. members and to assure them that it will be my constant endeavour to maintain the high traditions and dignity of the chair.

was thereupon conducted to the chair by his mover and seconder.

Business was suspended at 11.35 a.m., and resumed at 2.45 p.m.

I have to report that after the House had suspended business this morning, I proceeded to Government House, accompanied by Mr. C. A. van Niekerk, the Rev. Mr. Mullineux, Ministers, and other hon. members of the House, where we were received by his Excellency the Right Hon. the Earl of Athlone, G.C.M.G., Governor-General, and Mr. Speaker had said:

I would like to ask whether it is the intention of the Minister to print the evidence in regard to the Durban Elevator Commission of Enquiry? Some very serious allegations have been made, and I think it is desirable that we should have the whole of the facts before the House.

I may say that in regard to the printing of this evidence there is no objection on the part of the Government to having the evidence printed, only there is the question of cost. The evidence is very voluminous, and the matter is one that the Printing Committee may perhaps deal with. If it be the general desire of the House, the Government will raise no objection to the printing of the evidence, but I may point out that it will cost a considerable amount. I may also say that the evidence has not been translated, and that this also would have to be done.