Does the Minister think the evidence will be printed by that time?

In case the evidence is not available the order will not be brought on Wednesday. That is a matter for arrangement.

I move, with leave of the House—

seconded.

Is the Minister quite in order in moving these amendments? They do not appear to be quite drafting amendments.

I think the right view to take is that they are verbal amendments.

I do not quite follow whether the provincial people are to draw their revenue at an earlier period.

This Act will be Act No. 10 of 1913; this Act becomes the 1913 Act.

Amendments put and agreed to.

I move—

I do not intend to keep the House long, but I do feel I must take this last opportunity of saying something upon the point I put to the Minister during the report stage. I feel the Minister has been led into a very serious error by the suggestion of a member—I do not know whether he represents the view of his party—on the Opposition side, and that is that he has put in Clause 11 of the schedule a limitation which is going to very seriously injure the small importers of this country, in comparison with the big importers. The Minister said that all he was doing was to continue the existing practice of the Cape. He is right in this respect, that in Ordinance 16 of 1920, the Cape Provincial Council did make a limitation in regard to the amount to be charged to the individual importer. The first £1,200 comes in free; after that you have to pay duty. The constitution of the Cape Provincial Council in 1920 was very different from what it is to-day, and still more different from what it is going to be in a few years’ time. By taking over this legislation into the Union Act, the Minister has permanently prevented the provincial council from doing justice to the small importers. Whereas they would have been able to impose a limitation or not, as they pleased, now, in this clause, we have permanently prevented them from removing it. We have stereotyped the position permanently, and for ever. I would like to briefly indicate what the injustice is. Supposing a man imports to the value of £30,000 a year. All alike up to that amount pay one per cent. over the amount of £1,200 imported—£1 for each £100. The big importer, the rich man who can very well look after himself, does not import £3,000 but £500,000 or £600,000, and he is going to pay 1s. per £100. The Minister ought to consider this matter carefully, and get lid of this knee-haltering and leave it to the provincial councils themselves, whether in the future they are going to give a fair percentage all round. If you are going to levy a duty on imports of 1 per cent., or whatever it may be, surely that should apply all the way through. It puts the big man in a permanently superior position to do the business, as against the small man, and the result is going to be to discourage the small man who imports. I am not opposed to the third reading of the Bill itself. I am not at all hostile to the Minister. I think he has tackled his job as thoroughly as any Minister of Finance we have had, and in one year he has done a great deal; but by accepting the suggestion to move this amendment he has been led into a serious error. So long as the provincial councils did it themselves, that was their affair; but I do not think the Union Parliament should make such a differentiation. For these reasons I regret very much that the Minister moved the amendment which he did at the report stage in Clause 11 of the schedule of the Bill.

I hope the Minister will not listen to what has been put forward by the last speaker. I think he really showed himself where the cure lies. All that is started in this Bill is that there shall be a maximum of £300 derived by anyone person from this source, but the House has left it to the provincial council to apportion the tax in any way they like. The hon. member has told us that the provincial council of the present day of the Cape is very different from what it was when the present ordinance was passed, and it may be expected to be very different in the future. If that is so, the provincial council have the matter in their own hands.

They cannot make you pay more than £300,

Perhaps now that the hon. member has had his say, he will allow me to proceed. It would be quite possible for the provincial council to exempt small men up to a smaller amount. They can regulate their ordinance to work out exactly the way the hon. Member wants it to be worked out. They can apportion it so that no man would pay on a percentage more in proportion to his imports than any other man, and it would be quite possible for the provincial council, which the hon. member foreshadows, to exempt up to á very big amount and make the very big importers only pay.

I do not suggest that.

It will be quite possible for that to be done, and I take it that in this provision here the Minister wisely leaves it to the provincial council to apportion it in the way they please. I think the hon. member is quite wrong in the premise he has put forward.

I should like to support what has been stated by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), and I do not think that the hon. member for Hanover Street can really have studied this question at all. I think, in moving the amendment which the Minister accepted, I suggested that the licence ought not to be a taxing measure, but an authority to trade, and if I had thought that this House and the Minister would have accepted the amendment, I would have moved a maximum of £15 or something of that nature. But I recognized that the Minister had agreed with the provincial councils on certain measures, and did not wish to reduce their revenue, and, therefore, I suggested the same amount as the present maximum. If the principle suggested by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) were adopted, it, would mean that the provincial councils could put on a form of customs duty. It need not be one per cent.; it could be 5 or even 15 per cent., and it was with the object of restricting this power to purely a licensing power that the Minister, I believe, put in the maximum. I might point out to the hon. member who brought this question up to-day, that the whole form of taxation in this direction is wrong. For instance, the present tax is 1 per cent. on imports, if you import grain or corrugated iron, and only the same amount if you import such a high valued article as jewellery, which has such a large profit, and it is entirely unfair that a tax of this nature should be imposed. As far as the big man is concerned, it is a ridiculous red herring to drag across the track. The provincial council ought not to put on a taxing measure of this nature of more than ¼ per cent.; they ought not to dream of putting on 1 per cent., and it would be going far enough to put on ⅛ per cent., that would mean that the maximum would not be arrived at until a man had imported a quarter of a million pounds’ worth a year. I hope the Minister will not be in any way impressed by what has been stated by the hon. member for Hanover Street.

I rise to take the opposite view from that of the two last speakers, but I associate myself with the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) in saying that I do not think there should be a tax of this kind. You should rather put something extra on your customs. A tax of this kind is not fair in its incidence; because, if you are going to tax imports you should tax them all, and not a certain class. As regards the other position, hon. members seem to miss the point here. This is a permanent tax now. It is true, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) states, it can be altered in a way. I regret that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) used the phrase that the tax is better for the rich man than the poor. The fact that a man has a big business does not by any means prove that he is rich. The hon. member said the big men could look after themselves, but I know a number of businesses which the banks are looking after. Certainly a man who imports goods to the value of a quarter of a million per annum escapes very much easier under this system than a man who imports only £40,000 worth, for above a certain amount the tax on the importations is reduced. I hope the provincial council will take some notice of this debate. I am speaking for the small man as against the big man, and no one can say that the small man will not pay more in proportion than the big man will.

The point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has long been felt by the whole of the small commercial people. The big business man is getting a certain advantage at the expense of the small business man. The big importer probably after his first quarter’s shipment for the year reaches the limit of the taxable amount, and the consequence is that for the remainder of the year his imports come in free as far as this tax is concerned, but the small man has to pay the tax on every pound’s worth of merchandise he imports. The argument has been put forward that this licence should not be used as a taxing medium, but we are using it to-day as a taxing medium, and that being so, the incidence should be exactly the same on the small as on the large business man. It is simply a case of the small business man against the big business man, and the latter has the advantage. I very strongly urge the Minister to take the matter into very serious consideration. I can understand the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) taking the view he does as he is interested in a big business concern. Speaking on behalf of the more numerous section of small tradespeople I may say that they deserve equal treatment. We don’t ask for preferential treatment as against the big men, but we do say that we should not be treated any worse than they are. Relatively, the big business man makes the same proportion of profit as the small man, and therefore he should pay the same proportion of taxation.

I would like to support those who are appealing to the Minister to reconsider the matter. I was rather surprised when I found the Minister accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I was hoping that we had a Government which would hold the scales evenly, but it is rather difficult to defend the Government when they accept from representatives of big interests on the other side of the House amendments giving them special consideration. If there is to be any differentiation it should be in the way of assisting the small man, say, by not imposing a tax until his imports amount to £50,000 yearly. Whatever you may call this —whether a licence, registration fee or tax—it is imposed for revenue purposes and is unfair in its incidence. An opportunity should be made to rectify this, so that the tax should be absolutely fair. Whatever may be said about responsibility for apportionment resting with provincial councils, big interests are watched over there as here, and I am rather surprised at the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) putting toward such an amendment, because it goes out to the public that once more you have these big interests—which are not watching the interests of the community generally—seeing that they get some advantage, no matter how small. We should be the protectors of those who find a difficulty in protecting themselves against the very big interests. We feel strong resentment that the Minister accepted that amendment. If, in legislation that is coming, we are going to support the big interests the public generally will lose their faith in the Government. No case can be made out for this limitation, and those who advocate it would not do so unless it was a distinct advantage to them.

I am not speaking as a big importer, nor as a small importer, because I do not understand the position from the point of view of either; but it has been represented to me that the small importers feel there is an injustice being done to them by the limitation suggested by the Minister. The retail association have asked that this matter be represented to the Minister and that we should get the Minister to reconsider his position. The position is that all importers importing up to £30,000 in value pay the same tax, if, for example, it is one per cent., whereas all those importers importing to a value greater than that will be free from taxation. In other words, the small importer—if you compare him to the importer importing to the value of £600,000 and who will pay 1s. per £100—will be paying 20s. per £100, or 19s. per £100 more than the big importer, and the competition becomes so keen against them that they cannot compete successfully with the large importers. That is the case they put to me, and it seems to be a fair objection to the limitation. The idea should be that we should not unduly hamper the small man, and if it is, considered from that point of view the Minister will see the small man, compared with the man importing £600,000, is in a serious position, and I appeal to him to reconsider the matter and even to give it serious consideration.

I don’t wish to intervene on the merits of the question, but during the discussion it struck me how soon chickens come home to roost. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) is a great supporter of the provincial councils. If you do anything to curtail the powers of the councils this gentleman is very audible in the protection of these councils. But the hon. member for Hanover Street says that most likely in the near future these provincial councils will be altered as regards their political complexions, and I understood they would be altered more favourably to the views of the member for Hanover Street. That is all the more reason why we should continue with confidence in the provincial councils. As I understand this provision it means the provincial councils. If you do anything to except the small trader up to £1,200; also the bigger trader; but the provincial council can fix a certain amount they consider to be the maximum imported by the small trader. I ask my hon. friends to continue their confidence in the provincial councils. At the first opportunity when they are put to the test they seem to waver in their confidence.

I don’t want to revert to the topic of licences in Natal, but I want to ask what is going to be the position with regard to the licensing officers and their staffs in connection with the issuing of these licences. Under the Bill the present laws and ordinances of the province of Natal are to continue and the control of the issue of these licences will remain in the hands of the present licensing officers. I want to ask the Minister how are the salaries of these men to be paid. Are the licences which are to be confiscated those licences which are personally in the control of these licensing officers? The Bill does not make provision for the payment of the licensing officers and their staffs. I would ask the Minister can he allow a deduction from the licence moneys that come to the provincial council in order to meet this expenditure, otherwise there is a possibility that the control of licences may be relaxed, a matter of serious import in Natal, and if not, it is putting an additional burden on the towns, which will have to pay for the upkeep of the department. The control remains under clause 12.

In reply to the last point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) I may say that we don’t interfere at all with the licensing machinery. It is a matter which the provincial council of Natal, and in fact all the provinces, will deal with. If they decide the collection shall remain with the local authorities they will do so, and they will make their own financial arrangements. I don’t interfere with their constitutional powers under the legislation with regard to licences. All I do is to say that the licences which accrue to the boroughs of Natal shall come to the provincial council, and in a Licensing Bill to be introduced later on I will fix the amount of the licences. The machinery as to how the licences are to be granted and with regard to how they are collected will remain a provincial matter. As to who will pay is a provincial matter, and not a matter for the Union authorities. In regard to the point of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) let me point out that the two main principles of the legislation are, in the first place, a very much increased subsidy, and, secondly, a curtailment of the existing powers of your provincial councils. Where the Union Government has made itself liable to provide bigger subsidies the country and the House said it would only be fair if a curtailment took place in the existing powers of the provincial council. All I do in this section is to say, where this particular source of revenue is assigned to the provincial councils, it shall be limited in the same way as it is limited in the levying of the income-tax. I am not defending the provision of the existing provincial ordinances. They may exempt the small man and legislate as they please. Any revenue derived from this source will be limited to £310 for each person. It says in the schedule—

The only limitation is a small one, and as regards the taxation of incomes, the amount is laid down which shall not be exceeded in connection with importers’ licences. I fail to see where injustice, comes in in the allegation that it is unequal treatment or that the scales of justice have not been evenly held between the different classes. The principle of curtailment has been accepted by the House. The principle was adopted in regard to the income tax. When, therefore, the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) moved that I should also have the principle of limitation in regard to this particular tax, I saw that it was the only natural thing to do. It is a tax which does not obtain in any of the other provinces, and, as a matter of fact, it would not have been necessary, but because the Cape did have the tax I agreed, as in many other instances, that they should have their existing taxes, but I was not going to let them extend the incidence of that tax, and, therefore, I have limited them to the maximum amount which they at present get from that source. If they want to let the thing work fairly between the smaller and the larger importers, it is for them to do so. That is a matter which concerns the provincial authorities, and one which the Union Government is not going to interfere with in the least. I do not think there is anything in the allegation that here we are favouring the big man over against the small importer. We are merely extending or carrying out the general principle of the curtailment of the rights of these councils in regard to particular sources of taxation, which we have adopted also in regard to the income tax.

Motion put and agreed to; Bill read a third time.

I find myself compelled to vote against the adoption of this clause. This clause, of course, contains the vital parts of the Bill, and I am unable to vote for it, firstly, because the vital parts of the Bill which are contained in it are not such as commend themselves to our sense of what is either just or what is expedient, and, in the second place, because it seems to me that this clause in the Bill and, consequently, the Bill itself, is being forced through without any opportunity having been given to people vitally concerned in it to come and give evidence before the select committee which was appointed to investigate and consider the manner in which the principles adopted by this House on the second reading should be applied to the Bill. When this matter was before the House last, we found ourselves compelled to criticize the action which had been taken by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines and Industries, and we held that no proper opportunity had been given, in particular, to the natives in the Transkei to come and give evidence before the select committee. It may, perhaps, be convenient if I recapitulate, quite shortly, the order of events. On the 1st May the Prime Minister telegraphed to the natives, in consequence of a request from them, that they could not come and appear at the bar of the House, but that they could give evidence before the select committee which was to be appointed, and I would like to remind the Prime Minister of the words which he used in the discussion on the second reading of the Bill in dealing with the select committee. He said—

And immediately after he said “after the second reading.”

When the Prime Minister telegraphed to the natives that they could come down and give evidence before the select committee, we are now told by him that it was to be understood that when the House had passed the second reading of the Bill they could not possibly give evidence upon any point which affected the general principle of the Bill, and he asked me, in his speech, if I could please tell him where any limitation of that kind was contained in this telegram (that is as to the points on which it was suggested they should give evidence. He further stated—

That surely constitutes the strongest indictment of the course that was pursued. The select committee met for the first time on the 14th May. On the 19th May I raised the question whether evidence could be taken on the question of the provinces, the areas, classes of work, duties and responsibilities, and proofs of efficiency as to which the Governor-General-in-Council will have power to discriminate, and making regulations in terms of the Bill, The Chairman ruled that that was impossible, and that evidence of that kind would be inadmissible. We were not satisfied with that ruling, and approached Mr. Speaker for his ruling. In the meantime, on the 18th May, the Prime Minister received a telegram from the representative of the natives, in which he said that he had received a telegram from the Assembly (that is, from the select committee, the telegram having been obviously and admittedly sent by the Minister of Mines) stating that they could send down three representatives to give evidence on points not affecting general principles, and the representative added in his telegram—

Of course, they considered that it was not worth while to come down and give evidence on matters affecting the wording of the Bill only. The Chairman of the select committee gave his ruling on the 19th, and the matter was sent to Mr. Speaker for his ruling. On the 20th the Prime Minister telegraphed back to the representative of the natives that he concurred with his view that no further action should be taken. It is not disputed that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines were in close touch with the matter, and it seems to me that that telegram of the 20th should not have been sent until the ruling of Mr. Speaker had been obtained. It may be—I do not say it was not so—that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines were under the impression, and firmly believed, that Mr. Speaker’s ruling would be to the effect that evidence could not be given upon those points which I have enumerated. I maintain they should have awaited the result of Mr. Speaker’s ruling. In any case, on the 26th, a week later, the committee met again. The committee then received Mr. Speaker’s ruling, which is set out in the report of the select committee. The ruling is as follows—

It thus having become evident that the natives and others interested in the matter could come and give evidence on these points which, whether technically principles or not, are vital points in the Bill, and absolutely essential to the Bill. I should have said that what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines and Industries should have done was to defer consideration of these matters until an opportunity had been afforded to the natives to say whether they would like to come down and give evidence on these points. It is absurd to suggest that these points are not vital points to the natives. To begin with, they embrace the point as to whether the Bill should be applied to the Cape Province. Is not that a vital point to the natives in the Transkei? If it had been ruled that it did not apply, then their grievance in the matter to a large extent fell to the ground. It seems absurd to suggest that if they had had that opportunity they would not have come down and made their wishes known. What happened? Within five minutes or so of receiving Mr. Speaker’s ruling the majority of the committee decided not to hear any more evidence.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

Cannot he go on, Mr. Chairman?

Do I understand that the hon. member has challenged the new clause proposed by the select committee?

Yes sir; I said at the beginning that I should have to vote against the adoption of this clause.

I do think the committee would be interested in the continuance of the story the hon. member is telling us. I move that he be allowed to proceed.

The hon. member cannot continue unless I first put the question. If there is no objection—

No.

I have moved it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member may continue.

I do not wish to continue with the matter at great length, but my point is that on the 26th May, that ruling was available to the select committee. Naturally we then considered that in view of that ruling as to what evidence was admissible it would only be fair and right to give the people vitally interested in the Bill a chance of coming down and giving evidence. One of the members of the committee—a supporter of the party over there—moved that the committee decide to take no further evidence, but proceed immediately to discuss the wording of the Bill and report to the House. That was carried by a majority of one, four votes to three. I maintain that proceeding has entirely justified the charge we have made on previous occasions, both against the Prime Minister and against the Minister of Mines and Industries. I say that the Minister of Native Affairs, having been charged with the duty of looking after the interests of natives, was morally bound, knowing the wishes of the natives in this matter to bring to their notice the fact of Mr. Speaker’s ruling and to give them the chance of coming down and explaining to the committee how this Bill would affect them. It is trifling with facts to say the actual telegram originally sent by the Prime Minister did not contain anything misleading. They were given no information to show even that the matter was under consideration by Mr. Speaker, and when his ruling was obtained and it was found that evidence on these points was admissible, so far from any chance being given to them to come down, the matter was closed up by one of those democratic people who sit on those benches. No chance was given to the people concerned to come down and give evidence. I think that constitutes a very solid reason why we should decline to vote for this clause.

I just wish to say a few words. I must express my astonishment at the wonderful interest of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) with regard to the welfare of the natives of the Transkei, as if we did not see through it all. I suggest to him that it would have much more weight if he would talk for himself and say straight out that his interest and the interest of those he represents demand that something else should be done than what is done here in this Bill. In order to controvert for the last time the facts and the explanation given by the hon. member for South Peninsula I just want to say this, that on the 1st May I telegraphed to the natives of the Transkei—

That was on the 1st May. On the 18th May—I request hon. members opposite to note the date well—the natives were notified that they could appear before the select committee by the following telegram—

On the 19th May, the day following, the hon. member for South Peninsula asked for the first time whether evidence should also be given before the select committee about the provinces, areas, classes of work, etc. That was one day after the telegram which the Minister of Mines, after consultation with me, sent to the natives of the Transkei. Therefore, when the natives got my telegram on the 18th they could not possibly have known about the question which would be brought before the select committee on the 19th, a day later, by the hon. member for South Peninsula. Now why did they not come? And why did they, on the same day that the telegram from the Minister of Mines was sent to them reply to me that they did not think it necessary to give evidence? They asked me whether I agreed that it was not necessary to give evidence. I said “Yes.” Why did they consider it unnecessary? Because the select committee, in accordance with my instructions and my request, would take evidence from the members of the Native Affairs Commission here, who represent all the natives of South Africa and also those natives. Now I ask hon. members whether the natives were in a better position to look after the interests of the natives about any matter before the committee than Dr. Roberts and Dr. Loram? It is absolutely untrue and wrong to make the people outside, and especially the natives, believe that I or the Minister of Mines and Industries prevented them from being heard. Their own desire was not to come. They were free to give evidence before the select committee on any of the matters which were subsequently raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula on the 19th May.

No.

What nonsense. They were quite free on the 18th and 19th May to say that they wanted to give evidence. According to the ruling of the Sneaker himself they could have done so. I have nothing to do with what was later decided by the select committee.

The ruling of the Speaker was only given on the 26th May.

So much the better. They could therefore have come until the 26th May. They surely had the same capacity before the decision was taken as thereafter. When they received my telegram of the 18th May there was not yet any question of such points being raised before the select committee. It is wilful malice in which hon. members opposite are indulging—

Is the hon. the Prime Minister in order in saying that?

The hon. the Prime Minister may not use the word.

Pardon. May I not say that certain statements are made with wilful malice?

No, the hon. the Prime Minister may not say that.

Well, may I say then that the statements were made intentionally?

Yes.

I say, therefore, that the statements are made intentionally to create an impression among the natives, which ought not to be created, and which hon. members, if they really have at heart the interests of South Africa and of the white men, will leave alone. On the 18th there was no question of any obstacle to bringing anything such as was mentioned by the hon. member for South Peninsula before the select committee, and when I sent my telegram the natives had the fullest right to come and do it. To say now that I sent a message to the natives that they could not mention this or that before the select committee is quite untrue. Hon. members of this House ought to restrain themselves from making statements which can have nothing but a bad effect. I ask the hon. member for South Peninsula if he will not do much better, instead of acting as the champion of the natives, to bring up his own objection which he really has against the Bill? If he would not do much better to confine himself to the interests of the mines, and if he would not then have a much stronger case? I can understand his getting up to defend the interests of the mines. I wish to state that since 1922 I have taken up the attitude that the mines not only did a foolish thing then but something which was decidedly an injustice against the Europeans in South Africa, and that I would see the matter put right as soon as possible. Let me say straight out that the reason why the Bill is to-day before the House is to repair the work of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). In 1922 he smashed the white men on the mines and we wish to reinstate them again in the position they occupied before that time and in which they ought to be.

I am surprised to hear this statement from the Prime Minister. I thought that the object of this Bill was to restore the colour bar, and the whole case that the Minister of Mines has been making in this House is that here was an old colour bar existing under the regulations of the Transvaal, which the court had upset, and that we must get, back to the status quo ante. Now the Prime Minister lets us into a great personal secret, and that is that that has nothing to do with the matter; but that it is what happened in 1922, during the revolution, and my action there, which he wants to upset by this. I leave it to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines to fight it out between them. The Prime Minister need not refer to this matter with any heat. We are undoubtedly discussing a matter of very great public importance. Let us discuss it quietly. Do not let us fling charges against each other, and let us look at the facts; because, on the facts, the Prime Minister has not a leg to stand on, I am very sorry to say. He has on a previous occasion stated that the speeches we are making on this side have the effect of unsettling the natives; but let us get at the facts. You cannot do what is unjust and then, when it is pointed out, say that the person who points out the injustice is the cause of the injustice. I want the Prime Minister not to get warm and excited over this matter; but look at the facts. The Prime Minister, when we had this matter last before us in committee, put this question to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin): Why did the natives not come and give evidence on those points which he wanted evidence on? The answer to that is perfectly simple, and I ask the Prime Minister, for a moment, to forget his own telegrams—we will come to them just now—and to let us assume that he had nothing to do with the whole matter—that it was simply a matter referred to the select committee of the House—and let us see what opportunity the natives had to give evidence before the select committee. Why did they not give evidence? This report makes it perfectly clear and plain why. In the first place, when the proposal was made that they should give evidence on those points, the Minister of Mines ruled that it would be out of order. At this stage they could not give evidence.

It is not true.

Will the Prime Minister read what happened?

I am—here it is.

When the proposal was made that evidence should be given on this point the Minister of Mines ruled that it was out of order. You cannot give evidence when it is ruled out of order. The next stage was to refer the point to Mr. Speaker, who said it was quite competent to take evidence on these points. As soon as that ruling came before the select committee it was voted by a majority of the committee that the evidence be not called, the position is this as far as the select committee is concerned. In the first place the evidence was ruled out of order, and when that was upset by Mr. Speaker’s ruling the calling of evidence was forcibly voted down. Apart from the telegrams of the Prime Minister we find that this is the position.

You still persist in the charge of trickery against the Prime Minister?

I will come to that just now. I am dealing now with the Minister of Mines, who has a very great responsibility and must not shelter himself behind the Prime Minister.

I am not going to do anything of the sort.

I say without the least fear of contradiction that the fact that no evidence was given by the natives was entirely due to the Minister, and those members who supported him in the select committee. In the first place he ruled the evidence out of order, and when that was upset by Mr. Speaker he, with his cast-iron majority, voted that no evidence was to be called. So far as the select committee was concerned there never was a chance for the natives to give evidence. Is not that a very serious consideration, apart from all promises and assurances that may have been given to the natives, that a select committee should behave like that? Here is a bill which very closely affects the rights of the natives and no evidence is called. The Prime Minister says—

Surely the Prime Minister has not read the evidence given by the representatives of the Native Affairs Commission. Dr. Roberts was asked not to touch the principal, but to give his opinion on certain wording. Even at that stage there was no evidence, and no evidence was asked for, and even if it had been tendered it would again have been ruled out of order. All that was asked of the Native Affairs Commission was—

words which had been suggested from the side of the Government. Dr. Roberts said this formula was an improvement, but, of course, he was precluded from going into the subject matter. Therefore in the select committee there was not a word of evidence. We have this bill affecting very large numbers of people going through select committee without a word of evidence having been taken either from them or on their behalf. I call that lamentable—I think it is wrong. I do not think we have studied either the interests of the natives of the country in the procedure adopted. I now come to the telegrams of the Prime Minister, and I am afraid the Prime Minister has a very grave responsibility there, too. He originally wired to the natives that although they might not appear at the Bar of the House they might give evidence before the select committee. After the conversation he seems to have had with the Minister of Mines, he expressed his agreement that no evidence should be given on the principle, and that the natives should not come. The Prime Minister, surely, should see that as soon as Mr. Speaker’s ruling was given he should not have left the matter there. The telegram had gone from the Minister of Mines on the supposition that this sort of evidence would be out of order. [Time expired.]

Do let us be honest. In the House and out of it the accusation has been repeatedly brought against me that I have deceived the natives by my action in connection with the said telegram. Now I say that that is absolutely untrue. Let us deal with that matter by itself, and not wander off to my telegram, and then again to the action of the select committee, of which I knew nothing. I now want to speak about the telegram. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says that the Minister of Mines and Industries had given a ruling that the taking of evidence about the points mentioned would be out of order, and that the natives did not come on that account. I just wish to ask if that is correct.

No, I put it slightly differently.

You say that they did not come because the Minister had given a ruling that it would have been out of order. My first telegram, that they could come and give evidence after the second reading, was on the 1st May, the second was on the 18th May, when I invited them to come. On the 18th they telegraphed that they would not come—the same day that that matter was mentioned for the first time in the select committee. It appears from their telegram that they knew nothing of what had happened in the select committee and that that was not the reason why they came to that decision. Their telegram points out that they could no longer give evidence about the principle. In these circumstances they had decided not to come to give evidence. In what respect then did I misled them? It is clear to everybody that I had to accept what the meaning was of referring a Bill after the second reading to a select committee. They then said that they did not want to come, and asked what I advised them. I replied that, in my opinion, they had acted correctly, and that the Native Affairs Commission could better look after the matter than any native, if any point of importance should still be raised. Should I have said to them: “No, you must come” and, after all the money was wasted, should I then have said to them that they could not give evidence whether the Bill should be passed or not? It was my duty to make the matter clear to them that they could not come and give evidence about the principle of the Bill. Why blame me now for resolutions which were subsequently taken by the select committee? If hon. members wish to attack me as member of the Government on that account, alright, but what happens to the complaint that I deceived the natives?

The Prime Minister will see I have not come to that point yet. He seems to be labouring under the sting of this charge, and I have not dealt with that yet. I dealt with another aspect, where, under the ruling of the Chairman of the committee, and the vote of the majority of the committee, the natives, even if they had appeared on the doorstep of the select committee, never had a chance of giving a word of evidence.

You are confusing two issues.

No, I am dealing with the select committee apart from the Prime Minister, and I say the select committee by its action, through its Chairman and its majority, made it impossible for the native to give evidence even if they appeared on the doorstep. The Prime Minister then says the Native Affairs Commission had a chance to give evidence. The same argument applies to them. They appeared and were overruled, and could not give evidence, and were only called to give their opinion on the drafting of the measure. I was going to deal with the opinion of the Prime Minister, and it is a definite question. He must not labour under the impression that we have charged him with a breach of faith. Nothing of the kind. The Prime Minister is an honourable man who understands plain honourable dealings, and I want to put it to him that he ought never to have sent the telegram originally, telling them they could come and give evidence, or having done so, it was his duty, on hearing the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that evidence could be given, that he should, in all fairness, have supplemented his telegram by another telegram and have said to the chief magistrate: “In reference to my former telegram. I concur Mr. Speaker has given ruling which makes it possible to give evidence.”

The select committee had then decided not to take further evidence.

With your help.

I will bear my burdens.

That is where my charge came in. The Minister had placed the Prime Minister in a most difficult position. He had not been loyal to his Prime Minister. He should have made every effort to carry out the promise of the Prime Minister. He intentionally and deliberately, knowing the telegrams that had passed, made it impossible for evidence to be taken.

It is all very fine to assume your facts, and then lay charges.

I am arguing on the facts, which are beyond dispute. After all this lamentable mishandling of the business in the correspondence and in the select committee, we are left in the position of being called upon to pass this Bill through the committee without the parties, whose rights are taken away by the law of the land, having been heard. I am profoundly sorry we, the white people of the country, and their representatives in Parliament, should have been placed in this position, which is a wrong and humiliating position.

But then the whole matter amounts to this, that I should again have telegraphed to the natives after the 26th, after the ruling of the Speaker was given to tell them that they could not come and give evidence. Then everything would have been in order according to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). On the 18th of May, when I told them that they could give evidence before the select committee, they were in precisely the same position as on the 26th of May. The hon. member for Standerton cannot get away from that, and it, therefore, means that hon. members are protesting against the decision that was taken after they had told me that they would not come. The decision of the Speaker in the select committee had nothing to do with their refusal. It could not have had anything to do with it, because they then had absolutely nothing before them of what was raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula on the 19th of May. Mr. Speaker gave a ruling with regard to evidence. Why then should another telegram be sent to them? Do not let us now mix up the two things. As for me, I knew nothing about the matter, nor did they. They knew nothing about the select committee, just as little as I did. Now the hon. member for Standerton says: You did a wrong by the resolution of the select committee (obtained by your majority) the more in that no evidence about such matters can be given. But it then has nothing to do with the whole other matter. It has also nothing to do specially with the natives in the Transkei, but with natives in general. I stated that in connection with the natives in the Transkei things were said here which never ought to have been said. Instead of dealing with the matter on its merits, an accusation was made which is unfair and improper. I am, however, prepared to meet the hon. member for Standerton, and to agree that the matter is now only concerned with the later point. The question which the hon. member for South Peninsula asked of the chairman of the select committee was—

And those are matters about which the House had decided to have no further evidence taken. I do not wish to go into this matter any further. I think that the accusation against my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Industries, is quite groundless, but I leave this point over for the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries to fight out.

With reference to what the hon. the Prime Minister has said I feel as a member of this House, as a representative of all parts of the population of South Africa who sits here to see that the rights of the people of South Africa are protected, that a wrong Parliamentary procedure is being followed here. The hon. the Prime Minister has made a complaint against us because we rise and according to our convictions try to maintain what we regard as the rights of the South African people. The hon. the Prime Minister said that we were wilfully engaged in stirring up the natives.

That is not so.

I said the wilful aspersions led to that.

I just wish to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that in the attitude I have taken with regard to this matter I never had any the least feeling in that direction. My thought is only for the protection of the rights of the people of South Africa. And if I take up that attitude then I must protest against the manner in which the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries has acted in violating our Parliamentary procedure and with that the rights of our people. But I want to remove everything from the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not for a moment say that he did anything wilfully but the hon. the Prime Minister must understand this that he, it may be with the best intention, telegraphed to the natives that they could come and give evidence but that the principles of the bill were adopted and that no evidence could be given in that connection. That is my complaint against the hon. the Prime Minister and I add thereto that from the refusal of the natives of the Transkei to come because they could give no evidence about the principle it appears that they have a conception of Parliamentary rights of which we can be proud. When the hon. the Prime Minister said that they could come but not touch the principle of the bill they said: what can we do; must we then only give evidence how the machinery of the Act must be used against us in practice? Is that the only right of the whole Transkeian population only to be able to go and give evidence against themselves and to advise the Government how the laws should be applied against the natives while they cannot give any evidence at all against the principle. That is what the natives ask themselves, and I am therefore not surprised that the Transkeian council decided not to come. In that they showed a spirit of self respect and exhibited a thorough knowledge of what is right and what their parliamentary rights should be. Why did not the people give evidence about areas, provinces and classes of work The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) introduced a motion into the House to give instructions to the Select Committee about those points. Why did not the Prime Minister on that occasion vote for the motion? He with his party voted against the motion. I go further and say that the reports of the select committee exhibits a sad conception of our Parliamentary practice. The highest authority in the House, Mr. Speaker, gave a decision and said that in as much as the principle was accepted and the Bill had been referred to a select committee for enquiry and report it was the duty of the committee to make enquiries and to hear evidence. With this decision of Mr. Speaker before him the Minister of Mines, a Minister of the Crown who should support and respect the Chair gave, with his majority, a slap in the face to the Chair and, as soon as the Speaker’s decision was laid on the Table, passed the resolution that notwithstanding the Speaker’s ruling no more evidence should be heard. In that way both the Chair and the House were insulted. I say that a great injustice was done to the natives in the Transkei and that a Parliamentary privilege has been taken away from them and I repeat, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister may say—I do not say that it was done intentionally by him I have too much respect for him to think such a thing—that he gave the wrong explanation with reference to the parliamentary procedure, but I blame the Minister of Mines and Industries that he did not only insult the Speaker but that he violated the rights of the people to give evidence. Not only the rights of the natives but also the rights of the farmers were violated. The farmers were also prevented from giving evidence. Mr. Speaker said that evidence could also be taken from farmers where their rights were affected. By the conduct of the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries the farmers were also prevented from giving evidence. I say that we as the House of Assembly must take the matter into serious consideration and express our earnest opinion notwithstanding what the hon. the Prime Minister thinks. I feel that the commissioners who gave evidence were very vague. The two witnesses were also absolutely prevented by the ruling of the select committee from giving evidence, and after the decision of the Speaker was given, they were again called by the committee to give further evidence. If the hon. Minister wanted to do his duty to the people of South Africa then he should, after he had the ruling of Mr. Speaker and the resolution was taken, have introduced a motion before the select committee asking for the repeal of the resolution prohibiting people from giving evidence. But notwithstanding the ruling of the Speaker before him he put the hon. the Prime Minister into the present difficult position. He could have said to the Prime Minister that it was necessary to propose the repeal of the decision of the select committee and to notify the Transkei telegraphically that they could give evidence. This is a serious matter, and I hope that the House will not be afraid of expressing its opinion frankly with reference to our rights.

I think it will be the right time for me to say something now. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) has made two imputations against me on assumed facts this afternoon. I will prove that his facts are purely assumed. He has also ignored certain facts that stare him in the face if he would only open his eyes. The whole burden of his argument was to try and convince this House that the mind of the council had been affected by the ultimate decision of the select committee not to take further evidence. On the face of it that is absurd because that decision was only taken on the 26th of May.

After the Speaker’s ruling.

Yes, after the Speaker’s ruling. I will deal with one point at a time, please. I am not going to follow the example of the right hon. leader of the Opposition in confusing two issues; and he need not be apprehensive that I will make any attempt—I have too much respect for myself—to shield myself behind the Prime Minister. I am not in the habit of doing that sort of thing. I want to make a few observations before I deal with the various points. After the matter had been discussed in this House no less than twice the hon. leader of the Opposition discovered for the first time that it was only common decency not to have a third discussion seeing that only partial information was before the House. To-day we have the whole of the information, and to-day, of course, we can thresh this matter out from every aspect. Two issues have been confused, the attitude of the select committee, and the charge, the imputation, which was very plainly made against the Prime Minister that he tricked the Transkei council. This latter charge failed and failed miserably, and I am not going to continue it further. What are the plain facts? Let us take this telegram of the council, whose chairman is the chief magistrate of the Transkei, an intelligent and enlightened man, who was naturally interested in the position and who may be presumed, in view of the general interest that has been taken by natives, and by whites on their behalf, in the whole history of this Bill, to have known what had transpired in this House previously. What had transpired on the 6th of April? The Prime Minister—as the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) had read a little further would have seen—had on the 6th of April clearly intimated that only after the acceptance of the principle of the Bill, after the second reading, would the Bill be referred to select committee. The right hon. leader of the Opposition was very anxious, in fact he appealed to us and he made that celebrated speech of his in order to induce us to consent to the second reading being taken after the Bill had been referred to select committee. What was his main object? He wanted to attain this object, that the select committee should take evidence on the main principle of the Bill. That was his object. Was or was it not? Well, in spite of his making a formal motion that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to select committee, the House decided by a majority that it should not be so referred; and the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was driven in the absence of his leader to move that the subject-matter should be referred to select committee. The House refused to accept that; but it passed the second reading and therefore the main principle of the Bill, by a majority. Now that was on the 6th of May. On the 6th of April the Prime Minister had intimated emphatically that he would only consent to a select committee after the second reading. The “Argus” and the “Times” in leaders commented upon this fact, and this fact must have been telegraphed all over the country. Now in answer to this telegram on the 24th of April the Prime Minister wired on the 1st of May to this affect—

This was addressed not to the natives, but so the chief magistrate, Umtata, who may be fairly presumed to have taken an interest in the proceedings in the House, and who must be taken to have been aware of the feeling in the House, and the statements of the Prime Minister, and the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition. Surely the chief magistrate may be considered to have explained this position to the natives; but what did the Prime Minister do further? I saw him about this matter, as he has already intimated to the House, and a telegram was sent on the 18th May, through the Clerk of the House, with my knowledge and at my request, after consultation with the Prime Minister, as follows—

Did you consult the select committee before you sent that?

Of course not, and I will tell you the reason why. What right has any hon. member to say that the telegram of the Prime Minister of the 1st May is an intimation to the council, through the chief magistrate, that they will be entitled to come and give evidence on every aspect of that Bill, on the main principle as well? That is the first point I challenge the Opposition on. You have no right to say that that was an intimation to that effect.

Because they applied to appeal at the Bar of the House.

I am coming to that point. That in the first instance, is a false deduction; than because they were refused access to the Bar of the House, they could come to the select committee and traverse the whole point that had been discussed here for days on the second reading. The hon. member challenged me a moment ago, and asked whether I had sent this wire after consultation with the select committee. No; because, as chairman of the select committee, it was abundantly clear to me that, in the circumstances of this Bill, it would be absurd to allow evidence directly protesting against the main principle of this Bill a matter that had been threshed out in this House for days, and on which the House had taken a clear and clear-cut decision.

It was not clear to the Speaker.

Hon. members are all very clever. I will deal with everyone of the points which they raise. I am not going to blurt it out all in one breath. I want to state this fact, and I challenge any hon. member to contradict it —I know it won’t be contradicted. I know the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) is an honourable man. In the select committee, when this question was raised, not one of them said “Oh, but we want evidence traversing the general principle of the Bill.” They accepted the position at once, that the select committee should not take the trouble to take evidence; because it might mean interminable evidence possibly. No doubt the hon. member will inform the Opposition to that effect. The attitude of the hon. member for South Peninsula was that they did not want evidence on the general principle of the Bill—

The points were: To discuss the question of the provinces, the areas, the classes of work, the duties and responsibilities and efficiency. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) will admit that. I want to say that not a word was said about it. I do not say that, if the point had arisen whether evidence was to be produced against the general principle, that these hon. gentlemen would have shared the view of the majority but they accepted the position that these were points of detail and not points against the principle of the Bill, and ought to be allowed.

What was your ruling?

My ruling was this—

“The essential principle.” My view was that these particular points raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula were only in another form a protest or attack on the main principle of the Bill, and that is why I ruled as I did—rightly or wrongly does not matter now. I will deal with that later on. I will not shirk a single item—

This was on the 19th May. Obviously that could not affect the minds of the natives who, through the chief magistrate in the Transkei, had received the telegram of the 18th, had replied to it at once, and the reply had come in on the 19th. As I say, there was no protest of any sort against the ruling that evidence could not be called protesting against the principle of the Bill.

When was that ruling given?

It was given in one breath, so to say, with the ruling on the particular points raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula, that is on the 19th May. Then a point was raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), which I will deal with separately, afterwards, if it becomes necessary. What are the simple facts of this case? The Bill is a Bill contained in a few lines. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, obviously the policy of the Government was clear on this matter, that a Bill should be introduced establishing the colour bar, and in any case re-establishing —even if it went further—re-establishing at least the position as it obtained. The impression that then prevailed was that these regulations issued by the previous Government were intra vires. It was a clear-cut policy, and was indicated by the National party in 1922, and also by the Labour party in connection with the unfortunate occurrences in the early part of 1922. At that time the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) assured the House that there was no intention to interfere with what was called the statutory colour bar, the only intention being to upset the status quo arrangement. The Bill was published on January 22nd, and came before the House on February 13th, and at that stage indication was given by the leader of the Opposition that it would be fought strenuously, and it was plainly indicated that there was going to be a tremendous fight in this House on that measure. That Bill contains only one clause, and the whole issue and the whole principle is one crisp issue, namely, was there to be a colour bar or not? It cannot be compared for a moment with an Electoral Bill or a Miners’ Phthisis Bill, containing many principles, some of greater and some of lesser importance. That Bill was fought tooth and nail for days long in this House. It would have been the height of absurdity, under those circumstances, for any select committee to have wasted its time in trying to reject the decision of the House or give the opportunity of registering evidence practically protesting against the decision which the House gave on May 6th last.

What about Mr. Speaker’s ruling?

If only the right hon. gentleman, who always urges calmness and patience, only exercised it himself. He knows me well enough. I may have many faults, but when I have done something, I am not going to hide it. Mr. Speaker ruled—

Can’t we investigate by consultation and discussion? Did we not, as a matter of fact, take evidence—

Not “must” be called. Where is the word “should”? If you look at the original decision of the House, you will see that when the second reading was passed I moved not that the select committee should or must take evidence, but should be appointed with the power to take evidence. I don’t care what the procedure of past select committees has been, but if you have a one-clause Bill with one clear-cut issue, then I say it is a waste of time, and if the procedure in the past has been to attempt the futile task of taking evidence when the House has already decided the issue, the sooner that sort of procedure is abolished the better. But I go further—

That is where you were wrong.

We must treat each case on its merits. The wisdom of the ex-Speaker will, perhaps, tell us of previous instances of similar Bills with the issue narrowly confined in eight or nine lines.

Where you take away rights?

Where the only issue has been fought out in the House, and where a select committee performed the work of supererogation, by calling evidence ad infinitum.

Then why a select committee?

Because the committee can discuss the wording. I infer from the discussion in the House that the chief object in sending the Bill to a select committee was that we should not, in the Bill, specifically mention natives and Asiatics, and to that extent to give effect to the valuable suggestion of the leader of the Opposition. I understand that in the past select committees have taken evidence on the principle of a Bill when a second reading has been taken, but the bulk of the Bills that go before select committees contain various clauses dealing with various important matters, and not with one clear principle as in this case. This Bill is unique in that respect. Another thing, there is no one who set a stronger example in that respect than the right hon. gentleman opposite. Under our party system the right hon. gentleman always took good care that on every select committee the Government had a majority.

But not always a servile majority.

That is another cheap imputation—that is as cheap as the two imputations of his alter ego, the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to disloyalty and sheltering behind the Prime Minister—equally cheap and equally contemptible. Now the Government always sees it has a majority on every select committee. Can you imagine the select committee, with the clear policy of the Government on the Colour Bar Bill proclaimed for years before the election of June 17 last, can you imagine a select committee, on which the Government has a majority, coming to this House and flaunting its decision of May 6 and saying you decided on this only issue that there shall be a colour bar, but we have decided to call this mass of evidence as a protest against the colour bar and to say the weight of evidence is against the colour bar, and therefore we wipe out the clause and this Bill shall not proceed. That is my answer to the ex-Speaker on his technical argument that the select committee has the power, theoretically and academically speaking, of wiping out every clause of the Bill. That may be so. But is it practical, is it likely, is it reasonable? It is nothing but futile and absurd to imagine the select committee, after the strenuous fight here, should some back to the House and say you have made a mistake, we have heard the mass of evidence on the one great principle, protesting against the principle, and now we shall drop the Bill.

All reasonable people are open to conviction.

We were open to conviction until years ago, when we came to the decision as to what the policy should be, and we have stuck to it.

Right or wrong?

Why were the natives not informed at the outset?

I now come to the point that after the ruling of the Chairman on May 19, the Prime Minister should have intimated to the natives what the ruling of Mr. Speaker was. The Speaker’s ruling was dated the 26th May, and we sat on the 26th May. If the hon. member will look at the select committee report on page 8, he will see that the chairman read and laid on the Table the ruling by Mr. Speaker in compliance with the resolution adopted by the committee on the 19th instant, and this ruling was read and immediately after that the committee deliberated.

We know what that means.

Is the right hon. member surprised that we deliberated?

You are surprised too.

Of course the suggestion was that I was the villain of the piece and didn’t share the responsibility with my colleagues. That is absurd, but I am willing to be considered the villain of the piece. I assure hon. members there is no levity about this matter.

Then why laugh?

I thought I was the man who never laughed in this House, and when I do laugh I don’t please you either. I fully shared the responsibility of the select committee and our responsibility in this legislation, and I am not going into the merits of the second reading debate again and repeating what I have said in the past. Mr. Waterston moved on the morning of May 26th immediately—

You say he moved immediately that morning?

(reads)—

On the 19th May the evidence had been heard of Dr. Roberts and Gen. Lemmer; so the hon. member, in saying that the telegram was sent on May 18th and I had already given my ruling and the Speaker had also ruled, is entirely wrong. The telegram was sent on the 18th May and my ruling was given on May 19th, and the Speaker’s ruling on 26th May. And if you read the Speaker’s ruling you see it comes to this. It does not over-rule what I said with regard to the essential principle.

That is where we laugh.

I defy any member to say it overrules me when I said evidence could not be put affecting the essential principles, but he regarded it in the light of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) that this was a subordinate matter and was not fighting the main principles of the Bill. Hon. members may differ on that, but the Speaker’s ruling did not for a single moment exclude the select committee from saying that it would hear no further evidence.

It is a curious reflection on their attitude.

Is it? Where is the smack in the face to the Speaker? I think it is a most mischievous imputation to make.

And the Speaker represents this House.

It was a smack in the face for the House.

This Bill was a one-clause Bill, and there was only one issue and one big principle, and it would have been futile for the select committee to have taken further evidence in the matter. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has blamed me for excluding evidence of the farmers. I am glad that the iniquity and injustice perpetrated by the select committee was impartial. Where we refused to hear the native we refused also to hear the farmers.

That does not suit them, it does not sound so well.

In view of the nature of this Bill I ask the hon. member this: What was the difference he contemplated between passing the second reading as was done and taking evidence as if the subject matter had been referred to the select committee and not passing a second reading, but referring the subject matter to the select committee to take evidence? What difference could there have been? Is he prepared to indicate it? The hon. the ex-Speaker attempted it in one of the lamest expositions I have ever heard in this House, attempted to indicate the difference, and no one was the wiser after the explanation.

Give us a better one.

What the select committee did was not to consider matters from a technical point of view. It went to the point of substance, and the point was that one issue having been clearly decided and every opportunity having been given for its discussion in the House, it would have been absurd to take evidence that would have carried the Bill over until next year and then return it to the House and say you have decided this, but we in our wisdom have thought fit to allow evidence ad infinitum, and we are against the Bill.

The House by sending it to you decided you should take evidence and you refused.

That is another fallacy. The hon. member with his experience should be more careful—

The leader said further that with the evidence of Dr. Roberts it was intimated he should give evidence about the wording. That is wrong. You see the telegram of the 18th does not say that the natives could give evidence only on the wording. It says—

If hon. members look at page 13 of the select committee’s report they will see that I put this question to Dr. Roberts—

Are those comments necessarily confined to the wording of the Bill?

Read the report itself.

Yes, quite right. I am now dealing with the questions put to the witness and in what manner the witness was stopped and you will see what Dr. Roberts’ answer was—

He had a document in his hand. He volunteered this evidence. I did not put it in his mouth, nor did I put him a leading question on it.

He said later on it was suggested to him.

Of course he said he had got a memo, from my department or from the Prime Minister, but that was not proof that I suggested this to him in taking his evidence.

Nobody said so.

That is what the right hon. member implied—that I suggested this to the witness. I do not want to shirk anything. I admit that the evidence of Dr. Roberts was confined to matters outside the general principles of the Bill. I had to do that in accordance with my ruling. You will see that the ruling preceded the taking of the evidence. It would have been absurd for me to have ruled that the evidence was inadmissible and immediately after have proceeded to allow Dr. Roberts and General Lemmer to give evidence directly contesting the principle. As regards my knowledge of the reply of the Prime Minister to the council, viz., saying that he concurred when they had replied on the 19th that they would take no further action, as a matter of fact that came to my knowledge some considerable time afterwards. So that the charge of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition that I was disloyal to the Prime Minister, and that I had placed him in a false position rests on no foundation whatsoever. The select committee had a duty to perform towards the House. Its instructions emanated from the House and in view of the particular circumstances of this Bill, that the whole thing was contained in eight or nine lines, with one issue, the select committee in its discretion came to the honest conclusion by a majority that it would be futile to take evidence which may be interminable on the main principle of the Bill and, instead of taking evidence relevant to the purposes of the House in referring the matter to the select committee, it would practically have become an instrument for registering protests. The Speaker’s ruling by no means excluded that position. Those are the salient facts of the whole position and if I were placed in a similar position to-morrow I should feel myself constrained where I was chairman of a select committee so far as I am personally concerned —my colleagues can speak for themselves—to say that it was no use and that there was no practical benefit in taking evidence protesting against the decision of the House on only one principle, where the Bill that is referred to the select committee contains only one principle and nothing else.

The Minister devoted a good deal of time to showing that the evidence taken was allowed to touch upon points other than the mere wording of the Bill. I should like to refer him to his own signed report, in which he says—

In that report he does not claim to have taken evidence in regard to anything else, and states specifically that other evidence was deemed unnecessary, and the whole of the evidence printed here shows that the wording was the only subject dealt with. Not only that, but the Minister omitted to state that he was very careful to exclude the evidence which did not suit him, that he himself, with his own pen, expunged some evidence which had already been given by one of the witnesses. He actually expunged from the type-written transcript evidence given by Dr. Roberts, in reply to a question by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin).

That is not true. The committee decided to expunge it.

If the hon. member has any vestige of self-respect, he will withdraw that. I will read to him the expunged question and answer obtained by me from the records in the committee clerk’s room. The question by the hon. member for South Peninsula was this—

I say without fear of contradiction that that evidence was expunged from the record by the chairman before the printed copy of the evidence was circulated to members of the select committee.

By the committee.

It is not printed in the pamphlet which is before the House. The chairman would have us believe here this afternoon that the witnesses before him had considerable discretion in giving their evidence. On the contrary, he was there not only to limit that discretion, but he used his own pen to strike out evidence which he did not consider was admissible.

I have just stated that I confined the evidence to anything outside the principle.

Your faithful supporter has denied that my statement is true that you expunged the evidence.

I said the committee did it.

It was a question which was expunged with the full knowledge of the committee.

But with a protest by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). The disputed evidence had already been expunged by the Chairman when it was brought to the knowledge of the select committee by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin).

No.

The hon. member for South Peninsula is at liberty to make his explanation on that point. He said before the select committee—

The Minister replied—

The member for South Peninsula then said that he would prefer to have the restoration of his question with the evidence which had been expunged. That was the only time when the matter was brought to the knowledge of the committee. The Minister devoted a great deal of time to showing how futile it would have been to call evidence, but he did not seem to have observed that he was thereby destroying his own previous argument that the natives, in the first place, could have given evidence on all the points mentioned.

interjected a remark.

I know the hon. member for Ceres is unable to repress the cries he utters in this House. In factories it has been found that though every particle of meat can be made use of, the squeal always escapes. Let me put the question to the Minister. Let him tell us here whether, if these natives had come at any time between the 19th and the 26th May, their evidence would have been held by him to have been admissible, except upon the question of the wording of the Bill. The proof that he would not have done so is in the fact that he ruled against the admissibility of such evidence, and actually expunged evidence which, in his opinion, was not confined to the wording of the Bill. He held that such evidence went outside the limits he had circumscribed, that the evidence of Dr. Roberts travelled outside of the limits of the wording of the Bill. It was purely on terminology that witnesses were allowed to give evidence, and if any of those natives had come from the Transkei they would not have been heard. Further proof is to be found in another incident not reported here. When the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) moved the closure in the select committee, that no further evidence should be given it was announced that Mr. Clements Kadalie was at the door, and it was proposed that he should give evidence. Mr. Clements Kadalie is a strong supporter of the Pact, who has been honoured with an almost affectionate letter from the Prime Minister, in which he was referred to as a fellow Afrikander—though a black one The Prime Minister, in that letter, also said: “If we are to make South Africa, which we both love so much, great and good, we must ourselves be great and good.” Well, Mr. Clements Kadalie was announced, and it was proposed to take his evidence; I believe the proposition emanated from the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston).

That is not true.

Well, if it is not true, I accept the hon. member’s denial with pleasure.

It is not true, and you know it is not true.

No; I know Kadalie had been summoned to give evidence without any reference to the committee.

Who summoned him?

I do not know. When Kadalie was at the door the Chairman read to us a communication which indicated he was there with his (the Chairman’s) approval.

Nothing of the sort.

The Chairman does not deny that. The Chairman will not deny that he intimated to us that he had had a communication from Kadalie and he had replied to it. I seem to have a better memory for these proceedings than the hon. member for Brakpan, whose memory seems rather convenient.

Kadalie was there in the lobby. We had called Kadalie on the wording of the Bill.

Yes; the Chairman had called him first, and informed the committee afterwards. That is precisely what I am getting at.

Stick to the facts.

I seem to be sticking to the facts too closely to please the hon. member. Kadalie was to have given evidence. It was pointed out by the hon. member for South Peninsula that the resolution by the hon. member for Brakpan excluded Kadalie from giving evidence. Then either the Minister, or the member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), proposed he should be allowed to give evidence on the wording of the Bill.

Who did it?

I am not sure which of the two it was. The hon. member is so fretful and fidgety that I do not wish to disturb him anymore. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) pointed out that that would be against the resolution just moved. It was then proposed to alter it, so that he could be permitted to give evidence. I then intimated that if that were done I should request that the farmers be allowed to give evidence on the wording of the Bill, because, in my view, they were much better qualified to do so than Kadalie.

But not so much in grace.

Not until this was Kadalie sent empty away.

Do you seriously want to impute to me favouritism towards Kadalie?

It looks uncommonly like it.

No. I do not.

He is a great friend of the Prime Minister’s; why should he not be of your’s?

It is quite interesting to see the line this discussion has taken. We have had three attacks on the Prime Minister, and it has been said by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that the Prime Minister had deceived the natives by his telegram. This afternoon the Opposition have become sober, and concluded that the Prime Minister was innocent, and that he did not mislead the natives. To cover themselves now, they are beginning attacks on the Minister of Mines and Industries who, according to them, left the Prime Minister in the lurch. This shows that the attitude they took up for two days was quite wrong. We told them at the time that they would see it if they waited till the report of the select committee came before the House. They have now, however, admitted that they were wrong in sending the report through the country that the Prime Minister had deceived the natives. It is also interesting to hear the arguments of the late Speaker (Mr. Krige). He comes to tell us here that we are compelled to take evidence if such a reference is made to us. He says that we gave the House a slap in the face by not taking evidence.

Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that there is not a quorum.

Committee counted, and the Chairman declared that a quorum was present.

What is the exact position now with regard to this whole matter in the select committee? Immediately the select committee met we felt that the House had fully discussed the matter, that the House had accepted the principle of the Bill, and that it would be useless to get evidence about the principle of the Bill. Members of the Opposition also felt this, but one felt at once that they wanted to get the select committee to indefinitely postpone the matter and not to hand in any report to the House. They therefore said that they wanted evidence about the subordinate points of the Bill. We see that this is an amending Bill to the Act of 1911 and that it only decides what people are competent to do certain work and the committee felt that it would be useless to call natives to give evidence about technical matters about which they knew nothing. A further consideration is what we asked Dr. Roberts in question 10. He answered affirmatively that the Bill in its present form was unacceptable to the natives. He was then asked if he thought that it was due to the fact that their name was specifically mentioned. He answered that he did not think that the natives were concerned about the immediate consequences of the Bill but they did not like to be placed on a lower level. He added that it was only about 300 or so of them who would be affected thereby on the mines. Dr. Roberts admitted that he was the senior member of the Native Affairs Commission and he stated that the natives were not worried about the colour bar as such but actually about the fact that they were named. His opinion was that when the alteration not to mention their name was effected the natives would be quite satisfied. I think that we were then quite right in saying that we did not wish to hear the natives further. When we took that decision the Opposition began to quibble further. They wanted to call the farmers, and we decided that that could not be done as we should then have to call everybody. I think the select committee acted wisely, otherwise there would never have been an end to the evidence. I just wish to add this, we are so much blamed that the select committee will hear no further evidence. The principle is surely there that the select committee can refuse to hear certain evidence. Sometimes we get requests from 20 people who want to be heard and only five are called. If the committee can decide that only five shall be heard, then it can decide that only one shall be heard. We heard two. I do not see where the necessity comes in to make a great fuss about the matter. The ground has, of course, been cut away from under the feet of the Opposition. They began with the Prime Minister, the attack failed, and now they come here with Kadale and all sorts of quibbling which amount to nothing. The evidence which was excluded was excluded on the motion of the chairman of the select committee and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) did not protest against it.

I was dealing with the Minister’s argument, that the natives were entitled to give evidence on all points which did not affect the principle of the Bill, but he overlooked, in the stress of his anxiety to show that the party to which he belonged had years ago decided upon the colour bar restrictions—that was his phraseology, had decided years ago on this colour bar—he overlooked the fact that that was somewhat destructive of the value of the offer the Prime Minister would appear to have made to those natives, and in stressing the fact that it would have been “futile” to have called evidence’ on this subject—he used the word “futile”—he overlooked the fact that the natives should have been told in the first instance that it would have been futile for them to come!

How could I have told them on the 9th when the points were raised on the 18th?

On his own argument he should have told them on the 1st May, 1925, when the first telegram was sent that the attitude of his party in the House was such that it was futile to tender evidence, and yet he was a party to sending the first telegram to the natives, in which they were told without qualification that they could give evidence before the select committee. That seems to me to be an almost cynical attitude towards the whole question.

Are there many such instances under your regime?

I think that is an insufficient answer. I am dealing with an isolated instance of what has happened, and the Minister is here using all his forensic eloquence to show that he did everything that was proper, and the substance of his argument amounts to this, that when he was a party to sending that telegram on the 1st, he knew it was futile for the natives to give evidence, and that the intention was that they should not give evidence.

That applies to every second reading that is passed.

That may be theoretically correct. I am dealing with the Minister’s defence of the Prime Minister’s action in sending the somewhat confusing telegram to the natives, and he seemed to rely, to a great extent on the high intelligence of the chief magistrate, in his answer. But we cannot assume—the chief magistrate is ex-officio the chairman of the Transkeian council—that he was kept fully informed of every statement made on the Bill in this House. The Prime Minister occupies a fiduciary position in relation to the natives, and in telling them they could give evidence before the select committee, he should surely have realized that if it had not been intended as a fair offer to the natives, to give evidence, he should have qualified his telegram. He should, indeed, have told them that they were only to be allowed to give evidence on a restricted number of points. When we come to that phase, I strongly protest against the attitude the Minister has taken up, that without consultation of the select committee he was entitled to circumscribe the limits on which evidence could be given. As a matter of fact, he did so in the case of the Transkei natives before he could have consulted the committee. At the first meeting, purely formal matters were decided, and at the second meeting, we raised the question of the points upon which evidence could be given; but when that second meeting took place, the Minister had already sent his telegram to the natives of the Transkei on the 18th May, 1925, circumscribing the points upon which they could give evidence.

That was laid before you and you did not protest against my action.

It was too late for us to protest and when we raised these points we were ruthlessly ruled out of order and held up to ridicule. I was told that I was propounding legal conundrums and that Mr. Speaker was not compelled to answer them.

You know well enough that I did not do it contemptuously.

I do not say the Minister did do it contemptuously. My whole point is that the farmers were entitled to give evidence because of the definition in the main Act referring to machinery and works, and if any of these prohibited persons were employed by a farmer on that particular class of machinery or works, the farmer would render himself liable to prosecution. The Minister ruled that would not be so, but Mr. Speaker held that my contention was the correct one and that evidence could be called on this subject. I maintain that Mr. Speaker ruled that the farming community should be allowed to be heard on this subject, and it was only the resolution of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that prevented them from being heard. The Minister, who was chairman of the select committee, has laid some stress on the fact that although he had many protests against the principle of the Bill nothing in the nature of evidence was offered. We had no opportunity of calling evidence. On the 19th—at the very first meeting held for the transaction of business—we were ruled out of order on the point of evidence being given for the farmers. On the 26th Mr. Speaker’s ruling was read and forthwith we were closured, and it was quite impossible for us to lead evidence. Throughout the proceedings the only persons who were allowed to give evidence were the members of the Native Affairs Commission, and even after the resolution of the hon. member for Brakpan a persistent attempt was made to call Kadalie and his two companions. This surely shows a great disregard for the farming community and a very tender regard for Kadalie and his two companions, for it does not appear why these two individuals should be heard when more representative bodies such as the Transkei an general council were sent a telegram practically assenting to their not being encouraged to come to give evidence. (Time expired.)

I want to say a few more words about something else. I want to dwell on the section about which the discussion, is taking place and on, the objections which have been mentioned against the acceptance thereof. The section deals with nothing else than that the Government in the future shall have the right by means of regulations to discriminate between white and non-white. The objection to that is that there was not sufficient opportunity to hear evidence against it. That is the whole position. In this connection I want to say this here otherwise I would not have mixed myself up in the matter. I only do it because I am Minister of Native Affairs and I do not wish to evade my responsibility in that connection. As regards the objection that enough evidence has not been heard I may simply point out that what is laid down here in section one is merely the policy of the Government in this connection, as I said in 1922, when this matter was under discussion for the first time. It was argued by me at every opportunity during the election that a distinction should be made and that certain fields of labour should be set aside for the whites. That is the ground on which I say that this Bill is before the House to reinstate the position in 1922 and was then destroyed. If hon. members want to go to the country upon whether this is a good policy then I am prepared to do so because I have already referred it to the country. The policy which is laid down in this section is the policy which was adopted by the Nationalist party and also by the Labour party and to now come and say that further evidence must be given with regard to it is quite beside the point, because everyone knows that it is the policy of the Government and it would be a mere futility to hear evidence again. It is unreasonable to expect this from the Government. The second objection to the section is that the select committee had decided to hear no further evidence. It was natural that the majority of the committee approved of the same policy as the Government and why should they then take evidence seeing that it was the policy of the Government irrespective of however much evidence they took on the matter, and seeing that their report would in any case be the same as the resolution of the House. I was really astonished that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that the select committee did not have the right to do that.

I did not say that.

I beg pardon. The hon. member for Caledon at any rate said so that the select committee was obliged to hear evidence when the House had referred something to the committee with the power to take evidence. I do not wish to speak any further about the matter. In connection with section 1, I wish to say as Prime Minister and Minister of Native Affairs that it is the policy of the Government. If it is to be rejected, then we are prepared to go to the country about it. As for the farmers, I can say that there is no farming constituency where this matter was not fought out at the recent election.

It was not mentioned in my constituency.

Perhaps it was not done in Natal, but then it will not make any difference because there are no members from Natal sitting on this side of the House.

The Prime Minister has stated this afternoon what he stated when this matter came before the House some days ago namely that he and his party went to the country on the colour bar issue and this Bill was definitely a plank in their election platform. I say that is not so. The Prime Minister is making a mistake in saying it is so. If I have an opportunity later of reading what he did say, I think he will acknowledge he overstated the position and it is not correct to say the Nationalist party went to the country on the colour bar or even that it was one of the issues of the election. So far from it being the case I hope to show him he gave an express assurance, which can fairly be read by the natives as definitely reassuring them against the imposition of the colour bar. I want now, however, to follow up the actual issue we are discussing. The Minister of Mines has said there are two issues. I think there are three. The first is the charge against the select committee of having failed to do its duty, the second is the charge against the Minister of Mines and the third is the charge against the Prime Minister. I repeat what I said the other afternoon that I don’t think, and I never have thought there has been a charge of mala fides against the Prime Minister. No one on this side has said so. But I think he has made a grave error of judgment. May I say with regard to the Minister of Mines that I don’t think we came make a charge of mala fides against him either, but the charge also against him is one of having made a great blunder and failing to properly grasp the duty of a Minister in this important matter. The charge against the select committee is that it signally failed in its duty to the House and the country. As to what its duties were I don’t want to go into technicalities. I want to deal with it in a plain manner with common sense. With regard to what it should have done I don’t need to go further than the spirit, tone and words of the speech of the Prime Minister when dealing with the question of referring the colour bar to the select committee. I am content that this question should be judged by what the Prime Minister said when he discussed the reference to this matter to the select committee. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has read one extract from that speech, and the Minister of Mines pointed out that soon after the words were spoken the Prime Minister said it must be after the second reading. On that occasion the Prime Minister also said, speaking after the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—

Let this House and the country ask itself the question, having regard to what was said: “Did the select committee carry out its mandate and did it act fairly to the House?” Take the history of the select committee. It met for the first time on the 14th of May and sat at 10.15 until 10.35, 20 minutes, during which there was the election of the chairman. It met again on the 19th of May at 10.15, and immediately a discussion arose as to the scope and functions of the committee. The chairman gave a ruling and immediately that ruling was challenged and Mr. Speaker’s ruling was sent for. The committee took some evidence which occupies three pages of print and must have taken 10 minutes in all, and then a telegram was sent to the natives. It met again on the 26th of May and had Mr. Speaker’s ruling, and that ruling was—

Then the committee, having been told it could do it, said—

I am glad to correct the Prime Minister and say that I admit it is not an insult to the Speaker, but I do say it is an insult to the House. This House sends this Bill to the select committee in the spirit of the Prime Minister’s speech. The committee said it would not have that. I say that was a flagrant and deliberate insult to this House and it involves no credit on any member who voted for it. This is where we come to the charge against the Prime Minister. The matter was not left at that, but it was brought on to the floor of this House and the action of the select committee challenged in this House, and the same Prime Minister who had sent this matter to the select committee in that spirit was himself a party, with the rest of his followers, to upholding the decision of the select committee. Will the country understand that? I invite the Prime Minister—this is not a question of bad faith, but of blundering inconsistency—to tell us and tell the country why he changed his mind between the 6th April and the day, a week or fortnight ago, when he upheld the decision of that select committee. [Time expired.]

I am glad that the point has again been mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He mentioned the matter before and I did not then reply to it. What were the facts? The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) got up here and made a nice beautifully-sounding speech and took up a high ethical standpoint. He said that this and the other had to be done and that he was prepared to do everything in his power, and made an appeal to us to do everything in our power, to solve the difficult native question by mutual co-operation. He then said in his speech that the Act of 1911 ought to continue to exist, or at any rate he would not object to seeing the Act of 1911 again on the statute book, but it should not be extended. Thereafter, a few days later, after he had held out a helping hand to us, I got up and said that I accepted the offer and I expressed the hope that we should go to the select committee after the second reading and—

No.

Yes, I said it clearly, even two or three time, after the second reading. You will find it in Hansard. Then we can thereafter go and see how actually to reinstate what existed before 1922, and I said that I hoped that we would tackle the matter with a view to the interests of the country and not on party lines. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has himself read out my words to the House. And what took place later? Thereafter the accusations began that I had misled the House and that I did not speak about after the second reading but before the second reading. That was the accusation, and that led on a second occasion to a most bitter attack notwithstanding the offer of the hon. member for Standerton had been accepted by me. What was the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton? He got up and said that he would have nothing to do with the matter and that he would not take part in it. I hoped that he and I also would take part in the select committee to see that we should get the best we could, but then he withdrew, and stated that he would not do so, with the result that the Bill was sent in the ordinary way to the select committee with the ordinary reference. What did the select committee do then? They said: “We want the position of prior to 1922 again and to put the Act of 1922 on the statute book. In the circumstances we are simply going to carry out the policy which was followed until 1922,” which, as I have just said, is the policy of the present Government, and the select committee said we must then manage without the help of the hon. member for Standerton. And I do not see that anything was said in the House or in select committee which does not in every respect tally with my statement made at that time.

I must say I am disappointed at the Prime Minister’s speech.

Are the facts correct?

I am going to deal with them. I really had expected to hear something better than that from him. What does he tell us? He says in effect—

Nonsense. Be fair.

The question is not the rights or wrongs of any dispute between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. The question is the rights or wrongs of the general public who are affected by this Bill. Will it satisfy the native population in South Africa if they are told that the Prime Minister, after holding out to them the fullest hopes of a reasonable hearing on this Bill, because of the attitude of members on this side of the House has changed his mind, and closed the door against them? Is that right? Perhaps I misunderstood his speech, but I appeal to hon. members on this side to say if that was not the effect of what he said. If he can reconcile that with his conscience he is welcome to do so. The second portion of my indictment is against the Minister of Mines and Industries. I do not accuse him of anything beyond a grave error of judgment. His whole attitude has been coloured by the one fact that he conceived in his mind that once the second reading was passed, the select committee could do nothing beyond dealing with verbal alterations to the Bill. That attitude was wrong. The point, however, is this: When he was proved to be wrong, and when Mr. Speaker gave a ruling, which, I admit, did not go this length, that you can take evidence on the ethics pro and con, of a colour bar, but it did say that you can and should take evidence on the applicability of the principle of the Bill—

Where does the ruling say “you should”?

I agree. The ruling only says “you can,” but common sense says “you should,” and every consideration of the plain duty of a committee of this House and a Minister of this House says “you should.” Mr. Speaker’s ruling says “you can.” Let me read Mr. Speaker’s ruling—

Read on.

The trouble is that I have only got ten minutes—

Where does “should” come in?

I said I am not taking up the attitude that there was any insult to the Speaker in the attitude of the committee. Not at all. The Speaker said you can, and it was for the committee to decide whether they would do so, and it must stand the racket in that, having the power, it refused to do it. I say that this House, having referred the Bill to the select committee to investigate, a select committee which deliberately shuts its eyes to the facts, and deliberately refuses to take evidence which is preferred, is not doing its duty by this House. I say that the arch criminal—I do not use the term in any offensive sense—the villain of the piece, is the Minister, and the trouble is that he is so obstinate—it seems to be a ministerial characteristic these days—that he refuses to allow evidence affecting the Bill one iota. When this ruling of Mr. Speaker’s was given, instead of bowing gracefully to the inevitable, and instead of wiring to the Transkei that the wires had been sent under a misapprehension, he said the Speaker says we can, but we won’t. This Bill, it must be admitted, is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation brought before this country. The Minister himself says it is a first step in the Government’s segregation policy, and yet the very man who says that, says to the natives, we won’t hear you, not even in regard to whether it should be applied in this area and not in that, or in this way and not in that way although his chief, the Prime Minister, has stated, in language I have already quoted, that that is the spirit in which the matter should be tackled. Apart from the technicalities, has not the gravest of errors been committed by the select committee? That action was taken at the behest of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston).

Acting on instructions?

No, I do not think that for a moment. The hon. member for Brakpan has come into very great prominence in this House, by reason of his intolerant attitude towards anybody who happens to disagree with him. He has been under the harrow long enough to know that there can be two points of view, but he now seems to have become the chief mover, so far as I can see, in the curtailing of discussion in this House. I might call him the catch-weight closure champion of South Africa. It is not an enviable distinction. If he is asked by his constituents on the Rand: “What did you do in the last session of Parliament?” he will be faced with the position that he hindered discussion as far as he could. I am certain that history will condemn the action of the hon. member for Brakpan, when he said to the natives, and other people in South Africa: We will not hear what you have to say, either in regard to the application of this Bill, or its merits.

He never said it.

I cannot give the hon. member sense to see my point, if he does not see it already. Does this motion in select committee not say so in effect? The third issue was the part of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knowing the wires that had been sent, and the hopes held out to the natives, was wrong, and he knows he was wrong, in closing this discussion.

This is an important matter and we must come to clarity. I hope that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will listen very carefully. He said just now that he inferred from my speech that I was prepared on account of what his leader had said to punish the natives and to deprive them of the privilege of giving evidence. Now I wish to call his attention to this it is of great importance that there never was, as far as I am concerned, any hope held out to the natives that they should come to give evidence. Ever since the matter was under discussion it was not a question of evidence but of a discussion between myself and this side of the House and the hon. member for Standerton and: he other side. The hon. member for Standerton said that we must tackle the matter together, “we must pool our brains,” were his words to see how we could best bring about the reinstatement of the law as it existed before 1922. One will look in vain in my words or in anything that I said for a remark that the natives would get an opportunity to give evidence, or anybody else. The exact opposite was clear to me from the first day and it was also clear to the hon. member for Standerton but what we ought to do was not to hear evidence but “to pool our brains.” The responsible men on both sides of the House should come together to find a solution and that we ought to do that in order to wound the natives as little as possible. I also saw that as regards evidence we had the native affairs commission which ultimately could give better evidence than the natives. The native affairs commission were not in favour of reverting to the policy of the 1911 Act but they said to me that now we were going to have a colour bar the great thing was to so lay down the colour bar that we did not wound the self respect of the natives. Their advice was not to put it on the statute book—although that is being done—because the natives would see in that a continual slight. That is just one of the reasons why I proposed that instead of putting the Bill as it is now we should simply draft regulations which could be issued without making any reference to natives or Asiatics in the Bill. The other point of the hon. member for Standerton was that although Asiatics and natives are included the word Asiatic should not be mentioned. I only say this to point out to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I did not proceed from the point of view that natives or other people should give evidence.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) leaves me cold when he lectures me about getting a bad reputation. He said—

That is a reputation easily earned, but moving the closure is one of the essential principles of any democratic body. It is done by the trade union movement, it is done by the Labour party and by every organization that wants to get on with some business. There are occasions when it is necessary. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says I have excluded all the natives in South Africa from giving evidence before this select committee and another hon. member who wishes to stir up a little antagonism amongst the farmers towards this Government says the Minister has excluded the farmers. Yes, and we also excluded trade unionists from giving evidence.

Well, it is your Bill.

Why has the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) not bitterly complained because we excluded the Chamber of Mines? We did not select any section of the community for preferential treatment. Let me come to a notable character of John Bunyan. When the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was speaking he put me in mind of a story of a man in Canada; he is dead now. He was a very wealthy man, so far as material wealth was concerned, but he was known as “poor John”, because he was poor in intellect. He had the reputation for wandering a considerable distance away from the truth. He wandered that far that he lost the truth altogether and could never find it. He died, and they erected a tombstone to his memory, with the inscription—

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Dealing with the letter that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) mentioned that was sent to the association of which Mr. Clements Kadalie was a member, the position is, as the hon. member well knows, that this association wrote to the committee asking to be allowed to give evidence in the usual course. The usual procedure was adopted and the hon. member should try to get away from the cobweb of suspicion and innuendo.

The letter was never laid before the committee.

Whether the hon. member believes me or not doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is that we had nothing whatever to do with Clements Kadalie coming to that committee. I have nothing in common with Clements Kadalie. I am not saying that for the information of the hon. member, because the state of his mind is such that it would be impossible for the truth to penetrate to his brain. He is continually delving down into the dustbins so as to find every morsel he can to rake up and hurl at people in this House.

How about yourself?

I say this, that for every brick thrown at me I am capable of throwing two back. If hon. members on that side of the House appeal to the best in mankind from this side of the House they will get the best. If they appeal to the other, they will get it.

Order, I think it would be better if the hon. member got back to the Bill.

Yes, quite right Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased you are bringing these hon. members up to the point. As far as the hon. member’s statement is concerned about wishing to call this particular evidence, as far as I can recollect there was a general discussion in the committee as to whether these natives who had come should or should not be heard. I had no objection to their being heard. I for one was quite prepared to say that if they were there we should hear them. Then I think it was the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) who raised the point that if they heard these particular witnesses they would have to rescind this resolution. So we decided to leave the matter where it was. The hon. member (Mr. Marwick) charged the Minister with having taken part in a conspiracy to bring these particular witnesses to give evidence on our behalf. The position in connection with the select committee’s work is this, that when the hon. member for Standerton (Gen, Smuts) saw that this Bill had passed its second reading he immediately took up the attitude that it was no use going on to the select committee. He himself took up that position, although he had previously agreed to do all he could to try and settle this vexed problem. He would have appointed some of the super-intellects.

What is your intellect?

The position is that when we met for the first meeting of the select committee—I think the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) will bear me out—in view of the fact that the second reading had been taken and it was impossible for us to interfere with the principle of the Bill, I then proposed a resolution, which was discussed. I put forward a resolution that in view of the fact that the principle of the Bill had been adopted by the House, there was no use in our taking further evidence. I pointed out that it was beyond the task of a select committee to go into the question of taking evidence from all over the country; it was rather a question for a commission. There was nothing underhand about it; this has been my attitude all through; everything was square and above board. I think every member of the select committee agreed that as far as the work of the committee was concerned, it was beyond the scope of the committee to hear all the witnesses that hon. members talk of bringing forward. What was the position in regard to Mr. Speaker’s ruling? Mr. Speaker’s ruling was that we could take evidence as to how and to what extent the principle could be put into operation. I am still of opinion that the whole question of where and how this particular Bill should be applied rests upon the Governor-General-in-Council, and that is the place for representations to be made on the lines hon. members say should have been made to this select committee. These representations could be made pointing out whether it should or should not be applied to this or that area, or this or that particular industry. The door has not been closed in regard to that particular aspect of the question. May I say, in conclusion, that I hope hon. members on that side, when they stand up and discuss what happened in select committee, will at least stick to the facts of what actually happened, and not draw upon their imagination. If they would do that there would be no necessity for us to get up and dispute what they say; but I am not prepared to plead guilty to any of the things said by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), or to accept the unjust and unwarranted insinuations and aspersions he has made on certain persons on this side of the House.

We have not imputed a single thing.

I am glad the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has invited those of us who sat on the select committee to tell exactly what happened. It was the first select committee of any importance I have sat upon, and I therefore do not think my memory can be challenged. I do not think either the Minister for Mines or the hon. member for Brakpan or anybody else can challenge the statements I am about to make. In regard to the first day of the sitting of the select committee, here, perhaps, I may not quite coincide with certain hon. members who said that practically nothing was done that day. As a representative of the Transkei, and having read the report of the proceedings in the debate of the Native Territories Council, the first question I raised when the hon. member for Brakpan said there was no necessity to consider the Bill outside the matter of mere terminology, was that of native evidence and I said to the Minister—

The Minister then said, or suggested, that he knew nothing about that wire. There was also another application to give evidence from the Messina Company and the decision then was that the parties applying to give evidence should place on record the points upon which they wish to give evidence. I challenge any member of the select committee to deny that. I challenge the hon. member for Brakpan. Did he not then say—

Yes, upon the principle.

There we have the whole basic contention. We, as a committee, went to try and do what we thought was best for the country. I had not seen the correspondence; I had nothing before me, but I said then, and I still say—

And the chairman then said—

These are the true facts. Unfortunately, at that particular time, I left, and did not attend any subsequent meeting of that committee. The Prince of Wales was at Umtata, and I felt it my duty to be there. When I returned, I found that further telegrams had been sent; that certain facts had arisen in that committee, and so forth, and that natives had been debarred from giving evidence. I am not going to argue on the technicalities of the case, or as to whether the Minister of Mines and the Prime Minister are right, or that our contention is the correct one; I wish to look at the matter from the broader point of view; of the effect it is going to have on the natives in this country. I wish the House to look at this matter from the point of view from which the natives are considering it. Unquestionably, the part of the population that are most affected by this Bill are the natives. They came forward by respectful address to the Prime Minister, who is their representative—let us never forget that factor, that the Prime Minister, as Minister of Native Affairs, is representing the interests of the natives, which he is supposed to protect. The Prime Minister challenged me the other day, and stated that I was trying to create an agitation, and that the natives were well represented in the House. Let me say that the man who represents the natives, first and foremost in this House, is the Prime Minister. Any hon. member who knows the native is aware that every chief has a chief counseller, who may be observed standing alongside the chief at native meetings, to advise the chief on different points arising. The counseller represents the tribe, and in the eyes of the natives the Prime Minister is their representative, and he is supposed to keep in touch with the natives; represent their interests, and advise them, when occasion requires, and that is the duty of the Prime Minister, if he undertakes the portfolio of Native Affairs. If he finds that, owing to his manifold duties, he cannot undertake that office, he should not continue to hold the position; but, occupying the position he does now, that is his primary duty. And the Prime Minister, then sitting in the position of chief counseller of the natives of the Union, what did he do? Let us look at the thing from the broadest point of view. I am not going to suggest, in any shape or form, that there was any mala fides on the part of the Minister of Mines or that the Prime Minister did not act in good faith; but I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in stating that there has been a gross blunder—a misunderstanding between the Ministers who are entrusted with these grave duties which they have to perform. In regard to this wire, the natives said, in a respectful way—

I agree that it was not right that they should address us in the House, and not one of us has suggested that the Prime Minister acted incorrectly; but when the Prime Minister said—

that was the crux of the position, and, irrespective of technicalities, rules of order, and so forth, the fact remains that we, as the white population governing the natives, had given a definite promise that they might come and give their views to the House, and the technicalities raised by the Minister and the Prime Minister will not carry weight with the natives. They will say, “A promise was given to us; let that promise be carried out.” I think the Minister of Mines is quite honest in the position he puts before the House. I do not think he has twisted things deliberately; but he, unfortunately, has not that knowledge. [Time expired.]

It is very clear from the discussion this afternoon that it was not against the principle of the Bill nor against the altered form in which it is submitted to the House. It was a complaint that the natives had been deceived by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines and Industries. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who made this complaint supports the farmers in their view that where a lawyer makes a complaint one cannot attach much value to it.

The Prime Minister is one, too.

Yes, but he made no complaint. The complaint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is based on words of the Prime Minister, which according to him “may be construed as meaning” that the natives would get a full opportunity of giving evidence on the whole Bill before the select committee. Suppose now we alter “may” into “might not” what then becomes of the whole complaint? Mr. Speaker has said that the select committee “can call” witnesses. The hon. member says that the Speaker meant “should.” Mr. Speaker is also a lawyer, and if he had meant “should,” then he would have used that word. Members now accuse us of misleading the natives when they are busy misleading the natives. I was appointed by the Government on the select committee because I support the one principle in the Bill and the Government. It was my duty in that capacity to take care in the select committee that no encroachment was made on that principle. If I changed my opinion then my sole duty was to come back to the House and resign as a member of the party to which I belong and to go back to my constituency again. I should have to do that if I wanted to follow the honourable course. Notwithstanding the so-called juridical explanation by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that was the only position available to me, and I could not have taken up any other attitude. There is only one principle in the Bill, and I am firmly convinced that it is quite right for me to see that not the least encroachment should be made on it. Suppose now that I had agreed that the natives should come and give evidence. All the time I was firmly convinced that it did not matter what evidence was given and that the principle would not be altered and that it would come in the same form before the House again.

Then you ought not to have gone on to the select committee.

The Government appointed me because I support the policy of the Government. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is never appointed for his particular wisdom but only because he supports his government and party. If members opposite differ from me then it is pure hypocrisy on their part. When an hon. member goes on a select committee then it is expected of him to stand or fall by the policy of his party in matters of principle. Just imagine for a moment! I sit there quite nicely listening to the natives, but all the time I know that I, as a member of the select committee, will see to it that the principle of the whole Bill shall not be interfered with. That is the only practical position in which a member of a party finds himself when he is a member of a select committee. I do not think that one member of the Opposition will differ from me on this point. Now they say that we are misleading the natives. Should I not have misled them if I had sat there as a hypocrite? Hon. member opposite have now for a whole month been trying to make the natives think that if they had had the opportunity of appearing before the select committee the Bill would have been altered. They know that it would not have made the least difference. The Bill would have been adopted just as it was. Hon. members opposite want to mislead them. The Prime Minister did not mislead them. The whole complaint comes back to the words “which may fairly be construed.” I got up to make my position plain, and I should like to hear from hon. members whether they find themselves in a different position.

I hope that the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) speaks for himself and that he does not speak of select committees in general and of other members save himself as members of select committees, because if he did he has given expression to one of the most serious parliamentary utterances that I think this House has ever listened to, because the hon. gentleman, by his own statement, has taken up his exceedingly honourable position as a member of a select committee with the fixed determination not to have his views altered in any way whatsoever.

After the second reading of the Bill.

So he is not alone in this House. He has the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet with him (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). What is the use of the House appointing a select committee if hon. members go to sit on it with the fixed determination that they are not going to change their opinions, irrespective of any facts which may be brought before their notice.

The principles must remain the same.

We are now beginning to get an insight into the reason why no further evidence was taken after Mr. Speaker’s ruling had been given.

Can you give a single precedent?

It now becomes evident that the Minister and some of the other members had all come to the same determination before the committee sat.

Can you give a single precedent?

My hon. friend had plenty of time to speak this afternoon when we did not interrupt him, although we were amused at what he said, because he was in a difficult position. Surely he can give me a few minutes. I represent a constituency with many natives in it, although not with so many natives as there are in the constituency of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), and when—in the absence of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—I appealed to the Prime Minister to realize the feeling that the Bill was going to have on the minds of the natives, especially in the Cape Province, I said he would hesitate before pressing a Bill of this character before the House. I believe the Prime Minister was going to give way to a reasonable argument, but for the evil influence of the hon. gentleman who sat behind him and who said—

You are entirely off the rails.

In “Hansard” it is put down as coming from the Minister of Agriculture, but it was my hon. friend. Notwithstanding that, the Prime Minister gave me and others to understand that, although the select committee was appointed after the second reading, everybody, including the natives, would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions before the select committee. I will read from “Hansard.” The Prime Minister said—

Was that not done?

My hon. friend evidently thought it was done, but it was not. The Prime Minister promised it in the House, but it was not done. He said, amongst other things, that in the select committee they would have the assistance of the Native Affairs Commission, but he did not realize that one of the hon. members had come to a conclusion before anyone was heard.

The House came to the conclusion.

My hon. friend knows that, in the past, Bills have passed the second reading in the House and there have been occasions when" they have come back from the select committee with nothing but the title of the Bill left. Everything else was knocked out. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here, because, as Minister of Native Affairs. I would like to say to him the feeling of unrest and the feeling of injustice in the manner this Bill has been put through, and the attitude of the select committee, has caused a most regrettable state of feeling among the native people. In the communications I have seen, natives have misunderstood the promises made to them. Can we wonder at it? Many hon. members in the House misunderstood the character of the promises made by the Prime Minister. The natives say they looked upon the Native Affairs Act of 1920 as almost their magna charta. That is what was pointed out to me, and that Act of 1920 distinctly lays down, and gives the natives to understand, that in any measure that came before the House which interfered with the rights and liberties of the natives, they would have the opportunity of expressing their opinions before the House was asked to legislate upon it. That was the general idea of the Act of 1920. They further point out, in the communications I have seen that in 1923 we passed an Urban Areas Bill. In the minds of the natives there was a difference of opinion as to whether they would be allowed to be owners or only tenants. They got the idea that the European, population was desirous of doing everything they could in reason towards raising them in the scale of civilization. Is it to be wondered at in these circumstances, when you propose to bring an Act of this character into the Province of the Cape of Good Hope where there has never been any difference, except socially and politically; is it to be wondered that you have discontent rankling in the minds of the natives? It is possible the mind of the Government is made up, and that no matter what the reasons may be, what power you have for the time being, an act of injustice is bound to react in the future—perhaps on our children. You have in this country a large number of people administered with a handful of police, who believe, though they do not always agree, that they can look for right and justice from the European population. And yet, with one stroke of the pen, without giving them an opportunity of expressing their opinion as promised by the Prime Minister, you deliberately, by the majority you possess, take away their right of liberty. I think the responsibility rests on the Government and, largely, the responsibility rests on the Minister who, in order to carry out that socialistic policy—[Time expired.]

I am sorry the hon. member’s time is up. He was just getting into his stride. Does the hon. member deny on a measure like this, where it is one matter, a simple matter, whether you pass it or not, where there is no division on this side of the House, where the only serious point advanced by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was—

that there was only one reason to send it to the select committee? And that was the phrasing of the Bill. His main object was that he wanted evidence from the natives, agriculture, the provinces and from all over the place.

Why not, in an important matter like this?

Because it was not evidence brought to elucidate the Bill but evidence desired to protract, as far as possible, the business of the select committee.

It was because you feared the evidence.

We did not fear the evidence at all. The hon. member himself was a consenting party to another select committee limiting the evidence to three institutions although we had applications from a lot of other people. That was a most immoral thing to do according to the ethics of that side. According to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) everyone in the country, desiring to be heard by a select committee, has a right to be heard. I respond to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that it is undesirable to give impressions to the natives, which are wrong impressions and which tend to produce disquiet. I say the great offender in this matter with regard to this Bill was the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He said in his speech this afternoon that the parties whose rights were being taken away had not been heard and that it was quite new legislation. The powers given to the Government in this Bill are no wider than the hon. gentleman believed he had in the old Bill under which he instituted the colour bar in the Transvaal.

That never applied to the Cape of Good Hope nor to Natal.

In the old Act it says—

Under the authority of that sub-section he looked upon as legal the colour bar regulation in the Transvaal. Under the same authority, if he had had the wish, he could have instituted a similar colour bar regulation in the Cape or anywhere else. He does not deny that. Yet, going on for years in the full belief that the statutes of this country gave him that power, shown that he was wrong by a judgment of the High Court, the right hon. gentleman himself, who was an upholder of the colour bar, who in 1922 told the men who were out on strike that they were fighting on a false issue that the colour bar was not at stake, he uses language calculated to make the natives believe in this country that what is sought in this Bill is to give the Executive Government power greater than or different from that which he himself believed he enjoyed up to the year 1923. Then of course, there was no injustice; it was then a perfectly right thing. I have yet to learn that a select committee cannot exercise its own freedom and its own discretion as to what witnesses to hear, and what not to hear. I have yet to learn that a select committee, if it is considering a Bill where the one matter raised mainly was the question of so phrasing as not to offend unduly the susceptibilities of any section of the population, is enjoined by the rules of the House to take evidence from all and sundry, from areas and from provinces. Then we have heard a great deal about the “intolerance” of the Government and their supporters on this side of the House. I really believe it is one of the greatest scandals in the history of Parliamentary institutions what is going on in this House this session. When one remembers, when the right hon. gentleman and his friends sat on this side of the House, the patient way in which they listened to us, in which they allowed us to go on interminably without ever trying to stop us—of course they introduced the closure regulations only in order to be in the fashion, not for the purpose of using them—when one remembers that they never thought of using the closure.

Order. I think the hon. Minister had better come back to the Bill.

No, Mr. Chairman, I am just referring to the hon. member’s charge of “intolerance.” When one remembers that every amendment we proposed was gladly accepted by the right hon. gentleman, and incorporated in his Bills is a scandal that, sitting on this side of this House, we should dare to stand by our own opinions and believe that the suggestions coming from the other side of the House should not be accepted.

I do not know that we are extremely interested in the ancient history to which the Minister has just treated us. The Minister, no doubt, looks at it from his own point of view. Nor am I going to quarrel with the Minister in regard with what he said as to the duties of select committees. We do not dispute at all that it was competent to the select committee to refuse to hear evidence. Of course, they could, and they did. What we complain of is that, on the lead of the Minister of Mines and Industries, they did so refuse to hear evidence. The Minister of Labour says that on another select committee on which I had the honour of serving under his chairmanship, I raised no objection to a certain amount of evidence not being called. That is quite true. The Minister will agree that we had evidence before that committee of a very representative kind. If we had had the same sort of evidence before the committee on this Bill which we are now discussing. I do not think there would have been any quarrel. Nor am I going to follow the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) into any disputes as to what took place in committee. In matters that are not recorded in the minutes of the committee, naturally, there must be, after the lapse of some days or weeks, some difference of recollection as to what actually happened. The plain record of the committee in this book is quite sufficient for us to show what happened. I think it must be admitted that we have established a pretty good case. If we had not, we should probably not have had to-day the privilege of having the Prime Minister on his legs for about half the afternoon. I think the Prime Minister’s successive speeches show a considerable modification of his original attitude. In the first speech to which he treated us this afternoon, he, if I may say so, resorted to arguments which I think were unworthy of the case, and unworthy of his own position. He told us, for example, that we could not possibly want anything better than to have the evidence of the native affairs commission. We would have liked to have had the evidence of the native affairs commission. But what did we have? We had their evidence on verbal questions only.

There is no dispute about that. When hon. members look at the last two sentences of the report of the proceedings they will see that the report was actually modified on my suggestion to contain a statement that the only evidence given had been on verbal questions. The Prime Minister went or, to urge that I was unfitted to bring forward this matter, that he was surprised that I took an interest in native matters, and that I should have concerned myself with the interests which I represent, which he insinuated, I suppose, to be the mining interests. As a matter of fact, my interests in mining matters are of the smallest description and I have no voice in settling mining policy, but, having been at one time prominently connected with the mines, and having a considerable knowledge of mining conditions, it is only natural that at times I should offer my opinions when mining matters come before the House. As to my interest in native affairs, I dislike talking about myself, but, as I have been challenged by the Prune Minister, I will say this that for some years in the past I have been actively associated with native administration, directly responsible for it, have had much to do with it, and probably have had a longer experience of it than the Prime Minister will have. After that the Prime Minister, leaving these, what I may call vague suggestions, these attempts to draw a red herring across the trail, came back to what, after all, was the main thesis of the Minister of Mines and Industries, that he had made up his mind that no possible good could have been served by taking the evidence of natives, or anybody else, and, therefore, it would be a pure waste of time, and that, so far as not taking the evidence of natives was concerned, no harm has been done because the Select Committee would have voted against any recommendations that we might have made, based on evidence of natives or other people that might be given before the select committee. The Prime Minister has converted me to something I have always been against, that is, that the interests of the natives would be safer in the hands of a special Minister. When I see the Prime Minister convicted by his own confession during the debate, when he says he went to the country on the question of the colour bar which in effect is the question of imposing disabilities on the natives, when he said that no evidence brought before the select committee would have shaken him or his friends then I say it is time we had a special Minister for native affairs. The natives would at any rate have this advantage in a separate Minister that he would be so much in touch with them that he would have some sympathy with them and he would look after their interests in the Cabinet in a manner which the Prime Minister has shown is impossible to attain under the present system.

I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels). I have listened to him with considerable surprise, because I have always understood that a select committee could go upstairs away from the light of publicity and could discuss matters in an entirely impartial spirit; but here we have him telling us that he conceived it his duty on select committee to vote always with his party. It is curious what little control the Prime Minister seems to have over his party. We have had one instance in the action of the Minister of Mines and Industries in the matter of this Bill, and now we have the hon. member for Frankfort telling us this.

What have you done?

The hon. member knows that in many cases I have voted direct against my own party. This is what the Prime Minister said on this point—

The Prime Minister gives that instruction, and yet here we have the hon. member for Frankfort appearing to think it is his bounden duty to go there and vote for his party no matter what arguments may be brought to bear on him.

Your side voted for the party.

I am not the keeper of the conscience of any member of my side. I know they voted in accordance with their convictions. I have not risen for the purpose of pursuing this controversy about the telegram and the Transkei natives further at the moment. I want to challenge definitely and categorically the statements made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, repeating the statements he made some days ago, to the effect that he and his party went to the election on the colour bar. This is what he said when he last spoke on the 4th of June—

He used that statement as an excuse for refusing to give the natives a hearing and for refusing to listen to any arguments which might be addressed to him on that point in this House. As far as I can ascertain the Prime Minister never at any time went to the country on the colour bar and certainly never on this Bill. I should be glad before he repeats that statement if he would look at the speeches he made at the time of the last election. I could not read all the speeches he made, but if he can show me anything which in any way even remotely bears out his statement that he went to the country on this colour bar Bill. I would be glad to make a public retraction. I have here the famous Smithfield speech delivered on the 5th of May, 1924, when he laid down the seven cardinal points of his policy at the beginning of his election day. He dealt with the question of natives in these terms—

The test is not made of civilization; the test is made of race and colour. This is his statement at Smithfield; but a month later he goes to Heidelberg, where he asserts, almost in terms, that there will be no colour bar. He says—

I do not want to interfere with the hon. member, but he is now discussing a question of policy.

I know it is difficult to draw the line, but can I allow to pass unchallenged the statements made by the Prime Minister in this very debate?

The hon. member can discuss the details. I won’t let him go too far, but I won’t interfere with him.

This is a matter of real importance, because his claim to shut out the natives is based on his statement that he went to the country on the colour bar. If any member can show me in any shape or form that the colour bar is adumbrated in these speeches, I shall be interested to hear him do so. The distinction he draws is between civilized and uncivilized labour. [Time expired.]

In undertaking the duties of a member of this select committee, one of the first I had sat upon, the first thing I asked myself was: “What are my responsibilities’” I went through the speeches on the Bill, more especially that of the Prime Minister where he told us what was expected of us, and I want to ask the Minister of Mines whether he can seriously ask this House to believe that, if the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had sat on the select committee, they would have considered questions of phraseology and nothing else. That really is the point. Does the Minister seriously suggest that the sole duty of the select committee was to find words which would not offend the susceptibilities of the natives? Does he not think that the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Standerton would not have gone into deeper matters—matters of the greatest moment? If the Minister agrees, then I say that exactly the same duty devolved on the select committee. Dr. Roberts gave evidence, and the Prime Minister has stated that nobody was more competent to give evidence on the point of view of the natives than the Native Affairs Commission. One question that was put to Dr. Roberts was—

and the reply was—

The duty of that committee was to investigate and, if possible, to solve this problem facing the country. Do you not think that Dr. Roberts should have been asked: “Seeing it is possible to avoid the operations of a colour bar Bill, how do, you think that principle could have been embodied in the Wage Bill?” Why was that not done? The committee not only failed in its duty to Call evidence, but in its duty to investigate the question, and that is the charge generally that is levelled against that committee. The Prime Minister has made the statement that the Native Affairs Commission stated that the natives only objected to the wording of this Bill, and that the commission does not think that the natives really resent it, Well, if the commission has said that, they do not represent the true feeling of the natives, because the natives, as a whole, do resent this colour bar Bill; not only because it is imposing restrictions upon them, as is suggested, but because the natives, and the educated natives especially, say, and I think rightly, that if a native rises to a certain state of civilization, he is on a higher scale of civilization than hundreds of Cape coloured men, and they say: “We are born in this country, and having civilized ourselves and taken advantage of the opportunities the Government have extended to us, and have raised ourselves in the scale of civilization, it is not right that we should be subjected to greater restrictions than the hot tentot. I think the House will recognize that that is a reasonable objection. But let us ask ourselves this one question: If we are going to put a brake in the way of the natives to prevent them from rising in the scale of civilization, as this Bill is bound to do, what is going to be the effect in this country? The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson), before he left this House stated that there is a solution outside the colour bar Bill, the Wages Bill, and I say without hesitation that if there is a solution, the duty of that select Committee was to have probed the matter from a to z—every aspect of the case—and if this Bill and the Wage Bill are the only solution, I say I will accept that. If the House can prove to the country—if the white man can prove to the native—that the only hope of white civilization is the colour bar and Wages Bills, I say in justice to my colour, I will accept that, and so we have to support it, but we must not neglect to explore every avenue, before we go to the natives and say, as a race: “We feel we cannot compete against you under equal conditions, and, therefore, it is necessary, for the protection of our colour, to impose these restrictions.” Let that be the final and last resort of the white man. I feel satisfied that if the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Standerton had sat on that committee, the committee would have attempted to find a solution outside the one that is placed before us here to-day. And we, as a committee, failed because we were blocked. We had not the opportunity. I appeal to the Prime Minister, in view of the feeling this Bill has created through the country, let this Bill be referred back; there is no particular urgency for it; there is no Crying demand for it. Let the Asiatics, the natives, and everybody directly involved, express their views on it; because this is not a Bill applying only for to-day or for to-morrow. We are laying down a principle for years to come, and if it is placed on sound foundations it will last, but if it is not I would remind hon. members that an imaginary grievance is more apt to create bitterness between races than a real grievance, and this imaginary grievance will create trouble in the future; not to ourselves, but to posterity. I appeal to the Minister, who is a fair-minded man, to recognize that there has been a mistake in judgment, and, in view of the fact that there is no particular urgency, and no crying demand for the Bill, and in view of the promise made by the Chamber of Mines not to take advantage of the Hilldeck Smith judgment, he should say in the interests of the country and future generations that there should be more careful enquiry into the matter. The Prime Minister has admitted there may be some way out. Let us see if there is a way out and, before we lay down a principle for which we may all be sorry, let the Bill be referred back even if its passing is delayed for twelve months. [Time expired.]

We have had an interesting speech by the Minister of Labour, but one might have supposed that he would not have the temerity to speak in support of the colour bar in view of his past declarations on the subject. Last night, before an enthusiastic audience of malays, he said—

I should like to contrast that with what he said in 1920 when speaking in this House—

Now we have him posturing before the Malays and asking them to believe that the removal of the colour bar was going to benefit them. I wish to refer to the attitude of the Prime Minister in emphasising the desirability of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) serving on the select committee. The Prime Minister said—

On the same occasion the Minister of Mines and Industries took a different view from the one he has expressed to-day. He asked “what about the Asiatic aspect of the matter and the industrial and economic interests that were bound up with it?” Was he at that time suggesting that the Asiatic interest and economic interest should be silent before the select committee? He was in effect pleading for a select committee to consider these interests and take evidence from them and I believe he was genuine. At the same stage the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) said “it is an industrial matter. The Asiatics are involved and it affects the whole industrial life of the people.” The select committee must be so constituted that it might consider the industrial as well as the native aspect of the matter. Let nobody contend that these declarations simply meant that the committee was to meet and merely to consider terminological amendment. The Prime Minister this afternoon spoke of a pooling of intellects on this important matter. If he uses such a phrase as that he does not merely suggest that he and the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) were going to pool their intellects to decide upon avoiding merely an objectionable wording of a Bill. Surely that is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. It was originally proposed to define the word “European” as either “excluding coloured persons” or “not including coloured persons”. It was a suggestion from the parliamentary draftsman, made through me, which gave the Bill its present form. That proves that it would have been better if it was the intention not to take evidence, to have allowed the parliamentary draftsman to deal with the matter and not to have had the pretence of a select committee at all. The Minister of the Interior told the malays—

That very far-reaching assurance was by no means safeguarded even in the present Bill. In the case of the Dutch Reformed Church, De Aar, versus Joubert and another, heard in 1920 by Mr. Justice Kotzé, he held that neither Malays nor Indians were excluded from the term “coloured person”. The definition of Malays adopted in the present Act was introduced because of the Act passed two sessions ago, but it seems to me that the present definition proposed in the Bill of a Cape coloured person who belongs to that class will be a very dangerous one in view of Mr. Justice Kotzé’s judgment. That is one of my objections to the present Bill. Under the terms Cape coloured person or “Malay” it is going to be possible for the Indian or Asiatic to evade the restriction sought to be imposed upon him by the Bill.

I have now been listening the whole afternoon and this evening again to the speeches from the opposite side. They were all a repetition of what has been said over and over again. In other words another second reading debate has taken place and I further wish to ask hon. members opposite if they actually consider what harm they are doing by those speeches. I am not surprised at some of the hon. members but as for the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) he is a man who says that he loves his country and his people—I want to say that his speeches in this House, and out of it, have done more harm than what he to-day appreciates.

What harm?

The stirring up of black against white. I can only come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Stander ton is disappointed and that his disappointment is so great that he is to-day a desperate man and is prepared to take any means to attain his object. The end justifies the means with him to-day. I will honestly say that there was nothing more disappointing to me than the speeches in connection with this Bill. If there is one matter which we as a people should keep out of party politics then it is the native question. What have hon. members on the other side done? They are trying to make political capital out of the Bill. If one listens to the speeches then you come to the conclusion that the interests of the white people mean very little to them in comparison to those of the natives. Our object is to see that the white people in South Africa are allowed to get a proper livelihood. On that account the Bill is before the House.

I only wish to say a few words about the speeches of the last speaker and of the Prime Minister. The last speaker has said that the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is much more dangerous than we think. This Bill, which is before the House, is not known in the country. Yes, the hon. member for Fordsberg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius), laughs, he knows about nothing else than Fordsburg.

I know more than you.

Yes, but the hon. member only knows a little of what is going on outside. I want to say a few words about what the Prime Minister said. He has said that the colour bar was the policy of the Nationalist party and the Labour party. I agree that it is the policy after the amalgamation but not before that time. The Prime Minister has said that the election was fought on it and that he is not afraid to go to the country again on it. I kept myself well informed about the run of the election but the Prime Minister preached that doctrine in the Transvaal. The Prime Minister dealt with it at Stellenbosch and Kimberley because there were, of course, coloured votes to be caught. In the Transvaal he did not do that. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) came to my constituency but they did not preach the doctrines of this Bill. The Prime Minister came there and quite a number of Ministers came but not one of them preached it. There was of course no coloured vote. I quite understand that the position in the Cape Province is very difficult because here the coloured man has a vote. The old Voortrekkers laid it down that there should be no equality between black and white and if hon. members preach the policy of equality, between a coloured man and a white man in the Transvaal they will come off very badly. The principle of this Bill is something which we have never yet had in the country. I want to draw a colour line. The Minister of Railways and Harbours is also interested in the coloured vote and he cannot speak as I do. I am strongly in favour of the colour bar but why are we now going to split it? It is not right and logical. No one will dare in the Transvaal to put a white man and a coloured man alongside of each other to work. The Prime Minister and his lieutenants never preached that in the Transvaal. They did not dare to do it. The Minister of Lands also did not dare to do it in the Transvaal. This Bill will do much more harm in the Transvaal than we can appreciate.

I think this matter has been now very fully discussed. As to what transpired before the select committee, the House is in possession of all the facts, and has discussed the position from all points of view, and I am not going to follow the example of my hon. friend in practically resuming the second reading debate. This is the third occasion on which we have practically had a second reading debate.

You did it this afternoon.

No, I did not. I confined myself to what happened before the select committee, and why I took the action I did. The hon. member has raised the question of urgency, and that is a question of the merits of the thing. The Government is clear as to its policy, and is clear that this bill ought to become law this session. I said I would not shirk any issue, and so far as it relates to the conduct of the select committee I am going to answer the points. But I am not going to answer the hypothetical case put by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) or for the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). The case put by the hon. member for Illovo was, if the native council in answer to the telegram sent by the clerk of the House on the 18th May had turned up, what would the select committee have done? I cannot say. They would have dealt very specifically with the fact that these people had taken the trouble to come, and would have decided on that fact. But how can I say what they would have decided? The fact remains the natives’ minds were not affected by our ultimate decision, and answered the telegram of the 18th May uninfluenced by any resolution on the part of the majority of the select committee, assuming the majority had definite intentions. The hypothetical case put by the hon. member for Tembuland was what would have been the position if the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition had been on the select committee? How can I answer that? I can only say what my course of conduct was and the motives I had, and what actuated me, and I hope I have made it clear to the House. Then the hon. member for Illovo raised the question of Kadalie. I challenge him directly: Hoes he impute to me or to the majority of the committee that we wanted to favour Kadalie?

I merely recited the facts, imputing nothing to anybody. The calling of Kadalie was never brought before the committee until he was actually at the door.

Until he was at the door? And when was he at the door?

He was at the door on the 26th May.

Now that shows How uncertain the hon. member is and how unreliable as to facts. Here is an official document of the select committee, and it is unfortunate that the procedure of select committees is such that the minutes do not record the documents that are laid before the select committee or are sent in from time to time. It is a very wrong procedure, and I understand that documents are simply read or mentioned by the clerk and put into a separate cover and, unless there is a special direction from the committee to annex a document to the report as an annexure, that document is never mentioned, is never seen in the report of the select committee. This document was sent, not to the Minister of Mines, but to the clerk of the Assembly, and was open to the inspection of every member of the committee and was before the committee.

It was never read.

The document is dated 23rd May, 1925, and is addressed to the clerk of the House and reads—

How did they know of the limitation?

Because they had approached me as Minister.

Precisely.

I cannot prevent people from addressing me as Minister, and I had referred them to the select committee and had intimated to them that probably they would not be allowed to give evidence except on questions outside the main principle, and they were quite prepared to give evidence on the wording of the Bill. The hon. member says that the only knowledge he had of Kadalie, and there was no communication between Kadalie and the committee in respect of Kadalie, was until Tuesday the 26th. Here is the document from Kadalie to the committee dated 23rd May.

I said it was not read to us until the 26th. That is proved.

Of course. How could it be read to you until the 26th seeing that there was no meeting of the committee between the 23rd and the 26th? It shows the smallness of the point raised by the hon. member.

It shows the weakness of the reply.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) referred to what occurred on the first day of the select committee. As he knows, on the 14th May we had the first meeting and he was present, and he knows that the meeting was purely formal. It is true that there was some question then that the Messina people wanted to give evidence. I think that is endorsed by the clerk of the committee on a telegram from the attorneys of the Messina people dated 1st May, and addressed to the clerk of the House. The endorsement by the clerk of our committee Mr. Elias (who is the head clerk of the select committee)—

That is dated 14th May, 1925.

That is the date we met.

Oh yes, I beg your pardon. It was a mistake over the initials of the clerk. The date is 4th May, 1925. The select Committee was appointed on the 11th; that is quite right. On the 14th May this telegram was sent by the Clerk of the House to “Solon Johannesburg”; that is the telegraphic address of the solicitors of the Messina Company—

There is nothing inconsistent whatever about that. We did not lay down there that they might give evidence on the main principle.

You laid down they might not give evidence; that is the point.

Before we consented to hear them we asked them to set forth in writing what they wanted to state. We did not hear them; the hon. member knows that. To return to Kadalie, the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) knows well enough the position when we have decided by a majority not to hear further evidence. Kadalie was in the passage and it was then stated by me—

I do not know Kadalie from Adam, and as to the incidents the hon. member for Illovo referred to, I have only this afternoon asked from the Prime Minister, whom I asked specially, what was imputed to him in regard to Kadalie. Mr. Kadalie was a mere cipher to me. I cannot help feeling that the whole of this controversy has been raised, because hon. members opposite, and the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) especially, are piqued because his suggestion originally was not followed. That is the reason for the strife. The whole reason is this, that, as indicated by the Prime Minister, when I introduced this Bill on the 13th February last, there would be a strenuous fight over it. It is part and parcel of the whole policy to proceed with a fight at every stage and on every occasion. The House dealt with this question when the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) introduced his motion. Really, the thing was then practically finally disposed of. Hon. members opposite dealt so fully with that question that they practically prejudged the case. It seems to me hopeless and futile to consider the case in its true aspects with all the information of the select committee before the House. I want to say with regard to the remarks of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), that I challenge him, as I tried to do by interruption, to give me a single precedent, under the Government of his right hon. leader, of a case where the main principle of a Bill, which was narrowed down to one issue in the Bill itself, was fully discussed in this House, and passed after severe opposition, and where a select committee has reported striking out that provision or reported against the main principle of the Bill. And it is in the light of that fact that the remarks of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) which have been rather twisted, should have been interpreted. There is a lot of truth in what he says. We have select committees from time to time, under the various Governments, on burning questions, where the main issue has been fought out from every conceivable point of view within the walls of this chamber, and it is inconceivable, and it would be surprising to find a select committee coming back and negativing the finding the House and its decision. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) really surprises me. If he is liable to be influenced by the limelight, I am not. It does not make so much (snap of the fingers) difference to me whether I discuss a matter here or in committee.

It does. We find you much more reasonable upstairs than here.

Another point upon which the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was entirely off the rails was his quotation from the proceedings on the second reading. I am sorry I have not the English version before me, but on page 2,135 of the Dutch Hansard, 6th April, the hon. the Prime Minister stated (translation)—

He thought you were going off the rails.

It is very easy to dislocate an observation from its natural context and surroundings. All of us are liable to omit something. I give this assurance, and whether hon. members accept it or not does not matter two pence to me. I said before this that I had spoken to the Prime Minister, and it was clearly discussed and a made out case that the second reading would take place first. There never was any doubt about it, and no wavering about it, and to avoid any possible risk of misconstruction, and especially in view of what the Leader of the Opposition said, I simply interjected that, and it was my sole intention. The suggestion that I tried to bully the Prime Minister or tried to control him is too preposterous for words. What did the Prime Minister say (translation)—

That is the simple explanation, and it is absolutely incorrect that the Prime Minister ever contemplated the subject-matter of this Bill being referred to a select committee and not taking the second reading first. I think I have dealt with all the points raised, and if any hon. member has a point really not raised on which he wishes to charge me or he wants any information, I am ready to answer, but I think we have exhausted the subject and the House should come to a decision on this clause. We have had all the information about the select committee and everything has been, exposed.

I would like to enlighten the mind of the Minister and the Prime Minister on the point they make that the Transkeian natives are the only ones to protest and that no protest has come from any other natives. May I point out that the Transkei is the only part of South Africa where you have a representative native body, duly constituted by law, and a body with a chief magistrate presiding, who keeps them in touch with the developments in the country, and the mere fact that a protest has come from that body shows the natives in that part of the country, although perhaps not yet directly affected by the Bill, are alive to the interests of the natives throughout the Union. I think that answers the question.

I do not want to stress it particularly.

My point is that the Prime Minister also stressed it and made a suggestion against me that I appeared to be a participant in “this mischievous agitation going on with the natives.” I hope the Minister of Mines and Industries does not associate me with any agitation. The greatest crime and the gravest offence that any citizen of this country can commit is to assist in any agitation amongst the natives of this country. I have heard the accusation of obstruction made against members of this side, but I was extremely hurt when the Prime Minister singled me out because I happened to be the one to expose that telegram. I knew nothing about it until I read it in the paper.

Which one? The one of the 18th May?

No, the original telegram. He said I was a party to creating ill-feeling in the minds of the natives. I repudiate it, and I hope every member will repudiate any such suggestion. I feel that the suggestion made on that side, that we are trying to catch native votes by creating agitation and unrest, is unworthy and not fair, because members opposite should realize that we who live amongst natives have the interest of the country just as much at heart as they. In protesting against the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines and Industries they must consider that we have done it in the true interests of the country. Because a man exposes injustice it must not be said he is trying to create a feeling of injustice. I speak personally from the point of view of those who reside in the Eastern Province where we live among the natives and live on the natives. Our interests are common interests, and we have never had this division. We feel we have to work together and co-operate, and in bringing before the House, as I did on that occasion, the telegram which passed between the Prime Minister and the Native Council I thought I was but doing my duty. Members opposite when we criticize the actions of the Government must not accuse us of attempting to catch votes, for we place the interests of the country far above votes.

We do not accuse you of that.

I do not want to dissociate myself from my party, but the Prime Minister accused me of it personally. We on this side have the interests of the country just as much at heart as hon. members opposite have. If the only solution of the native problem is a wage Bill or a colour bar Bill then I would naturally be willing to associate myself with such measures, but let the whole question be thoroughly investigated, and above all, let the natives realize that in trying to safeguard our colour we, as the white race, are not going to subject them to any injustice whatsoever. The natives would understand that. Let the native question be above party politics, and let hon. members opposite realize that we are just as honest in our endeavours to find a solution of that question as they are.

I have been accused of being returned by the coloured men. The coloured men and the natives will object to me giving a silent vote on this question. The coloured man will object to this Bill because he is certain that he will be affected by it later on, and that he will be “done” by the hon. members of the Labour party who are dragooning the Nationalist party. This afternoon the Prime Minister said he had sent a telegram to the Transkei General Council to send three delegates to attend the select committee, but that they refused. But in a later speech the Prime Minister had to acknowledge that he was not keen on getting these men to give evidence. Is that fair? I do not think so, but I do not blame the Prime Minister. The leader of the Opposition offered the Prime Minister to help solve this most difficult problem. Did the Prime Minister subsequently approach the leader of the Opposition to attend any conference on the matter?. I do not think so. There is an old proverb in Dutch that I would not like to repeat here. The leader of the Opposition got veritable hell from the Prime Minister for daring to suggest such a thing. I am going to vote against the Bill, and I know that every native and coloured man in my constituency will thank me for doing so.

Old Clause 1 put and negatived.

New Clause 1 put as proposed by select committee.

Is it competent to move an amendment at this stage?

The hon. member (Mr. Payn) may proceed.

I move—

I wish to point out to the Minister, in moving this new clause, that the Government have adopted the principle or policy in this country of what they call civilized labour. It therefore seems to me that if you are going to allow any number of the Cape coloured people of this Union, irrespective of their education, of their civilized habits and so forth, to qualify under his Act, then that privilege should also be extended to what I may call the civilized native; and in order to keep strictly within the limits of the Bill, I move this amendment and ask the Minister to accept it and to say that a registered native voter of this Union, of this province particularly, shall be entitled to exactly the same privileges as any coloured person. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to what is known as the Hofmeyr Act of 1887, and especially to the provision dealing with native registered voters, which is as follows—

Does the schedule include liquor laws?

Yes, it includes them and others. That Act made provision that every native registered voter should be entitled to the same privileges as the European registered voter. The Minister will admit that this present Act does make a very serious differentiation. This old Act still stands unrepealed, and as it stands this House has not the moral right to tamper with the privileges of any native registered voter of the Cape Province as is done by this Bill. I say again, that if the Government is honest in its endeavours to raise the coloured races generally in this country to a higher standard of civilization, then they must be honest and place the native registered voter on the same plane as coloured men. They say, and rightly, that to be placed on a lower level is not fair or just.

I am very glad the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) had moved this very moderate amendment. The Minister need not smile; he knows I am opposed to the Bill in principle. I believe it a wrong Bill. I believe it is an unjust thing, and I believe, eventually, we will rue the day we put it on the statute book. I would appeal to the Minister to accept the moderate amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). I do not know whether the Minister is acquainted with the native territories, but if he will go to the Eastern Province, he will come into contact with Professor Tengo Jabavu, who is a B.A. of the London University and a professor in one of our native colleges, to which the House has voted large sums of money. I ask the Minister whether it would not be an injustice to deny this man the right to carry on any occupation he desired in the Cape Province.

He will not work on the mines.

If this Bill goes through, you can bring it into operation in all sorts of occupations and in any province of the Union. The Minister knows that, in the Cape Province, no distinction has been made in the franchise or in the walks of life which these people occupy, and there are a large number of them, but even if there were only two or three, I should think that, as an encouragement to these people to advance in the scale of civilization, you should give them every possible right and liberty and justice. The amendment only asks—not because the hon. member does not want more, but because he thinks it is possible he might get this—only asks this as an encouragement to natives in this country to gradually rise to a higher scale of civilization. I know of natives in this country who, if you were in a room with them, with the lights out, and you could not see the colour of their skin, you could not tell that you were speaking to other than a European. They can discuss the most intricate subjects you may desire to bring forward, and is it not a shame, especially on the part of those people who consider they are of a superior race, to deny them reasonable justice such as the hon. member asks for. If the Minister concedes even this, it will have a great effect, in the Cape, in doing away with that fearful and justifiable irritation which this Bill is causing in the native mind. If a man is good enough to be able to vote for a member of the House of Assembly and send him to this Parliament, surely he is good enough to have the ordinary rights of a citizen in the Cape Province. I am not thinking of votes in this connection. There are many districts in this country where the native vote does not turn the scale one way or another. I am only thinking that it is our duty to do all we possibly can to encourage these people to rise still higher in the scale of civilization, and we are doing an injustice to them if we take away these rights. I wish the Minister would think seriously of this. It is not a party question at all.

It is clear that in the case of Professor Tengo Jabavu, who is a very cultured man, he could not go to the Transvaal or to the Free State and vote there, even if he were domiciled there, nor could he sit in this House, although he is a professor and highly cultured. What would be the result if I accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn)? You would at once make it applicable to the Transvaal and the Free State, and you would have a difficulty. Does the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition contemplate that if the Bill were confined to the Transvaal, the people from the Cape Province who go to the Transvaal would have the privileges of Europeans because they were voters at the Cape? I am stabilizing what has been the practice in the Transvaal, and you cannot depart from that practice. I hope the amendment will not be pressed. It is a question to be considered when we come to applying, or contemplate applying, any regulations to the Cape Province. L told Dr. Abdurahman and a deputation which waited on me that the Government will give them every opportunity, if it should contemplate regulations for the Cape, of laying their case before us and making representations. This question will then be considered—it may not even arise for consideration. I am not going to promise one way or the other. Then why be so worried or anxious about it at this stage?

Sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1 of the Bill detail the people who are not subject to the Bill, but by leaving out the natives of this country the Minister makes them subject to the Bill.

That was the position before.

Has the Minister considered another position? Under the Act of Union the natives of the Cape Province have all the rights and privileges—if they have the necessary qualifications—of the franchise, and that cannot be taken away from them without a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Union Parliament. For that right is entrenched in the constitution. I want to ask the Minister, who is a lawyer, if by this Bill he is not taking away from the natives of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope one of those rights by which they can qualify themselves to be placed on the register.

I dealt with that point in my reply on the second reading.

I would like to hear a higher authority than the hon. Minister deal with the point. I do not think you have any right, without altering the constitution, to take any steps which will prevent these people exercising the privilege by which alone they can qualify to register.

You are a good fisherman. That is a good herring you have caught.

But it is not as palatable as my hon. friend would wish it to be. What right have you to give to the various classes of people scheduled in (a), (b) and (c), in the first clause, privileges you are not prepared to give to the civilized native, especially in the province of the Cape of Good Hope, and I say to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that even to give the Minister the opportunity to rectify it there should be an exception so far as the Cape of Good Hope is concerned. I say to the Minister if my hon. friend were an educated and civilized native, what would his feelings be if he were placed in an inferior position to the coloured men in the country? What justification is there for it? I mention the cases of Mr. Jabavu and Mr. Pelem. What justification has the hon. Minister for refusing the modest request of the hon. member for Tembuland so far as registered voters are concerned. I know the feeling in the Transvaal, and I think the natives and coloured people know what that feeling is. You could have done everything that this Bill provides for by regulation without any legislation of any sort whatsoever, because if it was only intended to apply to the mines, with the feeling that there is on the Rand, you would have been able to have brought about, without all the trouble that this Bill is going to cause, what you want so far as the mines of Johannesburg are concerned. Now you propose to legislate to alter the whole course of the policy that has guided us especially in the Cape Province and guided us with the most marked effect so far as native administration is concerned. Under the wise legislation that has existed in this country large numbers of people like the natives of this country were a contented population and a population amongst whom many were accepting European modes of life and were rising some of them very high in the scale of civilization, and I do not say that one would not be doing one’s duty, knowing that area as I do, if I did not plead with the Minister to give this little modicum of justice to encourage more of them to qualify themselves to be on the register of voters.

The Minister of Mines and Industries said he could not agree to this regulation, because, he remarked—

I did not say that I was stabilizing the colour bar. I said that that was what your leader suggested and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is inconsistent with that. I simply quoted your leader’s suggestion.

I want to know where we stand. It is either stabilizing the existing colour bar, and the Minister’s argument is right, or it is not. If it is stabilizing the existing colour bar, I can understand the Minister’s argument, but, of course, we know it is not. He is removing the coloured people from the forbidden category, and the suggestion of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) is simply that the registered native voter of the Cape should be placed in the same category as the coloured man. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has returned, because he was not in the House when I referred to the actual speeches which he made on this question at the time of the election. I will not quote them again, but I will give the effect of them, namely, that his claim that the question of the colour bar and particularly this colour bar was raised by him at the time of the election is not borne out by the speeches he made at the time. In one of these speeches he is reported as follows—

The burden of his speech at Smithfield on this question was that you must make a distinction, but the distinction must be one between civilized and uncivilized labour. Are you going to say to the natives of the Cape Province—

To say to a man “your skin is black, you may have any degree of education, you may be a registered voter, you are given the fullest rights of citizenship in South Africa”—

“But you must not enter the House of Parliament.”

This is not a question of the right of entering Parliament. It is a question of the right to do an elementary day’s work. This is a colour bar which is going to affect the stomachs of five million natives and their families for generations to come.

May I make one final appeal to the Minister and may I read him a clause from what is known in the Cape as the “Hofmeyr Act.” It was an Act of 1887, passed by the late Mr. John Henry Hofmeyr, and it was looked upon as a sort of charter of the rights of voters in the Cape of Good Hope—

That was the Act of the late Mr. John Henry Hofmeyr passed through the Cape Parliament in that room which is now the refreshment room. Am I asking too much, or is the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) asking too much when he asked my hon. friend—

What was the date?

1887.

The South Africa Act has come in since with a colour bar.

It does not make any difference, because they were so impressed with this clause that it was incorporated in the Act of Union. What is the good of my hon. friend speaking about things he does not understand? If my hon. friend may not appeal to the Minister or the Prime Minister perhaps this clause may do so. All we are asking is that you should in this twentieth century give the same rights and privileges that were given in the nineteenth century.

It appears now that an attempt is being made to confuse the mind of this Committee in regard to the constitution of the colour bar contained in the Act of Union. Many of us at that time voted with great diffidence on that colour bar. We voted in order to attain union. Many of us who voted at the time knew that we were putting a blot on the constitution of the country, but what you are doing now is to pass an additional colour bar; you are extending the colour bar.

No more than you did in 1911.

You are extending it in an economic sense. In the Act of Union we dealt with the political colour bar; to-night you are laying down an economic colour bar.

You did it in 1911.

Let me tell the Minister there was no such colour bar in 1911.

Oh yes. Your hon. leader admitted that there was.

I voted for the Act of 1911 and I never voted for a colour bar; but what are we doing here now? The Minister of Mines and Industries is clearly laying down a colour bar which is not contained in the Act of 1911. What does that Act say? It says this, that the test is the test of competency which could be applied to both white and coloured. We who voted in 1911 never voted for a colour bar.

Yes you did. Your leader has admitted it.

The Minister wishes to pose as a great constitutional authority. I do not think the Minister of Labour can claim a great knowledge of constitutional law.

He admitted it.

In 1911, there was no colour bar; but here, in this Bill, there is a clear and distinct colour bar laid down. Power is given, of course, to the Minister to apply it to the province of the Cape of Good Hope, Does the Minister know the conditions in the Cape? In our mission churches you have natives sitting as elders and deacons along with our coloured people, and serving on their churches—all voters for Parliament. In future, if this Bill passes, you are going to draw a clear distinction between these people; apart from drawing a distinction between the white man and the native you are drawing a distinction between the native and the coloured.

You make a distinction between a voter and his brother.

We are to-night passing the second colour bar law, and are heaping up for ourselves and posterity dangers which nobody can fathom to-night. They tell me that the Minister comes here to assure us that as far as he is concerned he may not apply it to the Cape. I have seen enough this session to make me suspicious that the hon. members sitting on the cross benches are ruling. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) I think declared at Klerksdorp that this Bill is one of the charters of the Labour party.

I did nothing of the sort.

We have no guarantee, under the Pact, that this law is not going to be applied in the Cape. It is, therefore, our duty, as members of Parliament, to safeguard as far as we possibly can the rights of these natives and also of farmers and other industrialists. This law is going to be put through and, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) says, give them this modicum of protection that is laid down in our laws in the Cape Province. I heartily support the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn).

I have a small amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept. I want to move—

I cannot accept the amendment. The hon. member cannot go back. We have already negatived an amendment following (c).

Then I will move—