for railway through Northern and Western portions of Griqualand West and Bechuanaland (four petitions).

Agreements and Conventions for Exchange of Money Orders ; copy of conditions under which tenders were invited for the conveyance of the mails between the United Kingdom and South Africa.

moved that Mr. Bosman be discharged from service on the Select Committee on Native Affairs, and that Mr. Clayton be appointed in his stead.

seconded.

said he hoped he would not be considered out of place if he alluded to the fact that on one of the most important committees there was no Dutch member at all. He was the last person in the world to do this from a racial point of view, but he considered it of the very greatest importance possible that people who did not come from the urban centres, and, probably, did not come in contact with public affairs, should be taught their business in the committee rooms. (Hear, hear.) How else were they to be trained up as Parliamentanans? (Hear, hear.) The committee to which he referred was that on Public Accounts.

pointed out that the matter could not be discussed at that stage.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that a respectful address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, intimating that in consequence of the death of the late Mr. H. L. Aucamp, M.L.A., a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the electoral division of Hopetown.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the following papers, presented to the House on January 29, 1912, be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration, viz.:(1) The report of the Transvaal Land and Agricultural Bank for the period July 1, 1910, to March 31, 1911 (U.G. 7—’12) ; (2) the report of the Land and Agricultural Loan Fund of the Orange Free State for the period ended March 31, 1911 (U.G. 9—’12) ; (5) Tender Board regulations for the Union of South Africa (printed, 8vo.) ; (4) regulations framed under section 61 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, for Union accounts other than those of railways and harbours (printed) ; (5) return prepared in terms of section 26 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, showing particulars of special warrants issued by His Excellency the Governor-General during the period from May 12, 1911 (the date of promulgation of the said Act), and meeting of Parliament on January 26, 1912 ; and (6) return prepared in terms of section 19 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, of all surcharges made during the period from May 31, 1910 (the date of Union), to January 26, 1912, the date of the meeting of Parliament, which have been remitted by the Minister of Finance or are still unadjusted.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

said that South Africa would not speedily forget or forgive the address delivered yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Town Central. It would destroy the good work done by many of their greater men during the past few years. Proceeding, he referred to one of the cases quoted as a grievance the transfer of an official who had been stationed at Piet Retief. He quoted the English minister as his authority for the statement that the official was removed on medical advice, the climate being unfavourable. The hon. member had referred to what he was pleased to term “facts.” Wed, they were “Alexander facts”! The hon. member for Cape Town Central had soon forgotten the beating that his colleague received. He would not have the courage to repeat outside what he had said about Mr. Roos. (Ministerial cheers.) The motion bad not originated with the leader of the Opposition ; his hand had been forced. They knew that dripping water would finally make a mark on the rock. (Laughter.) The hon. member had held a revolver to their heads, and then cried, Peace, peace! (Laughter.) The motion resembled that brought forward a few days ago. The only difference was that the one was stained by race-hatred. He was amazed at the inconsistency of the Opposition in bringing forward such a motion after the dressing down they had given the Labour party. That had been a case of Satan rebuking sin. (Laughter.) If the Civil Service went under the wing of the Opposition for protection they would find that it was not the wing of a South African bird. (Laughter.) He hoped that the motion would be rejected.

I shall disregard, on this occasion, the warning conveyed in the lines,

I shall disregard that. But my right hon. friend who moved this motion made such a touching appeal to me that I cannot resist saying a few words on this important question. I am glad he made that appeal, for one reason, because it enables me to speak somewhat frankly—to say what I really think about these matters. Now, first of all, I am very much puzzled as to the meaning of this motion. (Ministerial cheers.) I read it. Well, it seems to me to be about as stiff a vote of censure as has ever been put on paper. (Ministerial cheers.) And I entirely agree there with the Prime Minister that no self-respecting Ministry, if this motion were carried, could possibly remain in office. But then again, if it is a vote of censure I am puzzled at the tactics of the Opposition. The primary rule in warfare is when you attack to attack in a body and not to dissipate your forces in four separate engagements, in which you are bound to be cut up in detail ; and exposed to a general like the Prime Minister! Instead of drawing all his forces together and making a grand attack in force, the mover has four separate little engagements—(Ministerial laughter)—four or five, a large number. He has divided his forces up. He attacks at a number of different points, and what is going to happen? He is going to be beaten in detail.

That is exactly what we are not doing?

Then why frame your motion in these terms? This is what I am trying to arrive at in my own puzzle-headed way, what are you driving at? All I can say is you must alter the terms of it. It is entirely, as I read: it, as plain a vote of censure as ever moved in this House, and I should very much like to know if a motion like that appeared on the paper, say in 1907, what my right hon. friend would have said about it. Would he have called up his phalanx? Would he have said that it was a vote of censure? Of course he would! And he would have been right. In his lady-like speech my right hon. friend said that this motion was only intended to come to the assistance of the Government. It is the sort of assistance we know of: we know it ; helping the lame dog over a stile ; that kind of assistance! (Ministerial laughter.) One thing is very certain. I think it may assist the Government. I hope it will. Undoubtedly the result of the motion will assist the Government. Whether it will assist the Civil Servants whose interests you profess to have at heart, I don’t think so. (Ministerial cheers.) And some ill-natured fellow—somewhere or other during the discussion, I have heard the sound of “Votes.” I cannot help thinking that there is a kind of lurking suspicion that this is a sort of bid for the support of a very large number of highly intelligent voters. Let me put it to the hon. gentleman, if I may, supposing he is successful in this motion, what sort of position will he find himself in? He will have raised all kinds of hopes which he will find it uncommonly difficult to satisfy. (Hear, hear.) He would stand pledged to a course of action in favour of the Civil Servants which might be very detrimental to this country, and which he might find it almost impossible to carry out. (Hear, hear.) Let me put that to him as a friend’. He paid me the great compliment of reading an extract from a speech of mine to my constituents. I think it rather hard to read extracts of speeches to one’s constituents, as they want to hear what you think about public affairs and know what kind of person you are—(laughter)—but he paid me an undeserved compliment when he read out that speech, with which he agreed. And since when? Because two years ago I seem to remember a famous meeting here in Cape Town, in the City Hall, with the hon. member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Jagger) in the chair, when my right hon. friend, in a speech of an hour and a half—one of the most personal speeches I have ever heard—made the rafters ring with denunciations of me, and praises of my right hon. friend (General Botha) there. What’s caused the difference? Then he had nothing but praise for the Transvaal and for the “constructive policy,” but the right hon. gentleman must remember that he speaks with a great deal of weight —it had an enormous effect and weight, and it had a great deal to do—as he intended it to have—to help my right hon. friend into the saddle—and now he has got him up, he abuses his riding roundly. (Laughter.) That seems to be very hard, indeed ; and I am not led away in the slightest by the kind way in which he spoke of me. (Laughter.) But, really look at that speech in the City Hall and the performance yesterday; and I think we shall have to put placards in this hall very much as they had in the famous hall spoken of by Mark Twain: “Don’t shoot at the man at the piano—he’s doing his best.” (Laughter.) My right hon. friend comes down here, and with his revolver pointing at the man at the piano, does nothing but shoot at him. (Laughter.) I frankly own that I am thoroughly puzzled by the whole of this business, and I think the Prime Minister is equally puzzled, and when he read that motion, he must have said to himself, in the words of the famous historical character: “When Jemmy Twitcher peaches one, I own it surprises me.” I must tell the right hon. gentleman frankly that my own opinion of these things is not in the slightest degree altered, and I think the proposal ridiculous of what is called the “Best Men Government”—(laughter)—and I must say I have never altered my belief that one of the best things I did was to prevent that sort of nonsense. (Laughter.) What we do want at the present time, and what we have wanted during the past two years, is a strong, capable Government, and a strong, capable Opposition ; but unfortunately the present Opposition is neither strong, nor does it seem capable. (Laughter.) An Opposition is just as necessary in our form of government, and the Opposition is just as valuable and necessary for the welfare of the country as the Government is itself—and just as important. They have to watch the Government, and are in the position of a policeman, the Government being supposed to play the part of the burglar—(laughter)—and we always find the policeman with his arm round the burglar’s neck. (Laughter.) That makes us doubt very much indeed, when we see the tactics going on, and we know that this campaign is carried on—if whether it is not, in the beautiful language which my hon. friend the member for Turffontein doubtless knows—the beautiful language of the ring—rather a “put-up job.” (Laughter.) It is not meant to do any good to the Civil Servants —(Ministerial cheers)—and it is palpable that it will do them nothing but harm. It will do no good to the Opposition. Is it to please the public—a little sham fight to amuse the gallery? My right hon. friend is a deep student of history, and he will recollect the conversation between that eminent King—Charles II.—(laughter)—and his brother, the Duke of York, who afterwards became James II., and that the Duke of York was warning Charles of the bad opinion the people had of him, and that if he did not look out he would be treated in the same way as his father was—shortened. (Laughter.) He said: “No, James, you may depend upon it that the people will never cut my head off, and put you in my place.” Whatever Charles may have been, and he may have been a very bad King, they would not cut his head off, and put James in his place. (Laughter.) I regret as much as anybody that in this discussion of a very grave and serious question there has been that despicable sentiment of racialism introduced, on one side or the other. I do not know who is to blame for it, but I do know this, and ask every hon. member to recollect that when sentiment goes in at the door, common-sense flies out of the window. We don’t want sentiment in this matter, but good, plain common-sense, and introducing all these side issues leads to recriminations, and the whole question is obscured. What we have to do is to get a happy, contented Civil Service, which does not burden the taxpayer too much ; but once introduce sentiment, and you may say good-bye to Having any rational settlement of this question. All kinds of accusations have been made, some of them well founded, perhaps, and some of them not. Take, for instance, that question of the Commission. I frankly own I am not pleased with the Commission first appointed, which did not command any respect in this country ; but I will say this for the Government, that they tried to get one of the most important men they could for this Commission. The present chairman has had plenty of experience, and is a trained man, but the first Commission, which was the all-important one, did not carry any great weight in this country. The Government tried to get the most competent man they could possibly get hold of, a man bearing an English name, who, for certain reasons, did not see his way to take that appointment. I must just touch upon the question of appointments, and here, although I have given a sermon against racialism, I may be said to be introducing it myself. I have a quarrel in this matter too, and a very serious one too. I can bring you a couple of instances where two of the most competent and efficient public servants have been superseded ; and in the one case an Englishman, and in the other case an Australian, were put in their places. They were put in the places of two gentlemen who would be an ornament to any public service in the world, and if you will believe it, although they did not bear Dutch names, they have been superseded, one by an Englishman and the other by an Australian. I am bound to say that that great racialist, the Minister of Lands —(laughter)—has carried out one of these things, and I hope that before the session is over he will be brought to book, and I shall give him as warm a time as I can. (Laughter.) Now, we have also heard a good deal about jobbery—people being brought in from outside and filling appointments. I do not defend that in the least—if these things were done they were wrongfully done. But are we not all a little given to jobbery on occasions? (An HON. MEMBER: “You ought to know.”) Jobbery and bribery, these two political crimes which seem everlasting and inherent in human nature! Is it worse to appoint a man to a post for political purposes, or to promise Civil Servants a rise in their pay just on the eve of a General Election? (Ministerial cheers.) Surely my hon. friend recollects that famous incident of Inspector Parker. He surely has it in his scrapbook. (Laughter.) I heard the hon. member for East London (Gol. Crewe) cheer loudly the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), when he spoke. Does he recollect those two savoury gentlemen, Messrs. Ussher and Colley, who, when there were many people dismissed from the Civil Service, were brought down to carry out—what? The registration of voters in Cape Town. (Ministerial laughter.) I do think that people living in glass houses of that kind should not be so ready to chuck chunks of red sandstone about. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Gape Town, Central, then belonged to the pledged party ; he was obliged to look over these iniquities. There is a committee report ; you can read the whole story. Mr. Colley was a plumber, and he was put into the post ; Mr. Ussher was brought down from the Transvaal. These people got the positions in spite of the fact that there were numbers of Civil Servants—dismissed or retrenched—who were out of employment. Government “Hear, hears.” Don’t say “Hear, hear,” because two blacks don’t make a white. (Daughter.) These things have been done ; they have been wrongly done. I am able to assume a high moral standard—but then I have always been bankrupt. (Laughter.) There was not even the price of a job in the Treasury when I got there, so I am able to assume a rather lofty standard. But I do say this —these things are wrong. They have been done. It is no use blaming one side or the other ; I think of the other side when I recollect the past. I have said this much —I should not be doing my duty to the people if I cried “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace ; and if I shut my ears to the stories that I have heard. Now, some of this dissatisfaction in the service may be well founded ; I have no doubt it is—inseparable with the condition of things—at least some of them. Take, for instance, this case. A man in our service—a highly competent man—got to the highest standard he could in his class, and was drawing £450 a year. I am going according to figures in my head, but these things are facts. He was drawing £460 a year. His younger brother—ten years younger —comes out here. He enters the same office, and is shifted off to Pretoria, where in that more spacious atmosphere he draws £550. Now, when the older brother is brought up to Pretoria at £450, he naturally finds himself somewhat hardily treated, because he is put in a class lower than his younger brother, and can only rise to £480, whereas his younger brother can rise to £700. Naturally, it means discontent. Then if you ask me how to avoid it —that is a difficult matter.

That is a difficult point. I only give that one case, but there are many others of a similar kind. I quote the case to show you that this discontent arises from causes that, perhaps, could be remedied, but not by dealing with them in the Estimates or by the Commission which has been appointed. When Union took place, the Civil Servants expected, like everybody else, that the millennium had come—that there would be an increase of prosperity, everybody going to get rich without working, and that all wrongs would be redressed. Well, of course, they have found out that that was not the case, and naturally that created a great deal of discontent. This discontent has been found among the Civil Servants of the Cape, for they felt they have been pushed out from obtaining any reward. They get to the Transvaal, and they find juniors in their own offices at a better rate of pay, and they have to stand being ordered about by those who had been their juniors. I am not going to mention names, but there are people in the Civil Service —as efficient men as you could find in the world—who feel it very acutely indeed, without any question of jobbery or race, or anything else. These are things that have been taking place. Perhaps they are inseparable from Union, but they are bound to create discontent. I am not going to throw mud to get at the cause of the discontent. This question of the Civil Service is a grave one, but it is treated as a choice opportunity for mud-slinging. We have got—deducting the military—about 360,000 European males over 21 years old I believe in this country. We have got—I am not able to distinguish between Europeans of the Civil Service and the other ones —at least 50,000 or 60,000 Europeans drawing Government pay, whose views are diametrically opposed to those of the general taxpayer whom we represent in this House. Now, we have to handle the whole of the question in such a way as to be able to satisfy them, and at the same time satisfy the general taxpayer. My hon. friend over there, in the course of an interesting and, if I may say so, illuminative speech—I mean the hon. member for Liesbeek—discussed the question in the way that we should discuss it—he got to the bone of the case. Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with the matter so far as one individual—who is hardly ever heard, of in this House —is concerned, and that is the taxpayer. I want to know his position. Never a day passes in this House that there is not some request, some Bill or measure introduced which can’t be carried out without more Civil Servants, and very few people know the extent to which Ministers are subjected and exposed to intolerable pestering by hon. members—even hon. members who cry “Hear, hear”—that brothers, cousins, and aunts should be shoved into one of these positions. It is an intolerable burden to Ministers. Everybody who has occupied the position knows what an incessant worry it is to deal with the demands of outside pressure to give this man or that man such an appointment. Therefore we should recognise the enormous difficulty of the task that is set before Ministers in this matter. The difficulty of this factor was recognised when we were in the quiet of the committee room without any speech being made. It was recognised in the Convention, and we provided for that by the appointment of a standing Commission. A Commission was appointed—without wishing to give offence or casting blame on anyone—which did not command the respect of the Civil Service or the country in general. I say nothing against these gentlemen. They were well meaning, but they had one fault—they were too much like the conies, who, as the Bible tells us, were “feeble folk.” The Commission was recommended by the Convention for the purpose of taking this enormous burden off the shoulders of Ministers—new men coming into office, and four different Civil Services being joined. But what took place? My hon. friend—and here I must express my admiration of his intellect—the Minister of the Interior is to blame. I think he had the idea that he could do everything. He can do more than any man in this House, but he can’t do everything, and he has got things in an intolerable mess. Instead of a Civil Service Bill, the whole matter is being settled by a vote on the Estimates. I say, be careful. You may be trapped—I don’t use the word in the bad sense—in what I may call a morass. We may be preparing a future that we have little idea of. This question of the Civil Service must be carefully considered by this House. We must have an Act classifying the Civil Service. We must know their rights, because I have suffered as no man has suffered at the hands of my hon. friends opposite on this question of rights. Be careful that instead of setting up a body of Civil Servants you set up a body of masters that will ride this country. Be careful! My words are not hostile. They are words given in the best interests of the Minister and the country, when I say that these things should be done by rule and law, and after the most careful discussion of what we are going to do. There are things that we have to discuss that we can’t settle in the Estimates. Are you going to grade the Civil Service at all? I am decidedly in favour of grading and the barrier system.

It appeals to me and to my hon. friend here—he has been through the mill—as a way of checking expenditure ; it appeals to us, but the question is whether that should be applied to the whole of the Civil Service ; whether you are going to have the whole Civil Service one and undivided as we had it in the Cape—a most intolerable burden—or whether we are going to have it as in England, where they have different kinds of laws for different departments. All these things are well worthy of consideration ; all these things could be settled in the interests of the Civil Servants as well as the interests of the country by a Bill to be brought into this House. (Hear, hear.) The present state of affairs is perhaps unavoidable. You have got four different pension funds, although I believe they all have deductions. No, the Free State have no deductions, therefore you may move a man from the Free State to the Transvaal. In the Transvaal they have very severe deductions, because they not only deduct 3 per cent., but all arrears. You may move a man, but under what law are you going to deduct 3 per cent. or the arrears from his salary? You have got a widows’ fund in the Cape, but not in the other Provinces. You have only one. You have got a guarantee fund in the Cape. The law is in the Statute-book, but it is not carried out at present, but there is a considerable sum of money at the disposal of the Treasurer. I hope it won’t fall into his maw. (Laughter and “Hear, hear.”) We must try and prevent that. I just mention this to show how many anomalies there are, and how necessary it is, as soon as possible, to bring in a Civil Service Bill. (Opposition cheers.) Then, again, under the Constitution, after the appointment of the Commission—the Commission that was to make the preliminary arrangements for getting the Civil Service together, but which we may say has failed to a great extent—we then had a standing committee to govern the Civil Servants. Well, that is a question which—of course, it cannot be done ; it cannot be approached until you have a Bill defining appointments and the nature of the duties of Civil Servants, and, may I say, I speak in the interest of the Ministry as much as in the interest of the Civil Servants, or anybody else, when I say that the Commission, if properly carried out, will remove the criticism of political and agitation of any other kind. (Cheers.) It is a most important thing to have a Commission of that sort, and I must say I am not impatient, but, still, I do think that the matter should be taken in hand without the slightest delay. (Opposition cheers.) Of course, if I chose, I could enlarge ; I could go into a great many things that are grievances which ought to be settled in Parliament. Take, for instance, the grievances of the Civil Servants, the complaints of the Civil Servants. How are they to be settled? We cannot have them fought out on the floor of this House—a most undesirable thing. There ought to be some provision made for some standing Board of Inquiry. I shall go into that by and bye. Then, again, there is access to Ministers. That should be regulated. I know some Ministers are very accessible ; but some are not. Half the trouble, and I speak advisedly, that has arisen and that has found its manifestation in this little orgy of mud slinging ; half the trouble has arisen from the heads of the departments. (Opposition cheers.) I know my hon. friend (the Minister of the Interior) very, very well indeed. I am perfectly sure he does not know of the letters written by subordinates—insolent letters written to people who have a right to be treated differently. I speak advisedly. Later on, when the time comes, I shah give him chapter and verse. (Opposition cheers.) And in the same way they had to be regulated. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours is a very accessible man ; but he generally gets the better of the interviewer. (Laughter.) Therefore, he rather likes to keep his hand in always. Not the most humble man in those days When our hands were heavy on the Civil Servants in the Cape, if he had a real claim to see the Minister, would be refused. It is a great pity, I think, that no action has been taken on these matters, except the truly futile, and, I venture to say, a very dangerous action that is proposed in the Estimates.

When I heard the Minister say that when we have passed these Estimates without any discussion, except the sort of discussion that we get on the Estimates, and which leads to nothing, that you are then going to impose on this huge body of men, this army—that is to be their charter, well I think we are taking a dangerous course indeed. (Opposition cheers.) It might be interesting, perhaps, if I just alluded to some of the actions that have been taken in other countries similarly placed to our own. Take the Commonwealth of Australia. When it suits us we are very fond of quoting it. (Hear, hear.) But I must say this for them, I don’t admire their ways of working, as a rule, but I will say this, their legislation is very well drawn up, and in some respects we might imitate them. For instance, in their Statutes. In the margin they put the corresponding Statutes of the various States, and it would be of enormous assistance in going through our consolidating Bills if we had in the margin of those Acts the similar sections to which we should refer. However, that is by the way. Their first working session they passed a Public Service Act. The principle they adopted was the appointment of a Statutory Commissioner, who could only be removed—he might be suspended by the Minister, but they were bound to lay the reasons for his suspension before Parliament, and unless it was confirmed in 42 days he resumed his appointment. He is aided by a body of not more than six inspectors. These would probably be very valuable officers. The duties of inspectors were to inspect and hear complaints, to furnish reports, and propose reforms where they found it necessary, and if the Government did not approve of things, the reasons of their non-approval have to be laid before Parliament. Well, it schedules the different people and gives a list of salaries on which they may begin and to which they may rise. Well, don’t let us imitate Australia in everything, but if we can imitate Australia in the scale of their Civil Service salaries, I may say we would save a good deal of money. I was astonished by the salaries I saw drawn in Australia. It is not a poor place. Indeed, the scale of living is as good as in Cape Town or even in Pretoria. (Laughter.) The scale there would be a wholesome lesson to the people of this country. No officer can be promoted from one class to another without inspection. I think it a valuable thing to have, if not carried too far. Promotion must always take place on the recommendation of the Commissioner, taking it out of the hands, of course, of the Government, and removing from the Government that inconvenient pressure to which I have referred. If the Government disagrees with the recommendations of the Commissioner they must lay their reasons before Parliament. It provides also for a Board of Inquiry to hear grievances, and also for compulsory insurance. They rid themselves of the incubus of pensions in Australia. (Hear, hear). Well, I will quote the scheme in Canada, because it is interesting to see how, on entirely different lines, these countries are run. We may possibly take something from the best of them. In Canada, the service is divided into two divisions. Schedule A is the officers employed in the departments at headquarters, and B is the officers outside. They have a Board of Examiners, who admit people to the public service. What, do you suppose they don’t get highly paid, these officials? They seem to have a great deal of responsibility, but you can get a man to discharge those duties in Canada for 400 dollars a year, or £80 a year. I would like to see a commissioner here discharging functions like that for that sum. No person can get in without passing an examination. An examination takes place twice a year. They have a curious idea of age, because they contemplate admission up to the age of 55 years. They have tentative Ministers—the under secretaries—and their salaries are from £900 to £1,000 in three Ministries, and from £700 to £800—that to heads of departments.

Dollars or pounds?

Pounds, pounds. A chief clerk gets from £480 to £500 ; a first-class clerk, £300 to £380 ; and a temporary clerk from £100 to £140, and so on. There is a Pension Act, to which they have to pay 3½ per cent., and the Government guarantees the amount over to pay them their annuities up to 6 per cent. They have valuable provisions in Canada. The Civil Servants there are appointed at pleasure, and although they have all these things and a fixed establishment, still there is not that question which arises here of vested and existing rights. But the Government can dismiss them and pay their superannuation allowances whenever they like.

Then they have compulsory retirement upon the superannuation allowance offered, but they have no legal claim. It is only an act of grace. There is nothing to interfere with the Government’s right of removal of a Civil Servant. They also have compulsory insurance. I would just allude to the United States, because that was a case where what we heard a great deal about yesterday—the spoils system—was carried out in its full vigour, but they have seen also the wisdom of appointing a permanent Commission—an act of self-denial, because there really it was an act of patronage belonging to the Cabinet, belonging to the party in power. So that, when they set up this Commission, it was a selfdenying ordinance. They had three Commissioners.

When was that?

In 1883. Not more than two of the three are to be on the same party in politics. They are paid in the United States, which, I believe, is nearly as wealthy as the Cape —(laughter)—£700 a year. Only £700 a year. But, then, they only pay their Cabinet £2,400. (Laughter.) They are never to have more than two members of the same family in the Civil Service, so that you cannot get the family grouping. (Hear, hear.) Any recommendation by a Senator or a member of Congress was to disqualify him from voting for the candidates. What a relief that would be. (Laughter.) Then, again—I don’t think we need adopt this—there is a fine of £1,000 for collecting money for political purposes—(laughter)—amongst the Civil Service. I do not think we need put that in yet, (because I can’t imagine the Civil Servants making a levy for political purposes, that is, they cannot trust, I believe, either party. (Laughter.) I do not care what party is in, it is sure in the Cape of getting the loyalest service of the Civil Servants. When I was in office I was never able to trace the slightest disloyalty on the part of the Civil Service. I hope in the Union we may continue that service, because, politics and the Civil Service, the more widely divorced the better it is. I do not give these as models, yet I do say they should be carefully studied, and I think we might find in each of them something that it might be well to have in the Civil Service here. I repeat, it is advisable to have the Commission appointed as soon as possible, as you will have this sort of business going on ad infinitum. I do not agree in the slightest degree with passing the present motion, because I feel that it is going to do a great deal of harm to the Civil Service if you do. Some part of it I subscribe to, but to hurl a vote of censure against Ministers will do nothing but harm to the Civil Service. I should feel quite easy in my mind if Ministers themselves take a broader view of the whole of the issue and realise as fully as those who have perhaps as much and more administrative experience than they have—if they realise what an important thing it is to settle this thing once and for all—every moment that is allowed to slip by makes it more difficult to do—and to see it placed upon a sound basis. (Cheers.)

said if they had not had previous experience of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) it seemed to him that every word that he had said would have afforded ample justification for supposing that the right hon. gentleman would support the motion brought forward by his right hon. friend (Sir Starr Jameson). The right hon. gentleman, as usual, took up his double-barrelled weapon. On this occasion he had fired one bullet at that side of the House, and he had fired with the other barrel a good deal of buckshot at his friends on his own side of the House. He had accused the Opposition of bringing this motion forward as a vote of censure upon the Government. He had told them at the opening of his speech and at the conclusion that it was bound to do harm by raising in the minds of the Civil Servants extravagant hopes of what they might get from the support of members of Parliament. There was only one hope this motion held out to the Civil Service, and that was that the administration of the service should be clean, should be pure and without favour of any sort or description, and there was only one hope also that they held out to the public of this country, and that was that the administration of the Civil Service should be such that the service should not only be pure and incorrupt, but it should also be efficient, and if it were efficient the country would get good value for its money. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman), he was sorry to say, had rather associated himself with a remark which he was sorry to see the Minister of the Interior let fall yesterday, that the real reason for this motion was the regret on their side that hon. gentlemen on the other side had not taken advantage of his right hon. friend’s proposal of what had been called a “Best Men Government.” He did not think that suggestion was worthy of the hon. members who made it. He did not think anyone looking back upon the past could accuse his right hon. friend of anything of that sort. Least of all could he find any connection between any proposal then made and the motion now before the House. They had nothing to gain by this motion but the support of the public in an attempt to secure that the Civil Service should be placed in a state of security and efficiency which no taxpayer could question. They who belonged to the late Transvaal Parliament had a peculiar interest in this matter, because those of them who belonged to what was the Progressive party in the House fought out precisely this battle on the floor of the Transvaal House. They urged in effect that the control of the Civil Service should be vested in an independent Board. There were various suggestions made as to the nature of that Board. They put before the House a suggestion that the chairman should be an independent man outside the service. They failed to get support from the Minister of the Interior, who thought, perhaps, that he could do, as the right hon. gentleman said, “nearly everything,” and he insisted that the Civil Service must be subject to Ministerial control. But it did seem to him, in the light of the experience then gained, that the Minister would have saved himself and his colleagues and the whole country a vast amount of trouble and inconvenience if he had embodied in some form or other the system which they recommended. They had the Australian and Canadian precedents to which the right hon. gentleman had referred, but these were all swept to one side by the Minister, and he fell back upon what he had now fallen back upon—an Advisory Board. The Advisory Board was to be composed of members to be appointed from the Civil Service. What was the result? They had an Advisory Board appointed consisting of heads of departments. He was not going into the question of whether the Board worked well or badly. There were cases of complaint in the Transvaal. But there was one curious piece of history that was perhaps worth bringing to the notice of the House. They, as he had said pressed for an independent Board or, at all events, according to the motion brought forward by Mr. (now Senator) Lance, urged that the chairman should be an independent person outside the service. On November 27, 1908, that was, a few months after the session in which this debate took place, Mr. Jacob de Villiers Roos was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Law Department. In April, 1909, Mr. Roos’ appointment on that Board was confirmed. Yet in December, 1908, Mr. Boos was appointed a member of the Advisory Board. It was said that this Board was to be one of the most important bodies that had been called together, end yet one of the most important members of it was Mr. Boos, an Assistant Secretary of the Law Department, who had had no experience in any Government department. He did not wish to question the merits of this gentleman, as the whole history of this affair showed that the Hon. the Minister of the Interior had a settled policy in his mind, and that was: that he did not intend the Board should be an independent body, but that it should be entirely under his thumb. (Opposition cheers,) That he thought, was conclusively proved, because the Board consisted of Civil Servants who were under him. They on that side of the House, who were members of the old Transvaal Parliament, had hoped to see this question of the Civil Service settled amicably. But they had felt bitterly, and he thought there was no harm in saying so now, when they saw people who had come from other Dominions, going back to their own country because owing to the policy adopted by the Government there was no further use for them. They had hoped there would be no repetition of this state of things when the Union of the States took place. He was sorry that the Hon. the Minister and the Government had not adopted a more equitable method of carrying out the South Africa Act in regard to the Civil Service of the country. When the administration was placed in the hands of an absolutely independent body, then they might hope to avoid the recriminations that have been taking place. (Opposition cheers.)

said he expected that the Opposition would have made it clear what wrong the Government had done, but had heard no well-grounded complaints. Dissatisfaction amongst Civil Servants had always existed, even when the Opposition in the Cape were in office. Then they had the plaintive reply that the Civil Service must be kept outside of politics. And now the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, came forward with a number of complaints, as a result of which the service was dragged into politics. The hon. member complained of the appointment of Africanders, but what did he think of Clause 157? The population complained, they appealed to the Constitution, but the Civil Service remained unilingual. The hon. member for Gape Town did not understand the difficulties which the public experienced under these conditions. The Government did its best to remove the difficulties, and now the Opposition came forward with its com plaints. The cause of the dissatisfaction amongst the officials was envy, and that had existed for a long time. Even if they had advice from heaven, they could not remove that complaint. A request was made for a Board consisting of persons who did not take part in politics, but where, he asked, would they find such men? They did not exist. The Government had done its best to appoint a good Commission, and now there was complaint of its weakness. Then why not nominate strong men? Even if the latter were appointed, the Civil Servants would not be satisfied. Most of the Civil Servants were Englishmen, though the public did not complain of that. But if the Government thought it necessary in the interest of the public to appoint other officials, then no remarks were called for. The hon. member for Cape Town had referred to many appointments, but he had not shown that the men appointed were unsatisfactory The Minister of Justice had been accused of appointing Africanders, but such appointments would merely improve the proportions between them and the English He (the speaker) felt more favourably disposed towards his English fellow-members now that he had learnt to know and understand them better. The hon. member for Cape Town could understand the Africander well enough in matters of business, but did not wish to see him in the Civil Service. The hon. member complained of the salaries which officials received, but did not pay his own employees specially high wages. The salaries paid to officials were certainly good as witness the great number of applications for Government posts. Grievances in the Civil Service existed in greater number when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was Minister. (Laughter.)

said he had gathered from the debate the ground? on which the accusations contained in the motion might be based. It appeared that racial hatred still flourished in Cape Town and when the Immigration Bill came before the House he (the speaker) would propose that such race-haters as the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, should not be admitted in the peaceful and satisfied Free State. The Opposition had assailed the Departments of Justice and Agriculture, where the greatest efforts had been made to be fair to the two languages and to carry into effect clause 137. The Dutch people stood out for the preservation of their language rights, and expected that they would be answered in Government departments in their own language. When they came to see Ministers they were sometimes received by English-speaking private secretaries, and that must be altered. He was there to speak in the name of the Free State, and he could say that the Free State had full confidence in the Government and in the Minister of Justice. (Hear, hear.) Two legal members of the House had stated yesterday that the Government had failed to disprove two of the complaints, but it was the duty of the speakers in the first place to prove their allegations. There was much dissatisfaction, it had been said, amongst Cape officials, but that was caused by the fact that the Cape Civil Service had not been put in order before the bringing about of Union. It had been urged that a new Commission should be appointed, but he could see no reason for it. Complaints had also been made about the appointments, but the Government must seek out the best men for the service. When officials were dismissed owing to the need for economy, petitions were sent around and dissatisfaction was created everywhere. The hon. member for Ladismith had referred to the dissatisfaction which existed amongst officials, but that was not the proper way to remove the trouble. They should go to the Ministers, explain their grievances and try to get them removed. The Leader of the Opposition had stated that he was overwhelmed with correspondence from Civil Servants over alleged grievances, which showed that the men were disloyal to the Government. (Hear, hear.) Neither the motion itself nor the speeches which had been delivered were in the true interest of their officials. As to the complaints which had been made of the dismissal of officials, that was to be foreseen in the bringing about of Union, and the alleged dissatisfaction existed only in the Cape Province and in neither of the other Provinces.

said that the shots of the Opposition had been blank shots, and had had no effect on them (the Ministerial side). The Government had given the Opposition every opportunity to speak their minds, but what happened? They lay low. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said: A year ago the favourite party cry of the Opposition in South Africa was the education question—(Ministerial “Hear, hears”)—not because education was desired —(hear, hear)—emphatically no ; because, as a matter of fact, in the Orange Free State the Education Act, about which they were making such a fuss, was being carried out, and those who wanted education could have it ; but because it was a good party cry ; and regardless of the fact that the children were suffering under it, that cry was uttered. It was a good racial cry, and that was why they trotted this out. At Bloemfontein, we were so beautifully told by them, General Botha had collared and scotched General Hertzog ; but we knew that there was to be no peace in the land ; and they very soon looked round for something new with which to make a racial attack. (Opposition dissent.) The education bogey was scotched ; and immediately after, there was to be a new party cry. We know now what that new party cry is. I am quite prepared to believe—and I am sure every hon. member on this side of the House does—that the right hon. leader of the Opposition has no desire that this should be turned into a party question. He said himself that it was not a motion of no-confidence—we doubt that—but went on to say that he had been away, and was not quite au fait with the subject in South Africa. I do believe that if he had known what his lieutenants meant to do with the motion—knowing him as we do—that he would not have lent himself to the motion. This new racial cry has been chosen with a considerable amount of ingenuity. In the first place, most men in the Civil Service are English-speaking, and as the Government is commonly called a Dutch Government, it may be a very good party cry to bring this out at the present time. In the second place, it was very ingenious ; as there is, in the very nature of things, bound to be discontent in the Civil Service ; there is bound to be discontent, and there has been for the past twelve years—ever since the Crow* Colony Government and the Military Government turned out Civil Servants. (Ministerial cheers.) We had plenty of discontent in the Orange Free State, but we did not go crying about the country or going to our members of Parliament—such members as we had. (Laughter.) We might, at least, have expected in this time of re-organisation, when the difficulties are already so great, that at least this question might have been left out of the arena of party politics at the present moment. We know that there is discontent because we had to dismiss certain Civil Servants, and we could not go on under Union with four Secretaries of the Agricultural Department, for example, where we needed only one, or four heads of every department ; and those who had to go thought themselves as good men as those who remained, if not better. (Laughter.) Some heads of departments were made juniors, or were certainly no longer heads of departments, and were naturally discontented. Then there was the case of a man occupying an important position in the Cape Province, having his home established there and all he esteems and holds dear there ; and has to go to Pretoria or Bloemfontein—and, of course, he is discontented. What we complain of is not owing to that, but the Opposition making a stalking-horse of it—not as a vote of no-confidence in the Government, but deliberately keeping alive that racial spirit. Proceeding, Mr. Fichardt said that in the third place, they on the Government side of the House felt that the motion was almost devilish in its ingenuity, because it afforded an opportunity of striking through the Civil Service at the Minister of Justice—(hear, hear)—who had been attacked from the other side on the education question, and the greater part of the present attack was also against him. If the Opposition expected that these persistent attacks on the Minister of Justice were going to estrange their loyalty to him, the Opposition was very much mistaken. (Ministerial cheers.) Indeed, they felt that such unjustifiable attacks made them all the firmer in their determination to stand by a man whose only sin was that he had tried to secure rights for the Dutch-speaking South Africans that the English-speaking South Africans had enjoyed so long. (Hear, hear.) They deeply resented the reference made by the leader of the Opposition to a recent case ; that reference, if it was nothing else, was at least graceless. (An HON. MEMBER: It was deserved.) He (Mr. Fichardt) did not think he had ever heard a more disgraceful speech than that delivered on the previous day by the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger). (Ministerial cheers.) If he (Mr. Fichardt) had made a speech like that, he would have felt that he had done a cowardly thing. (Ministerial cheers.) To blindfold a man and tie his hands, and then to bowl him out, was not cricket. He would like to refer to one of the cases to which the hon. member for Cape Town had made reference on the previous day that of Mr. Roos. He (Mr. Fichardt) did not know that gentleman, but he bad taken some trouble since the previous day to look into the Koelkamers case. He would ask the hon. member for Cape Town to look into the case himself, and then either honourably to withdraw what he had said or to repeat it outside the House. (Ministerial cheers.) The man attacked was wholly unable to defend himself, but once somebody had tried to attack him outside, and they knew the result.

What did the Chief Justice of the Transvaal say?

He said that action ought to be taken against another man, but that did not in any way condemn the man who brought the action. What is the sum of the charges made by the hon. member for Cape Town against the Government? Simply this, that in the Civil Service had recently been admitted men—and even ladies—with Dutch names. (Opposition cries of “No.”) We on this side of the House has as much right to ask for consideration of Dutch-speaking South Africans as those on the other side have to ask it for English-speaking South Africans, and we mean to do it. (Ministerial cheers.) We go further, and say that in a country where 60 per cent. of the population are Dutchspeaking, and where 85 per cent, of the service consists of English-speaking people, it is our duty, as representing the Dutch-speaking section, to demand that these Dutch-speaking South Africans should have their just rights, and it will take a lot more than Alexanderisms or racial Jaggerisms to persuade us that this is not a fair position. (Ministerial cheers.) Does the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who made that delicate allusion to the honesty and integrity of the Transvaal and Free State Ministers, expect us * to believe that the reputations of the Prime Minister and Minister of Lands are not every bit as good as his? We believe that their private and public reputations are as good as those of any man in South Africa. The insinuation that they were dishonourable and dishonest is resented by those of us who come from the Northern States. To speak of them as being guilty of jobbery, bribery, and corruption is—if I may give it a name —Billingsgate. Proceeding, Mr. Fichardt said he sincerely hoped the motion would not be supported, for they believed it was conceived in racialism, born in racialism, and in racialism it would live and die. He would take the case of Snyman. He was a magistrate in the O.F.S. before the war. After the occupation by the British he was fired out of the service and was practically on the point of starvation. His post was filled by a captain with an English name—although he (Mr. Fichardt) had no objection to that—and Snyman was left to starve. When Responsible Government came back, a vacancy was found for him as a Court interpreter, and now he had been given a junior magistracy in the Transvaal. And the hon. member for Cape Town called that jobbery and corruption. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said that racialism had not been introduced into his business. He went up to the interior and was not above putting “Goed Koop Winkel” over his stores. (Ministerial laughter.) He did not believe that the hon. member for a moment expected that this motion would be carried through the House or that the leader of the Opposition knew the direction it was taking. The idea on the other side of the House was that, having made a fuss, having caused a stir, and having played a game of bluff, Ministers would, when a Dutch-speaking South African came forward, not appoint such a man. That was the sort of flame that had been blown up for the purpose of frightening Ministers. They did not know the Ministers. After the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town there must have been an ominous premonition in the mind of the leader of the Opposition when he called his party an unfortunate party. If they (the Government) had followed precedent they would have turned out men with English names when they came into office. But they were much too wise, because they had the interests of South Africa at heart with the idea of making South Africa a great South Africa for all South Africans. (Ministerial cheers.) They were determined, without doing injustice to anybody, to see that the Dutch-speaking South African had as much right as the English-speaking South African, and no recommendations of any Commission were going to make any difference unless that was laid down as a principle. The hon. member for Liesbeek wanted a Commission that would command confidence. Whose confidence? If they had to rely on the Opposition and had to wait for a Commission they would wait until the crack of doom. Then it was said that the Commission must have the confidence of the Civil Service. He had not heard a Civil Servant say that it lacked that confidence. Then it was said that it had not got the public confidence. Well, he had not heard one of his constituent say anything to the contrary. It all came from Cape Town. Strip that away, and they would find that the Commission had the confidence of the country. He could not understand the hon. member for Liesbeek, who took exception to the action of the Government in not accepting the report of the Commission. Was the Commission to usurp the functions of the Government? If the Government had carried out the proposals letter for letter and figure for figure, the hon. member for Cape Town Central would have been the first to make a fuss, because the report recommended greater expenditure. Then the hon. member for Liesbeek made a fuss because Mr. Brown resigned ; apparently every recommendation must be accepted and carried out by the Government. He could not do better than conclude by quoting an extract of a speech made by the hon. member for Liesbeek the other day. Hon. members would read Civil Servants for railway servants. It ran: “On the whole the Government’s servants had been well treated, although there might be individual grievances, and that Parliament had done its duty towards its servants, was a matter which he thought no one would dispute. But when it was a matter of administrative detail it became a question of playing up to the railway vote. (Cheers.) That, frankly, was the object of the motion. That was an undesirable thing, and if it were continued it would be greatly to the detriment of the railway servants. (Cheers.) The motion had been put forward, the Minister of Railways very truly said, as a part of a propaganda to cause discontent among the railway servants. That was the reason why they, on the Opposition side of the House believed the motion was really detrimental to the best interests of the railway men. (Hear, hear.) Let him say to the hon. members on the cross benches that this playing up to the railway vote would in the end be very detrimental, not only to the railway men but to all Government servants, because it was purely class legislation and deliberately fomented for the purpose of creating class unrest. (Hear, hear.) That was a very dangerous thing, because directly they started to foment class discontent they consolidated against them the representatives of every other class. Continuing, the hon. member said there was a majority in that House which could pass a measure disfranchising the Civil Servants of this country, as had been done in some other countries.” Well, that had apparently already been done. The Labour party started a railway propaganda, and now they had the Civil Service started by the members on the other side. He felt that in this country they had so many difficult problems that they could very well leave matters like this alone, seeing that there were so many matters for them to tackle they might drop this. He would say to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) that the only way, the only hope they had in this country of satisfactorily settling these problems was by sinking, forgetting, and never repeating such things as he had said. Unless they were prepared to co-operate ; unless they were prepared to act as one, they would be defeating the objects they had in view. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that evidently some of his friends opposite were waiting for something. (Hear, hear.) Well, considering that they were the persons accused and the hon. members sitting opposite were the accusers, one would have thought they would have followed the ordinary British methods. (Ministerial cheers.) And they would say at once exactly what they had against the Government, instead of waiting to fire some further shots at them. (Ministerial cheers.) Well, it was not his intention to take any part at all in this, but reference had been made, unfortunately, to a member of the Civil Service who happened to be in the department which was under his control, and because that reference had been made he felt it his duty to deal with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He wanted to say first of all that every one of the hon. members on his (Mr. Hull’s) side of the House cordially welcomed the tone and the manner in which his right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, presented his case to the House. (Ministerial cheers.) And he thought it was a thousand pities that the very excellent example he set was not followed by his (first lieutenant—he referred to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). He felt certain that the right hon. gentleman, the member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson) had not the slightest idea of the kind of speech that was going to succeed his speech. He felt convinced that the venomous language employed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was never suspected by the right hon. member, the leader of the Opposition. (Ministerial cheers.) Because if he had known, if he had had the least suspicion that the charges, such gross charges as were made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, his right hon. friend would have framed his motion in a totally different language. He would not have framed his resolution in the language in which it appeared on the order paper, but would have gone the whole length. If he believed the gross charges made he would not have framed his indictment against the Government in that select manner; he would not have made use of the moderate language he did, but would have charged the Government of this country with being corrupt and dishonest, because if one-tenth part of what the hon. member for Cape Town Central said was true, then not a single member on that (the Ministerial) side of the House was entitled to have a seat in that House. (Cheers.) He did not think that in the history of the Parliaments of South Africa had there at any time been so grave and so scandalous a charge—(Ministerial cheers) —made against a Government or against the honour and good name of a body of men as were made yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. But those of them who had had experience of the hon. member knew him. He (the Minister) had at times envied him his energy, and it was because of his energy that he fell into those dreadful blunders he fell into yesterday. He endeavoured to take part in every possible thing that took place in South Africa. They found that the hon. member endeavoured to take a hand—and he put his tongue into most of the things. And what was the result? It was, of course, that he must jump to conclusions at times. It was absolutely impossible for any man to make himself perfect in the various things the hon. member was engaged in. He jumped to conclusions, and unfortunately that failing of his of taking part in everything and endeavouring to be a pundit on every thing that took place in South Africa, and especially the Free State and the Transvaal, led to his blunders. He then became like a mad bullock (laughter) ; he put his head down and cocked his tail in the air—(more laughter)—and charged helter-skelter. That was what the hon. member did yesterday. He (Mr. Hull) was not going to refer to the number of gross charges which the hon. member made in connection with the appointments to the Department of the Minister of Justice. But the name was mentioned of one Civil Servant, and they were charged with “jobbery, nepotism, and racialism.” When the hon. member was asked to give some names, he proceeded to give the name of Mr. Krige, who was a brother, the hon. member said, of a Whip in that House. The charge that he made in connection with Krige was that, after Krige had been retrenched, he was given another billet, which the hon. member understood was a sinecure and a higher salary.

I did not say anything about the salary.

Is that withdrawn now?

I never said anything about that.

My ear must have deceived me, or, perhaps, the last twelve hours have made the hon. member repent.

Oh, no.

I want to say here and now that that was a gross mis-statement. Proceeding, he said that the charge that was made by the hon. member that Krige was retrenched and that he was then appointed to another billet, which was a sinecure, was absolutely and entirely wrong. (Ministerial cheers.) What were the facts?

Will you put the papers on the table?

What are the facts?

Will you put the papers on the table?

All these facts will hurt you. (Hear, hear.) He went on to say that he had never seen the Mr. Krige in question, as far as no knew. He had obtained his record of service that morning, and he found that he had been in the employ of the Government of the late Cape Colony since January 10, 1893. His duties in the Treasury in Cape Town had been that he was the clerk in charge of the. Treasury records and in charge of the register of duplicate safe keys, a very responsible position. This officer had never been retrenched, and never having been retrenched, it was impossible to give him another office winch was a sinecure. (Ministerial cheers.)

Did he get notice of retrenchment?

said that Mr. Krige, he believed, was the only officer in the Treasury who was capable of writing a letter in the Dutch language. (Ministerial cheers.) The re-organisation of the various departments had been going on since Union. In considering the re-organisation of the Treasury, the Advisory Board recommended that the officer in charge of safe keys should not be a Treasury officer, but an officer in the employ of the Public Works Department. It was merely a question of re-arrangement. If he had accepted their recommendations, the effect would have been that he would have had to send all these safe keys to the Public Works Department, who would have had to employ a new officer, if Mr. Krige was not transferred there. Mr. Krige was a fairly highly paid officer, in receipt of a salary of £390 a year. If he had retrenched him and put him on pension, he would have had to appoint another man in Mr. Krige’s place, a junior officer, to take charge of the records. It was purely a business proposition. He asked hon. members opposite whether in the circumstances he was not right in refusing to accept the recommendation of the Advisory Board and in retaining Mr. Krige? It was said that he had been guilty of nepotism, because his hon. friend the Whip was supposed to exercise some influence over him. The hon. member (Mr. Krige) had never said a word about it. He did not know that his hon. friend had a brother in the service. (Ministerial cheers.) If any charge could be made against him (the Minister), it was not a charge of appointing Dutchmen ; it was a charge of appointing Englishmen. Perhaps his hon. friend opposite would, before the debate closed, withdraw so far as Mr. Krige was concerned.

Certainly not. The facts as I stated were perfectly correct. He was retrenched ; that is the gravamen of the charge.

As I said, the charges that have been made refer mainly to the department of my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice. Proceeding, he said no doubt the Minister of Justice would deal with the case of Mr. Roos, but he wished to take the opportunity of saying that the gross charges made, not only against that gentleman but against every individual member of the Government, were of the grossest kind it was possible to make. He had taken the opportunity of refreshing his memory, so that there should be no possible mistake. What did the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, say with regard to Mr. Roos: that he was an officer in the employ of the Transvaal Government, and that he received the appointment as a reward for the dirty work which he did for the Ministers. Further, that he was a disreputable man, devoid of honour, and that no respectable firm of attorneys would take his word ; and, further, that he had been charged with grave crimes on affidavit. Members on the opposite side must either adopt these grave charges or repudiate them. He had noticed with satisfaction that the speakers who followed the member for Cape Town, Central, had not adopted these charges. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had the reputation in these parts of being a just man. If he was a fair man, he would do one of two things. He would either apologise to Mr. Roos, who, because he was a Civil Servant, was precluded from defending himself, Or if he believed the charges were true, then he ought to do what every, honourable man would do, of proving whether his words were true. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) He would remind the hon. member of what was done under similar circumstances in the House of Commons. A few years ago a certain member of that House had referred to a firm of business gentlemen connected in South Africa in coarse terms, calling them “thieves and robbers.” As members know, words uttered in that House were privileged. As soon as this gentleman had uttered these words, a member jumped up and said: “You dare not come outside this place and repeat what you have just said. If you dare not, you are a coward.” The member rose in his place and said he would take the first opportunity of meeting his constituents and repeat the charges. He did so, with the result that he was hauled before the Law Courts and made to pay heavy damages. There was an example for the Hon. member to follow.

Was he tried by a Court ?

Well, he could not prove Ms charges, and had ta pay damages. Proceeding, he said it was for the member for Cape Town to follow the one or the other course.

As he (the Minister) understood it, the gist of the charges against the Government. —apart from those made by the member for Cape Town Central—was that they had contravened three sections of the Act of Union—that they had broken sections 141 and 142 and disregarded section 143.

No. 142 we have not come to.

I want though to refer to 142, because there is some confusion with regard to sections 141 and 142. Section 141 provides for the appointment by Government as soon as possible, on the establishment of Union, of a Public Service Commission. The functions of this Commission were, to make recommendations to the Government with regard to the re-organisation and readjustment of the departments of the Public Service that might be necessary, and the Commission had also made recommendations in regard to the assignment of officers to the several Provinces. This first Commission was subjected to some criticism. That was the Commission of which Mr. Campbell was the chairman, and Mr. Brown and Mr. Hofmeyr were also members. It had been said that that Commission was a weak Commission, whereas the Commission contemplated by the Act ought to have been a strong one. As his hon. friend had said yesterday, this was a matter of opinion, but how anyone, how any lawyer on the other side could argue that because a Commission was appointed from the other side it was a weak Commission was beyond him.

They cannot do the work, so it is contrary to the spirit of the Act.

Contrary to the spirit! Well, hon. members opposite were beautifully inconsistent. One moment they said that the Commission was weak and therefore contrary to the spirit of the Act, but last night, in one of the best speeches delivered, the hon. member for Liesbeek spent a very considerable part of his time in trying to persuade the House that they made excellent recommendations to the Government.

Details!

All recommendations are details. You cannot have them en bloc. Proceeding, the Minister said that the hon. member had spent a very instructive hour in pointing out the usefulness of the recommendations made by this Commission. Yet the leader of the Opposition had said that this was a rotten, weak Commission that ought not to have been appointed. They could not have it both ways. He appreciated what fell from the lips of the right hon. member for Victoria West. After Mr. Brown, one of the members of the first Commission, resigned, the Government endeavoured to get a gentleman to take the place of the then Commissioners, and he was glad to hear his right hon. friend say that at the time the Government approached a very capable gentleman to take the post. He was sorry that after the right hon. gentleman had paid them that compliment he had not supplemented it by informing the House of the fact that when they were looking about for members to serve on the first—before they appointed Mr. Campbell and Mr. Brown—they endeavoured to get the self-same gentleman to act on the first Commission, so that this charge against the Government of appointing a weak Commission was a very feeble one. The Government had done their best to get the best men. Then the hon. member for Liesbeek said that they ought to have adopted the recommendations of this Commission in various parts. Did the hon. member know the main reason why the Government had rejected some of the recommendations of the Commission? During last session many speeches were made in that House calling attention to the enormous number of men in the Civil Service, and also calling attention to the high salaries drawn by the men in the public service. All were agreed that steps should be taken to remedy this. If members of that Commission read the reports of those speeches one would have thought it a sufficiently strong indication to them of what the temper and feeling of that House were. They made recommendations with regard to grading, salaries, and the establishments, which, if the Government had adopted, would have saddled this country with an enormous additional liability. How could the Government have adopted these recommendations? What happened? The Commissioners were told that their recommendations in regard to salaries and grades were altogether too extravagant. In the meantime the Press under the control of hon. members opposite had been girding at the Government because of the weakness of this Commission, and Mr. Brown, who belonged to the Opposition party, thought, “Here is a good opportunity for me to retire,” and he retired. Mr. Campbell had already resigned on the grounds of ill-health. Then, of course, all the hounds were let loose on the Opposition side, and now for the first time in that House they heard that the Commission was contrary to the Act of Union. Why had not they made that discovery last year? Then they were perfectly satisfied because Mr. Brown was on the Commission. Proceeding, he referred to the appointment of Mr. Stockenstrom. It had been suggested that the Government had appointed him solely because he was a good party man, and he supposed that the suggestion was made that Mr. Stockenstrom was appointed to help the supporters of the Government who desired to get into the Civil Service. He was sure that hon. members who had that idea had never thought of the subject, but the Civil Service Commission had nothing to do with the personnel, nothing to do with Mr. “A” or Mr. “B” who filled particular posts.

That is what we want them to do.

That is not what you are entitled to have them do. Proceeding, he said that he knew there was a lot of confusion in the minds of hon. members opposite. Now he saw that the leader of the Opposition was most confused of all.

The hon. member forgets that there were other people in the Convention when that clause was drafted.

I knew that you misread it, and now have to be put right. (Laughter.) Clause 142 refers to the appointment of a permanent Commission, which the right hon. member for Victoria West has referred to. As the Minister of the Interior pointed out the other day, the time for appointing that Commission has not arrived yet, and all the very excellent advice which the right hon. member gave the House this afternoon was very useful but premature, and is much better given when this House, during the present session, considers the Public Service Bill.

And all the posts have been filled!

went on to say that the only other point he wanted to deal with was that there had been an infraction of the present and of the accruing rights of the men in the Civil Service. The Minister of the Interior had said the previous afternoon—and he (Mr. Hull) wanted to repeat it—that he did not know of a single case where the accruing rights of any Civil Servant had been interfered with, and he wanted the opportunity again to say that it was not the intention of the Government to interfere, in any shape or form, with the rights which were safeguarded to them under section 144 of the Act of Union. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) had devoted a good deal of time to show that there might be a possible infraction of accruing rights to the Civil Servants of the late Cape Colony, but equally frankly had admitted that the system was an extravagant and a wasteful one, as there was apparently no limit, and any Civil Servant might go up to any scale and could not be stopped, either at £500, £1,000 or £1,500. He did not think it had ever been contemplated in the Cape that any Civil Servant should go on “for ever” like that, but it was a very thin and a very subtle point to make for the hon. member that these Civil Servants had their accruing rights interfered with. It had been said and he entirely agreed with the statement—that there was a great deal of discontent in the Civil Service. He thought everybody agreed with that, and he entirely agreed with what had been said as to that by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), because it was impossible to have it otherwise. There was also a great deal of racialism in the Public Service, and he believed that there was more racialism there than might be thought by hon. members. It was most unfortunate and most regrettable ; but it was there, and it was the duty of the Government, as well as of both sides of the House, to stop it. One did not want to go into ancient history and “pull dead cows out of the sluit,” but it was a fact that one section of the white people of South Africa had been specially preferred in a series of appointments in this country. (Cheers.) He asked any fair-minded man to examine the Civil Service lists of three of the Provinces of the Union to see that racialism was unfortunately rife amongst the public service—a most unfortunate state of affairs.

Since when? It is quite a new product—quite a new state of affairs. (Ministerial laughter.)

There is a great deal of racialism in the Cape Province also, amongst the Civil Servants.

Since when? Since you came into office?

This racialism has been produced in the Cape Province for precisely the same reasons as it has been produced in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, where, after the war, the two peoples were about equal in number. The old and very efficient Civil Servants of the old Administration were ignored in the great majority of instances, and I think I am well within the mark when I say that 80 per cent. of the appointments then made in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal were from only one race. It is the duty, not only of Ministers, but of every hon. member of the House, not to encourage, but to stop, if possible, that kind of thing, and therefore I think that the action of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) was so unfortunate yesterday ; and apparently the Civil Servants who are dissatisfied have made him the receptacle of all their grievances. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is with a feeling of re lief that I rise to address this House, because, surely, I cannot take it that the accusations which were to have substantiated the motion have all been launched. I have waited, really thinking that there must be something more, for really no man. —except, perhaps, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), who thinks evidently that he has made out an exceedingly strong case—can look upon what has been laid before this House as sufficient cause for spending one-tenth of the time that this House has been asked to spend on this motion. (Ministerial cheers.) No wonder that the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) asked what was the intention of this motion. And no wonder, sir, that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has been unable to make a reply, giving any reasonable reason which would satisfy any reasonable man. But, sir, perhaps I say a little too much. I am sure that the right hon. member for Victoria West had not referred again to the speech delivered in this House by the mover, or he would have seen what the real intention of this motion is. The right hon. gentleman said, I think, “I am bringing forward this motion as evidence that I was right.” Right in what, sir? Right in his futile coalition scheme. (Ministerial cheers.) This then, sir in the first instance, is to be a justification for an immature and amateurish scheme which the right hon. gentleman invented, and the failure of which he still resents so deeply. Not only he, but there are other members on the other side—I see the hon. member for Pretoria East is smiling. (Sir P. FITZPATRICK: “Certainly.”) He has resented it so much that immediately when he saw that no fish was to be caught by that hook, he flung out a sectional hook—he would I not own it to be a racial hook, but it was: nothing else—“Vote British.” (Ministerial i cheers.) Am I wrong?

Absolutely wrong. I never said it in my life.

I must have been very badly informed and the papers must have been very badly informed, but I shall accept the word of my hon. friend. But I ask him, has not his conduct, and the conduct of other hon. gentlemen opposite, given well-grounded reason for the inference that the first elections of the Union were to be carried out on the lines indicated by the call “Vote British”? If that inference cannot bedrawn I must be a very bad reader of the various speeches which were made during that election. But I shall come back to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. He has ever since that time resented his failure.

On public grounds.

No, for far other grounds. Let us take the conduct of the right hon. member for Albany. The right hon. member poses to-day as the man who if his advice had been followed, would have inaugurated a new era in political life in South Africa. Is that so? Was the right hon. gentleman sincere when he originally proposed that coalition scheme —was it proposed to prevent in future any racialism as between the two sections of the community, or was it for ulterior objects?

Ask the Prime Minister.

I shall be answered in the conduct of the leader of the Opposition. What did he do? Four Provinces had just come into Union, and one would have thought that any person sincerely desiring to accomplish that object of racial unification would have consulten the feelings of the Orange Free State, 95 per cent. of the inhabitants of which are Dutch-speaking.

Do you know that the representatives of that Colony were consulted?

What did he do? I speak of facts. Because, sir, those who did represent that Province, those who rightly or wrongly were the practical men, and were the representatives of that colony, were passed by, and the consultation was held with a leader of a section of that colony, who represented nobody except a little more than the half of Bloemfontein.

I thought the ex-President represented the whole of the colony. He was the person consulted.

The President?

The ex-President.

Let me say this, that if the right hon. member for Albany means that the President was consulted when he tried to put into operation his idea then he is absolutely wrong.

And I deny that absolutely.

But we shall leave that for a minute. (Opposition laughter.) Who were the active repesentatives of that colony at the time? Did the right hon. gentleman consult any public active representatives of that colony at the time? No! He had followed the course of consulting with a section of the community which was in harmony with the policy of the Opposition. (Hear, hear.)

And the ex-President.

That, sir, was the extent to which the hon. the leader of the Opposition tried to consolidate the two races in South Africa. Then, sir, he resented it when, with my right hon. friend the member for Victoria West, I took the first opportunity to warn the people of South Africa against the insincerity of the attempt that wag being made. (Ministerial cheers.) That is all of the past. Let me ask whether, besides his desire of justifying his attempt, which failed in the past, there is any other reason for introducing this motion? I shall quote from the hon. gentleman. He said that in future the most able men on that side and the most able men on this side of the House should undertake the Government, irrespective of party distinction. But, sir, is this the old coalition idea or not? Is it being brought to life again? Is it being resurrected? It seems so. The indications across the Vaal are clear as to what the future is to be. From yesterday the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, will be noted in the history of South Africa as the racialist par excellence in South Africa. My hon. friend the member for Cape Town smiles. I assure him I am very sorry for what is still to come for him. Now it is clear what the whole motion means. I Had thought I was coming in naturally for a bit of the accusations which were going to be raised against this rotten Government. But, sir, I did not think I was a person of such great importance as the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has made out I am. The whole debate appears to be a debate centering on me personally and the head of my department. In the first instance, the right hon. the leader of the Opposition saw he could not get coalition in South Africa unless be first demolished the Minister of Justice. (Government laughter.) The right hon. gentleman saw that for the future prospects of success he would have to do that first. In order to facilitiate that achievement and gain that object, I think I have the right, after what has taken place, to say this debate was instituted, and for no other purpose. (Ministerial cheers.) The whole debate has shown that, except for one small case, referred to in the Department of Finance, and one insignificant case in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice has been made responsible for all the misdeeds of the Union. Sir, the Department has been said by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, to be in a state of muddle, of chaos, to be seething with nepotism, bribery, corruption, and racialism. I can’t possibly say whether, after what I have listened to in this House today, the hon. gentleman will do what I think would be the honourable course—when he finds that he has furnished this House with nothing but misstatements, and that his imputations so far as I am concerned are false—I can’t say that to-day he will follow that course and apologise. But I hope the hon. member, if he is by nature what he is entitled to style himself by law, will do it.

But before I go over to that, let me clear the decks, and let me say this: amongst the many wild, irresponsible, groundless charges which have been made in this House, there is this, that the Minister of Justice does not attend to the work of his office ; that he leaves the responsibility of the work to the head of his department.

That’s true.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) says that is true. May I ask on what ground the hon. member for Fort Beaufort says that? May I ask the hon. member for Fort Beaufort whether all his assertions of fact are based upon such grounds?

I don’t know—

Was I wrong?

I don’t know what you are talking about.

I said it.

I apologise to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Somebody did at any rate interject it. Perhaps it is the hon. member for Liesbeek.

Yes.

I am very glad. I believe he is a lawyer. I heard him yesterday lay down a principle of defence and attack which really I think would not tell very much for the hon. member’s practice outside, if he were to try and put it into practice. But let me ask him what are his grounds for this statement? No, sir ; let me tell the hon. gentleman this, that as far as the work of my office is concerned there is absolutely nothing that goes from that office of any importance which does not go through or which is not submitted to me, and that there is nothing in that office of any importance for which I am not responsible and do not take responsibility. (Ministerial cheers.)

Of course, you are responsible.

By saying so I am hot merely alluding to the ordinary formal responsibility, but I say this, I am responsible because I do look into and supervise every matter. Every matter is submitted to me, and nothing is done without my sanction. (Cheers.) That is my responsibility.

I said you did.

The hon. members have tried to fling about these accusations in order that they might get a better opportunity of bringing home their false charges—I would almost, but shall not go further—to bring home their false charges against a defenceless man, who, they know, cannot possibly defend himself.

What about his subordinates?

But I am here. I am the responsible person. I have been responsible for every particular fact that has been laid before this House, and I do take the responsibility and shall answer for it. (Ministerial cheers.) Another thing. The hon. gentlemen have spoken about the accessibility of the Ministers. I fully agree with the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). I consider that that is one of the most important of ordinary routine work of Ministers, to give audience to each and every man who desires so. I challenge the hon. member for Liesbeek or the hon. member for Cape Town Central to produce five men in the Union out of all the many, and many thousands, I have had to give audience to, to whom I have refused access—(Ministerial cheers)—or to whom my secretary has refused access. (Ministerial cheers.) So that if again the hon. members tried to shield their attack behind the inaccessibility of Ministers, they may know that not one single man in the service has ever asked to see me on any point to whom it has been refused. (Ministerial cheers.)

I have not said that.

No, sir ; but it was implied. All the worse. (Ministerial cheers.) When it was asked why did not Mr. Cormack approach me if he found his relationship with Mr. Roos so strained that it was intolerable, I say —

On a point of personal explanation. I know I am reported in the paper this morning as having said that the Ministers were inaccessible, but I never said anything of the kind, and made no imputations of that nature. If I did say it, I never intended to. The reason why Mr. Cormack did not approach the Minister, was one I did not attempt to explain, and would not.

Well, I merely want to make plain my position in that office, and if there is anything wrong, then I am the man who is responsible, and when charges are levelled against the head of the department on such a flimsy pretext as the inaccessibility of Ministers, and that he does not attend to his work —

That I did say.

And I hope the hon. member will admit that he was wrong in what he said ; at any rate I feel that I have the right to expect from him that he will apologise or express his regret for having said what was not true. The hon. member said yesterday I did not know, because I do not attend to my work. No, sir ; I repeat I did not know what was alleged by the hon. member, because what was alleged was not true. (Ministerial cheers.) Now, sir, I shall first deal with the hon. member for Cape Town. But before doing so, let me say this, that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition cannot escape that for which the hon. member for Cape Town will be held responsible to public opinion when this debate is ended. (Ministerial cheers.)

The right hon. gentleman has made, as he said to this House, general complaints. He formulated four general charges, and he was going to leave it, he said, to his lieutenants to prove these charges correct. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman has, like the old, historic, classical Don Quixote, started on an errand, and he appointed his faithful servant, the member for Cape Town, Central, eventually, if not to be his governor, at any rate to fill the more or less ambitious office of being the principal lieutenant who was to prove his general charges. I will now proceed to these general charges. (VOICES: “Move the adjournment ; it’s six o’clock.”) Already when the right hon. the leader of the Opposition spoke there came the echo—chaos—and then when his faithful servant appeared on the scene it was muddle and dhaos ; it was racialism, nepotism, jobbery, and bribery.

I never mentioned the word bribery.

It was not reported, I must say, in the paper, but I took it down yesterday. However, I am prepared to dispense with that. I am repeating these charges because, in the first place, they were levelled against the Department of Justice especially, in fact that was the only sinner to his mind, and it was due to the incapacity of the Minister that it was so. I thank the hon. member for Cape Town Central for that. I thank him even for not having gone so far as to accept the courteous manner in which the right hon. the leader of the Opposition put it I want no alms from the hon. member for Cape Town Central, as I want no alms from anybody. I ask the hon. member to point out to me either racialism, nepotism, or jobbery, and I shall ask him eventually where the muddle is, where the chaos is. The first case the hon. member referred to was that of Reitz, young Reitz, an attorney, who had passed his necessary examinations, and who had been appointed to act as magistrate’s clerk—third-class clerk—at the royal and princely salary of £15 per month. It was one of the objects all along of the Department, and is to-day, that these men shall go through the course, and eventually become magistrates and assistant magistrates, that there shall be in these offices men, in the first place, who, when the magistrate or assistant magistrate is absent, can take his place and sit on the Bench, and I might tell my hon. friend that if he goes to the records, he will find that, as regards magistrates in the Union, it is much if a magistrate sits ten hours a month. For the rest, his clerks do all the work. Quite wrong, but, unfortunately, it is so. I might tell my hon. friend that I am taking every step to rectify that. But it is so, and you require men who can do the necessary work in that office. Mr. Reitz was appointed, as I have said, at a salary of £15.

A new appointment?

Certainly.

From outside?

Certainly.

Under what law?

Have any hon. members any facts to produce to this House to prove that it was unnecessary to appoint a man from outside?

Yes, I see you reduced the clerks in the magistrates’ offices from 45 to 25.

I may inform the hon. member that, although there are 72 vacancies in my department altogether, there will not be more than 36 redundancies, and the hon. member seems to think that if you have a redundant officer, you can put him into any hole. (Hear, hear.) He forgets that you have to do with technical men in the first place; he forgets that the men you have may draw large salaries, and could not possibly be employed in lower positions. Let me tell the hon. member that this appointment was made on the advice of the Public Service Committee. The attack which has been made would never have been made if Mr. Roos had been any other but of Dutch nationality. In order that hon. members might understand the position the better, it should be remembered that the Transvaal, like the Cape Law, demands the requisite knowledge of Dutch for a man to be appointed to such a position as Mr. Reitz was appointed to. Does the hon. member for Cape Town know whether it was possible to have appointed a gentleman, or a clerk, in that office who knew Dutch sufficiently? He surely, before making his attack upon this man, should have made every possible inquiry, in order to know for what reason he was appointed.

It was your appointment.

Yes, I appointed him.

Was he recommended by the Public Service Commission?

The hon. member has admitted that Mr. Reitz was not a supporter of the Government, nor was he a political follower of the Government. Was this a jobbery appointment? Was it racialism?

Well, sir, I come to the second case, that of Mr. Van Diggelen. He was in the service of the late South African Republic, and was the Public Prosecutor at Boksburg, receiving a salary of £400, when the British came into the Transvaal. After the war he was appointed by the Crown Government to a position at Volksrust. Then, in 1904, he received another appointment, but was afterwards retrenched. There was absolutely nothing against him. In 1909, on representations to the Attorney-General, he was employed at 12s. 6d. per day. This was subsequently confirmed in June, 1909, at a fixed salary of £180—again on the advice of the Public Service Committee. After Union, the matter being submitted to me, I advised that he be appointed Public Prosecutor at a salary of £360, or less than he was receiving before the war. Now, sir, let me ask for a moment: Where is the generosity of hon. members opposite? (Ministerial cheers.) Here was a faithful official of the old Republic, who was ousted from service by the British Administration. Was it that he was in receipt of £180 and was then advanced to a position where he was in the enjoyment of £360 that their sense of generosity had been offended? (Laughter.) There was no question of generosity connected with the appointment at all. This man was not outside the service, but was in it, and was promoted in the ordinary course of events. Now will the hon. member for Cape Town tell us what grounds he has for stating that this man has been promoted over the heads of others capable of filling the position. It is one of those unfounded statements that he makes before this House. (Ministerial cheers.)

Proceeding, the hon. Minister said: On going through the Civil Service in the Transvaal, I find there is a small country town, with hardly any English population except shopkeepers, where the magisterial staff and nine out of ten of the police cannot speak Dutch. In another place where there is a Dutch population, the Magistrate does not know anything of Dutch, and the only man who speaks it acts as the interpreter, and he has a split palate. (Laughter.) This is in a place where there are not ten English people in the village. The Civil Service in the Union, as it is to-day, is everywhere, without exception, to the detriment of the Dutch. Now I come to what I wish to tell my hon. friend, and it is this, that whether he approves of it or no, I am determined, in the first place, that I shall not place any responsible person, whether he be a clerk or a magistrate, in these places where Dutch is requisite, who does not know Dutch. (Ministerial cheers. )

How about the Act of Union?

How about the Act of Union! That is, sir, what the Act of Union demands. (Ministerial cheers.) Sir, I have discovered that in the last few days which I never hope to discover again that the hon. member for Cape Town Central is really the very essence of bitterness against the Dutch in South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.) I should have been the last man to say a word against the hon. member for whom, from the first day, I conceived more than a liking. But I have been disappointed and I cannot help giving expression to what I feel after what I have noticed in this House. Another point! I have, sir, laid down, rightly or wrongly again, that it is the first duty of any man in South Africa, any Government, or any responsible Minister, that these people who have been thrown out of the service through the misfortunes of war, where they are capable and they can be obtained they shall not only if opportunity arises be reinstated in the service from which they have been driven out, but they should, as far as is consistent with their capabilities and services in the past, have their services counted, at any rate to some extent, in their favour, and not placed merely on the same level as the juniors.

We made provision in the Transvaal Parliament for them. We made provision for all the old officials.

In the Free State also.

The provision was introduced by your hon. friend.

That law, and that provision! Really, I don’t know whether my hon. friend knows that it was carried, or rather put through, against the wishes and to the extreme detriment of the old servants in the Transvaal. (Ministerial cheers.) And that was done by the Government simply because at the time they felt what is being felt to-day, that full justice could hardly be done to these men.

It was by consent, on both sides of the House.

I shall be very sorry if I do, or say, anything against my hon. friend or his party in respect to this matter, but let me really say this: that numbers of these men really did not want what was thrown to them as a little bone after what they had suffered. I ask my hon. friend: Does he really mean to say that the pittances which had been laid down, of £50, £60, £100, a year—were they to be satisfied with that? For the rest of their lives to be ousted and kept out of the Public Service? Surely, even in spite of the provisions of that law, I should still say that there ought to be some generosity—(Ministerial “Hear, hears”)—and I must say that I maintained, and still maintain, that these men, if they were capable, should have justice done them ; and I am positive that the public of South Africa—whether Dutch or English-speaking—will endorse it. (Cheers.) I now come to the third case, that of Ten Bergen, who had been in the service of the South African Republic from July 29, 1889. He was a magistrate in Swaziland and was drawing a salary of £700 per annum when the war broke out. He was appointed by the Government as first clerk with a dormant commission at Middelburg at a salary of £860 per annum. Here, again, we had to do with a faithful and competent servant—(Ministerial “Hear, hears”)—and it was necessary that a man should be appointed who could take charge of the office of magistrate of that town, and it was to be a man who knew Dutch and who had the other necessary qualifications, according to law. Why this charge of jobbery and racialism against the appointment? Does the hon. gentleman know how many Civil Servants there are to-day in the service of the Transvaal who do not know Dutch? Does he know how difficult it is to fill these posts according to law, which requires a requisite knowledge of Dutch? Before he could level the charge as he has done, did he make any inquiries as to whether another man with the necessary qualifications could have been put there as a redundant man? Could he? No, sir. He knows nothing about it. (Ministerial “Hear, hears.”) And no matter how the exigencies of the country may demand it, because it is a Dutchspeaking man, or rather, one with a Dutch name, who is appointed—(Ministerial cheers) this attack of jobbery and nepotism and the like must be made. We come next to the case of Smit, who is an advocate of the High Court. It had been laid down in the Transvaal by the Department of Justice prior to union, that in order to get a good class of magistrate, young barristers would be assisted to come in and go through the Service ; get the necessary experience, and so rise to be magistrates. Smit was appointed by my predecessor. He was acting as principal clerk when Union took place—acting most of the time as a magistrate at Pietersburg with a salary rising from £450 to £550 a year. When the Klerksdorp magistracy fell vacant through the promotion of the magistrate to some other place, I decided that this man was the most suitable person to fill that post. (An. HON. MEMBER: Move the adjournment.) He was appointed in Novemmagistrate at Pietersburg, with a salary £650. The charge is that he was appointed over the head of another person. Is that Anything new in the service? I can produce a list which will show that numbers of men are holding positions as magistrates who are five, ten and more years senior to men holding positions almost twice as important as theirs. It is justified in the correspondence in the Cape Department, and quite rightly justified, because you have to be very careful when you appoint a man to the position of a magistrate that he is a capable man. (Ministerial cheers.) Before the hon. member for Cape Town can say that this is a case of jobbery, surely he ought to have satisfied himself that there were others more competent to take that position. And after all, who is to be the judge in cases of this kind? Often, if he were in my position, he would have to exercise the same discretion, but surely it is most petty every time anything of that kind is done to come and say “Jobbery, racialism,” and I don’t know what more. Did the hon. member want me to appoint at Klerksdorp a man with an English name who did not know Dutch? He will have to satisfy the country and this House that in making that appointment I had passed by another man who knew Dutch and who should have had that position. (Ministerial cheers.) There are many who say they know Dutch. If the English of an ordinary messenger were as bad as their Dutch the hon. member for Cape Town Central would be the first to come to this House and ask that he should be driven away. Now we come to the case of Scheepers. Scheepers, as has been pointed out by the hon. member, is a brother-in-law of the secretary of the department. Scheepers is a brother-in-law. But what is the difference between Scheepers being a servant of the Colony here, and being a servant of the Union across the Vaal also as a teacher? (Hear, hear.) Sir, the man who first held the position now occupied by Mr. Scheepers was a man with a Dutch name—Bester. I, sir, had Bester discharged out of the service. I had to appoint another man in the place of Bester. The man had to know Dutch. I had Mr. Scheepers come and see me and have a talk with me—as I had with others—to see if he was the man required for the particular work. Mr. Scheepers came and saw me. I spoke to him. I found Mr. Scheepers to be the most eligible of the candidates. I appointed him to the position ; and let me tell my hon. friend in the first place that he has nothing to do with me whatever. The fact that I put one Dutchman out to appoint another Dutchman is no proof of racialism. Where is the jobbery? Has Mr. Scheepers not got a fight to the position? If he has the qualifications why should he not be appointed to the position? And let me tell the hon. gentleman that one of the first things Mr. Roos did when I asked to see Mr. Scheepers was to inform me of the relationship between him and Scheepers. He said that if this man were appointed that they might say he was related to him. I said that I took the responsibility. I said that I did not care what he was to him ; if he was fit for the position I would appoint him. He moved the adjournment of the debate until Monday.

Agreed to.