from F. H. P. Moncrieff, South African Railways.

from E. A. M. de Marillac, who owned a brewery at Pretoria, which he alleges was seized by order of the Landdrost, and destroyed by other inhabitants, praying for compensation.

Government Notices and Regulations, Department of Interior, relating to Public Cemetery, Aliwal North.

Amended details under Vote No. 19 (Prisons and Reformatories), Estimates of Expenditure, 1912-13.

These amendments were referred to the Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the papers and correspondence in connection with the agreement entered into with Mr. Henry Horace Wright, for the purchase, of Government scrap metal, laid upon the table of the House on the 20th and 21st March, j respectively, be referred to the Select Committee on Scrap Iron Agreement.

seconded.

Agreed to.

with leave, asked the Minister of Finance whether the statement contained in the “Cape Times” of yesterday’s date, to the effect that the wireless station at Durban is useless between the hours of one o’clock a.m. and six o’clock a.m., is correct, and, if so, whether the Government will take immediate steps to rectify this condition of affairs in the interests of shipping?

said he was informed that this statement was incorrect. The station was in perfect telephonic communication with the Durban Telephone Exchange at any time of the day or night, and was able to convey at once to the port captain any notification of a vessel in distress. (Cheers.)

thought that the debate that had taken place on the second reading of the Bill did credit to the Parliament of the Union. The wish, expressed by him in moving the second reading that the criticism should be of a helpful nature had been thoroughly realised. The hon. member for Pretoria East had described the debate as a struggle between the head and the heart. Both the head and the heart had spoken in their due proportions. It was very easy in a matter of this kind to let sentiment rule, but the House had realised the difficulties of the position, and some valuable suggestions had been made in connection with getting a final solution of the problem. (Hear, hear.) He wished to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Germiston in regard to certain inaccuracies in the report. The report had been printed at high pressure, as they had been anxious to have it before the House as soon as possible, and it appeared there were some printer’s errors. With the exception of one or two in the tables, these errors did not materially affect the report. One point that had been urged against the Bill was that it did not make sufficient provision for the prevention of the disease in the future. He did not think that they could do very much more than they proposed under clause 25. In the Mines and Works Act, passed last year, they had full power to make regulations, and as their knowledge of the disease and of the best way to deal with it increased these regulations would be stiffened up. As a matter of fact, those of 1911 showed a considerable advance on the previous regulations in this respect. But hitherto the best way of combating the disease had not been ascertained. Clause 25 made provision for the appropriation of moneys to cover the expenditure incurred in investigation. As he had stated, the Commission that had started work some weeks ago had divided itself into three sub-committees, and as soon as their recommendations were received they would be acted upon by the Government. He understood that some money would have to be expended to give full effect to the new regulations. One of the criticisms raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Germiston, and others, including hon. members on the cross-benches, was that the contribution by the men was not graded according to their salaries. He could say, in reply, that the benefits that would be received were the same all round. Whether a man was paid 15s. or 30s., he got the full benefit of £8 per month. It had been found very difficult to grade the men, and to keep a record of them as they moved from one mine to another and from one employment to another. A man entered a mine with a wage of, say, 6s. or 8s. a day; in a very few months he earned 10s. or 12s., and before the end of the year he earned 15s. So that to grade the men and keep a record of them would require an administrative staff disproportionate to the benefit that would be derived. This question had been carefully considered before they introduced the Bill, and in view of the criticism raised on the point, he thought it a matter for consideration in the Select Committee, the appointment of which he hoped to move later on, that some relief should be given to the men receiving a lower wage. If a man were asked to contribute one day’s pay each month that was an ideal to work up to and might offer some guide. The question would then arise, who was to make up the difference between what the man contributed and the 15s. for which he was responsible under the Bill? That point could be considered by the Select Committee. Another criticism was that the mines were not graded, and it had been suggested, more particularly by the hon. member for Germiston, that the mines should be graded according to the amount of dust suspended in the atmosphere of the mine. That also was a question that had been very carefully considered, and he was informed that at present it was impossible to lay down any standard. They did not know at what stage the dust became injurious to health in the mines. An investigation on this point was being carried on at the present moment, and it was hoped that they would obtain some idea as to the relation of the amount of dust in the air and the injurious effect on the lungs of the men.

Until the investigations had gone a great deal further he was afraid that it would be impossible to deal with this matter in the present measure. He did think, however, that the Bill provided for pressure being brought to bear on the mines, for, under clause 7, if it was found by the Actuary in making up the fund that the amount of contribution required from the mineowners and the men would be less the levy would, of course, be proportionately reduced. With regard to preventive measures, he pointed out that the good mines would bring pressure to bear on the other mines, so that gradually they would also reap the benefit. The principle of the Bill was to deal with the industry as a whole and work on the principle of average instead of on individual mines. That might be considered if their investigations led to the practical solution of the difficulty, but under the scheme of the present it would not be practicable. Another point that had been raised was the question dealing with the accumulated cases, and it had been argued—and he thought had been argued with a great deal of weight—that the men who were working on the mines at the present time should not be asked to pay compensation to the dependants of those who had left the mines, or who would work in the mines for another couple of years. Several suggestions for dealing with this question had been put forward. One had been brought forward by the right hon. member for Victoria West, and he suggested that all the employees, whether working underground or above ground, whether working in the field or in the offices, should contribute. It had been pointed out with a great deal of force that if that suggestion were adopted the principle would have to be extended, and result in a contribution from the State. He did not think that the suggestion would commend itself to the House; but he thought it was a matter that might be considered by the Select Committee. Another suggestion was that the bewaarplaatsen money should be used for the purpose. Well, then, the question was whether they would use the disputed half or the Government half.

The Government half.

said he understood from the right hon. gentleman that he referred to the disputed half of the money. On the other hand, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, suggested that the Government half of the money should be utilised. Well, until Parliament had an opportunity of settling this vexed question of the bewaarplaatsen he thought it would be unwise to allocate the money for the suggested purpose. He thought that this question of dealing with the accumulated cases of the past was responsible for the serious criticism which had been directed against the Bill, and he thought that the Select Committee would take this matter into very serious consideration. Then there was the question of compulsory inspection of the mines. He must say he was rather surprised at what had been said by the hon. members for Fordsburg, Yeoville, and Germiston on this subject. They said they favoured such a scheme. His opinion was that if they put such a scheme into force it would give rise to a great deal of objection. He was advised that if such were done a large number of the men would be cleared out of the mines on the first examination, and that this would be considered a hardship on the men, the second was that it would leave the mines short of skilled workers, and the third was that the fund would be overburdened. The result would be that instead of requiring half a million of money to deal with the cases they would require a million and a half to deal with all the cases. These were practical reasons which he thought should receive consideration from the House. In moving the second reading of the Bill he said that if they found after this Bill had passed that the number of cases diminished considerably owing to supervision and the application of better preventive measures, then this was a matter that would be considered. If, on the other hand, the men, through their representatives, and the mine owners were prepared to face the objectionable features of the inspection, he did not think they would find that the Government would stand in the way. A good deal had also been said about tuberculosis in connection with this disease. He would like to draw the attention of the House to the finding of the Queensland Commission, and he did so because it carried out the finding of the Medical Commission, whose report the House had been discussing. The Queensland report stated that only the minority of cases were contracted underground, and that the majority of cases were contracted above ground. Therefore it was mainly when the men were above ground that they contracted tuberculosis. He did not think that that side of the case should hinder them in dealing with silicosis underground. As regarded the fund, the hon. member for Fordsburg had suggested that there should be two—a compensation fund and an insurance fund. He argued on the ground that the men who were at present on the mines could not be asked to contribute to the compensation to be paid those who had left the mines or were in the advanced stages of the disease. With regard to the “A” fund it would amount to this, that instead of asking the mine owners to contribute 75 per cent., they would be asked to contribute 100 per cent.

And the contributions which the men had to pay during the first two years would go to the B fund, so that for the first two years the A fund would deal with all existing oases, whereas the B fund would continue for new cases coming after that, and the miner will then get the benefit of it: and all serious cases that had been dealt with under the A fund, and the amount that would be contributed to the B fund would be proportionately reduced. It was only to tide them over the first two years that this suggestion had been made. Another suggestion was that the Government should contribute towards the A fund. He had listened very carefully to the argument; but had to confess that he had not been convinced. The strongest argument was that the Government had neglected its duty in the past. (Hear, hear.) But he thought he had proved that that charge could not be laid at the doors of the Government because the Government did not know—(an HON. MEMBER: “Question”)—and the mine owners did not know. The latter would certainly have known better than the Government, and if they were going to throw the responsibility on them after three years, why not throw it on them to-day. There had been no neglect on the part of the mine owners, and he had not been able to find any neglect on the part of the Government, for the simple reason that the character of the disease, how it arose, and what its effect was on the men, was not known. It was only comparatively recently that they had any general knowledge of it, and it would still take some considerable time before they had full knowledge of the disease. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. P. Duncan) also suggested, and in that he was strongly supported by the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick), that the basis of the contributions by the men was not a sound one, namely: per capita of the white men employed underground; and his argument was a serious one: that it would tend to reduce the number of white men employed in the mines. To that, his (the Minister’s) first reply was that he could not conceive any Bill dealing with this question not having that effect. Whatever they did, an additional burden was placed on the industry, as regarded the white men who were employed, and if the mine owners wished to do so they could shift it on to the men. So he did not think it was a special objection to the system as laid down in the Bill. But, further, suppose they took the tonnage basis, what did they find? That they upset the whole scheme of contributions from the men. On what were they going to base the contributions from the men, if they mixed up the tonnage and the contributions from the men. And, furthermore, the charge on the tonnage that would be hauled on mines that were in the development stage and on poor mines would be the same as on the rich mines; and as a matter of fact the rich efficient mines would pay a smaller amount relatively than the poorer mines and the mines that were in the development stage, and for that reason he thought the adviser of the Government came to the correct conclusion, that to adopt the tonnage basis was not sound. He hoped the Select Committee would inquire into that. He could only say that the matter was very carefully considered with the Government Mining Engineer in drafting the Bill, and with his knowledge of the subject and practical experience he advised him (the Minister) that a scheme of that kind would not be workable. Therefore the only equitable form and practical scheme which they could think of was to base it upon the number of white men employed underground. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) referred to certain mines where there was no water Laid on, and described, in very vivid terms, the conditions in those mines at times. Well, he could only say that if men engaged on that mine and hon. members in the House did not take the trouble to bring it to the notice of the department, it was hopeless to expect the Government to deal with the matter. He thought that the hon. member for Springs must know that the regulations prohibited anything of that kind, and if it was brought to the notice of the department an immediate prosecution would be commenced; and if the hon. member would give him the name of the mine concerned he would immediately institute an inquiry. (Cheers.) He thought this case was an additional reason why the men should be asked to contribute something, because the white men employed on the mines underground really formed a part of the administration. They had a large number of natives working under them, and, therefore, a certain amount of responsibility rested upon them, and it was for that reason that the House required to stick to the principle that part of the responsibility must fall on the men also. Then there was the question of the amount of the benefits. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. F. H. P. Creswell) had elaborated that point very much indeed. Well, how did they arrive at the basis of £8, £3, and £1? It was a very difficult matter to get at any basis at all, but he looked up the regulations of the constabulary in the Transvaal, and he found that was the scale of the pensions granted to those men, and he thought that the status of the men working underground in the mines was about the same as that of the men in the constabulary, and, therefore, thought it would be fair to adopt the same basis. If they had more money no one would be more happy than he to give it; but the heart should not be allowed to run away with the head. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman) had referred to the matter of accidents. Well, he could assure him that the number of accidents was gradually being reduced. One of their difficulties in connection with accidents on the Rand was that so little attention was paid to the matter by the public, and there was no “public opinion” on the matter. (Dissent.)

Where are the inquests?

I am coming to the inquests. An inquiry is held; the newspapers and the public generally take no notice of it, and the result is that whether you have an inquiry or not, as far as the public is concerned, a little paragraph appears in the newspapers—and the public pass on to something else—

Held in camera.

The reason is not far to seek. Johannesburg is a mining community, and it is not in the interest of the people of Johannesburg to direct too much attention to this. (“Oh’s.”) I don’t want to say the people of Johannesburg, but the majority of the newspapers of Johannesburg. I am informed that from time to time inquiries are held; no reporters are present, and no one pays the slightest attention; and if a report of the inquiry is sent to the newspapers for publication only a little paragraph appears.

Why don’t you try an inquest?

Inquests were held, and it was with the experience gained in this manner that they were abolished.

There were too many inquests.

The reason was this: An accident takes place in a mine; the inspector was about, and could hold an inquiry or an inquest immediately. If you have to wait for the Magistrate to come down, all traces of the accident would have disappeared. You cannot stop the work for two or three or four days waiting for the inquest. I do not say this on my own authority, but I am informed that inquests were in force in the Transvaal, and that, because of the experience gained, they were deliberately abandoned. The numbers of accidents, the House will find from the monthly returns published by the department, are gradually decreasing, and if we have better men working underground—men with more experience—undoubtedly the number of accidents will still further decrease; but with this tremendous wastage going on (and you have to take on new men continually), it is impossible to regulate the matter further than is being done now. The regulations of 1911 hold the manager of the mine responsible, and I am informed that they work very well in diminishing the number of accidents. I do not know that it is necessary for me to refer at greater length to the debate. The points of giving some relief to those getting a lower wage and providing relief on a different footing for the past accumulations must undoubtedly engage the serious attention of the Select Committee. I hope that helpful ideas will be given in the committee, and that it will not take too much evidence, because, after all, we know the facts, and it is a matter of settling the principles on which to give relief. I hope that we shall soon bring in a Bill which will meet the requirements of the case, and meet with the support of this House. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of eight members.

seconded.

Agreed to.

in moving the second reading of the Public Service Bill, said that he had already informed the House that it had not been possible to introduce that Bill at an earlier date, and hon. members would notice that the terms of the Bill were not complicated. There was this to be said for proceeding with the Bill now: that the subject matter had been under discussion for a long time, and the question of Civil Service re-organisation had bulked very largely ever since Union; and more had been heard of it probably than anything else in connection with the Union of the various colonies. Previous to that the subject had repeatedly been discussed in South Africa, and hon. members would remember that as far back as 1905 a Commission had been appointed in the Cape by the Government of the day, in order to make an inquiry into the condition of the Civil Service. In 1906 another Commission had been appointed, in the Transvaal, and the recommendations of that Commission had subsequently been carried out by an official who had been sent to them from the Indian Civil Service. Under the South Africa Act, a Re-organisation Commission had to be appointed to deal with that question of re-organising the public services of the old colonies into the Union Service. That Commission had undergone various vicissitudes—(a laugh)—which had been discussed in that House, which he need not labour that day, and the work of that Commission was complete, and hon. members had in their hands all the various reports of that Commission dealing with the various branches of the public service of the Union; and they were now in a position, in the light of these reports, and of the Bill now before them, to decide on the character of the public service of the Union. He would not go into great detail on the second reading of that Bill; but there were certain important points which ought to be discussed.

“Sometimes four.”

The inducement which was here given to a young man to proceed further with his studies was a most considerable one, and the result would be, he thought, that they would have sufficient men of University rank entering the service to supply them with the brains they wanted in the higher positions.

Yes.

And he had given in on this occasion. His hon. friend and his colleagues at that time wanted the Public Service Commissioners to frame a report to be presented to Parliament, in which they would deal with the service as a whole, and in which they could make any remarks they liked. If the Government dissented from their recommendations they could say so in the report. He thought at the time, being new to administration, that that might lead to too much friction and would not lead to the smooth working of the country under the conditions the Transvaal was then in. He felt that the position had altered since Union. Now, he thought, they should have the service above all suspicion of nepotism or favouritism, and the body should have the right to frame a report annually, which would be presented to Parliament, and in which they could state what they liked in reference to their functions. Another important point in connection with the Commission and on which he thought too much stress could not be laid, was that under subsection (d) they could make recommendations in regard to the control and re-organisation or re-adjustment of the departments of the service. He thought they should have authority to act automatically in the interests of efficiency and economy. If some authority of this kind were not stated the tendency of departments was to incur heavy expense and the public interest was not always studied in respect of efficiency and economy. This body would not only look after the personnel of the Service, but they would keep a watchful eye on re-organisation and economy.

Where?

In the public service. Proceeding, he said he would give the instance of the field cornets in the Transvaal. According to the present system in the Transvaal, they were not in the public service, because they were not whole-time officers, but the hon. member could see that there might be a time when they would have to appoint an officer like that. Therefore, he thought that a sound provision to lay down was that a man should have that knowledge of the official languages of the Union as was required for the carrying out of his duties. Unfortunately, he did not think that in the Transvaal Act, or in this Bill, the provision was made in the proper text. Hon. members would see that provision was made that he shall have this knowledge of the languages on the occasion when his probationary appointment was confirmed. But that appointment may be entirely different from the appointment which he would ultimately have. He might be a clerk for the first few years, and afterwards be appointed a magistrate. They should not make that requirement of a man just at the one stage when he was confirmed in his probationary appointment. That was in clause 8 (3B).

That was under an Act of Parliament.

Such action had thus been taken before in the Cape Parliament. That, as he said, was the other limitation of the general fixity of tenure which public servants had under that Bill. On a resolution of the House salaries might be reduced, but that must not be confined to individual cases. Now he thought that these were all the important positions dealing with the public service as a whole—but the other important part of that Bill, and perhaps the most important part, was that dealing with the pensions and gratuities given in case of retirement; and that, he thought, was one of the most difficult matters which could be brought before that House. His hon. friend, the member for George (Mr. Currey), in a previous debate, had commented on the extraordinary amount of money which was now paid in pensions to the old public servants of the country—which was considerably over £600,000; and there was no doubt, what with the pension laws of South Africa and the generosity of Parliament—(Mr. MERRIMAN: “Hear, hear”)—the result to-day was, of course, such that many people were getting seriously frightened. (Hear, hear.) Of course, other countries had undergone the same process, and in Australia the same state of affairs, only on a more aggravated scale, had occurred, and the result to-day was that in the Common-wealth service there was no pension scheme at all, and there was an insurance scheme. (Hear, hear.) The Public Service Act of 1902 of the Commonwealth provided that the Government could make provision for and require the insurance of, the life of the public servant, and that when he left the service the benefit would accrue, either to himself or his dependants. In Canada he had not been able to find out the exact position, although he had made some inquiries. There they had an extraordinarily generous pension scheme up to some time ago, and it appeared from the reports which he had studied that that Act had been repealed, and certainly in 1908 there had been no superannuation scheme existing in Canada at all. But he found that in 1906 in Canada an Insurance Act had been passed, and in their report the Commissioners took the strongest exception to the state of affairs there existing, and pointed out to it as a scandal that business places, banks, and other places made provisions for pensions for their officers after completing their service, and that for the police and the militia there were pensions under a separate scheme and they had separate Acts passed from time to time; and it was a scandal that in the central service there was no pension scheme at all. That was the position in Canada, as far as he had been able to find out. The question was, “What shall we do?” and it was a very serious question, in view of the facts which were within the particular knowledge of every member of that House. He, having considered all the difficulties that surrounded that question, had come to the conclusion that—although he had no violent convictions on the subject—if a sound pension scheme could be arranged for the Union, that would be the proper course to adopt, and the scheme which was now before the House was said to be a sound actuarial scheme. It had been prepared at the Treasury, and gone into very carefully indeed by Mr. Macphail, who had also settled the Railway pensions scheme—which was on a different basis—and it would mean this—and that, after all, was the great point—that in future, and in regard to future entrants, the liability of the State would be limited to the contributions which were made to the fund. (Hear, hear.) That was a point which had also to be borne in mind, that when the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) had pointed out that £636,000 was paid in pensions and railway pensions the actual contributions paid were only £78,000. He thought that was an important point to bear in mind, that if they had a sound scheme it meant a moderate annual contribution from the State, which would entail solvency and no liability—and he thought that there was very much to be said for such a provision. On the whole, he had come to the conclusion that it was perhaps better for them to deal with that question on a pension basis, which had been common to them hitherto in South Africa. He thought that there was this to be said for that scheme: that it was on a much safer basis than any scheme which had been adopted by any of the old Colonies of South Africa; but on that account it was not so generous to the public officers. The system which they had was to take the last three years of a man’s salary, and calculate his pension on that basis. He thought that had been the ruin, to a large extent, of at least one pension scheme in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) They could not award pensions on that generous basis without endangering the scheme. Under the present scheme they took the average salary of the officer during the whole period of his service. Hon. members would see what that meant. When a young man entered the service, he got perhaps £100 a year, after a very long time he got from the junior branch of the service, so that if a man retired when he was drawing £800 a year, he would not have his pension calculated upon that amount. The result would be that Civil Servants would be drawing smaller pensions than they formerly had done. But there would be other benefits. Under some of the pension schemes they had not done anything for a man’s family if he died. But they would see that if he died in the service his relatives would receive his contributions plus the Government contribution. So that hon. members would see that although the pensions were smaller, there were other advantages in connection with the scheme. With regard to prison warders also, it had not been customary to make prison warders pay towards their pensions. In future they would have to do so, just like the other branches of the service. There were exceptions, of course, as in the case of a man who was too old, and the other usual list was also included. The new scheme did not affect officers of the old Provinces, but only those taken on under the South Africa Act. There was one point that he might refer to, and that was the question of the grading of the various classes. Hon. members would see that there was a scheduled list of clerks, graded from the lowest to the secretary ship of a department of State. Provision was made for these grades to be altered, should Parliament so desire. The schedule was merely for the information of Parliament in order to discuss the new arrangement. If the Bill were sent to a Select Committee, then he thought they could go through the whole question fully there. It was a difficult question, not only in itself, but in the grading of officers, and had put a great deal of anxiety and trouble upon the Commission. These grades had not been settled here. No doubt intermediate opinions by various members would be held, and it would be best to consider the question when they got into Select Committee, and not in the House. If it were desired to send the Bill to a Select Committee, he was quite prepared to accept the motion. People might say that he was not serious about this Bill, but he would assure them that he was most serious about it. They could not go on in the state of lawlessness in which they found things to-day. The state of affairs could not be tolerated any longer, and they must have the service put upon a settled basis. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)

who rose amid cheers, said that they had waited long for this Bill, and also with a great deal of anxiety, because they agreed with the Minister about the lawlessness and the grave discontent which prevailed in the service. They felt that the real reason for this discontent was the feeling of uncertainty which prevailed and must prevail until the charter of the Civil Service, which was a Bill to deal with the service as this Bill dealt with it, though perhaps not on the same lines, until a just and equitable charter had been passed by that House. He hoped hon. members opposite would realise the importance of this subject from two points of view, first of all from the point of view that the men who were affected by the Bill were the servants of this country and that the members of that House were really the trustees for those men. (Hear, hear.) Then he would point out to hon. members that the best safeguard for economy was a contented and an efficient service—(hear, hear)—and in that way more than in any other way was it possible to secure the best and most economical administration of the government of this country. He would like, before going further, to say that it did seem to him that this was a Bill which should be treated from a, non-party point of view. (Hear, hear.) It would be their urgent endeavour to treat this subject from a non-party point of view, from no sectional point of view, but from the point of view of the best interests of the country and the real concerns of its future. He would come at once to the kernel of this measure. In any system of administration there were two alternative ways of governing the body of public servants in any country which had responsible government. They could either put them entirely under the control of the Ministry in power and put upon the Ministry the whole of the responsibility, or they could create some other authority which would take the primary responsibility and bake the matter off the hands of the Ministry. The first alternative was, of course, the alternative which they had, as the Minister had pointed out, in this country for many years, and it was a course which was admittedly in harmony with the general principles of responsible government. (Hear, hear.) But it had been found in countries which had responsible government that this system, which was consistent with the primary theory of responsible government, was in practice open to grave disadvantages and very serious dangers. (Hear, hear.) The Minister had already pointed out one of those disadvantages. He had pointed out that so great was the burden of a responsible Minister upon the present extended system of State action in this and other countries that it was almost impossible to follow with any accuracy the details of the administrative department for which he was nominally responsible. The danger was that when the Minister was too busy to give personal attention to the details of his department the whole power in regard to the administration of that department fell into the hands of the official who happened to be at the time the permanent head of the department. (Hear, hear.)

There was another danger which followed from this system, and that was the danger that the Minister in power used his position to offer rewards through the public service to those with whom he happened to be in political agreement—(hear, hear)—a danger which, he would say quite frankly, he did not believe in the past had ever been a real danger in this country, and especially in the Cape Colony, though he must say the Minister of Education the other day brought against those with whom he was formerly associated a most extraordinary accusation in that respect, when he said that political influence had borne a great part in the administration of the public service of the Cape Colony.

Nothing of the kind.

That was almost incredible as coming from the quarter in which it was made.

Nothing of the kind.

I said at the time I disagreed with the Minister of Education. I did not believe that that was so, and I do not believe that in the past there has ever been any really serious danger of the Ministry using its influence in regard to the service for the advancement of those with whom it was in political agreement. But in other countries (proceeded Mr. Long) that danger had been a very real and a very great one.

There was, however, another danger which had come home to them during the past few sessions, and that was so long as the Ministry was solely responsible for the administration of the public service the complaints, grievances, and prospects of the public service were continually brought before Parliament, with the result that there was an enormous waste of time and a most undesirable use of political influence was sometimes attempted to be made by members of Parliament. This was detrimental to the best interests of the country and also to the best interests of the Civil Servants themselves. It was a danger which existed in this country, and some provision ought to be made against it. These were the three dangers which attended the ordinary system of Ministerial responsibility, but there was another alternative. That was to put—not the full power—but a very great deal of power, with regard to appointments, discipline, promotion, pay, and matters of that kind into the hands of some other body than the Ministry. The Ministry remained responsible, but the actual work was done by the Board or an official. This method had very great advantages. It prevented too much power being put into the hands of heads of Departments, and removed the danger of a Ministry using power to promote its own friends, while it prevented Parliament’s time being wasted with complaints with regard to the Civil Service. Against all these dangers an independent Commission guarded. It was exactly these dangers which had led other countries to put the control of the Civil Service into the hands of some other body. Between these two courses Parliament had to decide before the end of the session if they were to pass a Public Service Bill. Section 142 of the South Africa Act laid it down that after the establishment of Union the Governor-General-in-Council should appoint a Public Service Commission with such powers and duties relating to the admission, discipline, retirement, and superannuation of public officers as Parliament should determine. The object of that was to take the control of the Civil Service entirely out of the risk of being subjected to any kind of political influence—(Opposition cheers)—and to safeguard the rights of the Civil Service under an independent Commission. Speaking at Victoria West, the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had stated that the undoubted intention of this clause was to follow the Australian method, and to put the control of the Civil Service under a permanent Civil Service Board. The right hon. member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson)—whose absence they particularly deplored—(hear, hear)—had, as a member of the Convention, given the House to understand that the whole object of placing that section of the Act was to create an independent authority which should, at least, share the responsibility of the Ministers with regard to the control of the Civil Service. The Minister had said that in that Bill an attempt was made to steer a middle course. But it was perfectly demonstrable that any attempt to steer a middle course was foredoomed to failure, and the effect would be to make the Commission really a sham one behind which the Ministry could shelter itself. (Opposition cheers.) He (Mr. Long) did not say that was the intention of the Bill, because he believed the Minister was leading a kind of forlorn hope against the experience of every other country in the world. He hoped to show to the House that any attempt to do that was foredoomed to failure, and that the real responsibility in any attempt of that kind must rest with the Ministry while the nominally independent Commission became a mere sham. They had before them what had happened in Natal. The Civil Service Board appointed there in 1905 had been a failure, for the very reason that it had not been placed in an independent position in regard to the Ministry. Hon. members might say: “You say this Commission will not be independent, that it will not be permanent, that it will have no power, it is one of your tasks to prove these things.” That was a task that he did not propose to shirk for one moment. The best way in which he could draw the attention of the House to the difference that existed between a real, strong, and independent Commission and the Commission proposed to be set up under this Act was to take the Act the Minister had described as the last word in legislation of this kind, and to show what powers the Commonwealth of Australia gave to the Commission. In regard to the terms of its appointment and reference, the usual practice in the different Australian States was followed. In regard to the terms of his appointment, the Australian Public Service Commisssioner was an officer solely responsible to Parliament. He was appointed for seven years, and was paid a definite salary of £1,200. He could not be removed except by the consent of Parliament—(Opposition cheers)—and it was in a very stringent way that that consent must be given. If the Governor-General desired to suspend a Commissioner he might do so, but seven days thereafter, if Parliament were sitting, or seven days after the opening of the next session, the Governor-General must report to Parliament that he had suspended that Public Service Commissioner. Both Houses of Parliament had then, by separate resolutions to express agreement with his action. Otherwise, the suspension fell to the ground, and the Commissioner automatically resumed office. (Opposition cheers.) He thought it was clear that a man in that position was wholly responsible to Parliament, and was in a position of complete independence. There were certain provisions affecting the office of the Commissioner, but the next point to which he would like to draw attention was the powers of the Australian Commissioner. They were mostly routine powers, similar to those mentioned in section 142 of the South Africa Act, as to appointments, discipline, promotion, and superannuation of public servants. But he had very great powers indeed. He could direct any inspector at any time to inspect any department and to inquire of any officer in that department as to the work he was doing, and his fitness for the work, and then he could report to the Governor-General and make a proposal for the re-organisation of that department. If the Governor-General did not agree to that recommendation, and held it over, then the Governor-General had to report forthwith his disagreement to Parliament. In the same way, the Commissioner was empowered to regrade the whole service. His recommendations must be accepted, or, if not, the Governor-General must report to Parliament his reason for non-acceptance. As to appointments, the Commissioner had the first appointment, the power to make an appointment on probation, and all permanent appointments were made on his recommendations. So, in regard to the appointment of public officers, and in regard to the general organisation, the Commissioner in Australia was vested with great powers.

Hon. members had only to compare those powers with the Bill before them to see that the proposed Commission would have no independence or power. (Opposition proposed in the Bill was to be ap-cheers.) In the first place, the Commis pointed at the discretion of the Governor-General for any period of years that might seem good to the Governor-General, not exceeding five years. He could be removed at any time at the will of the Governor-General, and no mention was made of remuneration. As they were aware, the Governor-General meant, of course, the Ministry in power. There was no provision as to how the members of the Commission were to vacate office, and there was nothing to hinder the Governor-General saying to a Commissioner: “You have committed a grave offence against the Government, therefore you must go, and we have the power to dismiss you.” There was no safeguard whatever against that. The Commission proposed under the Bill was a Commission that had no guarantee of a separate existence, and no security of tenure for any fixed period of years, and could be paid any salary that the Ministry of the moment might happen to decide upon. The Minister said that there was no need to provide against the dismissal of any of these Commissioners, as it was unlikely that any of them would ever be reported to Parliament. That was a most delightful transversion of the essence of the matter. (Opposition cheers.) The essence of the matter was that they desired, when they set up an independent Commission, to protect that Commission against any arbitrary action on the part of the Ministry. If that was not the whole object of such a provision, why did they make the Auditor-General, who had control over the Ministry, and who had to report to the House as to the actions of the Ministry, removable only by both Houses of Parliament. If they desired a Commission to be an independent and impartial body, it was essential that they should be given a guarantee that they could not be dismissed at the whim of the Ministry, but that they were protected by Parliament. (Opposition cheers.) With regard to the powers proposed to be given to them, the Commission might, of course, make recommendations in regard to appointments on very much the same lines as the Australian Commissioner and Commissioners in other countries did, but the important factor was that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Government continually ignoring the representations of the Commission. They should be made to admit when they had ignored these recommendations.

Continuing, he pointed out that as the Bill stood the Government could hold up the Commission as a shield for any acts which it might do. This was a very dangerous provision, the danger which the House could realise when hon. members remembered how the Government had dealt with the recommendations of the Re-organisation Commission. More important still, the position which was contemplated by the Government was in conflict with the terms of section 142 of the South Africa Act. That was the point upon which he would ask hon. members to concentrate their attention. When that section was passed by the hon. members of the National Convention and endorsed by the people of this country, it was intended to set up an authority for the control of the service other than the Ministry of the day. That was not carried out in the provisions of the Bill which was before the House. It made hon. members on his side feel, though they had no desire to discuss this matter from a party point of view, though they realised the urgency of the matter, and had impressed upon Government the importance of bringing in this Bill—so keenly did they feel that the real intention of the National Convention had not been carried out in this Bill by the Minister, upon whom they on that side of the House, were inclined to throw the responsibility for this deviation from the intention of the National Convention and the terms of the South Africa Act. The Minister had suggested that the measure should be referred to a Select Committee, which was a favourite suggestion of the Ministry of the day. No sooner did they bring in an important measure than it was suggested that it should go to a Select Committee, in order that they might evade the responsibility in the matter. With regard to a matter like that, out of which no party capital should be made, they felt strongly on that side of the House that unless they could get some guarantee with regard to this most important point of the independence of the public service, unless they got Some promise from the Government that this matter would be favourably reconsidered by Government before the Bill went to the Select Committee, they would have to say that they could not take part in doing a thing which deviated from the terms of the South Africa Act. He hoped, not only for the sake of the public service, but for the sake of the general economy and efficiency of the Government in this country, and for the future of the Government in this country, that the Government would be prepared to reconsider this matter and give some guarantee that if this was referred to a Select Committee they would be prepared to reconsider this fundamental basis of the system which they were setting up. If they were prepared to do so, then they on that side of the House, on matters of minor importance, would agree to cooperate with the Government to such an extent as to make this Bill a Bill that would satisfy the public service and the country. He would now come to the question of the organisation of the service. Once they had decided upon an authority to control, then they would have to decide the lines upon which that authority would act. Now the Minister had explained the classification which had been adopted in the Bill. There was one classification, which was called general, and the other, which included those men who did executive duties. If they took that House as an example, they would find that there were two other classes which did certain business in that House. They had the messengers firstly, who did duties, then they had those who did clerical duties—typists, shorthand writers, and the like—and then they had Mr. Speaker, who was charged with the general administrative duties of that House. If hon. members kept that illustration in mind they would have a clear definition as to the general division of the service, the clerical division of the service and the administrative division of the service. Let hon. members look at the first section of the Bill, which stated that the public service should consist of (a) the administrative and clerical division, and (b) the general division. The public service was divided into two divisions, and those men belonging to the administrative and the clerical divisions were lumped together in one division. As the Minister had pointed out, Commissions in the country had recommended that these two divisions should be separated, and he would tell the House why. If they looked at the first schedule of the Bill they would find that an officer entering the clerical branch of the service went straight up till he reached the highest administrative post. The young man who joined the service would have to pass through many grades, and to serve the country for a long time before he reached a position of responsibility or a position where the duties were of an administrative character. The result of these long years of service was that they crushed out the individuality of a man, and when he reached a position of responsibility he was unfit to carry out his duties.

Proceeding, he said the Minister had said to the House that it was impossible to put into force at the present time of the Service of the Union a provision of that kind, because he could not divide the officers at present in the service. He wanted to show that not only could some such system be devised; but that it was the only system by which they could do justice to the officers in the service and secure the maximum of efficiency in the service. In the first case the Minister had assumed that any division of this kind between the administrative and the clerical divisions must be fixed. To his mind, in a country like this, a rigid distinction between the administrative and the clerical divisions would be an enormous mistake. In England they could recruit their clerical division from a totally different class from that of the administrative division. As the hon. member knew, a man in England had to pass a very high examination in order to get into the administrative division of the service, whereas the clerical division was recruited from a class of whom there were many who never expected to rise. In this country they had to recruit their service from the young men of the country who were fit to take up a responsible position, and therefore, he said what they wanted was a distinction between the two divisions, making everybody coming into the clerical division prove his fitness for the administrative division. That meant that a man going into the clerical division would know he was not to go automatically up to the top of that division before he could enter the administrative division. If he showed he was fit for the administrative division they should give him a chance to enter it by an examination. The Minister might say it was a very difficult thing to do. All he could say was that in some of the Australian States, and in New South Wales particularly, that had been done for years. A man had a chance to rise from the clerical to the administrative division, and that was the only way they could give a young man a chance of obtaining quick promotion. If hon. members would look at the schedule at the end of the Bill they would see that a young man entering the Civil Service of the Union under this Bill started at a salary of £100 a year.

It would take him sixteen years before he got out of the class of clerical assistant. Anyone who had done clerical work for years knew what drudgery it was, and under this Bill they were going to make every man who entered the Service do sixteen years of drudgery. He said it was a system which was going to be most harmful to the future of the Service of this country; and it was a system which they should avoid by every means in their power, because it was a system that must make for a bad Service, bad economy and bad efficiency, and good economy and good efficiency was what they should set before themselves when they considered a Bill of this kind. But this was only in the abstract. It was only when they took the man who might, in the future, enter the Service; but what about the young men who were at present in the Service of the country, and who were to be graded under one of the three classes? He knew of a case of a young man with a University training and degree who entered the service nine years ago and was given a salary of £160 a year. He has for some years been on the relieving staff of magistrates and has had to take the position of chief clerk or acting magistrate. He was bilingual. Under the scheme of regrading that man was to be put down as a third-class clerk with a salary £5 a year less than that he received when he first entered the Service. What would be the feeling of that man when he was put down to the salary he received when he entered the Service nine years ago with the knowledge that before he can get an increase of salary or promotion he will have to pass the examination of the second-class and would have to go up five grades before he can reach the salary which he drew at present. It would take that man at least seven or eight years before he can hope for any increase of salary, or before he could hope to hold a responsible position such as he held previously. This system was going to do the gravest injustice to every young man of promise in the Service. He was absolutely at the mercy of those who would be responsible for the grading, and the result of this system, if they put it into force now, was going to be wholesale resignations on the part of every man with ambition and the pluck to go in for some other calling. (Hear, hear.) And if there was one duty which lay before this House and the Government at the present time it was to ensure that every young, able and promising man in the Service shall have the possibility of quick promotion in the Service. No attempt had been made in this Bill to obtain that. It was perfectly feasible to suggest to the Minister that it was very easy to suggest a division between the administrative and the clerical divisions, and they could go through the Union and say of certain posts that these were posts that required a certain ability and thus create an administrative division.

The Minister had only to look at the Cape report of 1905 to see that that was done. Having done that they confirmed the present occupants of these posts in the administrative division and at the same time they said to those holding clerical posts that in three years’ time they could come up for the administrative examination. If a man proved his fitness, his name should be placed on a register; and if there was any future vacancy in the administrative division it should be filled, not in the ordinary course, by automatic promotion from the clerical division, but from the list of those who had proved their fitness for administrative work. He believed that if the hon. Minister would put his brains to devising a system of that kind—and that they must regard some posts as administrative posts and call that division the administrative division and give the men in the clerical department a chance to prove their fitness for that division—he could do so. It had been done in other countries with perfect success, and in New South Wales it had been reported that since that qualifying examination had been held the intellectual calibre of the administrative division had been raised, and besides that, a better class of man had come into the clerical division, because they always knew that they had a chance of getting into the administrative division. He would venture to impress upon the House and upon the Minister the enormous importance from every point of view of the welfare of the public service of that country of devising some system under which a man could feel that he had some possibility of promotion to a responsible position—that they would not always be under-men; that there would not always be men above them because of their seniority, and that the test for promotion would be efficiency, and efficiency alone. These were the two main points to which he would like to draw attention, although there were other points to which he would have liked to refer, but he did not want to take up the time of the House. There was the point that the Ministry had the power to dismiss a man on the mere recommendation of the Commission that a scheme of re-organisation was required on some particular line. It was a blessed word that word “re-organisation”—(laughter)—as the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) knew. He was only saying that it was a great danger putting such a power in the hands of the Ministry, and if there was a recommendation at all, it should be that the man was such an inefficient man that his services had to be dispensed with. In section 12 they had drastic provision with regard to a Civil Servant taking any part in political affairs. He believed it was a good thing to prevent Civil Servants taking an active part in politics, because he believed it led to great dangers, because the rest of the community said: “Here are our servants talking an active share in the government of the country and a recent Act in Victoria had, he would like to point out, recently disqualified Civil Servants from voting. He hoped that hon. members on the crossbenches would listen to what he said, because he had been misrepresented by one of their organs as to what he had said on that matter on a previous occasion. The danger it would be foolish to minimise; and the duty of members of that House was to protect, as far as possible, the servants of the State. (Hear, hear.) He had said that if the claims of the Civil Servants were too actively pressed in the House there would be involved the danger of the rest of the community being put against them, and perhaps compelling the disfranchisement of the Civil Servants. In conclusion, he would say that anxious as they were to see this Bill passed during the present session, hon. members upon his side of the House would feel most reluctant to accept the suggestion of a Select Committee, unless there would be some clear assurance that the Government were prepared to reconsider the status of the Public Service Board.

said he had listened to the speech of the hon. Minister and that of the hon. member for Liesbeek with much pleasure. At first he was alarmed at the line the hon. member intended to take, but when he had finished it appeared to him that they were substantially in agreement. (Mr. LONG: “Hear, hear.”) The whole case of the arfument centred round the status of the Public Service Board, the other difficulties might all disappear if the status of that Board was established. (Hear, hear.) This was one of the Bills that was laid down in accordance with the Act of Union, and it should be treated as a non-party measure, and it should go through with the co-operation of both sides of the House, and that was why the Minister should delegate it to a Select Committee. There were a large number of minor points which could be cleared up in committee. The status of the Board should be established from the first. The weakest link in the chain was that the Board was not appointed for a definite period and the number of members of the Board was not fixed. The experience of Australia seemed to be this. They started with having three members, which they ultimately reduced to one. He thought, however, there were some difficulties in having only one member on the Board, and under the circumstances he thought that three members should be appointed and that number should be definitely fixed in the Bill. A period, say seven years, should also be fixed, so that the re-election of the Board would not fall at a time when the General Elections were on. That was a minor point, but he thought it better to have seven years instead of three or live. The Commission would only retire after Parliament had dealt with the question. If that were not stated, then they might as well dispense with a Board. Independence could only be secured, also, if it were made clear that the services of members of the Board could only be dispensed with by a motion in Parliament. The salaries ought also to be fixed by Parliament just as they were fixed in the case of the Auditor-General. Another point was that the Provincial Executive did not follow the recommendation of the Board, because it was only responsible to its own Provincial Council and the Board had no say in the matter. Another point was, what was a Public Service Board? Going by the ordinary rules of interpretation, it would be found that a Public Service Board included the railways, but whether that was the intention of the South Africa Act he was not aware. If that was not the intention, then they could depart from it, but if that were the intention, then they could not lightly depart from it. In regard to the definitions, it was only at the tail end of the Bill that they found that the railways were excluded. He did not know whether that was due to bad draftsmanship.

Bad draftsmanship.

proceeding, said he certainly thought the Public Service Bill should deal with a large number of railway officials, those more or less in clerical departments. Then there was another point as to the fines which might be imposed. He noticed that five different scales of fines could practically be applied to the same service. However, those were minor details which could be thrashed out in committee. The hon. member for Liesbeek had referred to a specific case of an official who, he understood, drew £360 per annum, and was now being graded as a third-class clerk. He thought that must be a misconception. He thought the hon. member must mean that this particular billet, when the present occupant left it, would be filled by a third-class clerk and not that the officer in question was a third-class clerk.

As to the question of the entrance examination, the hon. member for Liesbeek had urged that there should be two entrance examinations, one for the ordinary clerical work, and the other for administrators. The Minister had dealt with the difficulties of that scheme, but he (Mr. Stockenstrom) would point out that they practically obtained the same result without having this invidious distinction. He did not think in this country they should have any invidious distinctions. He thought the entrance examination was sufficiently thigh, and that there was no need for two distinct entrance examinations. What he would suggest was they should have one entrance examination for the whole service, and that subsequent promotion should depend upon the passing of other examinations. The hon. member for Liesbeek had made this criticism, that, although the Board could suggest promotions, the Government need not follow out those suggestions. But he thought the hon. member was wrong in that. If the Board had sufficient status, if the Board were independent, they would bring up before Parliament any difference of opinion of a serious nature. (Hear, hear.) He thought if that principle were adopted the main object had been attained. He thought if the status of the Board were established, that Board would see that everything that was necessary would be carried out in the future. It would not then be so essential to lay down all the details of this Bill. He had various criticisms on the details, but under the circumstances he would reserve them for a future occasion. (Cheers.)

said that there were only one or two points that he wished to bring before the Government and the House in regard to this Bill. Everybody must admit that it was most desirable that there should be a Civil Service Bill, desirable for the Government particularly more than, perhaps for the members of the House, and desirable for the country, too. They had got something like 57,000 people drawing Government pay in this country out of a white population of 360,000.

Male population?

I am only speaking of the male population. I take it that the Civil Servants are mostly males. Proceeding, he referred to the previous Civil Service Bills which had been brought before the old Cape Parliament, and remarked upon the way in which the service had been growing and the way in which the pension list had been mounting up, until now it had grown to such a size, he said, that it had attracted the attention of the most indifferent. A sum of £650,000 was no small amount for a wealthy country like this, and with the liabilities they had got to face in this country it was, of course, one of the most difficult and dangerous things they had got to deal with. He associated himself with a great deal that the hon. member for Heidelberg had said, with moderation, and certainly in no party spirit on this question. He thought the division of the service into two rather a bald one; they should have three or four divisions at least. They had, first, the professional division, which was entirely on a different basis, and could hardly be governed by the rules laid down in the Bill. Still, they were in the Civil Service. Then there was the administrative service, composed of people who practically directed matters, and who really carried on the government of the country, although Ministries might come and Ministries might go. These people formed a bureaucracy, and had to very carefully be watched by Parliament. (An HON. MEMBER: “They have not to find the money.”) They kicked against the restrictions put upon them by a Parliament which did not see the difficulty in a practical way of doing things always. Then there were the higher clerks, who wrote letters and that sort of thing, and they also had the mere clerical department and the general body of the Civil Servants.

He thought the entrance to our Civil Service at the present time—which, he believed, was stereotyped in this measure, was a bad one. Candidates entered by means of a qualifying examination—the very worst mode of selecting people, because led to jobbery. Anybody could pass a qualifying examination. They had remarks about the mental calibre of farmers, but if they wanted to look for the failures in this country; they had very often to look at the Civil Service. (Laughter.) If a young man had not sufficient energy to push out and go his own way and live on a farm, it was an easy thing to go into the Civil Service, where he was provided for life, and by mere accretion he worked his way to being one of the greatest plagues of the country—an indifferent magistrate. He did not say that by way of a joke, because it was a very serious thing. Sir John Graham had complained bitterly to him of the qualifying examination, saying that the men were pushed along by favour, and at last they got a magisterial position, where they were practically useless and a great evil to the country. So far as he (Mr. Merriman) could see, they were going to continue that practice. He had come in contact with some of the people who had passed these examinations; some of them were excellent, and the wonder to him was that the Civil Service was so good. After the loyal manner in which the Civil Servants behaved during the crisis the Cape went through, he would be the last person to gay one word against them. But he had come across men in the service who could not spell, and they were practically useless as clerks, but they had come to hold magisterial appointments, and eventually they joined the noble army of pensioners. That was a bad system, and if the Select Committee did not do so, he would try to introduce the principle of the competitive examination, at any rate, for the administrative branch. It was the only sound system. He remembered the late Mr. Rhodes saying that he thought more of a man being able to ride and shoot than to pass an examination. The best answer to that was the Indian Civil Service. The people who kept that magnificent system going entered it by means of competitive examinations. The most democratic country in the world—the United States—had the competitive system for entry into its Civil Service. The same system was adopted in England, and thus they got the best men, and did away with all idea of jobbery. If we were governed by angels, no doubt selection would be the proper way, but selection had been tried in many branches of the public service, and for every man who was selected on his merits they would find fifty who had friends and relatives. He entirely agreed with the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. Stockenstrom) as to the appointment of a Commission. The idea in the National Convention—and certainly the idea in his own mind—was that they should have a Standing Commission, absolutely beyond the control of Government—(hear, hear)—and irremovable, except by Parliament.

They wanted something on the basis of the Auditor-General’s Department. He would urge his friend the Minister very strongly to take that in the interests of the country, because he would remove all these things from the purview of party. It would prevent these things that were hurled across the floor of the House, and would give confidence to the Service, to the country, and to Parliament. Only one thing remained, and that was the pension business. (Laughter.) He thought that this matter would require very careful consideration. He warmly welcomed the suggestion in the Bill that pensions should be limited so that they would not have what had amounted to scandals in this country of people drawing enormous pensions who had simply got these pensions because they chanced to be employed on a Commission during the three years.

made a remark that was inaudible.

My hon. friend is nothing if not Provincial. Let him remember that there are such things as glass houses, and don’t let him pick up stones to throw at what I will admit has been a glass house in the Cape. Continuing, he said it had Jed to a very great burden being placed on the country. He should have thought that that should prove a warning. He questioned whether they would not find the annuity system expensive, though that was a question with which the Select Committee could deal. He warmly welcomed the idea that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, and he hoped that the Minister would not be frightened at the idea. It was essential that this should be a non-party Bill, for they wanted to avoid all those wrangles that had taken place in that House in the past. He did not think the Minister need be shy about sending the Bill to a Select Committee. If he got a good committee it would not delay the passage of the measure. They wanted the Service removed from party wrangles, and to see the Civil Service started on a sound basis with a satisfied Civil Service and a Government that got value for its money.

said there were one or two things that ought to be taken into serious consideration by the Select Committee. His hon. friend the member for Liesbeek had taken up the special point that the committee would have to consider the question of the status of the Civil Service Commission and he endorsed every word he had said. The point was also submitted by the hon. member for Heidelberg in a speech that did him credit and was a Credit to that House and which showed that some hon. members on the other side of the House were just as anxious as he and his friends were to formulate a Bill that would do justice to the Public Service of the country. They must have a statement from the Minister that he would give the committee power to deal with any points that might arise. The salaries of members of the Public Service Commission should be fixed in the Bill and the committee would have to consider the terms for which the Commission would be appointed. No increase of expenditure could be managed unless the Government advised the Governor-General to give such power to the committee and to the House. This power had been found necessary in the case of the Defence Bill Committee, which ture to be incurred. They did feel that no Public Service Commission would be found it necessary to increase the expenditure properly established unless their powers and duties were clearly defined. He considered, too, that the Commission should have definite and full control over the service; unless that were done he felt sure that the Commission would not give satisfaction to the Civil Servants or the country. There were grave differences between these proposals and the provisions made in the Bill. He would not attempt to criticise those proposals at that stage, but he would draw attention to one, namely, the proposal to do away with the rights of the House. The House was the final Court of Appeal, and it had a perfect right to consider pensions and increases of pensions. But the Bill would take away the rights of the House, and the House would be prevented from considering petitions for increased pensions unless the Government gave its sanction. He also drew attention to the proposal dealing with a difference of opinion between the Ministry and the Commission, by which a period of 14 days was fixed in which the two Houses of Parliament had to signify their approval or otherwise of the action taken by the Government, and he thought that in this respect it was necessary that there should be some amendment. He wanted to point out that as far as the pension provisions were concerned, they were not entirely satisfactory. When they came to the grading, he would point out that he could find no mention of the magisterial service. The schedule only provided for secretaries, under-secretaries, principal clerks, and so on, with clerical assistants. Where was the magisterial service? Was it coming in another Bill, or was it in this Bill? He could not find it.

Read the Bill.

Nonsense; I have read every line of the Bill, but I would be glad if you would show it me. Where are the magistrates in the schedule? The Treasurer is going to tell us how to find something that is not there. Proceeding, he said that clause 7 provided for the office of a magistrate being held by attorneys and notaries. Was that intended to mean that a person could be brought in from outside and put into these positions? Because all he could say was that the Bill as it now stood required drastic alterations, because that was one of the things they had been complaining about in the past, and what they did say was that nobody should be brought into the service from outside, except through the usual mode of entry at the bottom of the service. With regard to the pensions, might he point out to the Minister that the provisions as they now stood were unfair? If, under clause 7, a man could be brought into the magisterial service from outside he would start at a higher rate of pay than the man who had been in the service all his life, and it worked out that the person brought in from outside would draw a higher rate of pension after 30 years of service, at the age of sixty, than the man who had been in the service since his nineteenth year, and, at the age of 60, who would have about twelve years more service than the other man. (Cheers.) These points would require careful consideration. He felt some difficulty in discussing a Bill that was not before the House. They were now discussing proposals that they hoped to see made in committee, and they hoped to see the Bill entirely recast. Under those circumstances there was, obviously, no necessity for him to discuss it in greater detail now. (Opposition cheers.)

said an important class of persons had been overlooked in the Bill, namely, the ex-officials of the late South African Republic and the Free State, who, as a result of the war, had been treated anything but liberally. They had given their time and attention to the service for a number of years, had qualified themselves in it, and had lost their positions owing to the war, and were in many cases now in a state of poverty. A few of them had recovered positions in the service, but not five of them had recovered their old positions with their old salaries. Those ex-officials who had been taken on again had lost a portion of their service owing to the war, and there was no provision in the Bill which allowed service under the Republics to count towards pensions. It was true that arrear contributions to the Pensions Fund could be paid up, but ex-officials of the late Republics were excluded from that. No doubt the Minister of the Interior would reply that the ex-officials had received gratuities or pensions, but those payments only took place from five to seven years after the dismissals had taken place. The pensions and gratuities were really only trifling sums and in most cases much less in amount than the pensions would have come to. Resolutions had been passed when the war broke out to the effect that officials’ salaries were to be reduced, in some cases by 60 per cent. That reduction continued for nine months, namely, until the fall of Pretoria, whereupon the officials were dismissed. In many cases the sums paid out as gratuities were less than the amounts deducted from their salaries. For those reasons, he thought it only fair that the ex-officials should be allowed to count their service under the Republics.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

resumed his speech. Saying it would perhaps be difficult to count the service of ex officials under the Republics for pension purposes, but it was not impossible. Those who were now in the public service must be put in a position to pay up arrear contributions if they desired to do so. A Cape official removed after the war to the Transvaal was allowed to count his Cape service in connection with his pension, and Republican ex-officials should be entitled to the same privilege. The Bill stipulated that the age of entrants must not exceed 25 years, with the result that ex-officials, who were all older than that, would be excluded. If he understood the Bill properly, temporary officials could not be taken into the permanent service. Many ex-officials had for long been in temporary service, who were still waiting for fixed appointments, which they could not now obtain. The provision ought to be amended. For the remainder, he supported the Bill.

said he quite agreed that the debate upon this Public Service Rill should be kept out of the atmosphere of party politics as much as possible, but he could not allow it to go to a Select Committee without offering some criticism. Mention had been made of the Transvaal Board, but what were the functions entrusted to that Board? The Board was entrusted with the serious and responsible duty of keeping a register. (Laughter.) They were not even given the choice of saying who were to go on that register, the matter of putting the names upon the register was entrusted to the Government. They might send in names to the Government, but the Government were under no obligation to take any names submitted. He had more regard for the Minister than to think that he regarded the Board set up in 1908 in the Transvaal as anything but a sham; but he would just say that they were just as they were in 1908, as regarded the independence of the Board. (Hear, hear.) The Board could only recommend; that was all. That being so, and this being the second session of the Union Parliament, it was difficult for brim to believe that this did not represent the deliberate policy of the Government. Until he knew that this Board was more in the nature of a reality and less of a sham, he would not support this Bill. The position and powers of the Board he regarded as the critical points of the whole question. The hon. member for Heidelberg pointed out that it would be best not to have two gateways into the Civil Service. He (Mr. Duncan) was of opinion that a man ought to come into the administrative branch of the Civil Service by ability and nothing else. The public money that was spent upon education enabled everyone to get that chance. He deprecated any talk about invidious distinctions. It was far worse to abstain from giving a boy or girl, who had ability, a help forward simply because it would leave another boy or girl behind. If they did not have a higher Civil Service, then everyone went into it upon one standard. It was a killing experience for a youth who had passed his B.A. examination to have to do nine or ten years’ routine work. If a man went into the administrative branch by superior ability, then let him get the chance.

Then there was the difficult question of political rights. He thought it was a mistake to allow Civil Servants the full exercise of active political rights—(hear, hear)—and it was a mistake for this reason, that they were going to open the door to what was known in other parts of the world as the “spoils system.” (Hear, hear.) He thought it was a good thing to observe the position which had been observed in this country so far, that Civil Servants should not take an active part in politics. They did not want the public service turned into a political annexe of one Government or another. (Hear, hear.) This Bill did not give them what they regarded as a cardinal point in a Civil Service Bill, and that was an independent Board with definite powers laid down by law, which the Government would be unable to overrule except on one condition, and that was that it should be brought to the notice of Parliament. (Cheers.)

said that there was one aspect of this question which was removed from party. The Minister of the Interior laid on the table of the House on Tuesday a minute drafted by the University Council, which had devoted years of attention to this subject. He found that 12 years ago the University Council appointed a committee to deal with this very important subject in the Cape. He had the honour to serve with the hon. and learned member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta), on that committee, with other distinguished people who were now mostly Bishops or Judges. Seeing that they were not in that House, he would like to bring their views before the House. He was entirely in agreement with hon. members who felt that it was unwise to go to other countries and say that this was the system in England, or Germany, or Holland, and therefore we ought to have the same system in this country. But for that reason we ought to study very carefully the circumstances, including the educational circumstances, of South Africa.

Before dealing with this, he ventured with a good deal of trepidation to touch upon one point which he trusted hon. members opposite would understand him about. It was in regard to the point which his hon. friend the Minister made in reference to the position of unilingual Civil Servants and bilingual Civil Servants. There was a difficulty about that, and he wanted to bring forward a point which had been brought forward in the Cape before, and which his hon. friend appeared to him to rather leave out of his consideration that day. He wished to lay down this principle, and he believed they would all of them accept it, that neither the unilingual nor the bilingual Civil Servant should be in any way penalised when they were making up their service. His hon. friend, as he understood him, laid down this further principle, which he (Mr. Fremantle) thought was unfair. He said that there were parts of the Civil Service where it was not necessary for a man to know both languages. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Fremantle) only wanted to draw the attention of the House to this fact, that many years ago one of the greatest of South Africans, Mr. Hofmeyr, used to draw attention to the difficulty which arose in consequence of this. The difficulty was that, if they laid down that principle in a hard-and-fast way, they ran the risk of saying that at the capital, where everybody knew both languages, it was not necessary for a Civil Servant to know more than one language; whereas in the distant parts they might send their man, who knew both languages, because only Dutch would be necessary. The result was that they might do a great injustice and penalise a man for knowing the Dutch language. He hoped hon. members would be ready to meet that difficulty. While saying that, one must fully recognise that there was another principle which had to be borne in mind, and that was, they must make a distinction between men in the Civil Service now and others. They must use patience in a great principle of this kind. With regard to one principal matter which had been brought forward, he had only this to say, that there appeared to him to be three quite distinct policies which had been advocated before that House. One was that they should have a Civil Service Commission, entirely in the position of ordinary Civil Servants, and entirely responsible to the Government of the day, and, therefore, in a subordinate position. Then there was the policy of the hon. member for Liesbeek, who argued that the full control of the Civil Service should be in the hands of a Commission—that was the Australian method. The third policy was that proposed by the hon. member for Heidelberg, which was to have an independent Commission, with powers and rights which would make it independent of the Government of the day, the Government to have final responsibility. He hoped that the middle—the latter—course would be followed. He would point out that this matter was clearly discussed by the National Convention, and a resolution on the lines of the suggestions of the hon. member for Liesbeek was lost by 20 votes to 9. It was proposed by Sir E. Walton, and Sir T. Smartt and Lord de Villiers voted with the majority against it. They would be departing from the intentions of the National Convention if they followed the policy of the hon. member for Liesbeek. Therefore, he hoped that the middle course would be followed by the committee. Then he would like to say a few words with regard to appointments in the Civil Service. There seemed to be some misunderstanding on the subject, because the right hon. member for Victoria West had said that the qualifying examination was dangerous, and pointed out that a number of men were unfitted for the positions which they held. He (the speaker) would point out that these servants were appointed before the days of examinations. The old system in England and in this country was a system of unmixed selection on the part of the Government, and that gave them a large number of excellent men, but, unfortunately a still greater number of men who were not efficient. There were numbers of cases in England where under this system men had risen to big positions, who, in their youth, would probably have failed to pass a competitive examination. Both in England and here it was found impossible to proceed with that system, and, therefore, the other course was adopted—a qualifying examination. The Minister of Education had taken a system of qualifying examinations, and the right hon. member for Victoria West had criticised that system with, he thought, great force. For the Civil Service they did not want the worst men, but the best men. His hon. friend the Minister had the support of the University Council in not having a competitive examination. Continuing, he pointed out that the Commission had taken no notice of the state of education in this country in deciding this question, and he thought that was a great mistake. He ventured to say that was not paying such attention as ought to have been paid to the circumstances of this country in formulating a scheme in which no circumstances connected with this country should have been left out of account. And the result of that was that they had a scheme, especially from the first Civil Service Commission, that, he thought, was entirely unsatisfactory. They wanted in this country the best educated men they could attract to the Civil Service. He did not think that the plan of the Government met that requirement. He was afraid they would frighten from their Service the best educated of their children by this scheme, and that was a most unsatisfactory thing. He did not say they could set education against experience in administrative or any other walk of life; but it did seem to him that, for their higher administrative positions, they were bound to get highly educated men. He agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg. It was a question whether they were going to provide in their Civil Service a sufficient number of educated men to give them afterwards the administrators they required. To-day they found that because they had refused to take into the Civil Service a sufficient number of well-educated men they had often to go outside the Service for their heads of departments. At present almost all the heads were men from other countries. Why was that? He ventured to say that was not the desire of hon. gentlemen on this or the other side of the House. They wanted a South African Civil Service in the future; but the Government was responsible for the present state of things, and they were responsible for deciding that South Africans shall not be the chiefs of the Civil Service if they said that the best educated South Africans shall not enter the Service. He wanted to say that every vocation in life attracted a certain class of men, of which as a whole they could not say they were more able or less able, more educated or less educated. But there was a certain class of men who they could attract to the Civil Service and who would make successes; but who might fail if they put them on farms. It was the duty of the Government to attract the best of those men to the Service. He ventured to draw the attention of the Minister to one point in this regard which showed the necessity for taking further evidence on this subject. The hon. Minister had made a plan in which he said that the men who took their degrees were to have five years’ start of the men who had not taken a degree, but simply matriculated. The hon. gentleman said they took three years for their degree. That was so; but the University Council had introduced a scheme of reform, and a very important one, by which a young man who was going to take honours took an extra year; that was to say, that the best men who took their degree took four years and not three. But his hon. friend had put in a proviso; and that only applied to the undergraduates who were taken into the Service. The proviso gave one or more years’ seniority to the boy who had particularly distinguished himself in the matriculation. This evidently meant at least two years. So that he would only give three years’ seniority at the most to those who went through the university and took an honours degree. Therefore the boy who took honours at matriculation and then entered the service at once would be in advance of the man who took an honours degree. That was unjust. It discouraged men from going on with their education, and discouraged educational institutions in this country, and it meant in the future they were going to find exactly what they had in the past. They had not the best educated men in the Service, and they would have to go elsewhere for their heads of departments. He would like to ask hon. members on his side of the House if it were right that they should form a scheme which was bound to result in the heads of their departments being imported.

He would admit that the Minister of the Interior had gone into that matter further than any of the existing Acts had done; but he did not think he had gone far enough, in view of the extraordinary development of the country. The hon. member quoted statistics that show that in 1881 61 candidates had passed the Matriculation examination; in 189.1, 142; in 1901, 374; and in 1911 no less than 1,163; the figures for the B.A. examination being respectively, 10, 14, 49, and 127. Now that the people of that country, said the hon. member, were educating their children up to that level, he did think that the Select Committee ought to take cognisance of that fact, and ought to allow the people and the Civil Service to have the benefit of that fact. Twelve years ago the University Council had made representations to the Government of the Cape Colony and the Government of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. Lord Milner hoped that something would be done, but owing to the peculiar circumstances of the time he had not been able to do it, nor had the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) been able to do anything. In 1904 the University Council again desired to make themselves heard on the matter, and later again. Continuing, he said that it was a matter of notoriety how the legal profession, or, at any rate, the lower branches of it, were overstocked at the present time; and with regard to the medical profession it was almost overstocked too, and if they could induce their young men to go on the farms, well and good; but higher agricultural education had languished to a great extent in the country, and there was very little opening for their young men in that direction also. Surely it was right that they should bring the supply and demand together, so that they would have a system of admission to the Civil Service which really corresponded with the demand, and the circumstances of the country. He hoped that the omission of the latest Commission would be repaired in the Select Committee, and that the circumstances of the education of the people would be considered and the educational authorities would be allowed to place their evidence before the committee. In his opinion the proper system would be to have a double Civil Service—divided into administrative and clerical branches. (Hear, hear.) The Matriculation examination did not give them exactly what they wanted for their clerical staff, and it aimed at too much; and those who had merely succeeded in passing its lower grades were aiming at breadth without obtaining either depth or breadth. A number passed that examination who were defective in writing and spelling. He hoped that in addition to the competitive examination there would also be a qualifying examination. He did not want to go to other countries and take whatever they had laid down, but he did think that they might do much worse than consider the system laid down by the Indian Civil Service, which appeared to him to be admirable, and seemed absolutely necessary for the circumstances of the country. After passing a very severe competitive examination, candidates for that service were not regarded as appointed, they were simply regarded as selected candidates, and they had to study the language, history, and law of the country in which they had to work. It was a scandal that they should send into their native territories people who were unable to talk the language of the natives. With regard to the lower branch of the Civil Service, it seemed to him that they should insist upon clerical qualifications, and with regard to the higher branches, after candidates had passed the examination, they should be considered as selected candidates, and set to qualify in the history, language, and law of the territories in which they were to be placed, prior to appointment. He welcomed the appointment of a Select Committee, as he had welcomed the tone of the discussion, and he trusted that in consequence of this, they might go into this question entirely without party considerations.

said he appreciated the remarks that had been made by his hon. friend with regard to the special training in the case of men whom they intended to send out to grapple with the most complex and withal most fascinating matters connected with native affairs. It had been overlooked by many young South Africans in the past, that the administration of native affairs was a subject requiring the most careful attention and great study. The introduction of new blood and the teaching of their young South Africans to interest themselves in these great matters, was one of the most important things that could be brought forward. Then with regard to the question of the qualifications of men who aspired to the higher branches of the Civil Service, he quite agreed that the educational test was the only one at present. Although he was not in favour of examinations, unfortunately they provided the only test and this test should be on the basis of open competition. At the same time it was quite possible to overdo these examinations. He believed that Clive never passed an examination in his life, and that also was the case, he believed, with Lord Randolph Churchill, yet both these men were great administrators. In his opinion, the man who passed the stillest examination was not always by any means the best administrator. He appreciated what had been said from both sides of the House as to the necessity which they all felt for the creation of a good, efficient, and contented Civil Service in this country. (Hear, hear.) It was really one of the foundations of our national prosperity that we should have our affairs administered by men who were competent to do the business, and were able, through the satisfaction given by them in that position, to discharge that business with credit to themselves and credit to the country. (Hear, hear.) He agreed that this should not be a party matter. Now he would like to come to what had been regarded by hon. members opposite as the crux of this Bill. He referred to the position laid down in the Bill as to the powers and functions of the Commission which was to regulate the Civil Service. They all recognised, with regard to this particular aspect of the Bill, that they could hardly have anywhere in the world, and especially in a country like South Africa, a more difficult and comprehensive subject to deal with. They must have the democratic principle that there must be somebody in the House who was responsible to Parliament for this matter of the service. Those people could be no one but the Ministers. They had endeavoured to reconcile what was a sound principle with good business practice.

Ministerial patronage had been spoken of, the appointment by Ministers of officers in the service. Well, all he could say was that Ministerial patronage, with regard to appointments in the Civil Service, was about as hollow a mockery as he had ever known. (Cheers.) For every man whom you appointed and whom you might be able to placate, you disappointed and made enemies of about half a dozen hungry fellows who wanted to be in the service. (Laughter.) It was a thing which he, for one—and he believed he was speaking also for his colleagues—would be glad to be rid of. He welcomed the feeling that had been shown in favour of the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee. It had been said on the other side of the House that no assurance had been given to hon. members opposite that on such a matter as the powers and functions of the Commission there should be a free discussion in Select Committee. It had been said it was unfortunate that hitherto no assurance had been given from the Ministerial benches that, instead of this matter being regarded as settled and foreclosed by the second reading of the Bill, it should be open to discussion in the Select Committee. Well, he only wanted to say this on behalf of his hon. friend, with whom he had discussed the matter, and on behalf of the Government, that they were prepared to give an assurance in the fullest terms. (Hear, hear.) They did not desire to say that the passage of this Bill was going to foreclose discussion on these points. They did not say that they would be prepared to accept everything that was proposed, but they would be prepared perfectly freely and fully to say that these matters they would regard and deal with in committee as open to discussion. (Cheers.) He thought, therefore, that the debate on the second reading of this Bill need not necessarily be prolonged.

said that he would like to congratulate both sides of the House on the tone which had pervaded this debate hitherto. He thought the House was to be congratulated on the rapprochement which had been arrived at. The first and vital point of the Bill was the appointment of a Public Service Commission, and he could not help, after reading the clause in the South Africa Act, thinking that the intention of the National Convention was that a permanent Commission should be appointed with certain powers and duties assigned to it. He fully agreed with those hon. members who advocated that this Commission should be one that would not be removable. If such a Commission were appointed it would be a Commission in which they could have full confidence, and a Commission that would be able to do its work faithfully and well, and without fear of any consequences, especially in regard to appointments. If this Commission was to do its work properly, then he did not think that the Bill made adequate provision for it, because they found that the Commission could keep a register of applicants and could make recommendations. But they had no guarantee in the Bill that the Government would accept any recommendations that might be made by such a body. Special appointments, he considered should be left entirely to the Public Service Commission, and with regard to these appointments he would like to see some sort of competitive examination. He did not think that the Matriculation examination was adequate. He did not know what the state of affaire was in the other Provinces, but in Natal an attempt was made to introduce the competitive examination system, but probably owing to the fact that there was such a sparse white population in the Province it did not succeed, and he would point out that the Public Service Commission, as it stood in the Bill, approached perilously near to the Civil Service Board which was appointed in Natal, and which had these recommendatory powers, but which for years before Union was found to be an absolute failure. With regard to recruiting for the service, he asked the committee whether it would not be better to have a competitive examination, because they wanted young men with broad rather than an exclusive knowledge of subjects. He thought that the Matriculation examination was rather a narrow basis. Continuing, he proceeded to advocate that Civil Servants should be encouraged to qualify themselves for special appointments in particular departments, and instanced the case of the Native Affairs Department where these young men should be encouraged to make themselves acquainted with the various native languages in order that they might come into close touch with the natives. He also asked the committee to be appointed to consider whether it would not be well to have a qualifying examination for the higher posts in the service at some period, say five or six years after the candidate had entered the public service. He proceeded to discuss statements made by the hon. member for Liesbeek with regard to officers in the different grades of the services and the positions which they found themselves in after Union came about.

These cases would occur, but he did not think that the particular officers concerned should feel there was any personal degradation in this matter, but that they should congratulate themselves upon the fact that they were drawing this salary instead of the salary attached to the post. But at the same time one could feel that unless that officer drew a salary based on the salary he was drawing at the time he would feel that a hardship had been done him. He wanted to show to the House the difficulty the Commission and the Administration had in dealing with this matter. He was glad that the Bill was going to a Select Committee, because there it would be possible to consider all these matters, which were of the utmost importance to South Africa. They must have a contented Civil Service. The Civil Service of this country had been under the harrow for the last few years. It could not be avoided, but there had been a state of uncertainty and unrest, and one could only hope that the committee would settle the matter, so that Civil Servants would know what their positions would be. Regarding politics among what was called the general division, he was not disposed to interfere with them in any way. They were messengers and so on, and men who did not come into contact with members of Parliament, and, therefore, could safely be allowed to act as they would. But with regard to the administrative and clerical divisions, they were men who came in constant contact with members of Parliament, and who knew the inner working of the departments, and in their own interests and the interests of the country he did not think it was advisable that they should take any interest in politics, with the exception of merely recording their votes. (Hear, hear.)

expressed his regret that the Minister had not explained the Bill in Dutch. Both languages had equal rights, and when it came to the explaining of a Bill, the Minister ought to do it in both languages. It was laid down in the Bill that entrants to the service must have matriculated, and be between the ages of 16 and 25. What then would happen to those officials who had been taken on since the Union in a temporary capacity? Those people were required, but the provision in the Bill would exclude them, and that was unfair. The Minister had stated that in some districts only one language was necessary, but in the speaker’s opinion it would be a breach of the Constitution if every official were not required to know both languages. If they went on in the direction indicated by the Minister, the Dutch language would disappear in forty years. Clause 4 did great injustice to the language rights of the country.

said that he wished to associate himself with what the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had said about the question of language, and it would be unfair that the plums of the service should go to the unilingual man. It would not be fair if the unilingual man was reserved to the English-speaking centres, for they all knew which the English-speaking centres were. He thought it was very necessary to have Dutch-speaking officials in these large centres. As to the Orange Free State, 15 years ago they had an admission examination for the Civil Service there, in which a man had to qualify for both languages, and surely what the Orange Free State did in the old days the Union could do now. Surely the official languages should be known by the officials of the country! When they were making a new start with the Union he did not see why they should not make a new start also as far as the languages were concerned. Dealing with the question of pensions, he said that he was very much against any pensions being paid at all, which might seem a strange thing to say. In the first schedule he found that the lowest grade salaries ran from £160 to £360 a year, and an ordinary clerk in a store, bank, or office seldom received £30 per month. There was no gainsaying the fact that the great majority of the classes of that country were not earning as much as the lowest graded clerk in the Civil Service. Consequently they were asking the poorer portion of the population in South Africa to contribute to that portion which got a good deal more. Until they were prepared to pension all, he was not prepared to agree to the proposed scheme, which was simply making the burdens upon the country heavier.

said he must confess that the speech he just listened to by the hon. member for Ladybrand deserved a word in reply. Although he did not think his hon. friend had any intention of misleading the House, still he could not help describing what he said, as a very unjust aspersion upon successive Cape administrations when he stated that they had been guilty of gross favouritism in the selection of their candidates. Most of the time he was in the Cape Parliament, he was in opposition and he never knew of any charge being brought forward by the Opposition against the Government on that point. With regard to any new appointment in the Cape any favouritism would have been impossible, because all appointments were made by examination—

I said Dutch did not have a fair chance.

continuing, said the hon. member said Dutch did not have a fair chance, but let him tell the hon. member that Dutch was a compulsory subject in the Civil Service examinations before the war and only made optional during the war. There were twelve subjects for examination with a total of 2,000 marks, and out of this Dutch got 200 marks. If they wanted to attract the best type of men into the Civil Service they must offer them the inducement of pensions when they retired. (Hear, hear.) The pension provisions were some of the most satisfactory features of the Bill before the House that had been touched upon that day, although he did not say that they were not capable of improvement. He was going to make one or two suggestions with regard to the scheme which they might look at impartially. This was an extremely complex and an extremely difficult question. When the Cape Parliament laid down a 3 per cent deduction for pension purposes, they thought they were starting a perfectly self-supporting fund, and it would have been self-supporting if it had not been for the side benefits. He wanted to say a word to the member for Uitenhage, who rather attacked the Ministry for appointing imported men, but let him tell his hon. friend that, out of the ten permanent heads of Ministerial departments in the service, certainly four, and he thought, indeed, five, were South Africans. His friend was rather severe on the Stockenstrom Commission for not taking the evidence of the Cape of Good Hope University. It was necessary to take that evidence because they had the evidence that was given with great force at the Graham Commission, with the findings of the Commission thereon.

He would like to touch upon the pension provisions of the Bill, which formed practically a novel scheme. The Minister proposed to introduce into the pension fund officers of the police and officers of the Cape Mounted Rifles. That might be a wise step to take, but he would remind the Minister that, after fixing the pay of these men, and having regard to the nature of their employment, the Cape Government always maintained, rightly or wrongly, that it did not justify a deduction from their pay for their pensions. He thought they should pause before they altered that, unless the Defence Bill and the Police Bill, which were not at present before the House, might alter the pay of these officers and justify this deduction. There was a novel proposal with regard to the widows and next-of-kin of public officers who died before they drew their pension, or just after they drew their pension. The provision of this Bill, as he read it, amounted to this, that an officer who died before he had drawn his pension for five successive years would be assured that his widow or his next-of-kin would draw the balance, i.e., every public officer was guaranteed a pension for five years for himself or next of kin. He would ask the Minister to consider this question of giving a gratuity, if there were to be compensation, to the widow of a public officer. He believed if the history of these gratuities or commuted pensions, as they really were, could be written, it would prove to be one of the saddest stories imaginable. He hoped that the principle of giving gratuities would not be sanctioned. He wanted to see widows protected, but he hoped it would be in the way of an annuity and not in the way of a gratuity. This could be done by extending the Widows’ Pensions Fund of the Cape, which was actuarially sound to-day on a contribution of one per cent. Dealing with the question of the deduction from public servants for their pensions. Mr. Currey remarked that they all knew that the Cape fund was, actuarially, hopelessly unsound. He discussed the provisions of the scheme contained in the Bill and the scheme outlined in the Graham Commission’s report, and pointed out that under the scheme of the Minister, all that a man could hope to get was 66 2-3, with its deduction of 4 per cent, of the average amount of the total salary that he had drawn, that was after forty years’ service, while under the Graham Commission scheme he would get, with a deduction of 3 per cent., 70 per cent.

The result would be that the pensions were going to be very much smaller than under the existing system. This fund, according to the Graham Commission—and he had no reason to doubt the figures that were given—was on an absolutely sound basis. Of course, the whole thing would depend on this, in making the men who joined the service after the age of 25 draw a smaller pension, while the man who joined the service after the age of 40 should not be allowed to contribute at all. He would put it this way: The man who joined the service at the age of seventeen would receive a greater proportion; the man who joined the service at 25 would receive a smaller proportion. The whole thing really depended on what he might call these two principles. The scheme of the Graham Commission was a sound one, and if under that scheme they could take less from the Civil Servant and less from the State, and still give the servant a higher contribution, then he thought that the House would favour such a system if the two principles he mentioned were borne in mind. He hoped that the committee would consider the remarks of the hon. member for Liesbeek, so far as the division of the service into two branches was concerned. What they really wanted was a division of the administrative branch of the service. Anybody who held a Ministerial portfolio or anyone who had been intimately connected with the service could not have failed to have been struck by the vast amount of routine work and the small amount of work that required thought. What they wanted was separation of the mechanical work of the departments from the work of those departments that was really on a higher plane. That division had been described by the Playfair Commission in England as the key of the whole position. That Commission said that unless there was a division between those two classes of labour they would never obtain efficiency and economy in the service. They had two alternatives before them, and they had to decide which of these alternatives they were going to adopt. Were they going to regard the whole of the administrative branch of the service as one service, or were they going to divide the administrative service into two divisions? The House had to take the responsibility in this matter because if they did pass the Bill this session he was sure that the matter would not be tackled again by the Union Parliament for a considerable period. In England the system of division had been found to work, and work well; in India this division had been found to work, and work well. Both Commissions that had sat in this country had recommended the same system. He would merely remind the House that the Graham Commission stated that if these two divisions had only been made, a saving of £100,000 a year would have been effected. If there could have been a saving of £100,000 a year for the Cape alone, what would be the saving for the whole of the Union? They should not only deal with efficiency in the service, but economy in the service. With regard to pensions he would like to say that they should see that one man was not treated more advantageously than another. So they must be careful that they did not give one section of the public service a grievance against another, because he was sure all hon. members had, in dealing with this Bill, the one object in view, and that was to have not only an economic and efficient, but to have a contented Civil Service. (Hear, hear.)

said there was a strong desire to place all questions of appointments and the public service altogether beyond the suspicion of little minor influences. He thought all sections of the House agreed in desiring certain things. One was that the public service of the country should feel they were the servants of no party and of no race, but the servants of the public. Secondly, it was the desire that admission into the service and promotion in the service shall depend solely upon the qualifications of the candidates for admission and the proficiency and efficiency of the members of the Civil Service to be promoted. They did not want to have any of those minor considerations which might just as well be as soon as possible relegated to the Select Committee on Scrap Iron. (Hear, hear.) He hoped in the Select Committee the Minister would give most careful consideration to the arguments used, as he believed the great majority of the members of the House would desire to see the Civil Service Commission placed on an absolutely independent footing. The only other matter he wished to refer to was the point made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, and that was the question of the political rights of Civil Servants. There were positions in the Civil Service where he would say that the ordinary discretion of a man who had reached that position could be quite relied upon to obviate any difficulties arising from granting the most full and free political rights to Civil Servants. But he just wanted to touch this note. It was said by the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) that the Civil Servants were the servants of those whom members represented. Granted that there might be certain positions in the service where it would lead to great inconvenience if they did exercise their political rights, and granted one could not rely on their own discretion, he did think that the tendency in all legislation on this matter was rather to regard the person who entered the Civil Service as a person against whom they should make it an offence to give expression of any of his political beliefs. He would strongly urge upon the Select Committee to do their utmost, and to carefully consider that, and in their recommendations to the House to try and limit that denial of the fullest possible rights to those who would exercise them to the detriment of the public service. He thought it would be a good thing if the Select Committee would remember that the Civil Servants were primarily citizens of this country, and their political rights should not be curtailed by one iota. (Hear, hear.)

said he wanted, first of all, to express his gratification at the general tone which had been taken in this discussion. He was glad that they were able to find all the members of the House on the side of the Civil Servants, and all desirous of doing what they could to make the Civil Servants’ position as clear, as secure, and as good as possible. He wished to deal with two points, one of which was raised by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. H. Fremantle), and dealt with by the Minister of Native Affairs, and that was the necessity for having men acquainted with the native languages to administer the law and to keep order and hold authority in the Native Territories and Reserves. But they often found that officials with these special qualifications were placed at a distinct disadvantage in comparison with men who had not that special knowledge, and he did think that great consideration should be shown those men. They were placed in out-of-the-way corners of the country and practically forgotten. It was difficult to provide these men with a knowledge of the native language, if they were going to make the matriculation examination the standard for entering the Service. It was not the boy who went to school who got a good knowledge of the native, but the boy who was at home amongst the natives, and knew their language well. The boy who went to school or college usually left home with a fairly good knowledge of the native language, but when he came back, after several years he was less used to the tongue. In conclusion the hon. member drew attention to special cases of professional men, such as bacteriologists, entering the Service, who could not be treated as the ordinary clerk entering the Service. He hoped that the Minister would devote his attention to these cases.

said that there was one point he wished to confine himself to, and that was the question of grading as laid down by the report of the Commission. He was afraid that if they were going to adopt that system they were going to close the door of the Service to a number of very able men. If they took the only branch of the Civil Service where they had grading for some time—the Postal and Telegraph Department—they found that to-day there were clerks at the top of their barriers who had been standing there for the past nine years, waiting for a vacancy in the next grade. If they were going to lay down as a basis, he proceeded, that they were going to have the matriculation examination, they could have a competitive examination afterwards amongst the Civil Servants, which would, he thought, lead to a far better state of affairs than that system of grading. It would lead to a healthy spirit of competition, which would lead to a better standard—what they were all aiming at. He did not agree with what had been said by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) as to the educational standard; and in the Cape several graduates had been appointed, but his experience was that they were not all an unqualified success, and they invariably went out afterwards, because they could find something better there. As to the matriculated man, after his four years’ service, he thought he would compare very favourably with the graduate who had just entered the Civil Service; and if there were a competitive examination in the Service, he thought that the former would easily beat the latter. The vast majority would be in favour of a system of insurance. He could foresee difficulties with regard to retrenched men, but these difficulties could be overcome. This system had been found necessary in Australia, because it was found that the pensions there were growing to be an almost unbearable burden. The Cape Fund would never have been in the position that it was to-day, if it had not been depleted by the payment of pensions to men who never had contributed to it.

said he represented a constituency that he believed had more Civil Servants in it than any other, but he was not going to discuss the Bill from that point. In common with others, he could quote to the House great numbers of individual cases of hardship and complaint. If they abstained from doing so the Minister must not underrate the seriousness of their attitude. It was because of the gravity of the question they had abstained from introducing matters which cause irritation and perhaps provoke hostility, although absolutely justified. They had abstained from indicating the Steps they intended taking if Government had persisted in the attitude of the Bill now submitted, because they did not want to threaten; they meant to act. Throughout this debate they had abstained from introducing anything of a contentious nature into the debate. If the Minister wanted to know how seriously they regarded the position, he need only remind the Minister of his own words when he said that “they could not continue in a state of absolute lawlessness.” With that they agreed. And when he said that “the present state of affairs in the Civil Service could not continue,” they agreed with that also, and when he added that “the Government could not be allowed to continue administering the service at its own sweet will,” that expressed their view exactly. Therefore, they welcomed the statement by the Minister of Native Affairs, but he would not like to put too sanguine an interpretation upon that; he would simply like to know what it meant. The Minister said it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee and they would be enabled to discuss all the points raised including the payment, powers and appointment of the Board and such cognate matters. He took it that this meant the period for which the Board was appointed. They were deeply concerned about this independent character of the Board. It was the root of the matter. Their attitude was well understood. Five years ago in the Transvaal, and later in the National Convention, it was made clear. The hon. Minister had certainly gone a long way in meeting them, since they had been passed under the steam roller of the Transvaal, but he had not gone the whole way, for the safeguards in the Bill to-day were worthless. If they did not have the power to get a motion on the paper in both Houses and carry it through within two weeks, then everything in the Bill after passing would be simply waste paper. So far as was consistent with the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council, the Board must be independent. When the subject came to be considered in Select Committee he looked forward with some confidence to finding the Minister himself a hearty advocate of the Board being established in the position in which they wanted it to be. He felt himself that in this, as in other things, he was greatly puzzled by the Minister’s attitude. Here was a Minister, against whom there had been no suspicion of nepotism or favouritism, who believed in efficiency. What kind of insanity was it that impelled a man to grasp power, which he did not want and could not properly use, and to take responsibility which should rest on others, namely, an impartial permanent board. He confessed feeling uneasy and unconvinced by the curious change in attitude. It were a sincere conversion it was a very late one, and only came when speeches of Government supporters showed that the Opposition had been all along expressing the view of the country; he would not like to say the offensive thing, but that there was a lack of sincerity, that there seemed to be a lack of courage in this. Why had not the Minister himself come forward and put this policy before the House? They wanted to get the Civil Service out of this contentious area. They wanted to get the Civil Service contented and efficient. If this represented conversion he would say no more, but he hoped that that conversion would manifest itself in the Select Committee, and that this Bill would be made, in some respects, entirely different from what it was to-day. (Cheers.)

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.

moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report, and that the committee consist of nine members.

seconded.

Agreed to.