moved that on and after Tuesday, the 21st instant, the House suspend business at six o’clock p.m., and resume at eight o’clock p.m. on Tuesdays, Government business to have precedence from eight o’clock p.m. on such days.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the following be a Standing Order for the remainder of the session: “If at five minutes to six o’clock pm, on Tuesdays the business be not sooner disposed of, Mr. Speaker will adjourn the debate on the business then under discussion, or the Chairman will report progress and ask leave to sit again, as the case may be, and dilatory motions, such as motions for adjournment, will lapse without question put. If a debate arises as to the day for which such interrupted business shall be put down, Mr. Speaker shall call for the ‘Ayes’ and ‘Noes’; when, if Mr. Speaker is unable to determine whether the ‘ Ayes’ or ‘Noes’ have it, he shall order the interrupted business to be put down for the next day on which the House, shall sit. Provided that if, at five minutes to six o’clock p.m., Government business is under consideration, no such interruption shall take place.”

seconded the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

said he hoped he was justified in asking his right hon. friend the Prime Minister, in view of the rumours that had been going about, if he would be prepared to make some statement as to the authenticity or otherwise of certain statements in the Press regarding the resignation of the Minister of Finance, more especially as the Order on the paper was crowded with measures of a most important character.

I will allow the hon. member to ask this question just before the Orders of the Day.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the construction and equipment of certain lines of railway and for the purposes thereof to confer upon the Governor-General certain powers incidental thereto.

May I ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister if the plans in connection with this Bill will be laid upon the table of the House?

Yes.

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

The second reading was set down for Monday.

Report on the South African Railways and Harbours Board on proposed new lines of railway, 1912.

read the following message from the House of Assembly to the Senate: The House of Assembly transmits to the Honourable the Senate the Bill “To Consolidate and Amend the Laws in force in the Union relating to the use of Water of Public Streams, for Domestic, Irrigation and Industrial Purposes, and to provide facilities for the Irrigation of Land and Use of Water,” in which the Honourable the Senate bias made certain amendments. The House of Assembly has concurred in the amendments in clause 2 in the interpretation of terms “owner” and “riparian land”; the amendments in clause 6; the amendments in clause 10, sub-section (1), in lines 44 and 45 to omit “without detriment to the interests of lower riparian owners on the stream,” and the amendments in sub-sections (2) and (4) in the same clause; the amendments in clauses 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17; the amendments in clause 18, page 16, line 71, to omit “or flood,” and on page 18, line 8, to omit “right or”; the amendments in clauses 22, 23, 24, 53, and 105. The House of Assembly has further concurred in the amendment in clause 2, in the interpretation of term “riparian owner” with an amendment, after “and shall” to insert “for the purpose of defining such term where it occurs a second time in section 8.” This amendment the House of Assembly considers necessary in order to more clearly define the rights of riparian owners; and in consequence of this decision the House of Assembly is unable to concur in the amendments in clauses 8 and 9. The House of Assembly has also agreed to the amendment in clause 10, lines 46 and 47, with an amendment, to omit “preclude” and to substitute “exclude.” The House of Assembly regrets that it is unable to concur in the amendments in clause 18 to omit “could” and “expected” and to substitute “would” and “entitled” respectively; and in the amendment in clause 21. The House of Assembly trusts that the Honourable the Senate will concur in the further amendments made by the House of Assembly in clauses 2 and 10, and will not insist on the amendments disagreed to by the House of Assembly in clauses 8, 9, 18, and 21.

The message was approved.

asked the Prime Minister if he were prepared to make a statement with regard to the reported resignation of the Minister of Finance.

said: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to reply to the question of my hon. friend. I must say that he is one of those people who are always in a very great hurry. I am sorry, however, that I cannot, at this stage, give him the information he would like. It is true that the resignation of my hon. friend the Treasurer has been tendered to me, but I may say that this is a question which is still under consideration, and which 1 am still discussing with my colleagues. I am not, therefore, prepared to-day to make any statement with regard to the proffered resignation of my hon. friend, and I, therefore, hope that the hon. the leader of the Opposition will not press this question any further, because I first wish to discuss the question with my colleagues, and as soon as we are ready to do so, I shall make the statement to the House. Possibly I shall do so tomorrow, but I cannot say anything definite. In the meantime, I hope the work of the House will proceed as usual, and I have asked my hon. friend the Minister for the Interior to take charge, meanwhile, of the Bills introduced by the Treasurer.

said that before the motion was put, he would like to call attention to the extraordinary position in which the House was placed. He had been looking round the House to see whether the late Minister of Finance was in his place, because it did seem an extraordinary thing when they had the gentleman who, until lately, held that important position, and who had many measures of vast importance before the House, that the Prime Minister should adopt the extraordinary and un parliamentary’ attitude of not taking the House into his confidence, and informing them of the reasons. In the absence of a full statement by the Prime Minister as to the reasons which had actuated him in bringing before the House these measures which for a considerable period of time had engaged their attention. There was at the present moment the Partial Appropriation Bill for a million of money, which his hon. friend had moved, and its introduction was due to the fact that the Government was not in a position—not having the authority of Parliament—to finance the Union, and consequently it must have Parliamentary sanction. They were in the extraordinary position, even at that late hour of the session that the ordinary Estimates of Expenditure had not yet been before the House in committee. The Prime Minister laughed—

Last week you objected.

I objected the week before last to the introduction many days in advance of a motion for the giving up of every night for the consideration of the Estimates, but we never objected to the Estimates of Expenditure coming forward. Proceeding, Sir Thomas said that one of their reasons was that the Estimates were of such an important character that they did not want them rushed through the House. Then they had the Loan Estimates, and the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, which had made very many important recommendations in connection with the interest on railway capital, which the Minister of Finance said it was the intention of the House to discuss very fully. Then they had another very important matter, which was engaging the consideration of the Minister of Finance, which the hon. gentleman referred to last Friday. That was the Financial Relations Commission, and the Minister of Finance said it was his intention to introduce a Bill very shortly to deal with that matter, because it was of such great importance that it would not be possible, without grave injustice, to allow Parliament to rise without dealing with it. On Friday evening up to a late hour, they were engaged in a very important measure, dealing with the establishment of a Land Bank for the Union, a measure of such vast importance that when an amendment was moved in one clause, they saw the extraordinary procedure of the Minister of Finance voting on that side of the House and the Minister of Railways and the Minister of the Interior voting on the other, which Showed that there was an extraordinary position developing even on Friday night. Notwithstanding that, the Minister of Finance gave certain assurances with regard to certain amendments he would introduce into the Bill.

Since then they had heard of some extraordinary differences of opinion with regard to policy haying occurred in the Cabinet. His hon. friend the Minister of Finance had suddenly resigned, and the House had no opportunity of knowing the reasons for his resignation, whether they were political or not, and of a nature to alter the whole character of the financial proposals before the House. There was the Estate Duties Bill, upon which he understood there was a certain amount of difference of opinion. He understood that some other stalwart supporters of the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister, objected to the death duties—(A MINISTERIAL MEMBER Hear, hear”)—and it would be very interesting to know whether one of the reasons which had actuated the Minister in resigning his portfolio was because he found that a policy was being forced upon him against his better judgment, these were things upon which they should have some information before they voted a sum of one million sterling. He would only add that the Prime Minister was treating the House with scant courtesy. It was altogether a new departure from Parliamentary procedure. An important crisis ha d occurred in the Cabinet; one of the most important members of his right hon. friend’s Administration, dealing with large measures of finance before the House, which were not yet completed, had resigned his seals of office, and did not come into the House and make a statement, and his right hon. friend the Prime Minister was not in a position to make a statement. It was a most undesirable position; it was a most undignified position; and his right hon. friend was treating the House with scant courtesy, which was unworthy of a gentleman holding the very high position he did.

said young as he was in Parliamentary procedure, he thought that, while the House must have a full explanation from the Minister as to the reason for his resignation, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) was a trifle impatient in protesting that within 48 hours of the resignation and before it had been accepted, a statement was not forthcoming. At the same time he submitted that the House was absolutely entitled to, and must have, very full and complete information as to the reasons for the resignation, and he hoped the House would not be kept waiting longer than necessary for that explanation. Did he understand the resignation was still under consideration?

Yes.

said that possibly it was not quite reasonable to expect a statement that afternoon, but as soon as the matter had been settled the House was entitled to, and must have, a full explanation.

said that the House was indebted to the hon. member for Jeppe for giving information which the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister did not convey in his speech.

I did.

I understand from the hon. member for Jeppe that the resignation has not been accepted.

That is what I gathered.

Of course, the hon. member for Jeppe is now in the confidence of the Government (Laughter.)

said that he stated in his speech that the resignation had not yet been accepted.

I did not catch that. Proceeding, he said that he wished to endorse the remarks made by his hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort. On an occasion like this Parliament was entitled to respect, but the Prime Minister had treated the House with discourtesy. They were entitled to know why the Minister had resigned and how that resignation affected the financial policy of the Government, because they were there to decide upon that policy, and they had a right to know to what extent the financial policy of the Government was altered by this extraordinary resignation. It was very extraordinary procedure on the part of the Minister of Finance. He had introduced a number of financial measures and crowded them up against the end of the session. In fact the whole of the work of the Minister of Finance had still to be done. His Land Bank Bill was not through, his ‘Estimates were not yet in committee, and yet at the very beginning of his chief work in Parliament he resigned. Well, Parliament was entitled to an explanation from the Minister of Finance. They were entitled to know why he had taken that extraordinary step, and outside the House the general public would judge the Minister very harshly if he could not justify his action. That statement must therefore be forthcoming. Hon. members of the House were entitled to have from the Minister guidance and information as to the work of his department, and if his right hon. friend the Prime Minister put another member into office he could not give the House all the information necessary in discussing the Estimates. The position was so extraordinary that he trusted the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister would not delay in taking the House into his confidence and giving it the reasons why the Minister of Finance had resigned, and to what extent it affected the financial policy of the Government.

after the statement made by the Prime Minister, should be so impatient for information, and should launch forth on what was really an attack on the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister had stated quite clearly that he was not in a position that afternoon to make a statement, but he hoped to be in a position later on to give the information desired by his hon. friend. He asked that in an important matter like that necessary time should be given. His hon. friend knew that an opportunity was coming for him to discuss the whole question, but he did not wait for that statement. He did not wait for the Minister of Finance to be present in the House, but at once rushed forth in an attack upon his hon. friend the Minister of Finance. He did not think his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) was doing justice either to himself or to the Minister of Finance. He was sure the House would have every opportunity of hearing the reasons for the resignation of the Minister of Finance, and that it would have every opportunity of discussing the position. He did not understand why the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) should think any discourtesy was being shown to the House or that there had been a departure from the ordinary rules of propriety and dignity. He wanted information that afternoon which it was not possible to give in view of the very delicate circumstances of the case. The Prime Minister had assured the House that it would soon have the information and that it would then be possible to discuss the situation. In the meantime, the practical question before the House was this: Should we waste our time at this late stage of the session, or should we go on with the work? There was no matter raising any big question of policy. The Bills standing in the name of his hon. friend the Minister of Finance and which would come before the House that afternoon were Bills for which the whole Cabinet were responsible, and they were quite prepared to attend to them in the House. At this late stage of the session the proper and right course was not to waste the day, but to go on with the work, the more so as his hon. friend would have an opportunity later on of discussing either the public business or the financial policy of the Government or the conduct of the Government or any other matter. His hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) seemed very impatient to raise personal issues. After all, the work of the country took precedence over personal matters. The government of the country had to be carried on. They had had a long session, and he did not want to prolong it unnecessarily. Every day wasted in useless personal discussions at this stage meant another day tacked on to the end of the session.

You want money and you do not say whether the policy of the Government has been altered.

said that his hon. friend would be able to discuss all these things in good time. To adjourn that afternoon would be simply wasting time. He hoped that his hon. friend would be satisfied and allow the House to proceed with business that afternoon.

said he did not wish to delay the passing of the measure that was before the House, but he would like to point out one matter. The other afternoon the Treasurer made an important statement with regard to certain undermining rights, the proceeds of which he said had been placed to a separate account. He told the House at the time that there was a case pending in connection with the matter. He might say at once that he did not think there was very much in that. He would like to ask the acting Minister of Finance now that the Government had decided to act in accordance with the provisions of clause 55 of the law of 1908 and put the proceeds from this property to a separate account, and would come to Parliament for directions as to what he should do with that money, when the Government would do so. The matter had been in abeyance for something like three years. Early in the session they were told that the provisions of the Act had not been carried out that instead of these proceeds being placed to a separate account they had been included in the ordinary revenue of the country. They had now had a statement from the Minister that the money had been placed to a separate account, and he would like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance to make a statement as to when it was the intention of the Government to come to Parliament as to what should be done with these proceeds.

was understood to ask whether the proviso covered the unauthorised expenditure for 1912.

was understood to say that it was clear that no such authority was necessary.

was understood to say that he was referring to the first portion of the proviso, and not the second.

was understood to say that they were simply carrying on the business of the country according to the Estimates of last year.

The clauses were severally considered and agreed to.

The Bill was reported without amendment, and leave given to bring up the report to-morrow.

who was inaudible in the Press Gallery, moved the second reading of the Bill.

said that this was the second Bill of the kind which his hon. friend had had before the House that session. He pointed out that it was two months since the Minister moved to go into committee on his Estimates, and nothing further had been done in that direction. This delay, he thought, was most unsatisfactory. Did the House know that they had still to vote a net sum of 35 millions, and that these votes had to be considered in detail? His hon. friend had also three other Bills for the railways and harbours of a financial character, with which no progress had been made.

He thought this House had a right to complain of the way it was being treated by the Government in regard to money matters. He would like to bring another point to the notice of the Minister, and it was this, that they had had no complete statement laid before the House, or before the country, as regarded the expenditure for the year ending March 31. His hon. friend should by this time, at any rate, have the papers before him. In regard to the finance of the railways, he would like to say that the Minister’s Budget statement given this year showed a surplus of something like £1,586,000, as far as he could make out from the published figures. That was after paying full interest on capital involved, paying debts on the harbours, paying for betterment, and the like, and after allowing for a reduction of £456,000 and £21,000 in rates on February 1 last, he anticipated a surplus on last year of £1 580,000. Added to that, they had an amount of £75,000 balance brought forward giving a total amount of £l,660,000. He disposed of that by £1,159,000 going to last year’s account as a contribution to general revenue and £500,000 to the ordinary revenue of the coming year. What he would point out was that the Minister in his Budget laid before them some two months ago expected a surplus of something like £790,000. Notwithstanding the fact that he would have an increased mileage to run on the basis of the same rates as existed at present, he only anticipated a surplus of £790,000, as against a surplus last year of £.586,000. He disposed of that surplus of £790,000 by reducing railway rates £750,000, and carrying forward the balance of £40,000. At first view, it seemed extraordinary that he should have budgeted for the very large increase in expenses as compared with last year. The increase on the railways was £1,113,000 and on harbours £105,000. as compared with the estimated expenses of last year. He had budgeted this year for £557,000 over and above the actual expenditure of last financial year What he would point out was that, though the Minister was going to spend something like £567 000 more than he expended last year, though they had 500 miles of new lines, though he would have an increased train mileage of about one million miles, yet, taking the basis of the present rates, before he came to the reduction, he only estimated for receipts, which, as a matter of fact, were about £100,000 less than the actual receipts last year. The estimated receipts for last year were £12.190.000, and the estimated receipts tor this year were £12,097,000. Taking the harbours, he budgeted for an increase in the loss on harbours in the current year of £147,000. Last year the loss was £230,000; this year it was shown at £278,000. He thought the Minister had budgeted in an extremely conservative fashion. There was another point. Clause 131 of the South Africa Act provided that an account should be rendered of services performed by the railways at the request of the House, and should be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. He had not seen any account rendered yet as to the value of the passes over the railways issued to members of the Legislature and Provincial Councils. The Minister had said in his Budget speech that he intended something of a revolutionary character, and that he intended to take the charges from ships and place them upon imported goods. In the first place, the ships contributed £100,000 per annum, and if the country was going to get the full remission of that, they must see that the ports should have free shipping. When his hon. friend fixed these duties, he should have a mixed rate, and so much per cent on declared value.

said that prior to the agreement with Portugal the Cape ports had been suffering very severely, and for a great extent in silence, and they had not heard so much of the suffering of the Cape ports as they had heard of others, and these grievances were very real indeed. Cape ports were entitled to 15 to 20 per cent of the Transvaal trade. They had received 10 to 12 per cent. In March, owing to the alteration in the facilities in traffic, they received 16 per cent of the traffic; prior to that they had never received more than 12 per cent. They were sanguine that the better position would be maintained, but the later figures showed that the Delagoa Bay returns were very much better; while the Cape ports had gone back to 13 per cent. He hoped the Government would take such steps so as to bring that agreement into operation.

said he regretted discussion upon Bills of this kind, when, if they had only given him a few minutes’ notice, he would have been able to have dealt with the matter. He had listened to what had been said, and he thought it would have been better to have dealt with this under the Estimates. He sincerely hoped that these Estimates would be exceeded. It was impossible to say just now how the Estimates would come out—indeed, it was difficult at any time. Where revenue depended so much upon good trade and good times, it was extremely difficult to frame their Estimates. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer, who was indistinctly heard in the Press Gallery, said they must not take the average for the main lines, and say that they must get the same results from the branch lines. The latter were making very rapid progress, and although the results were not so satisfactory as the Government would like them to be, still they were satisfactory, and he was glad to say that that was the case all over the Union.

With regard to the division of traffic, the more that was brought to the Cape the more money they lost. He did not think they would ever be able to establish an equilibrium. They had not been able to get the traffic divided as contemplated, but the last reduction improved the position very much. In March the Cape got 16 per cent.—15 per cent. was its minimum—but in April there was rather a considerable falling off. Natal, however, was very near the point contemplated. He was endeavouring to get for the Cape what it was entitled to, but he had to act in concert with the others. “If I am where I am,” remarked Mr. Sauer, “I shall call another meeting to see that we get what we are entitled to.” Continuing, he said it was very bad both for trade and the railways to make frequent alterations in the rates. The last change had undoubtedly improved the position, and if necessary he would ask for some further changes. He had not lost sight of the matter, and he had never ceased to be reminded of the high importance this matter was to the Cape.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved as an unopposed motion that the House do now go into committee, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

seconded.

Agreed to.

said one or two points of importance had been raised, including the two years’ residential qualification and the rights of the men belonging to the Transvaal police who had been enlisted for a certain time. It would save time if the Minister would now give the committee some idea of the attitude he had taken up in regard to these points and other questions raised in the short debate on the second reading. The Minister did not reply on the second reading of the Bill.

said that as to the two years’ residential qualification, that was an instruction to the police in the Transvaal prior to Union, and the instruction was extended to the police throughout South Africa after Union. He considered it a most excellent instruction, for it provided that if there were competent men to be obtained in South Africa they should have the preference to be engaged in the force, and it also did away with a very general grievance which was expressed to him from the Cape, no less than from other parts of the Union, that great partiality was being shown by the different departments, including the police, m recruiting, in that instead of taking the men already in South Africa strangers were recruited the moment they put foot in South Africa. It was not a question of the Dutch people only, but when he was at Port Elizabeth some time ago he was interviewed by a deputation consisting half of English and half of Dutch-speaking South Africans, and the English-speaking were ten times more vehement in their protests than the Dutch were, It was not only in regard to the police but to other departments that the complaint was made, and it was for that reason that the instructions were given. In Natal definite instructions were always given that preference should be shown to the men who were in the country, who were cognisant of its circumstances and better fitted to do the duties than new arrivals were.

He thought it was an excellent, principle. He had given instructions lately recalling the instruction referred to but precedence would be given to South Africans who were competent. With regard to the other point raised as to how men in the Transvaal stood upon rejoining under the provisions of this Act, he thought that was very clear in clause 4. He might say at once that he was going to withdraw, or rather he was going to ask the House to delete the last four or five lines of sub-section (d) of clause 4 In the Transvaal a member of the force, if he were entitled to a pension or a gratuity, and did not want to rejoin, would get his pension or his gratuity.

said he wished to raise a question in regard to chief constables. He wanted to know why the Minister had decided to do away with that very important and efficient class of officers, especially in the country districts. The definition of “officer” did not include chief constable.” Some of the chief constables had over 20 years’ service and in the country districts had charge of the whole police, mounted and foot and were directly responsible to the Magistrate There was an impression that chief constables would be reduced in rank to the position of head constables. Neither the Bill nor the regulations made any provision tor chief constables, and he wanted to know whether these officers would retain their rank under the Bill.

said it was not the intention of the Bill to have the office of chief constable any more. Chief constables would not appear in the general scheme, but as regards the persons who held the position of chief constable it was simply a question as to how they were going to be dealt with. Where men had been commissioned officers they would naturally be entitled to be retained as commissioned officers under the heading nearest to the rank of chief constable, namely, sub-inspector or inspector. In any case, the men would not be made to suffer in their status or in any other way under the reorganisation.

On clause 2, Composition of Force,

moved after word “Gazette,” in line 29, to insert “not being earlier than the thirty-first day of January, 1915.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 3, Special provision as to borough police in Natal,

moved the following proviso: “Provided that where such Council or Local Board maintains a separate police force, adequate provision to the satisfaction of the (Minister shall be made from the funds of such Council or Local Board for providing pensions for the members of such force on retirement, and for providing annuities or gratuities to their widows and children on death of members resulting from injury received while on duty.” He said that these Councils or Local Boards should have the responsibility of seeing that the police under their control were properly paid and that on retirement they received a pension. He laid stress on pensions, because if they wanted to have an efficient force they must offer some inducements.

supported the amendment. It was only right that provision should be made, seeing that these men practically carried their lives in their hands. He referred to a case where a man in that town was injured and the only satisfaction he got was his dismissal. The men felt the desirability, and he trusted that the committee would accept the amendment that had been submitted.

said that the police were well paid at Durban, had a superannuation fund and were happy and contented. He hoped the amendment would not be accepted, pointing out that the Provincial Council should deal with matters affecting municipalities. Then it would be hard on the smaller towns in Natal, the speaker adding that Maritzburg had wanted a fund on the same scale as Durban, but could not afford it.

asked the Minister why an exception should be made in the case of these two towns?

said that six towns in Natal possessed local police forces. Though the committee thought it would be advisable to have one uniform force in the Union, it was felt that these forces might be allowed to continue until such time as the Union thought it better that the forces should be merged into the larger force.

said that one large force meant better discipline. It was a pity wiser counsels did not prevail in the case of these Natal towns.

said that when local authorities had charge of their own forces they were very economical.

said that though he had sympathy with the hon. member he was afraid he could not accept the amendment. Personally, he would not have included the clause in the Bill.

put the amendment, and declared it agreed to.

Do I understand the amendment is agreed to? (Cries of “Oh, no.”)

I will put it again.

pointed out that it was a purely local matter.

said that the House would be adopting a new principle if this were passed. If the House were to adopt this principle in regard to one set of employees, where would they stop?

said it was a matter that should be dealt with by the municipalities concerned. It had nothing to do with the House.

said that he hoped the House would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, even if it were unprecedented. He had no objection to setting up a precedent, if it were a good one. These municipalities had a police force, and they should have the right to superannuate those men or compensate their widows and children in the event of any member of the force being killed or meeting with an accident while on duty. It was impossible for a policeman in ordinary times to set aside something for old age.

pointed out to the Minister that if the amendment were carried, it would be necessary to extend the title of the Bill.

asked whether it was not a fact that the course proposed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg also proposed taxation? (Cries of “Np.”) What about the local people?

said that the amendment was in order.

asked why the Minister of Justice should not demand that these men who joined the police in the Natal municipalities should be protected in the same way as the police of the Union were? It was the duty of that Parliament to make every person in the public service make provision for old age in some form or another.

said it seemed to him that they were introducing a dangerous principle if they interfered in this matter. The effect would be to impose upon the people of these towns taxation, and they would be forced to raise more revenue than they otherwise would do. If they once accepted the principle that these towns should have their own police forces, they should leave it to those towns to decide what the terms should be.

said he failed to see where any dangerous principle was involved.

said he most heartily agreed with the hon. member for Commissioner-street. He regarded the whole of this Bill as a great danger to the future of South Africa. They were going to set up a highly-centralised police force, and diminish their efficiency by so doing. They were going to have a highly-centralised little army, commanded by somebody who could not be on the spot, and could not know their requirements. He foresaw a great difficulty and danger. The local police forces were not going to be inefficient. In an evil day they took away in the Cape the principle of having local contributions. The local people then had some control over their own police. Now they were endeavouring to throw everything upon the Central Government. The result they saw in the book which they had on the Order paper of about £17,000,000 expenditure.

said that in the Select Committee the idea was that, as far as local matters were concerned, the police should always work in concurrence with the magistrate. As regarded the Natal police, this provision in clause 3 was made to accede to the wishes of the Natal representatives. The Select Committee said that these towns could have their own police, but they could not share in the privileges of superannuation, etc., which the incorporated police had, but it was left open to them to join the incorporated police whenever they liked.

said that whilst it was desirous that policemen should have pensions and should have provision made against accidents, it seemed to him that if the amendment were adopted the municipalities would have to give up control. It seemed to him also that if municipalities were called upon to establish pension funds for their policemen they would have to establish pension and gratuity funds for all their servants. He thought if the amendment were adopted that it would nullify the effect of the Bill.

said he sincerely hoped the amendment would not be accepted. He had many opportunities of judging not only the efficiency, but the general contentedness that prevailed at Maritzburg and Durban, and he made inquiries to ascertain why they were more satisfied there than in other parts of South Africa, and he then discovered that it was owing to the favourable conditions that they served under in these municipalities. If these men were reduced to the ordinary pay and these privileges were withdrawn, a great deal of discontent and a considerable number of men, he believed, would retire from the force.

said it was, generally speaking, unwise to interfere with local authorities. But if they were to have in a few towns in Natal a greater rate of pay with no pension that would involve a great deal of confusion. If the rest of the towns in the Union were going to have centralised police, he could not see why, if these towns in Natal were to be exempted, they should not make adequate provision for pensions.

did not think it was fair to these towns to say to them that they could retain their police, but they must find their pensions, because some of the small towns were unable to find this money. He would not be justified in voting for this if this was to make municipalities provide pension funds without giving them the opportunity of saying whether they would do so or not.

put the question that the proviso be agreed to, and declared the “Noes” had it

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On sub-section (a),

said there were men in the police force who at one time were in the Army, and they were encouraged to join the police after the war. Some of them held rather important positions as non-commissioned officers at out-stations. If he proposed an amendment to meet their case it would be out of order, as it would entail expenditure, but he wished to mention the matter to the Minister of Justice, so that when the Public Service Bill came top for consideration attention should be given to the point whether the time these men had served in the Army should not be reckoned when the question of pensions was decided.

said in addition to the men mentioned by the previous speaker there were men who had served a number of years in the railway police and had then been transferred to the ordinary police. It was only fair that their service in the railway force should, for pension purposes, be added to the time they spent in the ordinary police. In the Cape police regulations a man had to serve ten years and be 50 years of age before he received a pension. Numbers of these men had served 15 or 20 years, but were not yet 50, and if they decided not to continue under the new regulations they would lose their pensions unless some specific provision were made for them. It was no fault of theirs that the new conditions were to be imposed.

said that on account of the question of expense it would be impossible to move an amendment. There was no provision made for one class of men, those who renewed their contracts from time to time, to receive any gratuity. He hoped the Minister would see some means of bringing these men—some of whom had had twenty years’ service—if they did not wish to join the new police, to be treated on the same basis as those who had been in continuous service.

said he was not quite clear as to the meaning of “accruing rights,” and wanted to know the position of a man working under a scale rising to £400. Would he continue to rise under the new conditions, or would he be bound by the £315 maximum?

in reply, said there was no hardship. The men went on from one period to another, and the conditions with regard to pensions were such that if they continued to give satisfaction they would retain their rights. To say they would get a pension to which they were not entitled would be unjustifiable; the men contracted from time to time simply because Government had felt that with regard to policemen certain things might intervene, in that period it would be found inadvisable either to engage them again, or a change might occur with regard to conditions of service. When the men contracted they knew all those things were possibilities. The clause was accepted in committee as absolutely fair.

pointed out that the conditions with regard to accruing rights would be less liberal than in the Civil Service, and he hoped the Minister would consider the matter, and not interpret accruing rights as merely the salary at which an officer or man happened to be entitled to at the time he took his transfer. With respect to the question of pensions, it appeared that if a man had served twenty years, and it came to the end of one of these two-yearly engagements, the Government could say: “We do not want you any more,” and he would be left without any pension, gratuity, or anything else. He (Mr. Duncan) hoped that would be to some extent remedied, and he would like to know whether that section would be interpreted as meaning that a member who did not choose to join the new force and who allowed his period of contract to expire, even if he had served for ten years, would get nothing for past service.

said he had not quite gathered the significance of what the hon. Minister had said in his reply regarding accruing rights. What he wanted to know was, if an officer in the force receiving now more than the maximum laid down in the new regulations was entitled to continue by his annual increments year by year to the amount to which he was entitled?

said that in the Transvaal men were serving under an agreement which entitled them to receive pay from 7s. to 9s., and it was proposed to reduce that under the Bill to 6s. to 8s. Would those men be entitled to rise up to the 9s. as if their service had been continuous? He interpreted it that they would not be deprived of any rights under the Act, but he would like to have it made perfectly clear that whether these men joined or not they would not be deprived of any privileges.

said it was laid down very clear that no man would be deprived of any rights. With regard to the Bill, all they had to say was that these men should retain these rights. It was perfectly clear. The hon. member for Fordsburg had pointed out that a certain position had been adopted with regard to Civil Servants so that when they were placed on a scale they could go to the top of that scale. The position was the same.

said the Minister had been clear to a certain point. He said that every man was entitled to that to which he was entitled. What was the man entitled to? That was what they wanted to know. The Minister and asked them to dissociate the Bill from the regulations, but that was precisely what they did not want to do. They had to be taken in conjunction with each other. He pointed out that with regard to the Commissioner and other officers the regulations stated that they “shall” receive the increments. Was the position the same with regard to the non-commissioned officers and men? The regulations said they “may” receive these increments. That was the point.

said he thought they could see plainly from the resolution of the committee what was in the minds of members of the committee at the time. He agreed with the Minister that the clause as it stood, especially when the amendment was moved in sub-section 4, would meet the case. The question was whether in the case of the Transvaal men it would not be advisable to go a step further. The question was whether a man in the Transvaal force after serving for ten years was entitled to any pension or not. He went on to show that under the last Transvaal Act a man who voluntarily retired or was dismissed was not entitled to these rights. Now he thought that the men who were engaged under the unlimited term of service—that was when Crown Colony Government was in force in the Transvaal—should receive some consideration, supposing they had served for ten years. In 1908 the Government decided to get rid of some of these men, and certain gratuities were offered. Now that this change was being made there was a suspicion that The Government were trying to get rid of men. He took it that was not the case. He did not think the Minister had reason for getting rid of any of these men. These men had either to resign or join the new force, and he thought it was but reasonable to suggest that those men who had served ten years should get what pension or gratuity to which they might be entitled. He thought it would only be common justice on the part of the Minister to take these cases into consideration.

On sub-section (b),

moved in paragraph (b), line 14, to omit from “whilst” to “subsists.”

moved the deletion of the words “without his written consent.” He thought that this was most important to the police force.

supported the further amendment, and said it would prevent men bartering away privileges to which they had a right.

said he would like the Minister to explain the difference between “any existing or accruing right,” and “any right or privilege in respect of pay, allowance, or leave.”

said he hoped the hon. member for Springs would see that if the words “without his written consent” were not in the clause, it might be possible for the conditions under which the man had contracted to be changed. It was to the interest of the men that the words should appear in the clause, so that if any change were made it should De in writing.

said he was not concerned whether the consent was oral or in writing. If the words were deleted, it would be impossible to consent, which was the position he wanted to reach.

said he did not think that the hon. member would attain his object by deleting the words.

said he was opposed to the deletion of the words, and he quoted a Case bearing on this very question which had come under his notice in the Transvaal.

said that there might be men in some parts of the Union who wanted to join the new force under the new conditions before their present engagement expired, and if they took out these words and made it impossible for those men to give up their current engagement before their time expired, those men would not thank them.

said his amendment could not prevent those men from rejoining under the new conditions.

said that, after the explanation of the hon. member for Fordsburg, he was not prepared to support the amendment of the hon. member for Springs.

Both amendments were negatived.

moved in line 18, after “engagement,” to insert “or within three months after this Act comes into operation or within three months after the publication in the ‘ Gazette ‘ of the regulations framed under section 9 hereof, whichever period be the longer.”

pointed out that if they retrenched any of the permanent force, they would receive either a gratuity or a pension, but if they got a number of men to engage for a certain period and they refused to accept the new arrangements, they were put in the position of men leaving through disabilities. Therefore, he thought the same treatment should be accorded to them as to the permanent forces.

supported the contention of the hon. member who had last spoken. He did not think that if a man had served ten years in the force and refused be accept the new conditions and then was treated as if his resignation were voluntary was fair, because it could hardly be said that his resignation was voluntary.

said he saw the object the hon. members had in view, but the difficulty came in where were they to draw the line. They would have to draw the line between the man who served three or four or five years, in fact they would have to draw a line that would be arbitrary. It was a very difficult thing and under the circumstances he was not sure if it were not best to leave things as they were. If the conditions had been fundamentally different from the time that they joined, he was not sure that they might not have cause to complain. The position had been discussed in committee, and it was only fair to let them see that their future would have been substantially the same had they remained in the force under ordinary conditions.

pointed out that the committee had in view men who were actually in the force, but they had overlooked the views of those men who under the new regulations were compelled to leave. The Minister had asked where they were to draw the line? Well, there was a definite line drawn, because if a man retired through sickness or incapacity he got a leaving amount. These men ought to be treated in the same way as if they had retired through sickness or incapacity.

Mr. Nathan’s amendment was withdrawn.

On sub-section (c),

said his difficulty had been that a police officer who had served under the pension laws and, after serving ten years, was then called up on to retire from the service, might be said, according to his reading of the section that he was leaving of his own accord. He moved as an amendment to delete “may have accrued to him” and to substitute “he would ‘be entitled to receive if allowed to retire on superannuation.”

was afraid the amendment would give the officer greater rights than he was entitled to, and that he would be entitled to the same pension that he would get if he were pensionable. Would he still have to comply with the pension conditions?

Yes.

Then I quite sympathise with the amendment. I would move that the sub-section stand over so that it can be made quite clear.

The motion of the Minister of Justice was agreed to.

On sub-section (d),

moved the omission of all the words after “prescribed by this Act and the regulations.”

The amendment was agreed to.

said there had been a good deal of dissatisfaction in the service generally on the question of seniority. When men in the police force were removed from one district to another, sometimes difficulty occurred over the question of seniority. He moved to add at the end the following new sub-section, viz.: “(e) All members of any police force or portion of a police force incorporated in the South African police shall respectively rank in their respective grades, ranks, branches or divisions, in accordance with the respective dates of their original appointments in such grade, rank, branch, or division, and in case of appointments made on the same day then in the order in which the names appeared in order or otherwise; or in the case of appointments in different forces then in the alphabetical order of the names.”

said he did not care for the amendment. The matter should be dealt with in the regulations. (Hear, hear.)

suggested that the matter should stand over until the Minister had seen the amendment in print.

moved that the sub-section stand over.

Agreed to.

On clause 5, Appointment of officers and discharge of commissioned officers,

said that in the Cape during the depression many police officers were distracted from the position of inspector and sub-inspector to that of sergeant, simply because of the depression, and not because of incompetence. Some of these cases were of a very sad nature, and these men should be given a chance of returning to their former rank.

was glad that the hon. member for Queenstown had brought the matter up. He (Mr. ‘Wessels) knew of several cases in which sub inspectors were reduced to the rank of sergeants, positions they were holding to-day. It was only fair that the Minister of Justice should give some expression as to what he intended to do in this matter. Before any new officers were appointed, these men should be reinstated to their former positions.

expressed his sympathy with those who had had to accept reduction, but he would say at once, as he on several previous occasions pointed out, that they would be restored to the rank they formerly held as time and opportunity offered.

said they were assured that these men were to be placed in the positions they occupied before they were disrated. He would point out that he brought the matter before the Minister in the first session of the Union Parliament, and of the men disrated two, in the course of two years, had been placed in their old positions. At the same rate these men were promoted it would be five or six years before all were placed in their old positions. Now that the Union and the Colony itself was in a fairly prosperous financial position, he saw no reason why these men, who had been reduced from £300 a year, and holding commissioned rank, to sergeant with £180, should not be considered for the first vacancies that arose.

said he was the unhappy Minister who had to do with the extraordinary proceedings that were adopted at the time of retrenchment, and they all felt then that hard measures were taken. Against the efficiency of the men reduced there was no word of complaint; it was purely a matter of financial straits. They would all agree that every reparation should now be made and they could rest assured that when opportunities for promotion occurred these men would be given preference.

said that again they had sympathetic assurances that these men would be restored as soon as possible, but it was cold comfort and did no help. He doubted whether the House really appreciated the conditions under which the men were placed at the present time. Young men in receipt of £300 a year and occupying good social positions, some of them getting married on the strength of their positions, found themselves suddenly reduced to 10s. a day or left with nothing. For four years this business had gone on, and the time had come when they should have something more than mere sympathy.

Dismiss others, I suppose?

No, they should increase the number of police. The country was crying out for more police. They had money to spend in other directions and they should have money to spend on these men. Because they were just a small body their cases were allowed to drift on.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

moved in line 71 to omit “and to the approval of the Minister”; in line 73, after “may” to insert “subject to the approval of the Commissioner*”; and in line 74 to omit “a-commissioner” and to substitute such deputy commissioner.”

hoped that the amendment would not be accepted. Surely all the power was not to be given an official. If the official did wrong. Parliament could not get at him.

said that all suspensions and discharges could only take effect through the Governor-General.

Where is that?

referred to clause 11.

Which line?

It is there

Not a word about the Governor-General.

Oh, those are commissioned officers.

I want men.

referred the hon. member to clause 18. He (the Minister) could not give his approval to a discharge could not give his approval to a discharge and then deal with the appeal, because he would not be impartial. That was why he wanted to change the wording of this section. He (the Minister) wanted to deal impartially with matters, and not shirk responsibility.

Where is the Governor-General?

You would do no better by having the Government in place of the Minister.

But you said the Governor-General.

You would be no better off.

But you said the Governor-General was in the Bill.

Oh, that was in reference to officers.

I said officers, and you said everybody.

Yes.

said he would suggest this addition at the end of the clause: “But nothing in this section shall apply to such members of any police force who, under present conditions of service, are subject to the Governor-General-in-Council.”

said that if any hardships were brought to his notice, he would only be too willing to set matters right; but he would point out to his hon. friend that these were not conditions of service, but only the old law. He went on to say that if any hardship would result he would see that the matter was rectified.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 7, Powers and duties of members of force,

moved inline 16, after “required” to insert “generally or in particular instances,” and in line 21, after “thereto” to insert “generally or in particular instances.”

thought that sub-section (3) contained rather a dangerous principle, as a smart attorney defending a criminal would be too much of a match for a policeman prosecutor.

said the objection he had always felt against a provision of this kind was that it was not wise to have the police connected too much with the prosecution, but owing to the expense he feared that could not be helped. The expense problem also held good in regard to the objection of the hon. member. Of course, it was the intention that only the most capable men in the police would be asked to prosecute in such cases, but all they could do would be to have as high a standard as possible in this connection.

drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that persons were often taken away to Courts at distances of 60 to 100 miles to be prosecuted for some very minor offences, which constituted a great injustice towards such people. He trusted that the chief constable in remote districts would be given power to deal summarily with matters of this kind. General Beyers proceeded to refer to cases in which the police had crossed the Limpopo to arrest Kafirs for stealing cattle on the Transvaal side. In such cases the police had gone beyond their jurisdiction, and had had to pay a fine of £50. He hoped that provision would be made for cases of that kind.

said it had been the practice hitherto to a great extent in cases of criminal prosecution, say in assault cases, for the prosecution to be conducted by the Chief Constable. On the other side, they had had the accused person represented by a qualified legal practitioner, with the result that a guilty party had sometimes got off, simply on account of the legal aid that he had. He believed that if the party assaulted wished to gen legal assistance for the prosecution, as had hitherto been done, it was no longer allowed. That was considered a hardship. He would like to hear from the Minister of Justice whether they were still going to allow what had been the practice in the past.

replying to General Beyers, said the police could naturally have no jurisdiction beyond the Union’s borders—as soon as they crossed the border they ceased to be police. Negotiations had, however, been proceeding for some time with the authorities in Bechuanaland so as to come to a working arrangement under which they would be able to assist each other and co-operate to a very large extent. As regarded the question of the police having the right to take summary action in minor offences, this was a matter to be dealt with under the provisions in regard to Magistrates’ jurisdiction and it was not possible to give such powers to the police. Replying to Mr. Heat lie the Minister said that he would do his best to meet such cases as those mentioned, and he hoped to have capable prosecutors in every Court.

said he was well aware of the fact that the police had no powers beyond the borders of the Union, but the Governor-General had authority. The whole of South Africa was surely under one flag.

replied that both sides were anxious to have such an arrangement come to; hence the negotiations.

expressed similar views to those of General Beyers.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 9, Regulations,

asked if they were going to take these sub-sections seriatim. (HON. MEMBERS: “No.”) He wished to move an amendment in sub-section (e), namely, to delete “and therefore” and to insert “subject to the authority of Parliament.” Under the present circumstances the Minister would have the power of determining the pay and allowance of the force. That seemed to him a very novel and somewhat dangerous step for the House to take, because it seemed to take away one of the privileges which Parliament enjoyed, namely, that of determining the pay and allowances of its servants. Supposing the Minister desired to increase the pay of policemen by only 6d. a day. That seemed but very little, but in the case of 9,000 men it would mean £70,000 or £80,000; besides, if there was an election just coming on, it would be very serious and should not be tolerated. (Hear, hear.) The sub-section would therefore read “the pay and allowances of the force, subject to the authority of Parliament.”

said it seemed to him only right that since the police were put on the same footing as the other Civil Servants, there might be considerable danger that such increases might be given without there being any opportunity of rectifying them, because these men would consider this as a contract. He was prepared to accept the amendment. (Cheers.)

said if the hon. member really wanted to achieve his object, he should make it a separate section. As it appeared now, the Governor-General might make regulations fixing the pay and allowances subject to the authority of Parliament.

said he had no objection to the amendment being treated in this way, but he would like to call the attention of the Minister also to the question of the numerical establishment of the forces in sub-section (b). This he also thought should be defined in a separate clause. He amended his amendment to read: In sub-section (e), line 55, to insert at the beginning “subject to the authority of Parliament,” and in the same line, after “force,” to omit all the words to the end of the sub-section; and to insert the following new sub-section, to follow sub-section (e), viz.: “(f) The stoppages to be made from the pay and allowances of the force.”

said he would draft something to include the amendment. With regard to the last point mentioned, it might be necessary to have an immediate increase of the force, and the best persons to consult would be the Minister and the Governor-General.

said he was in sympathy with his hon. friend, but he thought the procedure would be exactly the same.

said there was a more practical matter which affected the men. He was informed that a good many men in the police force did not get the salary put down to them in the Estimates. The money was returned by the Department, and they found themselves with a grievance. The Department got the benefit, and the next year they came out with a balance on the right side. That was very fine from a departmental point of view, but from the point of view of the men, who had to keep their families, it was the other way about.

There was another point. He saw in the draft regulations the Minister had a clause dealing with promotion, which stated that “except in special circumstances promotion shall be obtained from the ranks.” He wanted to register a protest against the Minister putting definitely into his regulations a rule in that form. Many men who worked their way up from the ranks were excellently suited for promotion, but he did not want it to be laid down that all promotions should be from the ranks. (An HON. MEMBER: Why?) Men had been to him and told him in nine cases out of ten they would prefer to have been appointed from the staff, who generally had more consideration than men who rose from the ranks. They found that the man appointed by virtue of his station in life was often much more kindly and better disposed than one of themselves promoted from the ranks. (HON. MEMBERS: “No! No!”) He went on to suggest that the Minister should amend the rule to read, “commissions may be obtained from the ranks.”

said he could not understand why the Minister made such a vast difference in regard to conditions between European and coloured police in the regulations. If a man was considered suitable and fit to do a constable’s work, why should his conditions of service be different if he was coloured? With regard to charges against the men, there was nothing in the regulations to provide that a copy of the charge should be given to the one against whom the charge was made. Generally speaking, the same procedure should take place in these inquiries as before the Courts. That was not specifically provided for, and he hoped the Minister would see there were facilities for that to be carried out. He could not agree with the hon. member for Newlands with regard to the question of promotion from the ranks. A man must be fit for promotion before he was promoted, and he was in favour of promotion from the ranks. Another matter to which he would like to draw attention was that anonymous charges are frequently sent in against men holding high positions in the police force. These charges were made, and the officer had to undergo the indignity of a trial, and although exonerated it was often a great trouble to him. A guarantee of good faith in connection with these charges was desirable. In sub-section 36 of regulation 64 there was a provision which should be left out altogether. There were 35 different offences which a man might commit, and in addition there was a sort of drag-net clause which included everything. It was too wide and too vague, and he hoped to see an alteration in the Minister’s final draft. The man might be called upon to attend an inquiry without previously knowing what the inquiry was about. Then the man was left to guess what the result of the inquiry might be.

said he had a letter from a gentleman at Johannesburg who belonged to the police, who stated that he had been fined £1 because his wife, to whom he was married out of community of property, was carrying on a farming business 100 miles away. It was extraordinary, proceeded Mr. Nathan, that the mounted men were paid less than the foot men. The latter started at 6s. and the former at 5s. 6d. a day. Clause 98 of the regulations provided for compulsory vaccination, and although a man might have conscientious scruples—(laughter)—he would not be let off. (An HON. MEMBER: “He needn’t join the police.”) (Laughter.) Then a man injured in the execution of his duty should not lose his pay while in hospital because his time had expired. Another correspondent informed him that if merit pay were given, the men would have something to look forward to if they could not attain commissioned rank. He moved to add at the end of the clause “provided such regulation has been brought to the notice of the members of the Force.”

said his attention had been called to the difference in the pay of the mounted and foot police. In Cape Town both branches were treated on the same footing, and this proposed differentiation would cause considerable hardship.

said there were a number of different Acts under which the men joined, and these Acts prevented the Minister granting scale increases. As to the remark of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Struben), what would the police have to look forward to if the higher ranks were filled by men outside the service. The proposed regulations were a vast improvement on the existing ones, and were welcomed by the police.

said he was very much surprised by the speeches of the hon. members for Von Brandis, Cape Town, and Newlands, who picked holes in the regulations, and did not show how the position of the men had been improved. The police would like to see the regulations become law, but he was afraid that if the hon. members to whom he had referred kept on picking holes, the regulations would not be passed this session. He thought they ought to talk less and do more.

said he would just like to refer to the transport of goods of men when transferred. He thought that 300-lb. weight was too small an allowance for single men, and he would suggest 600 lb. He hoped, however, that the Minister would hold over the clause dealing with the regulations. There were some points in the regulations that should not, he thought, come under regulations.

said the hon. member for Somerset East had rather twisted his words. He did not want to debar the Minister getting a good man from outside, and he did not think they should stop men from rising from the ranks.

said he thought the chance of rising from the ranks was an encouragement to men. In Natal they had a rather superior class of man in the police, and he hoped the Minister would not alter the clause so as to bar these men from chances of promotion. This was a great inducement to men to join the force. Natal had an admirable body of police.

said that, speaking generally as to the points which had been raised, anybody who knew anything about these regulations would know how they could never get, not six men, but three, who would draw up the same set of regulations for things of this kind—in fact they would not get one man who on different occasions would draw up the same set three times running. They could only be satisfied on that point with what was approximately the best. After all, these were minor matters. The Commissioner was constantly in touch with the men, and he found out where the shoe pinched, and when he did find that out, he drew the Minister’s attention to the matter, and it was considered. In regard to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Von Brandis, he would just say that a man, of course, tried to be fair, but he would always be prejudiced by the fact that he himself was the party concerned. It was said that men were on the Estimates shown to be paid so much, and that they did not receive that amount. There were, no doubt, such cases, but this was a state of things that was found in all parts of the service. He was sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had referred to the difference in the rates of pay and leave between the European and non-European. They knew that this was a difference which obtained everywhere in the Union and in every service, both public and private. It was a difference which obtained for very good reasons. Their pay was defined by two factors mainly, (1) the standard of living, and (2) the supply in the market. In regard to the question of leave, there was a sound reason for that difference, inasmuch as the European usually contracted for years and got worn out in the service, while the native contracted and served for a short period, and he was not, therefore, subject to the evil consequences of long service as the European was.

said the Minister had given them an extraordinary explanation of the difference in the rates of pay between the mounted and foot police. He stated that the foot policeman very frequently became incapacitated and in consideration of that fact he received Is, a day more than the mounted man. He (Mr. Madeley) did not wish to draw any distinction between the two branches of the service, but he wanted to see all these men paid a decent wage, and he did not think that the Minister could say, taking the foot policeman’s pay, that that was anything like a decent wage for men on whom they were dependent for the protection of life and property. The regulations under which they served were the real crux of the situation. He wanted to point out to the Minister that a comparison between the pay given to the police in this country and in effete old England was not a comparison but a contrast. They laid down a scale of pay which they stated would be at the rate of 6s. per diem, and they also said that a scale of increments might also be paid. It was quite possible for a man to serve four or five years and receive no increase. When they compared the London City Police, their work was harder, but their pay was infinitely higher than those out here. He spoke about the scale of living, but if they wished their policemen to live decently they must pay them decently. In London a mechanic’s pay ranged from 36s. to 39s. per week, and a city constable got 28s. per week, and, of course, quarters. He also got a very good pension, very much more by comparison than he got in South Africa. Mention had been made of the allowances which a mounted policeman got, but they were dealing with pay, not with allowances, and 6s. per day was little enough all round. They found that the lodging allowance was set down at 2s. 6d. per diem. That meant £3 15s. a month, and those who had lived in the Transvaal knew that it would cost £7 or £8 to get a decent house to live in. They had to consider that these men were subjected to all sorts of temptations which the ordinary man never knew of, and these matters should be considered when the scale of pay was being fixed.

said that under the regulations a man had to be physically fit. If a policeman received injury during hits duty and he was not able to pass a medical examination would that be physical unfitness? There were members of the force in Cape Town who could not pass the medical examination now because they had been injured while on duty. He would ask the Minister also if it was reasonable to expect any man doing duty seven days a week and receiving but 21 days’ holiday in the year to be able to retain the physical energy and be the equal of an ordinary person in any way? And they asked a policeman to take 6s. a day —or night. The hon. Minister was preparing his finances, trade was improving—and they hoped it would continue—and men would not become policemen when they could get the same pay for six days’ work. They wanted to get the best men for the police force, and the only way to get good men was to pay for them. Would not the hon. Minister give a hope that this 6s. a day would receive consideration? It was very low pay.

said some hon. members seemed to labour under the idea that all a policeman got was his 6s. and no more. His local allowance made it 8s., he got 2s. 6d. lodging allowance (if he did not get his quarters), making it 10s. 6d., he got three uniforms and medical attendance free. There were hundreds of men in the Civil Service who got no more than 7s. 6d. per day.

So much the worse for the Civil Service.

said the question, after all, was, was it after all such a bad trade? Could these men get better pay anywhere else for the services rendered? If they could not, then he would say the Government had no right to go on paying them sums out of proportion to what their services were worth to private employers. The Government was not a philanthropic institution. Personally, he would like every man to live up to the highest standard of life that is possible. Unfortunately he, as a Minister, had to face facts, and one of the hard facts was that the Government chest was never so overflowing that he could afford to pay men more than they were paid in other parts of the world. He had compared, the police pay of other countries—Australia especially —and he found that the Union police came out very well. The regulations were brought as near as possible under the observation of the police.

thought the Minister ought to give a month’s notice of the regulations.

replied that the Bill would not come into force until January 1 next.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Currey were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Nathan was withdrawn.

moved that the following be a new clause: 10. The Commissioner shall prepare an annual return of all offences reported to the police, and shall furnish the same to the Minister. Such returns shall inter alia give details showing the nature of the offences committed, whether by white, coloured or black persons, whether arrests have followed, and the result of the trials. He shall also give separate returns for each Province for large districts and mining areas.

did not see what good the publication of the statistics would do. A member of Parliament could ask for any statistics he required, but as the number of crimes totalled, he believed, 50,000 a year, a staff of clerks would be required to compile the statistics

suggested the deletion of the word “monthly” and the insertion of the word “annually.”

pointed out that there was an annual report issued by the Department It would be more detailed in future.

said he hoped the amendment would not be pressed, pointing out that the increase in printing would be enormous.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 11 (Contraventions of Act by member of force below Head Constable),

moved in line 23, after convicting him” to insert “reprimand him or”; in line 31, to omit “and” and to substitute “or if he be not serving under a deputy commissioner, to the commissioner, and the commissioner or”; in line 35, after “fine” to insert “(if any)”; in line 36, to omit “that” and to substitute “the commissioner or the said”; in the same line after “commissioner” to insert “as the case may be”; and in line 38, after “section to insert “by a deputy commissioner.”

moved in line 21, after “officer” to insert “other than the commissioned officer” in the same line after “whose,” to insert “immediate”; and in line 22, after “is,” to omit “or.” He pointed out that the superior officer of the person concerned would be prejudiced.

said he was glad the amendment had been brought forward, but thought it did not go far enough. He moved after the word “officer” the words “of, or above the rank of inspector” be inserted. He might make use of information which, did not come out in evidence. He thought they ought to limit the judges at these inquiries to commissioner, deputy-commissioner and inspector.

in supporting the amendment, said that it must be clear to the Minister that to put a sub-inspector on the Court of Inquiry was not reasonable. He was really in favour of no man below the rank of commissioner sitting on the inquiry. He did not think these trials should be held in camera. The inquiries should be open and public. A case in point had occurred in Cape Town. Some time ago an officer reported two persons, one a Minister of the Government—and that made the case worse—for having their motor-cars standing in Darling-street. The result was that when the case came before the Court this officer was cross-examined as to why the other person was not prosecuted. He did not mean the Minister of Justice, but only those Ministers who were able to afford motor-cars. In cross-examination this officer said that he did report that case, but somebody did not put a summons out. The officer sent a letter, and he (Mr. Brown) admitted at once that it was an indiscreet letter. He was fined £2 for that. But the worst part of the case was that, in consequence of this indiscreet letter this officer had to bear a mark permanently. That, he thought, was not right. If cases were taken in camera the man against whom a charge was laid should have the right of appeal to the Magistrate or some other authority.

Where did you get this trial in camera from?

said he had attended such trials.

That is why we have done away with it in the regulations. It is done away with in regulation No. 68.

said that the regulation said “shall conform, as far as possible, to the rules of procedure, including the rules of evidence.” Would the Minister also say “including an open trial”?

said that the person against whom a charge was laid would have the right to have a lawyer to assist him. The proceedings would be in open court, but, of course, they did not want to draw these people into the Magistrate’s Court.

I am satisfied.

said that, in regard to the other question, he thought he could prove to his hon. friends that under the circumstances the proposal was most impracticable. They could not exclude the sub-inspector from acting as a judge in these cases. Continuing, he pointed out that some of these inspectors might have districts as large as Natal, and in their case it was impossible. Again, with regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis, that was also impracticable, because they would have to send a man from one district to another, and that might mean a journey of 100 miles. A man might be fined a penalty of £5, but that was nothing until it was confirmed by the Deputy-Commissioner, and even then the man had the right to appeal to the Commissioner.

said he had raised this matter in the Select Committee, because he thought at the time that it was not just; but when he came to look at the enormous distances, he quite saw the point which the Minister had stated. After all, the man could always appeal to the Commissioner. He thought the hon. member would be well advised to withdraw his amendment.

withdrew his amendment.

asked whether the Minister had considered that an officer’s immediate superior might have a grudge against him, but did the Minister realise also that the Deputy-Commissioner would think twice before he upset the decision of his subordinate officer? It was not so much the matter of the fine, as the black mark, and that counted throughout the service.

said he would be quite willing to withdraw his amendment, if he got an assurance that the points he raised would be looked into.

gave the assurance asked for.

accordingly withdrew his amendment.

The amendments of the Minister of Justice were agreed to.

said in matters of comparative contravention of the rules, a man should be able to claim to have an inquiry held.

On clause 12, sub-section (2),

moved in sub-section (2), line 56, to add after “regulation” “provided that any inquiry and trial held under this Act shall be conducted in manner and form as if the same were held by a Court of Justice.” The Minister, he said, might do him the honour of accepting that.

said that in sections 70 and 71 there was exactly what the hon. member really wanted. He would also have to use the concluding words “as far as possible.” He did not think it was possible for him to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

said he was sorry the hon. Minister was not able to accept the amendment, because it was largely followed by him in his own Act of this year—the Prisons and Reformatories Act—in section 40 of sub-section 1, of which it was laid down that the proceedings of any trial under the Act should be in manner and form as nearly as may be as in summary proceedings in Courts of Resident Magistrates, so that he was asking for nothing new and that was why he asked for the insertion of the words. He did not mind accepting the words “as near as may be.”

said he would accept that, provided the words “as near as may be” were inserted. (Hear, hear.)

moved in line 48, after “guilty of” to omit “any.”

Both amendments were agreed to.

New clause 15,

moved that the following be a new clause: 13. Any commissioned officer who may be convicted under this Act shall have the right of appeal to the Superior Courts.

said it would be impossible to allow a superior Court to come in in a matter of this kind.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 13, Witnesses before officers or Boards of Inquiry,

moved at the end of this clause, after “thereat” to add “provided that if at any inquiry or trial any witness on oath make any false statement material to the issue knowing the same to be false he shall be guilty of the crime of perjury.”

said this was provided for under the ordinary law.

differed.

supported the amendment, as did also

who said that without the amendment proceedings could not be taken for perjury.

asked the Minister to accept the amendment. In any case it could do no possible harm.

accented the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

New clause 14,

moved the following new clause 14: “At all inquiries held under this Act the accused shall be entitled to be represented and assisted by his legal adviser.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 14,

moved in line 6, to omit “prison” and to substitute “person.”

moved the deletion of the words “or may be removed to the nearest gaol.”

pointed out that a policeman might commit a serious crime, and it would be necessary to place him in gaol. As far as possible the policeman was treated separately.

said he was referring to a man charged with a minor offence. If the Minister would confine the clause to serious cases he would withdraw.

said the clause was framed to meet such a case.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Made-ley was withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice was agreed to.

On clause 15, Period of imprisonment not to reckon as service in force,

moved in line 14. after “convicted,” to insert “whether under section 11 or otherwise.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 18, Reduction or dismissal of members of the froce,

moved, after “may,” and before “be reduced in rank,” to insert “after proper inquiry or trial.”

moved to insert at the end of the clause: “Provided, further, no member of the force of or below the rank of head constable shall, whether or not he exercises that right of appeal, be reduced, discharged, or dismissed until the approval of the Minister has first been obtained.”

moved that the words “is guilty” should read “is found guilty.” He would suggest that the Minister would report progress, and when he saw another amendment on the paper he would perhaps give it consideration. His further amendment would read: “Provided further that no member of the force who has served continuously for 20 years and upwards shall be deprived after that period of his previous rights for any offences, except criminal offences, committed by him while serving in the force.”

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.