I move as an unopposed motion—

That the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, which brought up its Final Report on the 18th May, be revived, and have leave to sit during the sittings of this House.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed notion, and pursuant to notice—

I have seen the Minister, and he has agreed to my moving it now.

We cannot hear.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

On the last occasion we met

Does the hon. member object?

Yes, I object. I want to give my reasons.

Then the proposal cannot be put as an unopposed motion.

I move—

seconded.

Will the Prime Minister tell us what work we are likely to do for the remainder of the session? How many of the orders on the paper are to be jettisoned, and is any new work to be brought forward besides he necessary financial measures? It would also be interesting to know when the session is likely to come to an end, so far as the Prime Minister can say.

The fact of this motion being before the House to-day is, I think, a good indication of what is expected this session from the House. I hope that we shall get finished during the first week of next month, in fact early in the week. As for the work, no further Bills besides those now on the order paper will be introduced except those in conection with finance and railways (the ordinary financial measures). As for the subjects on the order paper, Nos. 1-5 will of course be disposed of; 6 and 7, I think, will be dropped. They have practically only been put on the order paper as an indication for next session. Then we come to 8, the Food Bill, which we hope to pass, Then No. 9, Electoral Amendment Bill, is an unimportant little Bill.

I think it will take fairly long.

Then I will not undertake anything. I am sorry the Minister is not here. Then follows No. 10, which is a small and unimportant Bill. No. 11 is the Report of the Select Committee on the Native Bills. We then come to No. 12, the Radio Amendment Bill. I believe there is no objection to that, and that it is an agreed measure. No. 13, the Industrial Conciliation (Amendment) Bill will be proceeded with. Then there is also the agreement on diamond cutting.

We shall not finish in two weeks.

We hope to be able to finish in 14 days with the first 14 items.

Are you going on with the Diamond Cutting Agreement?

Yes.

Are you going on with the Industrial Conciliation Bill?

Yes, I think that Is the intention of the Minister.

And No. 17? (House to go into Committee on Women’s Enfranchisement Bill.)

We have agreed, I think, to consider that later.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I do not remember the Minister laying before the House a scheme for providing funds for meeting future pensions. Perhaps during the recess the Minister will consider such a scheme and circulate it among members. I believe in all countries which have old age pensions the Governments build up funds to meet recurring expenditure of this nature.

The Bill makes no provision for pensions for aged natives, the reason being that it is extremely difficult to know the ages of natives, and to treat the natives as other classes of the community are treated. The Minister, however, said he was prepared to see that old natives were treated in a most generous manner so far as rations are concerned. I suggest, however, that it would be better for the natives if they received the equivalent of the rations in money, so that they could go to their own kraals and spend the money there. This would not cost any more, but it would be very much appreciated by the natives.

In reference to the last question raised by my hon. friend, I think I said during the discussion on the Bill that considering that under this scheme the provincial administrations will be relieved of a good deal of expenditure which in the past has fallen on them, it will be possible for them to make much more generous provision for this class of aged native than they formerly did. I am quite prepared to bring that point of view forcibly to the notice of provincial administrations. Furthermore I take it that if they do not do their duty they will be forced by public opinion to recognize their responsibility in this regard. I do not know what form their assistance takes, whether it is always rations or sometimes a monetary grant. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), in the nature of things when you start a scheme like this under circumstances obtaining here now, it must necessarily be a non-contributory scheme financed entirely by the Government. The broader question of national insurance, perhaps on a contributory basis, is at present under consideration by the commission originally appointed, and we do not know when their report will be received. That is a very big question which will naturally have to be considered later on by this or any future Government. I think we are taking a very big step forward now by inaugurating this scheme, and probably the country would like to see how the scheme works before embarking on another very big scheme.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In connection with this recommendation on the Calitzdorp irrigation scheme which was before the select committee, I want to make a few remarks. It may be said that three kinds of schemes came before the select committee for attention. First, there was the private scheme which was generally dealt with on its own merits, and if, after investigation, it was clear that it could not pay, then the committee recommended cancelling the bond on the scheme and selling it. We feel that if we have to do with a private scheme, the Government can suffer no great loss, but when we come to public schemes, then it is quite another thing. Those schemes can be divided into those which are a hopeless failure, and those which can still be a success when the burdens are reasonable. The hopeless schemes have been very fairly dealt with in the recommendations of the select committee, and much writing off has been recommended, and a scale of payment proposed which will not throw too great burdens on the people. That is the policy of the Smalfontein and Maraisburg schemes in the districts of Tarkastad and Maraisburg. There the schemes were a hopeless failure, and it was accordingly recommended that the debt should be considerably written down, and it was placed on a basis so as not to throw too great a burden on the owners. I associate myself with those resolutions of the select Committee, but when we come to schemes that are to-day in difficulties, and of which a success can actually be made, and where over-capitalization was the chief cause of the failure, I think we are in a Very difficult position. We have the case of the Gamtoos River, the Prins River and the Calitzburg irrigation scheme and the Stoltz River scheme. With reference to the first three the select committee thought fit to give relief by recommending considerable writing off of rates due. I find no fault with that, although I expressed the view in the select committee in connection with this kind of scheme that we ought not to come to a decision yet, but that we should continue the scheme for a time, say for ten years, with a very reasonable rate so that the people can develop the farms to be able to decide what the ground can produce. My motion was not passed by the select committee, and as we are here deciding that the recommendations should be approved, I want to express the view that I think we are making a mistake if we dispose of those schemes finally, especially the schemes in the dry parts of the country, in parts where for the last five or six years drought has prevailed, and where, in consequence, the farmers there are on a much less sound basis, especially in the parts where in the past they kept ostriches. It is not possible at present for them to be on a sounder basis, and therefore I feel that we should not decide to-day what rate ought to be paid on those schemes. It will be either too high or too low. Hence I say that it will be a good thing if we allow the schemes to continue on a very cheap scale of rate for, e.g., ten years, and then the Government can again revise the rate to decide what can be paid by the owners. In this Way we should obviate two difficulties. In the first place there is a danger that where the value of a schene is fixed too low—and I think that some of the schemes have been very liberally treated— the ground becomes too cheap, and that where the ground is so cheap we are not assisting the owners, but will encourage speculators to buy Up the whole scheme. Take, for instance, the Hols River scheme, where more than £3,000 has been written off the capital cost. It is possible that the speculator is entirely buying out the farmer who has bonded the ground, and that he is obtaining the benefit of the £3,000 writing down of the dam and ground. The same applies to the other schemes, and I therefore thought that it was better for us to postpone the decision until such time as the people were on a more sound basis, and it could be decided what burdens the ground could bear. In that Way we should obviate speculators possibly buying up whole schemes at a reasonable price. As I said, it is not at all impossible for a rich person to buy up one or other schemes like the Prins River or the Stoltz River scheme, and then he is in possession of the scheme und has the benefit of a large dam. I have, therefore, proposed that we should not now decide about the schemes which are at the moment on an unsound basis, and that we should wait until they are on a sound basis, and that we shall then finally regulate what the schemes must pay, because then we shall be able to decide what the people can pay, and we shall, at the same time, prevent them selling the ground to speculators. If we adopt the recommendations now, then we are not only assisting the owner, but run the dinger of assisting the bondholder, and not the man living on the ground. If the bonholder sees that the ground is valued so low, then possibly he will prefer to take the ground instead of the bond when we shall have helped him, and not the man on the ground. I, therefore, thought that we should not dispose of these schemes for another ten years, and that Parliament could then decide what the remaining burdens are to be. I am sorry that I was in a minority in the select committee, but I bring this to the notice of the House because I am convinced that the policy I am recommending is the best for these schemes.

I just want to say a few words with reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux). The position is that, if we take those steps with regard to these schemes, then we shall also have to give the same concessions to the other schemes. Each scheme is dealt with on its merits, and it is considered how the scheme can be made to pay. Now the hon. member says that it will be impossible for the schemes to pay on that basis, but then other schemes cannot pay either, and in ten or twenty years they will not pay either. We are, moreover, dealing with recommendation 9, and I do not know what the hon. member wants. If he wants to speak about the other recommendations, he ought to have done so when those recommendations were dealt with. If the hon. member therefore is discussing recommendation 9, I want to ask him what point he is dealing with.

That is so, but the Chairman called me to order. I now come to the Calitzdorp scheme, and I want to mention another point in connection with the arguments I have already used. I have already said that the Bellair scheme and a few others have been put on a sound basis, but I proposed an alteration in connection with 9 (7). The Irrigation Committee investigated the scheme, and came to the conclusion that the only way out was to cut out the old ground, and to take the good ground along with new ground and deal with it, and tax it as a new system. I agree with that. Then, however, we come to the rate. The rate which is recommended is £2 10s. a morgen for the first three years, and thereafter £4 16s. 6d. a morgen. I think members will understand that it is practically impossible for the people to pay such a large rate, therefore I want to ask the House kindly to consider this scheme and to fix the rates for the first period at £1 10s., and thereafter at £3. I had thought of not finally fixing at the start what should be permanently paid, but for the first period of years to fix a lower rate, and to review it subsequently. I unfortunately did not have sufficient support for this principle, but if we are now going to decide finally that the rate is to be £4 16s. 6d. a morgen, it will certainly not be a success. The farmers cannot pay it. I just want to give some data to show the impossibility. They were supplied in the evidence before the commission that investigated the scheme. It was stated that at Calitzdorp 370 morgen came under the irrigation scheme, and that the bonds over the ground amounted to £43,000, and that the people had to pay £3,000 interest a year, to which must be added the rates of the municipality and Divisional Council, an additional £700, so that the 370 morgen has to-day to pay £3,700 annually to bondholders and tax gatherers, which amount to £10 a morgen. Now it is recommended that a further £4 16s. 6d. water rate must be paid, which will bring it up to £15 a morgen. Such a scheme is of course entirely unsound, and I say that we ought rather to allow the people to pay a lower rate for the first period, and then to see later what they can pay. The ground is good, but it is lying fallow. Most of the ground is undeveloped, and is to-day being planted with tobacco, lucerne, etc., nut there are no fruit trees or vines as yet, and the people are therefore not able to pay a high rate at once. Therefore I plead for three years’ grace for the people to pay no high rates, and that thereafter they shall pay £3 so that they can develop, and subsequently be able possibly to make a better payment. I have no political or financial interest in the matter, but I know the area, and that it cannot be a success with a £4 16s. 6d. rate.

The hon. member moves for a reduction of the amount the people have to pay to the Government. He can only do so if he has the approval of the Governor-General. The reduction which is proposed by the select committee has such approval, but a further reduction cannot be allowed. I am sorry that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I have not been able thoroughly to follow my hon. friend. This was the one meeting of the committee at which I was not able to attend. I under-stand my hon. friend considers that terms more favourable than those laid down in the report should be given. I have been looking through the report, and I find on page 24 “On the motion of Mr. le Roux the following was proposed.” I find the report embodies in full the motion the hon. member made in select committee. That was why I was surprised, and I dare say the Minister is equally surprised, at the impassioned appeal which he now makes to the House. The select committee accepted in toto the motion which the hon. gentleman moved.

I will explain. If the right hon. gentleman had been there, he would not have made the remarks which have now fallen from him. I made a similar proposal in the select committee to that which I am making to-day, but at the time it was not accepted by the select committee. Since then I have thought that although I was not able to carry it in select committee, I might be successful in the House today.

It is a pity that is not mentioned in the minutes.

In accordance with the Chairman’s decision it appears useless to second the amendment, and I can now really do nothing else but move that the recommendations about the Calitzdorp irrigation scheme be referred back to the select committee. I do so, and my reason is that it is impossible for, the people to pay a water rate of £4 16s. 6d. The scheme is now a white elephant, and will be a still bigger one if we pass the proposals.

The commission is also interfering very much in the vested rights of people, by cutting out all the new ground without compensating them. I should have nothing against the commission’s recommendation, but then the Minister must be prepared to pay the people compensation. Many of them have done much work on the ground, built houses and planted vineyards, and gone to great expense, and the best ground is now being cut out without a penny’s compensation. The scheme will never succeed with a £4 16s. 6d. rate. The people first suffered by the slump in ostrich feathers, and subsequently they were saddled with the expensive land. I therefore move—

I want to add a few words on the Bellair and Prins River schemes.

They are disposed of.

I do not want to move an amendment, but just to express my thanks to the commission for the fair way in which they have dealt with the schemes. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) knows, I think, less of the scheme than I do, and he thinks the speculators will come in, but as things are to-day there is no danger of that yet.

The select committee is, so to say, dead. This is The third and final report of the committee. Unless the committee, which is now dead, is given fresh life the hon. member can refer nothing to it,

I wanted to support the amendment, but if that is not possible we may possibly move that the recommendations stand over and be dealt with later.

The hon. member can ask the Minister to see whether the select committee can be reconstituted. The hon. member can report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Perhaps the Minister will assist us. A terrible injustice is being done to the Calitzdorp people by taking away their vested rights, and it is not a matter we can deal with frivolously. When the scheme was suggested the owners had a normal stream of water which they could see almost every day, they got the water and spent a great deal on the ground, on houses, buildings, etc. Now the motion is simply to cut out all the new ground and to make the land of the people dry by taking away the water to another river which can get water from another source. That is a big encroachment on rights. I am informed that the people have wheat on the ground, and is it right simply to say that in future we shall not allow them to irrigate their ground?

It is argued that we have done a great injustice to the Calitzdorp people by taking away the water. Have they ever paid water rates? As the Government has provided the money, and the people pay no water rates, how are we doing an injustice? The Permanent Irrigation Commission has carefully gone into the matter and made an investigation on the spot, and they have decided that there is only one solution, namely, to cut Out the bad ground and add the new to other ground, and to give it water, and make the burden on it as light as possible. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) said that other schemes are charged less than this one. The commission investigated the nature of the ground, and it is admitted that the soil is of the best that can be found, and that the rate is reasonable. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn wants the scheme to have an opportunity of first planting trees. The select committee proposes not to start with the collection of monies until the 1st of July, 1930, that is two years from now. Then for three years they will still pay only £1 5s. a morgen per half year, and only after three years, that is in 1933, will they have to pay the full rate. I also want to point out that when the dam was built the people applied with open eyes, and I want to point out the great concession which has already been made. We must also remember the taxpayer. The original burden on the scheme was £168,052. In 1923 part of the loans were written off, capital £40,000, and interest £50,000, and the commission now proposes to further write off between £60,000 and £80,000: thus the total to be written off the scheme, which originally only cost £168,000, will be £160,000 or £170,000. And then we still hear of the terrible unfairness to the Calitzdorp people. I should like to help them, but we are responsible people who have responsibilities towards other parts of the country. If we play about in this way with the public money, and write it down like that, then I fear that any Government will be afraid in future to undertake any irrigation works. Hon. members also seem to be under the impression to by this the matter will be closed off for ever, and the people will never again be able to come to the Government if anything unexpected occurs. The first writing off took place in 1923, but now we are again meeting the people, and if there are further extraordinary circumstances later—which I hope will not be, because I want to have finality—and the people cannot pay, then the Government of the day can consider still further concessions. If we however postpone the matter again we shall never get to finality.

I entirely agree with the Minister. I was absent from the meeting of the committee when the last decision was arrived at, although I heard the evidence. I visited the scheme. The only thing I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister is with regard to sub-section (2).

The Minister knows I was in favour of that, but he must see we have legal authority for doing that, so that the department will not be caught napping, while the people who own the highest land—and the Minister can make them pay a higher rate than here specified if you de-schedule those lands—may not come down on the department for compensation. In you district like Calitzdorp, you have the choicest 400 morgen, under intense irrigation, to grow fruit, I acknowledge the upper lands are not so good, and many are not so fortunately situated, but some of the people, from the evidence we had, would not take £200 per morgen tor their land. It must be very good land. Surely the hon, member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) does not contend that £2 8s. an acre for land of that character with more than double the water scheduled than they had before is too high a Water rate to pay in that locality. The hon. member himself made that proposition, and ought to be very thankful that the committee unanimously accepted it.

I can only come to the conclusion that the right hon. gentleman is expressing an opinion on a subject he does not know much about.

Oh !

I do not mean irrigation in general, but the condition of farmers in the Calitzdorp area. Most of the farmers there are being rationed by the provincial council, yet you are going to exact £4 16s. 6d. a morgen from them for irrigation fees. If hon, members knew the actual position, they would not think my proposal unreasonable. I predict that the House Will have to reconsider the matter Within five or ten years.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and considered.

On the motion, that the report be adopted.

I should just like to have information on one point in connection with the report on the Smalfontein irrigation scheme, and the Maraisburg scheme. The intention was to adopt the recommendations of the Irrigation Commission. We see that certain new proposals are recommended in the report, and the commission further advised that the irrigation schemes should retain the option to accept them or not, but I see nothing mentioned in the proposals about this.

The position is, that if one of the people objects, the whole agreement lapses, but I shall consider what the hon. member says.

Motion put and agreed to.

The resolutions now adopted, together with resolutions adopted on the consideration of the first report of the Select Committee on irrigation Schemes on the 2nd April, sent to the Senate for concurrence.

I should like to know when we may expect the report of the Permanent Irrigation Commission on our large schemes like the Fish River scheme. I feel it is very necessary that those reports should go more into detail so that the people may know where they are, and that great extension may be possible. There are great possibilities for settlement, and it is desirable for the report not to be delayed so long. People able to buy are now in doubt, and it is necessary for us to put all the schemes on a sound basis. The reports on the big schemes ate possibly of still more value than those on the small ones.

I can only tell the hon. member that I am trying to expedite the matter, but the difficulty was the inspection of the ground. It is no use the commission making recommendations without properly inspecting the ground. We are busy on that, and the report will be prepared as soon as possible. I hope in any case that we shall have the report before Parliament reassembles. I agree with the hon. member for Crudock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) that the people should not grope about in the dark, but that we must try to put the schemes which have cost millions of pounds on a sound basis, and that we must remove the unrest existing among the public so that they shall know where they are, and go to work with more courage and keenness. They must know what they have to pay, and what they are owing, and we shall get a report as soon as possible.

The irrigation possibilities on the Orange River have vital interest for my district. The Orange River runs for about 150 miles through my constituency, and there are one or more of the old schemes surveyed in the past which have great possibilities. I know the matter is being considered, but I want to ask the Minister if there is any certainty ns yet in connection with the old irrigation scheme, whether there is anything definite that the Van der Kloof scheme below Petrusville will again be started, whether the experts have already made further enquiries into the soil. The Minister knows the schemes in that neighbourhood. I notice that the loss on bores for the new year is estimated at £44,000, which is much more than last year, when only £25,000 was lost. Is it the intention of the Minister to reduce the cost to the farmer, or to bore on a larger scale?

The intention is that, while the farmers formerly paid £5 a day, they will now pay £3 10s., which will mean a considerable reduction in revenue; if they do not find water they will only pay £2 10s.; the time for payment has also been extended from three years to five years, and where formerly they had to deposit £15 on application, it is now £7 10s. Relief has, therefore, been given in all directions, and we want to assist the farmers as much as possible in boring. I will put as many bores as possible into service. Then it was asked whether certain schemes would be surveyed. There are schemes on the Orange River which have been surveyed. The department and the Irrigation Commission have been instructed to enquire into certain schemes, and make a report, but at the moment I cannot give the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) any hope that we shall start the schemes ne is thinking about. I have already said that we feel that the old schemes must first be put on a sound basis, but I also feel that the schemes which have already been surveyed, and which seem likely to pay, must not be lost sight of.

My division is very grateful for all the concessions in connection with the expense of boring, but our trouble is that we cannot get enough bores. People have to wait months and months, sometimes for even a year, after putting in an application, before it is considered. Experience has taught us that if we only bore for water no sheep need die in our parts. The position in Bechuanaland is serious, and in view of the scarcity of water there, the Minister must give special attention to it. The largest part of the ground is Crown land, and comes under the Minister of Lands, and we cannot really expect much from the Minister of Agriculture, but I hope he will assist us as much as possible with bores. I should also like to ask the Minister to reconstruct the bores as much as possible, so that they can work with oil, and not have to be stoked with wood. In the bare veld it is very difficult to get enough wood, and the alteration in the bores is a great improvement. I have spoken to the head of the boring division and he personally stated, I think, that if he had to grant all the applications for bores it would take at least five years. What farmer can wait five years for water?

I do not think the Kuruman district can complain. I think we have more bores there than in any other division. It is true that there are a number of bores on Crown land, but we must bore there as well, because Bechuanaland needs a larger population, and the hon. member will agree that it is very important for Bechuanaland. There are some people at present who had to wait nine months for bores. I have given instructions to send another bore to Bechuanaland, and the hon. member will be glad to hear it. We only have 86 bores, but I think our policy must be that the districts where there has been good rain should wait a little. I shall, therefore, try to send another bore to Bechuanaland if possible. As for burning oil, as many bores as possible are being altered, but we cannot do it at once. When the bores come back to Pretoria we try to alter them. We know it is much more convenient for the farmers.

I want to thank the Minister for what he has already done. I am glad bores are being changed to burn oil, but I want to ask if it is not possible to have two kinds of frames for a bore, one for soft ground, and one for hard, so that the parts can be interchanged. We have granite at certain depths, and it is much harder than other ground. I fear that some such thing has already been invented, and that such bores exist in our country. Boring is particularly needed in Namaqualand, in the rough veld near Springbok. It has long been surveyed, and if water is bored for the country may have a great future. I notice the Minister of Agriculture wants to provide water before putting the people on the ground. The last Government ruined the people by not even boring for water. The rough veld is excellent if only water is provided, and the artesian strip runs through it, and it is of very great value. I learn, however, that the Minister of Agriculture will not allow boring to be done, because no people are being settled. It will, however, occur sooner or later, and if the prohibition of prospecting is withdrawn, great developments may take place, especially if there is water.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to page 193 of this vote, “Meteorology”, and ask him if the department has really gone into the question of having a much fuller report than we have at the present time. The Minister knows what this country has suffered on account of droughts, and the meagre information that we have in connection with the forecasting weather cycles. He knows that in Australia and New Zealand, I believe, and also in South America, in the Argentine, provision is made for having something in the nature of a station in the southern Antarctic, and I would ask him whether he would not consider it advisable to get the scientists of his department to go into the question and see whether it would not well repay this country to associate ourselves with the Argentine and Australia, and have a wireless station down in the Antarctic. I do not say you would get information of a valuable character within twelve months, but I do think that the general consensus of scientific opinion is that, after a period of five or ten years, you might be able to get forecasts of a valuable character. This is a direction in which other countries are working, and I do not think there is any direction in which the department could more wisely spend money than in combining in scientific investigation, especially in the Antarctic, which is so largely associated with our rainfall here, and in doing something in the direction of having periodic wireless reports sent to us for the purpose of trying to formulate some forecasts of our rainfall. We have, at the present time, meteorological reports daily from all over the Union, but I do not think that is nearly sufficient, and I hope the Minister will take this matter into consideration, and have his scientific experts to go into the whole question, because there is no doubt that the general trend of opinion is that by investigations of this sort carried over a large area, within a reasonable period, you may be able to have the most valuable forecasts that would save a country like this, which is subject to droughts, not alone thousands, but millions of pounds.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the question of the irrigation development of riparian land which is held jointly by European farmers and natives. I raised the question on the Native Affairs vote, and I was recommended to wait until the present vote was under consideration. I am speaking more particularly of the Fish River. There is what is called the Peddie Fingo Reserve on one side of the river, and the European settled part on the other. I know something of irrigation schemes, and I say that there you have one of the potentially best schemes I have seen in the Cape Province. The trouble really arises because this irrigable ground is held partly by natives and partly by Europeans. The natives themselves won’t come into a joint scheme, and the Native Affairs Department won’t come in, and I want the Minister to bring pressure to bear upon them to see that something is done by which that land may be developed. Various suggestions have been made for exchange of land, giving the natives suitable land for their purposes in another area, and releasing that irrigable land so that it could be developed into what would be a very first-class scheme. That is how the matter stands now. I do not know whether the Native Development Fund could be used in that way, but certainly something should be done. There are about a thousand acres of land on one side of the river which cannot be fully or economically developed unless the other 1,200 or 1,500 acres are also brought in. Then you would have a comprehensive scheme which would be well worth carrying out. Every method of persuasion has been used with the natives, but they just don’t want to come in. I do think, for their own good, too, it would be a very good thing if they could be made to do so. In Natal irrigation schemes run purely for natives by the authorities are quite successful. The Commissioner of Native Affairs told me he found them very successful indeed. The men have not got freehold, they have only tenure, and, so long as they work well, they are allowed possession. If, so some reason, they forfeit their rights, there are always others ready to come in. I think it is time the native learned to use his land more profitably than he does to-day. Vast areas in the best parts of South Africa are in the possession of natives, and they are not working their land properly.

Will the hon. member tell me which item he is discussing?

Irrigation. The point is this—I grant I am rather trenching on policy, but the Minister himself cut me short when his vote was under discussion by moving the closure.

I have allowed the hon. member to go a long way, but I cannot permit any further discussion.

Then may I say I hope the Minister will get into direct communication on this question and see whether expenditure under irrigation settlement could not be wisely expended in the direction of getting this derelict land properly developed in the interests of the country.

I would like to ask the Minister what has been done in the direction of stopping grazing on catchment areas for irrigation schemes. It is well known that this leads to veld burning. I ask the Minister first with regard to Crown lands, and then what further steps are taken with regard to private lands in the catchment areas. Then, under the heading Reconnaissance Survey, I should like to ask him whether anything has been done to test the theory of Dr. Merensky that there is a great underground artesian lake up in the north-west. If so, it must be of enormous value to the whole of the country. I would also like to ask whether anything has been done in the way of a geological survey of underground waters of this country. There again, it seems we have enormous possibilities before us. I would like to support very strongly the points made by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) in regard to geological surveys, and to urge on the Minister that in matters of this kind you naturally only get results after years of work, and to ask the Minister whether he is in communication with any other Governments in the southern hemisphere to ascertain whether steps can be taken by co-operation to get the necessary data and information.

I just want to answer a few questions. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) asked if any steps were being taken to obtain information about weather conditions in other countries, so that we could keep the farmers informed of them. I think it is of great importance that we should co-operate with other countries in this matter, because the farmer will be better enabled to know what the climatic conditions are going to be. I can assure the hon. member that the matter is receiving the serious attention of the department, and that we have already started negotiations about it with our northern neighbours to get their co-operation with my department, so that we shall know the weather conditions better. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) raised the question of those schemes where natives have ground on the one side, and Europeans on the other side of the river. It is a very difficult question for my department to deal with. As the hon. member knows, we have never yet constructed irrigation works in native territory, and I suggest that the whole question should stand over until we have passed the native Bills. I do not think there is any possibility at present of dealing with the difficulty. Then the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) asked a few questions about the prevention of the burning of pasturage in the catchment areas of irrigation works. The difficulty is this. In towns the municipality has to make arrangements, if there may be injurious consequences to the water supply. As for Crown land, the Government can consider if anything can be done to stop them, but the hon. member will see that it is impossible on private land. Take, for instance, the Hartebeestpoort dam scheme. The catchment areas below the scheme stretch for miles and miles, and it is quite impossible for the Government to say that they may not burn the pasturage. I think the hon. member means the catchment areas in mountain areas, but he knows that only certain parts of those areas belong to the State. I shall consider whether anything can be done, where the burning of pasturage is bad for the cattle, on such areas on Crown land. Then the hon. member asked what was being done in connection with the exploring for subterranean water, especially in connection with Dr. Merensky’s discovery. The hon. member will see in the irrigation director’s annual report that geological surveys are being made in certain parts. We are trying to get a geologist.

I might suggest that when the Association for the Advancement of Science hold their meeting here, it may be a matter to get your experts to discuss with them.

We wanted to get the services of Dr. du Toit, but they could not give him up for this work. We are trying to get another man, and will start the work as soon as possible. I am myself anxious to ascertain the position about subterranean water. Then the hon. member asked what the position of the geological survey was. We are constantly engaged on it. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) said that we ought to get a new gadget for bores, one for boring in hard ground, and one for soft ground which could be attached to one and the same machine, and could be used with alternating underframes. I shall see, where circumstances permit, whether we can adopt the proposal. The hon. member said that boring was not being done on Crown land in his division. I just want to reply that we have a definite number, about five, bores used by the Department of Lands. They have been working in the Transvaal, are now in Kuruman, and will in time no doubt go to Namaqualand, because they are going to various parts of the country.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 37, “Public Service Commission”, £26,622,

I want to draw the Minister’s attention, as I have done on a previous occasion, to a serious allegation made by Mr. P. Davidson, formerly receiver of revenue in Natal. It appears that he had an interview with the “Natal Advertiser,” and a report of this was published in the “Cape Times” on the 28th of last February. He says that the law as laid down in the Act of Union compelling the Public Service Commission to be established lays down that it should make a report to this House on certain matters, which have not been carried out by the commission. He says that that body as such has lost the confidence of public servants. He proceeds to say that when the commission was appointed it became its duty, in the event of a recommendation for an appointment or promotion not being carried out, to report that fact to Parliament. How often was that done, he asks, for he knows of very few cases. It often happened, he said, that the recommendation of the commission was overruled, and no report was made to Parliament in the matter. That is a serious charge to make against the commission by an official of undoubted reputation. I made inquiries about this gentleman, who is spoken of in the highest terms, and it is stated he would not lightly make such charges. Therefore, it behoves the Government to make an inquiry. Are his charges to remain unchallenged, and members of the commission to remain under that stigma? In the interests of the Public Service Commission and of the public servants, it is necessary for the Government to order an inquiry to be made —I do not suggest in what form—it is for the Government to decide that. Mr. Davidson should be called before that commission of inquiry, and a report should be made to Parliament.

Who is he?

A gentleman who has been in the public service for a large number of years, and the late receiver of income tax in Natal. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on the subject.

I do not think we can be expected to deal with what people say outside without the slightest foundation, because I can say at once that allegation is denied. Mr. Davidson was speaking, I think, generally. Is this a specific allegation— that this state of affairs is in existence under the commission? I would like this allegation substantiated; let him cite a case, and the Minister will be prepared to deal with it.

He is a very’ responsible official.

How does the hon. gentleman expect me to meet a case with this vague statement? He is a responsible official, who did his work very well. I am not prepared to accept a general statement, and specific cases should be cited. When I read the statement originally in the press, I took it it was a general criticism of the Public Service Commission from its earliest stages, and I did not take it that he was referring specifically to the last year or so.

The point about it is if Mr. Davidson is the kind of man the Minister admits and knows he is, a very responsible official of long service, who has done good service, the charges he makes are not to be dismissed in a light-hearted way, as if there were no foundation at all for them. Has the Minister made any investigation? How can an hon. member make specific charges?

The hon. member knows a report is laid before Parliament every year. Where the recommendations of the commission are not accepted by the Government they are reported. Surely, after a statement like that is made, I am entitled to have the particulars. Why should the commission refrain from reporting some cases to Parliament when the Government disagrees with its recommendations?

I appreciate the Minister’s point of view. If he thinks he cannot do anything without specific charges being made, well and good, but the fact remains that a general charge has been made by a responsible official. I am not able to give specific data, but statements have been made from ministerial benches regarding the way in which appointments have been filled which have caused grave concern, the appointments being of a political complexion. There is a very wide-spread feeling that a man’s advancement in the service depends on his political complexion.

The hon. member raises another question, but that is not the point we are debating. I understood there was a charge that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission were disregarded, and the commission did not report the matter to Parliament. Now the hon. member brings up the question of appointments by Ministers.

The two questions are closely interwoven,

The Minister does not seem to see the seriousness of the matter. I do not make any charges, because I have not the evidence, but had I the evidence I would make the charges so clearly that the Minister would have to inquire into them. Here is a branch of the public service which is under his administration, and it has been publicly attacked in a serious way. The charges are either true or untrue.

I have denied their truth, and it is now for you to give a specific instance.

It is very easy to deny it. The point is whether there is any truth in the allegations made by a gentleman who held a very responsible position in the Public Service. The members of the Public Service Commission are charged with a serious offence which, if true, merits their dismissal, but if untrue they should be defended by the Government. They cannot set up any defence—it is entirely for the Government to do that. A gentleman of high standing has thrown down the gauntlet, and the Government should take it up in the interests of the public servants, who must have read the charges with consternation. I know there is dissatisfaction in the service, for men have been brought into the service and given appointments over the heads of officials who have spent a lifetime in the service. We want a public service which will be satisfied that everything is done above-board, and that they can rely on receiving a fair deal throughout their official career.

The annual report of the Public Service Commission mentions a charge of serious misconduct against a postal official. I believe the case was brought to the notice of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The chairman of the Postal and Telegraph Clerks’ Association was charged with having used language which was considered to be political or semi-political. In any case, it did not meet with the approval of the Minister, although the Minister himself had declared—

Which Minister is the hon. member referring to?

I am referring to the Minister in whose department these people were charged.

I understand he is the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs?

Yes.

The hon. member should bring the matter up under the Minister’s vote.

I am not making any charge, but indicating how difficulties are created by light-hearted speeches of this kind made by Ministers at certain seasons of the year. The sole reason for the charge against the official was that he had made an utterance, relying on the guidance his own Minister had given him that there was free speech in the postal department.

Free, but not unlicensed speech.

The Minister gave the officials clearly to understand that they could belong to any political party as far as he was concerned.

If the hon. member wishes to tackle any Minister, he should bring the complaint up on that Minister’s vote.

I shall have something to say when the Minister’s vote is reached. I hoped that he would profit by the few remarks I was making.

It is not the right season of the year now.

To what extent does the Minister, under whose control this department falls, consult the chairman of the commission in regard to difficulties of this kind? Are they regarded as being outside the purview of the Minister? Or is it permissible for the Minister to confer with the Public Service Commission on the subject?

I do not know what point the hon. member is driving at. The law lays it down that when the commission make a recommendation which the Government does not accept, they have the right to report it, as they have been doing, to Parliament. The commission’s decision is not final, for it is open to the Governor-General-in-Council either to accept or reject their recommendations.

I am quite pleased with the patience of my hon. friend, because I believe it is not his vote at all. I believe the Public Service Commission comes under the Department of the Minister of the Interior. The Public Service Commission is appointed by statute for the purpose of seeing that in the public service of this country there enters no favouritism or political consideration of any sort whatsoever. It is because there is an idea, as has been mentioned by my hon. friend, that decisions of the Public Service Commission are being departed from by Ministers without the Public Service Commission bringing that to the notice of Parliament, that this matter is being raised. If that is the case, it is a very serious matter.

Is it fair to repeat a statement after it has been denied without giving specific instances?

How can we give specific cases? This is a statement made, as I understand, by an officer whom the hon. the Minister will acknowledge held the highest position for his integrity while he was in the service. Surely my hon. friend should consider it his duty to pass on to his colleague the views that have been expressed here with the object of seeing, in the interests of both the Public Service Commission and of the public service, that rumours of this sort should either be contradicted or proved to be correct. That is all my hon. friend asks for, and I think in that he is doing a service to the Public Service Commission and to the public service of this country. Only last Friday the Minister of Agriculture said that he did not consider any public servant who did not hold the views of the Government could love his country, and would not take an opportunity of stabbing a Minister in the back. When such views are expressed, surely there is justification for the idea that in filling up Government posts there is not absolutely fair play to every member of the public service.

I think my right hon. friend will be the first to admit that it is not fair to make a general statement, and then after it has been denied, to press the point without giving particulars. How can I meet the charge? I tell my hon. friend that in all cases where the recommendations of the commission have been set aside by the Government, as the Government is entitled to do, they have reported to Parliament. The charge is that this is a commission which does not do its duty; that its recommendations are set aside and the members do not worry about the matter. That I deny. Surely if all these cases have actually happened, it would be very easy for the hon. member who brings up the matter to get particulars to enable us to meet the charge. In regard to the large number of appointments about which hon. members have been complaining that they were made from outside the service, I do not think there were half-a-dozen cases where people were brought into the public service, but that all appointments that were quoted here some time ago during another debate were outside the public service as such, and the Public Service Commission had absolutely nothing to do with them. Those appointments can be queried on the votes of the Ministers who made them, but I do not think they can be questioned on this vote. I do not know of a single case which will justify the general statement which was apparently made by Mr. Davidson.

I think my hon. friend is wrong about the duties of the Public Service Commission when he says that when people are brought into the public service of the country at the behest of a. Minister, the Public Service Commission has nothing to do with it.

No—outside the service.

I would like to see the report of the Public Service Commission in connection with some of the appointments to which we referred the other day, because it is their duty to advise whether an officer in the department is fit to hold that position.

I agree that he is entitled to deal with the question of a man who is brought from outside into the public service. The point I tried to make was that a large number of cases, to which reference has been made in this House, were cases outside the service. My hon. friend always quotes the case of Mr. de Villiers. That is a case with which the Public Service Commission have nothing to do.

I think the Minister takes up quite a wrong attitude with regard to this matter of Mr. Davidson. We are not making charges against the Public Service Commission, nor, so far as I am concerned, do we know the particular cases to which Mr. Davidson is referring, but Mr. Davidson held a very high position in Natal. I think he was Receiver of Revenue there. Immediately after Mr. Davidson’s retirement, he publishes a letter in the press in which he makes the most serious general charge against the administration of the Public Service Commission. He is not a mere man in the street making comments, or referring in a general way to administration of the department, but I understand the Minister to say (hat he is quite satisfied with a mere denial. Surely there must be some legal method by which Mr. Davidson can be compelled, either to justify his attack, or withdraw his charge. Surely the Minister cannot say for one moment with a statement from a man in the position of Mr. Davidson, a considered and deliberate charge, that he can sit down and be satisfied by merely saying, “We are going to ignore it.”

Do you seriously maintain that?

I seriously maintain that there must be some machinery at law. Is there not such a thing as the criminal law?

One would have thought that the machinery would be that if a man makes allegations he should come to this House with his allegations.

The charges he makes against the commission are not specific; they are general. I am surprised to hear the Minister say that he is satisfied to sit down under that stigma and say that a mere denial is sufficient. I cannot understand the Minister’s point of view. I am certain that there must be some machinery by which Mr. Davidson could either be compelled to withdraw that accusation, or to prove what he asserts. It is a most damning indictment upon the whole administration of the Public Service Commission, and as such it was regarded in the part of the world from which I come. For the Minister to sit there smiling and say, “We deny the charge,” will give little satisfaction to the people who read that letter, and who were grievously concerned by the contents of it. I am certain there must be some machinery by which the Minister can compel a responsible official like Mr. Davidson was, and is, to justify his allegations, a pensioner. Have the Government no means of getting Mr. Davidson to prove his allegations, or in some way to affect his pension? I am surprised at the Minister dealing so lightly with a charge of this description. I am certain that the Minister’s answer will give great dissatisfaction to those who are concerned with the administration of this department. There have been charges made from this side of the House against what is going on.

Let us have the charge.

We have given cases over and over again from this side, where recommendations of the commission have been passed over by Ministers. This case goes beyond that. This is a statement by a responsible official who says in black and white what is going on in that department.

The Minister says it is not true.

How can he say it is not true? It is general. The letter does not raise any particular case which is capable of investigation. It mentions as a general practice that the commission is doing this.

Is that not exactly the weakness of the statement?

I think that is its strength.

It is just these general statements which are used to vilify without any proof.

I could understand if an irresponsible person or a number of irresponsible persons were to attack the administration in that way, that the best way to treat it is to take no notice of it, but where a man like this, who has held one of the highest positions in the public service of this country, writes a letter like that, it does require that some notice should be taken of it, and there must be some machinery by which he can be compelled to substantiate what is in that letter, or withdraw it in the interests of the public service.

I cannot understand my hon. friend. A charge is brought here before the highest court in the land. A general statement is made. I ask for particulars. How can I meet the charge? The hon. member does not furnish it. If that charge were brought in any court of law and my hon. friend had to meet that charge, the first thing he would do would be to ask for particulars. If those particulars are not forthcoming, the case would not be inquired into. My hon. friend says, “Surely there must be some machinery.” What machinery? Does he want me to go and test every statement that is made outside? Here a vague charge is made because a certain gentleman had made certain charges, and I ask, pray, what are those charges? Nobody is prepared to bring them forward. It is the most extraordinary position, I think, that has ever been put forward before a court, as this House at present is, against the Public Service Commission. Not a single case can be quoted. A definite charge is made, and I ask that a single case should be quoted.

In regard to the statement of Mr. Davidson, I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) that that cannot be lightly dismissed. Mr. Davidson was one of our most distinguished public servants in this country, a short week before he made this statement, and his statement amounted to a very serious indictment of the Public Service Commission, a body that, by the Act of Union, is constituted to protect the public service of this country. His statement virtually amounted to an indictment against the Public Service Commission that it was not fulfilling the functions for which it had been appointed, in other words that it was a useless body that was not carrying out what it was constituted to do. I agree with Mr. Davidson in regard to certain features. I do not wish to make any personal accusation against the Public Service Commission as members or as individuals. I have the highest respect for Mr. Pienaar, who, I am sorry to hear, is ill, and the other members of the commission are equally estimable men. But the charge of Mr. Davidson receives confirmation when we examine certain returns that have been laid on the Table of this House, and here, although I join issue with the Minister, I do so not in any fault-finding manner, because I realize that the Minister is speaking for a colleague who is not here to-day to answer for this department, and the Minister probably spoke just now without full information on this subject. I understood him to say that in regard to a large class of people who have been introduced into the service from outside the Public Service Commission have nothing to do with those cases. I wish to point out that the list laid on the Table of this House tells a totally different tale. It shows that gentlemen from outside the service who were selected by the Public Service Commission and, I take it, whose appointments were recommended by that body, numbered 126 out of the 180, the one branch of the service as distinguished from the other where the appointments were in the giving of Ministers without a recommendation of the Public Service Commission. A further complaint that I have to make against the commission is that in connection with that long list of men, 126, who are to-day drawing over £400 a year, and who have caused the men below them in the service to recede in their promotion because of these appointments, the Public Service Commission certifies that there is not one man in the service competent to take that appointment, that there is not one man with the necessary qualifications. That is a very sweeping thing to say.

Are not these men technical men, doctors, etc., and other professional men?

No, a very small proportion are doctors and professional men.

Technical men.

There are a few, I admit. There are only two exceptions I have found.

Which Minister is the hon. member complaining against?

The list does not disclose to what department these men have been appointed, so I am unable to specify. I am merely referring to a list which was tabled by the Minister of the Interior in response to my request, a list which emanates from the Public Service Commission. That list shows that in eight cases only did the Public Service Commission admit there were men in the service competent to take up those appointments, but the reason for appointing outsiders is not disclosed in any of those cases. We have the case mentioned by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), Mr. van Dalsen. It is admitted in this case by the Public Service Commission that there were men in the service competent to carry out that appointment, but no reason is given for the appointment. We can only surmise what the reasons were. I should think it would not take more than two guesses to arrive at the correct answer, in view of the fact that we have been told all things being equal, a Nationalist will always come home first.

If the hon. member has any grievance against any Minister, he should wait until that Minister’s vote is being discussed.

But this is that Minister’s Vote. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, this vote falls under the Minister of the Interior, and my hon. friend is referring to the appointments made by the Minister of the Interior, and now he is referring to the Public Service Commission having stated that in the Department of Agriculture there was a competent officer to fill a post which is being filled by a man from outside.

Yes, but if the Minister of Agriculture is involved, the hon. member should have discussed the question when his Vote was under consideration.

There are two questions involved. The Public Service Commission recommends, and the Minister has to either accept or refuse the recommendation. If he refuses the Public Service Commission has to report to this House. Surely, the hon. member is perfectly right in discussing the Public Service Commission and the attitude they take up.

What hon. members appear to forget is that this is not a particular portfolio. If the hon. member wishes to discuss any Minister’s action he should have done so when the Minister’s vote was under discussion.

I do not mean that, Mr. Chairman. In the Agricultural Department there was a suitable official for appointment as registrar of co-operative societies. Another gentleman has been appointed to that position. I understand the attitude taken up by my hon. friend is this, that he wants to know what report the Public Service Commission have given to this House to show how the action of the Minister is justified in going outside the service against their recommendation. I maintain, as a point of order, that on this particular vote it is perfectly competent for the hon. member to proceed in that direction.

It seems to me the hon. member has no grievance against the Public Service Commission as far as their administration is concerned.

There is certainly a misunderstanding. The grievance against the Public Service Commission is this, that it is one of their functions when they make a recommendation and that recommendation is departed from, to report fully to Parliament, giving the reasons why they have been over-ridden. That is the only chance that this House, the public service and the country have of knowing that the functions of the Public Service Commission have been carried out as the law lays down they should be carried out.

I was merely for the moment canvassing the reasons

If the hon. member desires to go on in regard to Mr. van Dalsen, I must interfere. That subject falls under the Minister of Agriculture, so I understand.

That is so. That was dealt with on the Minister’s Vote. I am now wishing to know, in connection with my general indictment against the Public Service Commission, when they have certified so many of these men were appointed because there were no competent men in the service, why in the case of Mr. van Dalsen the appointment was not made from the service where there were men with qualifications.

Hon. members are at liberty to discuss administration by the Public Service Commission.

I wish to be confined to that entirely. In this list of persons who were appointed from outside because there were no persons in the service with the necessary qualifications, we have the Rev. Mr. van Heerden. Officials in the service I think will rather resent the introduction from outside of clerical professional men who are appointed to positions on the ground given here that there was nobody in the service with the necessary qualifications. It is difficult to find the justification for the appointment of the Rev. Mr. van Heerden, over the heads of so many men in the service who had spent long years in qualifying and in rendering themselves and keeping themselves efficient. I think we are entitled to have some explanation as to the reason for the choice of candidates of this kind, because here it seems to me, it would be difficult to justify the appointment of the Rev. Mr. van Heerden to a post at £400 per annum, a very coveted post, over the heads of innumerable juniors.

In what position was he appointed?

The position is not shown in the list. That was one reason why I felt the list was very unsatisfactory. The public service commission gives no information as to the appointments for which these men have been selected. To that extent I am working in the dark. It gives me much concern that, not content with introducing men from outside, we are introducing men from other professions which are not essentially public service professions, and we are appointing them over the heads of men who have chosen the public service as a profession and an honourable profession, in which they are entitled to recognition of their merits.

When the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) spoke a few minutes ago, the Prime Minister thought fit to interject: “Do you believe it?” treating the whole matter in a light and airy way. What is the object of having Clause 142 in the South Africa Act, which provides for the setting up of the Public Service Commission, which was to protect the men in the service? We are asking the Government to do so, and how are we treated? Lightly and airily, and so to brush the whole matter aside. Here is a charge against three gentlemen, levelled by Mr. Davidson, who is able to speak on the matter, having held a responsible position, and even to-day is holding a responsible position, in that he is drawing a pension. It is the duty of the Government to find out and ascertain whether these charges are true, and to see that these three gentlemen who hold this important position are above suspicion. I do not bring this matter lightly before the committee. It is in the interests of the service, and of those men who work up from the bottom of the ladder hoping to reach higher positions. The Minister said I referred to the case of Mr. de Villiers. We can start with Mr. Pienaar, a lawyer, who was called from outside to take one of the plums of the service.

Who-is Mr. Pienaar?

He was appointed over Mr. Venn as Secretary of the Interior.

What about Spilhaus?

I am sorry if I made a mistake. I have never made a charge against Mr. Pienaar; the charge is against the Government. This afternoon I am not indicting the Government, but asking it to protect the men in the service and all we get is scoffing.

I think we are bound to consider whether the statements made by Mr. Davidson are not such as to demand an inquiry. He occupies a very high position in Durban, doing some insurance work.

Is he doing election work?

In the public service he has been scrupulously correct, and has not associated with any political party.

While in the service?

While in the service and out of it. He was one of the most esteemed men in the service, and political considerations have nothing to do with what he said. The Public Service Commission would do well, and I want to suggest to the Minister, that it should invite Mr. Davidson to substantiate what he said on the subjest, because it is a matter which certainly calls for investigation. We cannot disregard an accusation of that sort, from a gentleman who had for many years, one of the largest staffs serving under him and knew the men in the service. His accusation receives added weight from the position he occupied in the service, and the position he stands in in relation to the public of the country.

We want to go home.

I should like to suggest that the Public Service Commission, in its own interests, and in its relation to the whole service should do this—as an old civil servant myself, I am desirous that this body should stand high, both in the estimation of the service and of the country. Nothing gave me a greater sense of satisfaction at the time of Union than that the public service, as a body, on its amalgamation had a strong body appointed to safeguard it from anything in the way of favouritism or jobbery, or anything that was wrong or irregular. I think here we are entitled to press for an inquiry where we have heard an indictment such as has been levelled at the Public Service Commission by Mr. Davidson, and we are not entitled simply to treat the matter with unconcern, and to take the view that these things call for no investigation whatsoever. There is another point that has caused a certain amount of concern in the service; that is, a number of public servants have applied themselves to post matriculation study with a view to qualifying themselves for higher posts in the service, and I understand there has been a decision to disregard the claims of these who are qualified in this way, which is a matter of some grievance. If the Minister has any information on this subject, I should be glad if he will tell us.

With regard to the last point raised by my hon. friend, he will know that for some years the Auditor-General has been pointing out that this is wasteful expenditure—this bonus we were giving—and he came to the conclusion it was unjustified. The Public Accounts Committee dealt with that. The Public Service Commission has made certain modifications with regard to the practice.

I am sorry that the Minister did not adopt the very reasonable suggestion the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has just made, that is, that the Public Service Commission should consider the advisability of asking Mr. Davidson to substantiate his statements.

What jurisdiction have we over Mr. Davidson?

You have no jurisdiction—

What right have we to call him?

You have no right to summon him, but I suggest that Mr. David son should be invited to come before the commission and substantiate the very serious charges he has made, because there is no doubt the charges are believed by a large section of the public.

Why don’t you move a motion?

There are different ways of bringing a matter up. If the Prime Minister would only think for a moment—here is a man who has had quite a distinguished career, and after he resigns

Is that any reason why he should attack three prominent men in the service, or throw mud at high officials?

I am not defending Mr. Davidson at all. I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but his statement has caused a good deal of unrest in the service and has unsettled the public mind. We have always been accustomed to look upon the public-service as being imbued with a high sense of duty and esprit de corps, but I am afraid, if serious allegations made by responsible men are brushed aside, the impression will get abroad that our public service is not as it ought to be. It would be a reasonable thing to ask the commission to say to Mr. Davidson: “You have made this serious statement; will you give us the particulars, so that we can enquire into them?” If there is nothing in the statement I shall be delighted. I don’t want to say anything against the commission, but the matter should not be allowed to rest. I hope the Minister will consider the advisability of inviting the commission to make an enquiry.

I wish to bring to notice the appointment of the Rev. E. J. J. van der Horst. The appointment of one reverend gentleman, like that of the first coming swallow, might not make a summer, but when we come to two, we really ought to know why they have been brought into the service to the disadvantage of public servants.

Do you know to what post he was appointed?

No information is given.

Yet you criticize the appointment?

I criticize it on the grounds that he is brought into the service.

If he were brought in as a chaplain my objection would fall away, but there are very few posts of £400 a year for chaplains. We are entitled to know why these appointments were made from outside.

I wish to draw attention to the sort of criticism we are getting. The hon. member attacks the appointment of the Rev, Mr. van der Horst, but he does not know to what post he has been appointed.

That is not my fault.

Does that justify the hon. member criticizing the appointment?

I am asking for information.

The Rev. Mr. van der Horst was appointed to the Hartebeestpoort settlement as welfare officer. It was a very excellent appointment, and could not have been filled from inside the service. I believe even the Rev. Mr. van der Horst’s political enemies will admit that probably no better man could have been chosen for this very difficult work. I hope the hon. member will see that his attack is unjustified.

I thought the Rev. Mr. van der Horst had abandoned the clerical profession for politics. I remember him as a member of this House. I hope he learnt some lessons when he was in the political arena which will stand him in good stead in his welfare work.

I am quite satisfied with the explanation about the one appointment that of the Rev. van der Horst.

The first offender in appointing a welfare officer was the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Will the Minister lay a return on the Table showing how many have been appointed?

Vote put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee to-morrow.

I move, as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Recommendation, as amended, put and agreed to.

Recommendations (16) to (44) put and agreed to.

I would like to ask the hon. member, the chairman of the committee, about the pension of J. N. Susan, that was not accepted. I have had several communications from this gentleman, who rightly or wrongly is under the impression that he has been unfairly treated, and as an old Transvaal servant has not got the same consideration and the same amount of pension as other people who were in that late republican service. I would like to know if he will give us the reason.

I move—

Mr. Papenfus was a very old civil servant of over 40 years’ standing, and has occupied some important positions, among which were membership of the executive committee of the Free State Republic, and commissioner of police in the Transvaal. He contends that certain aspects and facts in regard to his petition have not been properly presented to the commitee, and he is strengthened in this view after an interview he had with Mr. Housman of the Pensions Committee. All he asks is an opportunity of putting his case personally before the committee.

With reference to the petition of Mr. Papenfus, I want to point out out that, according to the report, he was in the Transvaal service and drew a pension of £665. He was treated strictly according to the Transvaal law. He left the Transvaal service and went to the Free State. He is drawing half his salary as pension. When he went to the Transvaal he drew his pension in the Transvaal under the Public Service Act. We have had more than one case of this kind, but we have dealt with all such cases just as in this case. I want to tell hon. members clearly that there has been a motion for the Pensions Committee to sit again, but it will be absolutely impossible for the committee to reconsider all the petitions. The petitions cannot again be reviewed, but there is always an opportunity of putting in a new petition. Only here is an exception being made for an extraordinary case, but if there is dissatisfaction, or new facts come to light, then the petitioner can send in a fresh petition, and it can again be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions. Hon. members say that there may be a petition which the Select Committee has not properly investigated. I want to point out to hon. members that if ever there is a committee which goes thoroughly into all cases, it is the Pensions Committee. If more petitions are to be referred back we cannot possibly deal with them, and if the fresh documentary proofs are available it is moreover quite unnecessary. As for the petition mentioned by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), I want to say that it is one the committee carefully considered, but we did not see our way to arrive at any other decision. There are always cases where it is said that the decision is unjust, but we consider every petition with the greatest care, and I do not think that there is one where we should come to a different decision if we reconsidered it. If it is possible, we give assistance, but if it is impossible, we can do nothing.

I wanted to ask for the petition by G. Donovan to be referred back, but after information given by the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), I will not move it.

With leave of committee, motion withdrawn.

If the House is prepared to take into consideration the referring back of petitions which the committee has not entertained, I would like to move that petition 325 be referred back. There are something like 485 petitions which the committee has not been able to entertain. That seems an extraordinarily long list of appeals to be turned down. In my opinion petition 325 is deserving of some consideration. The case is that of a railwayman’s widow who is too young to claim the old age pension, but has been left with four young children and no one but herself to support them. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Pensions, we always made it a rule when a widow petitioned Parliament, and had young children dependent upon her, invariably to make a recommendation that the mother should have £1 per month for each child until boys reached the age of 16 and girls reached the age of 18. This was to assist the widow to educate the young children. I move—

I naturally thought that the same would be done in this particular instance. I have never seen such a list of petitions turned down as is the case this session. Why, it is unprecedented. As I am reminded, very few have been granted. I would like to move that petition 325 (Florence M. Wardle, of Maritzburg) be referred back for consideration to the reconstituted committee.

I have a statement here which shows that the petitioner’s late husband was in the railway service. It is not mentioned whether he was insured privately, but the widow has received from various sources sums amounting to £548. She is also in receipt of a widow’s pension of £30 3s. per annum. She is in employment at the Pietermaritzburg Sanatorium, and has four children.

*The report on petition No. 325 by F. M. Wardle, reads as follows. [Extract read.] In such cases the petition is complied with as much as possible, where there is an absolute need of giving assistance. But where there is no absolute necessity, we cannot do it. I absolutely refuse to reconsider this petition.

I do not want to move the referring back of any petition, because I know it is no use, but I want to say a few words in connection with petition No. 75 by Mrs. Dippenaar. I am very sorry that the Government see no chance of doing anything in this case. I should like to mention the facts of this petition. Mr. Dippenaar, who lived at Winburg in the Free State was during the rebellion in 1914 one fine day arrested by the late Government, without any charge being made, and without any proof of guilt. He was sent without a hearing to Kimberley and died there of fever contracted owing to the treatment he received. I say again that there was never any attempt made to make any charge against Mr. Dippenaar, and that no proofs were brought against him, although he repeatedly asked what the charge against him was. He did not take part in the rebellion. He was working in a shop at Winburg and was arrested there. Later it appeared that someone on the street said, “Dippenaar says the rebels are approaching.” But that was another Mr. Dippenaar, and not this one at all. He never moved a finger against the Government, but he was arrested, and died owing to the treatment he received. His wife stayed behind with the children, and had to work to earn their maintenance. She is still earning her living to-day by teaching in the Transvaal. I am sorry the Government does nothing for the people who were treated in that way by the late Government. They suffered bitterly, and as the result of the Government’s action the wife has had to pass her whole life alone, and to provide for the education of her children. I think that where people have been treated in that way by a previous Government, something must be done for them. It is another matter when a person joined the rebels, or was found guilty of any crime at the time, but in cases like this, where a charge is never made, it is very hard for the wife and children to be treated in such a way. I do not, blame the Select Committee on Pensions if they cannot grant a pension, but I hope that in some way or other something will be done to compensate people who were treated in such a way at that time.

I move, as an amendment—

After “Wardle” to insert “and petition No. (294), I. S. van der Colff”, I heard the chairman of the select committee (Mr. Cilliers) say that all petitions had been carefully and properly gone into, but to err is human, and there is the possibility that this petition was not properly considered, and was therefore rejected. I have known this man personally for years. He was in the police service and contracted disease there. I know him well, and am convinced that he faithfully performed his duty. Unfortunately he is one of those people who continue working when they ought not to do so. While he was sick in hospital he got into financial difficulties, and was dismissed for that reason. I think that if the select committee considers that case more carefully, they will come to a different decision.

I think it will be a good thing for the House to appoint a select committee consisting of members who cannot err. It will be much better, because then there will be no objections to the recommendations. I stand to my point that it is impossible for the select committee to reconsider a considerable number of petitions. Hon. members may move that the petitions be referred back, but they will not receive attention because we shall not deal with them this session.

I want to draw the attention of the committee to number 224, Dr. Peringuey. This is a very unfortunate case. Dr. Peringuey is a gentleman who rendered magnificent service to scientific thought and development in South Africa. Dr. Peringuey practically rendered 40 years of service. He was an old Cape colonist. He was appointed at the time when the phylloxera pest broke out in the Western Province, and he did what he could to exterminate the pest, and the remedy which he adopted was ultimately successful in rendering the pest immune. He was later appointed curator of our museum, and he served in that capacity up to his death. Unfortunately, there was no provision in the law at that time which provided for a pension. After Dr. Peringuey’s death, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) brought in a Bill which is now the law of the land, by which a pension fund is now established, and future curators will be entitled to a pension. The Minister of the Interior, little more than a month ago, unveiled a tablet near the museum to the memory of this gentleman, and rendered a very great tribute to the marvellous work he had done in South Africa. This gentleman’s mother-in-law is over 90 years of age, and still alive; his own mother, who is close on 100, is living in France, and during the occupancy of his office he had supported these two. After his death the landed property was sold, and after paying off debts, about £1,000 remained over for the widow, the old mother and her daughter. That brings in interest at about £50 a year, which is all this lady has got after the wonderful scientific services this gentleman rendered to his country. I am sorry that the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) said it was no good referring this matter back. I am going to take the hint, but next session I will introduce a petition, and I hope that the Minister of the Interior, who is familiar with the wonderful services rendered by this gentleman, and the committee will reconsider the facts and award this lady some compensation as an acknowledgment of the services rendered by her late husband.

I only want to say in connection with the petition that the applicant only wants the opportunity of appearing before the select committee to explain his own case. That is all he asks. He was an official, and has had nearly 50 years’ faithful service, and I cannot for a moment think that the request will be refused. He will not take up much time. I understand he will place it briefly and clearly before the committee, but he is under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the various circumstances in connection with this matter have not been properly put before the committee. I only ask that he shall have the opportunity, and therefore I withdraw my motion.

I can assure the hon. member that if anyone asks to give evidence he will not be refused. In some cases if a long journey is involved, and therefore considerable expense, we first examine the petition to see if it is a hopeless one, and in that way save the person the travelling expenses; but otherwise we are always prepared to listen to people.

I should like to say something in connection with recommendation 254, E. H. Schlaefli. It is a case I am acquainted with. I think that if the select committee had had all the necessary evidence in connection with the matter, it certainly would have been better treated. Unfortunately I happened to be away when the matter was dealt with, and when I came back it had been rejected. In the old republican days he was one of the people who had a little medical knowledge, and rendered great services as a fever doctor in the parts beyond Zoutpansberg. All Transvaalers know Dr. Schlaefli, and know what services he rendered. He went with his wife in those days to the unhealthy areas and rendered the State great service. After the second war of independence he was employed in the native commissioner’s office on account of his great knowledge of the natives, but shortly after he was transferred to the Pretoria Town Council to take charge of the pass office, and subsequently he was, I think, transferred into Union employ in the Native Affairs Department, but when he was transferred there he was, according to a letter from the Secretary of Finance which I have here, too old to contribute to the pension fund, and the result is that, when he attained his fiftyfouth year and retired about ten years ago, he received no pension, notwithstanding the fact that he had served the State for about 30 years. I know that in the circumstances he cannot legally claim a pension, but the circumstances are such that I am certain the compertive will consider it more favourably if all the facts are put before them, and therefore I should like him to have another chance to have his case properly submitted.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion by Mr. Strachan put and negatived.

On the Second Report, Recommendations put and agreed to.

Can the Chairman tell us the reasons why the petition No. 141 of Dr. Marius Wilson, railway medical officer, was turned down? The railway department, I believe, recommended the petition. It was hard, after his long and meritorious service, that his claim should be turned down. For years he was unable in actual fact to do any private practice because of the fact that railway work took up all his time.

I would like to draw the attention of the hon, the Chairman to No. 48. viz., the petition of Maj. Frederick Matthew Fulton, M.C., in the South African police. He asks that services rendered between 1892 and 1900 should be reckoned for pensions purposes. He bases his claim on a promise made when he left the service in which he was and joined the police in the Orange Free State. The petition had very strong support, emanating from hon. members who occupy positions on the Treasury benches. I am sure they would not have made that recommendation if they had not thought there was justification for it.

This is one of the cases that have been up so often that one cannot possibly have all the papers. It came up in 1921, I922, 1923, 1925, 1927, and now again in 1928, and I think that if this Pensions Committee is not so very good there must have been some of the others which were better, and all the committees had the matter before them.

I wish to draw the attention of the committee to case No. 87, W. T. McTaggart, and to ask what reason can be assigned for the turning down of that petition, and if information received since the discussion in this House has led to that decision?

It is rather unusual for a member of the Select Committee on Pensions to move that a petition be referred back to the committee, but under the extraordinary circumstances of the case I want to do so. The petition I want to deal with is, curiously enough, the one which has just been mentioned by my hon. friend (the Rev. Mr. Rider). There are so many features in connection with this petition and its consideration that I think I should deal rather fully with the minutes of the committee concerned. To begin with, this was brought up on the 2nd May. It was considered by the committee and on the motion, curiously enough, of Mr. Vosloo, it was resolved that there be laid before the committee the minutes of the Departmental Inquiry Committee into the charge against the petitioner, together with the evidence led before that committee. It was left in abeyance pending the receipt of these documents. On the 10th May a letter was received from the general manager informing the committee that its request could not be acceded to. On that, on the motion of Mr. Gilson, a special report was put before the House. That report was that the committee felt itself unable to deal with this petition unless the papers were referred to it. After a full discussion, the House decided that it was not prepared to vote on this question of the rights or wrongs of this request, but to send the report back to the committee. It was duly sent back to the Committee on Pensions, and on the 11th May, the day following, it was moved that the committee proceed to discussion of this special report referred back for consideration. After discussion, Mr. Gilson moved that the committee, having further considered its special report referred to it, begged to report that it saw no reason to depart from its decision, and again requested that the papers called for be placed before the committee. Then we had one of the most extraordinary somersaults I have ever seen in any circus. We had a solid unanimous vote of that committee that we could not consider this matter unless we got these papers. When the motion was put, the committee divided, and those who performed a complete somersault were the chairman, Mr. Fordham, Mr. McMenamin, Mr. van Rensburg, Mr. Vosloo and Mr. Brink. Those who supported the papers being called for were Mr. Buirski, Mr. Louw and Mr. Gilson. The same gentlemen said “We cannot possibly consider this petition unless we get the papers,” but when our friend on the Treasury benches said “I will resign from these benches if you call for these papers,” they said “We don’t want that. Mr. McTaggart can be thrown to the winds and cast to the wolves.” Then after that had been turned down Mr. Buirski then moved that in view of the information being withheld from the committee, it was unable to come to a decision on the prayer of the petitioner. That was exactly what Mr. Vosloo had said before, but no, we again divided, and what happened? Again we had the same vote of these gentlemen.

I understand these proceedings have not been laid upon the Table.

They are in the possession of the Chairman, and I have a copy of them.

It is very unusual.

It does not matter how unusual it is, so long as I am not out of order. The same gentleman again came to a solid unanimous vote that they did not want to hear anything more about Mr. McTaggart. They were quite satisfied, and when the Minister said he would resign if they asked for the papers, Mr. McTaggart could go.

On a point of order, is the hon, member in order in discussing matters not before us? We have not the minutes of the committee, and the hon. member is now quoting from the minutes of the proceedings which are not at the disposal of other members of the House.

The hon. member is not in order. I told him so.

It is evident that the hon. members over there are horribly uncomfortable about it. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not like it. They do not want it to go out to the country that hon. members opposite, for the sake of a little party advantage, were willing to sacrifice the interests of men who came to this House for justice.

Withdraw.

I want to go back to the rights of this case, to show the need for these papers. This is an extract which I am perfectly entitled to read, and extract from the report on the petition put up by the Railway Department. [Extract read.] When this accident happened, when he had overridden the points, he said he had a temporary lapse. A departmental enquiry was held and the question of drink was introduced by the representatives of the railway, although it was not sustained by the court. A certificate was put in by this man signed by the same doctor who attended him—

When you have conflicting statements of that sort what is the committee to do? When you have the Railway Department saying the man was drunk, although it was not true, and you have a doctor’s certificate saying that it was probably due to a lapse of memory, it was perfectly justifiable for the committee to call for those papers. We were denied those papers, and, to my astonishment, hon. members opposite, who knew all the facts of the case, were perfectly willing, in order to support the Minister in an attitude which, I think, the Minister himself on reconsideration would say was not a fair one, absolutely go back on the whole position. They make the country now realize that the interests of its citizens are to be sacrificed to the whim of a Minister. I think that is not right, and the House should not maintain that. I do not want to keep the cimmittee, but I do want to move—

The second part of the motion I cannot accept.

I do not want to go into the merits, but merely to say that, when the matter first came before the select committee, I was at once quite convinced that McTaggart quite deserved the punishment he received, but a few members opposite were not so convinced, and I wanted to convince them as well, and, therefore, voted for it, and I am sure that if they saw the papers they would be just as convinced as I was, but now that the papers have not been obtained I am taking up my own attitude.

I am sorry that the chairman of the select committee has thought fit to answer my very pertinent inquiry by saying that a petition has been presented over and over again. Naturally, if a man smarts, he persists. He asks for justice, not mercy. In Clause 3 he alleges that he had been approached and asked to transfer his services to the South African Constabulary on condition that his previous services were reckoned for pension purposes, and the petition is supported by no less a person that Sir Robert Baden-Powell. When a poor, unfortunate fellow presents his petition for the second time, it is turned down because it is said he has not produced any new facts. I hope he will present his petition again and again until he succeeds.

I do not want to detain the House, but in connection with No. 128, I just want to say that the lady was a teacher who taught in various parts. She fell ill in 1923, and had a break in her service of eight months. I understand breaks in service are usually quite easily excused, and I do not understand why there has been a refusal in this case.

The break is usually condoned, but there are cases where it is impossible. I have not the papers here, but the matter was especially thoroughly investigated, and there is a reason why it is impossible to condone the break. Possibly she worked in various provinces or something of that sort. I cannot say. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has mentioned a case of which I have not the papers here, but it has been up previously, and it is impossible to comply with the request.

I want to move that Case 65 be referred back for further consideration. It is the case of Mrs. Hull. The overwhelming majority of the working classes an the Rand, both English-and Dutch-speaking, are very anxious that something should be done to make some provision for Mrs. Hull and her children. The case arose out of the unfortunate troubles of 1922. But for the fact that the late Mr. Hull and Lewis were executed, and if the South African party had shown a reasonable restraint, instead of rushing in with these executions, Mr. Hull would have been alive to-day to look after his wife and children. The late Government, after a little calmness, realized it was wrong to take drastic action, and granted amnesty to a large number of people, some of whom to-day are in Government service. In spite of anything that may be said to the contrary, this is not a case in which an ordinary crime was committed, but arose entirely out of the industrial disturbance which was brought about as a result of the action of the then Chamber of Mines and the South African party in bolstering up the Chamber of Mines. If the people concerned had been engaged in an ordinary political disturbance, they would not have been so harshly dealt with. There are people in this country for whom I have the highest respect who took part in revolutions of a political nature, and their action has been condoned. In many cases they have occupied, and do occupy, important positions in the State, and I have no objection to that. I go further, and say it is more than likely that had it not been for the unfortunate trouble in 1922, the Minister would not be sitting in his place to-day. If you do not make provision for those who are starving as a result of that incident, you are dealing less generously with people who belong to one class than with people who belong to another class. The workers on the Witwatersrand have, for the last two years, contributed to maintain the women and children. It is nothing less than a scandal that a Government, of the country and the House should not recognize what they owe to these people. I move, as an amendment—

As a member of the committee that had to consider this petition, I would like to say a few words. We have to award gratuities on the record of the individual, it may be of great service to the State outside the civil service or of services rendered as a civil servant. I want to state a few facts in connection with this case and the record of the man whose death is the reason for this petition. [Extract read.] That is a resume of the evidence which was led.

Who gave that evidence!

Certain parties whom the judge considered were thoroughly credible. The prisoners’ defence was that they came into an angry mob and were unable to escape and were innocently involved. The prisoners were found guilty and sentenced and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice reported separately and considered it impossible to make any other recommendation than that the sentences should be carried out. We have had these men held up as heroes, and I want to give this House, very briefly, the record of these heroes of the Labour Party, these noble men who were involved in these disturbances, men of unblemished character. I will take Hull first. On the 19th March, 1907, as a boy, he was convicted of theft, and his parents were instructed to punish him. On subsequent occasions he was convicted of theft and assault. Later came this episode, for which he was convicted of murder. With regard to Lewis, his record is that under the name of Faulding, he had four convictions.

That is not before the House.

What has that to do with this case?

It has a lot to do with it. These men are held up as heroes. Under the name of Faulding

Faulding is not a case before the committee.

Faulding was an alias that Lewis used. Mrs. Hull is caring for the children of Lewis. She says that she has taken Lewis’ children, as well as her own, and is looking after them.

I do not think I ought to allow the hon. member to go on with this.

I will merely mention that Lewis had eight convictions against him, some of a very serious nature. These are the men who are held up as heroes, and the House is asked to give their dependents a pension.

Must the children suffer for their parents’ iniquity?

The functions of this House are not to give pensions to every child who is in want unless the father has rendered service to the State in some form or another, otherwise we become a relief body. I hope the House is not going to accept this motion. I think this petition is one in which, however sympathetic we may feel towards the women and the children, we should not grant a pension or a gratuity.

This House has just been treated to a sample of the vitriolic hatred in which these gentlemen excel when anything is brought forward in which the workers are concerned. I do not know whether it is the old police instincts of the member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) which have prompted him to investigate in such minute detail the records of these gentlemen. There is an old saying, “Once a policeman, always a policeman.”

On a point of explanation, I have never been a policeman in my life. I don’t know what the hon. member is talking about.

It is very doubtful whether the hon. member can eradicate habits which he has acquired early in his life. At any rate, when the member for Griqualand enumerated the records of these deceased men—it is very easy to vilify the dead

This is all evidence before the court.

It is a very easy thing to vilify the dead without bringing out any circumstance which has a bearing on the case that is under consideration. The only circumstance which this hon. member could find to justify his refusal to give consideration to this petition was that these men had a record which showed that they had fallen under the ban of the law at different periods prior to this episode. He forgot to include in the records that these, gentlemen were acclaimed at one time as heroes, that they were cheered to the echo as men who went to serve their country. He forgot to say that the country was once placarded with “Help Smuts to push the Huns from Africa,” and that these men responded. Fortunately there are one or two men alive to-day who know the circumstances, otherwise this vilification would go on without contradiction. Had the situation which obtained at that time been handled in a different way, not encouraged “to develop,” there would have been no trials for murder and no convictions for murder. We state openly these men were concerned in breaking the law of the land. What was the difference between the enormity of their offence and the enormity of my offence? I was associated with the same revolt which gave rise to the circumstances in which these men lost their lives. I sit in the House of Assembly to-day, a member of a body which exists to make and regulate the laws for the conduct of public affairs in this country. These men are gone. They could not take their dependants with them. Perhaps it would have been more merciful if they could. Perhaps the criminal law would be more humane if when you execute the breadwinner, you also execute the family. It is the easiest thing in the world to quote the alleged criminal records of political opponents. Were we disposed to follow the same example, could we not quote to their detriment the political and criminal records of many men whom today you revere and hold up as shining lights of the S.A.P. What is a criminal? The Minister of Justice told you once that the difference between the criminal and the free man was most often a difference in opportunity. Take the case of the Cape Town man who, last year, for his starving family picked what he thought were mushrooms and they were all poisoned. If he had committed theft to get food, would you hold that up against him? The hon. member smiles. Perhaps he and his family have never been in those circumstances. The Marine Hotel at Sea Point is not quite the same faring as the cold slopes of Table Mountain. While these men became subject to the law of the land, the people who were primarily responsible escaped indictment entirely. It was because those men revolted against the unjust administration of that day that you have the present Government. Had it not been for the revolt brought about by the intolerable tyrannical misgovernment of the South African party when in power, you would not have to-day this Government sitting in power. The hon. member says, “re we to keep the dependants of men who lost their lives because they were criminals?” I say, yes. I say common humanity will demand that if a community, for its own protection, takes away the liberty or the life of an individual, it should not escape its responsibility for those dependants who are left. I say it is a perfectly just thing that those who are the innocent victims of the application of the law in the extreme, should automatically become the care of the State. What is going to happen to these children? Will you blacken their character and say they are worse than your children? They have not the opportunity to be honest, and this petition amounts to this: that you are asked to give them the opportunity to be honest. We regret as much as any the death of the officers concerned. These disturbed conditions have occurred periodically throughout all history. They are the throes of progress, and the hon. member and the House are not going to prevent them by a vindictive application of punishment to women and children innocent of wrong-doing. Rather the reverse. It would be a mark of advance on the road to humanity of outlook if we were, in this instance, to say that the cost of awakening in this country is the lives lost on both sides. We want to prevent a recurrence, and the way to do so is to have such circumstances of living conditions Government established that there will not be a recurrence. You will certainly not end criminality by fostering a system of making criminals in embryo. [Time limit.]

Amendment put, and the committee divided: