brought up the sixth and final report of the Pensions, Grants and Gratuities Committee.

The sixth and final report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities is as follows: Your committee, having considered the various petitions referred to it, begs to report:

1. That it recommends: (1) The award to A. W. Templer, formerly clerk, Railway Department, of a monthly allowance of £2 until such time as his health is sufficiently restored to enable the Railway Administration to offer him re-employment, to take effect from the 1st April, 1913. (2) The award to W. Stokes, formerly road overseer, Public Works Department, of a gratuity of £70. (3) The award to C. B. Fox, formerly signalman, Railway Department, of a gratuity of £25. (4) That the break in the service of T. Eden, boring inspector, Irrigation Department, from 31st August, 1905, to 8th October, 1906, be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay. (5) That the break in the service of Elizabeth Maila, teacher, from 1st July, 1907, to 31st December, 1910, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (6) That the break in the service of C. J. Pauw, teacher, from 1st January, 1901, to 31st December, 1903, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (7) That, subject to the production of medical evidence to the satisfaction of the Superintendent-General of Education (Cape), the break in the service of W. R. Myburgh, teacher, from 1st April, 1906, to 30th September, 1908, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (8) That the petition of R. H. Kruger, Chief Constable, Lady Frere, be referred to the Government with a view to his service as officer in charge of the Special Native Police at Lady Frere being regarded as pensionable, in terms of the report, dated the 28th May, 1913, furnished to your committee by the Secretary of Finance.

2. That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions be entertained: (1) J. E. Chase; (2) S. Sampson; (3) G. Ward; (4) G. C. Byrne; (5) J. Ntsiko; (6) J. Topping; (7) A. W. F. Taylor; (8) J. J. M. Jacobs (with supporting petition from F. J. Rheeder and others); (9) D. H. Jacobs (with supporting petition from A. J. Botha and others); (10) J. J. F. Britz (with supporting petition from J. F. le Roux and others).

3. That: (1) With reference to the petition of J. McGregor, your committee is unable to make any recommendation thereon, as the subject matter of the petition is one to be dealt with departmentally. (2) With reference to the petitions of Jessie A. Schiff, J. H. Louwrens, J. Gleeson, Gertrude K. W. Burwash, T. Clifford, G. W. Crawford, M. J. Greeff, G. A. Jenkin, Edith F. Maggs, W. J. Smuts, T. E. Welsh, and Frances M. Willmott, Hessie Gibbon, and Nora L. Eastwood, your committee regrets that, as it has not received the necessary reports on the subject-matter of these petitions, which were called for from the various Government Departments, it is unable to report thereon.

Consideration of the report was set down for Monday.

Extracts from the “Gazette” containing additional regulations and amendments to regulations made under the provisions of the South African Defence Act, 1912.

Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed during the year ending 31st March, 1914, for the Transvaal.

said that before proceeding with the business of the day he wished to make a personal statement. Last night, in the course of the debate, he used an expression with reference to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, and at the request of the Chairman, subsequently withdrew it.

I cannot take cognisance of what takes place in committee. The hon. member can make his statement in committee, when the time arrives.

moved that this House ratifies the agreement entered into between the Government of the Union of South Africa and the Union-Castle Mail Steamship Company, dated 18th March, 1913, whereby clause 13 of the Ocean Mail Contract was deleted and a new clause 13 was substituted in lieu thereof, as will more fully appear from the copy of the said agreement, laid upon the Table of this House. The Minister said he would not occupy much time. The original clause 13, which it was now sought to delete, provided for compensation being paid by the Union-Castle Co. for any loss in respect of mail matter. The Postmaster-General of England, after communication with the Postmaster-General of the Union, suggested certain modifications of this clause, and the clause now provided shortly that the shipping company should not be responsible for any loss or damage by fire, the act of God, or the King’s enemies. The clause provided that compensation should be paid to the Postmaster-General of England as well as the Postmaster-General of the Union, by reason of any loss of postal matter. In the old clause, there was no mention of compensation being paid. As the law stood, the Government was not liable to pay compensation for even the loss of a registered article; but, as an act of grace, the Government had been paying compensation. The new clause provided that the amount to be paid by the contractors as compensation for the loss of any parcel or registered package should not exceed £1 in respect of each parcel, and £2 in respect of each registered postal package. In terms of the International Postal Union, this sum of £2 was agreed to, and was in force throughout the civilised world. The clause was just bringing the Union into line with the practice throughout the civilised world with regard to these matters.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the text be transmitted to the Senate.

said he had no objection to this in reference to the ocean contract, but he would like to call attention of the Minister to certain clauses which debarred the contractors from entering into any agreement.

No, no; I cannot allow the hon. member to refer to this now.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs if this contract was not a violation of clause 6?

The question before the House is that this matter be transmitted to the Senate.

The motion was agreed to.

said he rose to make a personal explanation. The previous evening, at the bidding of the Chairman, he withdrew a certain expression with regard to certain statements from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. He now rose to say that the expression that he used, and which he referred to, was one which he personally had the very strongest objection to. He wished to make it perfectly clear that he did not withdraw one iota of the categorical denial he gave to the truth of the hon. member’s statements or the words he used, but the words he (Mr. Creswell) used carried the matter far beyond the truth or untruth of the statements. In thinking over the matter, he thought that if he withdrew the words objected to, he should also tender an apology to the hon. member for having used these words, because he (Mr. Creswell) did not think that the use of such expressions was right. He repeated therefore that he wished to make it clear that, in tendering this apology, it did not affect his denial of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth’s (Sir E. H. Walton’s) allegations.

On Vote 36, Higher Education, £117.165, Mr. J. W. JAGGER (Cape Town, Central) moved that the sub-heads be taken seriatim.

The motion was agreed to.

On sub-head “A,” Administrations, £6,566,

raised the question of the Ministerial policy with regard to the universities, and said that there had been no declaration in the matter. They were getting towards the end of the session, and it was doubtful, to his mind, whether the report of the Select Committee would be considered or not. The hon. Minister had been in charge of university matters for three years, and he could not free himself from serious responsibility in the matter. After the matter was taken over by the present Minister of Education, there was no further correspondence for two years, and then he sent to the donors a draft Bill drawn up out of his own conscience. That was very unsatisfactory. All those interested in university matters took it that, as agreed upon, that the suggestion which had previously been made, that a commission was to be appointed to carry university matters one stage forward; but the Minister of Education appeared to have taken the bit between his own teeth, and had attempted to settle university matters in a way to suit himself. Here, after three years, nothing had been done, and there was a probability that the very large donations which had been promised might be lost to the Union of South Africa. At present the consideration of the Select Committee’s report was being gradually pushed down the paper, and it was quite possible it might never be reached this session. He had, therefore, taken his only opportunity of trying to corkscrew from the hon. Minister some explanation of his policy, if he had one.

said the hon. member wanted to corkscrew something out of him, but he had ample opportunity to do that in the Select Committee upstairs. With regard to the appointment of a commission two years ago, to which the hon. member had referred, a casual suggestion was made, instead of a definite scheme, to introduce a Bill merely providing for a commission. That was undoubtedly the original idea, and, personally, he believed it was the right idea; but it was found impracticable, on account of the susceptibilities of local institutions. They pointed out that they would not be sufficiently safeguarded under a Bill of that kind. There was a second difficulty, in that they had no definite idea of what was in the minds of the donors in 1910. Then they got something more definite in 1911, when he (the Minister) was in London; but, unfortunately, owing to the illness of the late Sir Julius Wernher, an interview was delayed, and that seriously interfered with the matter. What happened this year was fully known to the House, and the policy was to appoint a general commission to take the whole matter of higher education, unfettered by promises of donations or otherwise, into consideration.

urged that everything depended upon the composition of the commission to be appointed. The Minister had had a different policy for almost every day. The appointment of a commission was the wisest step to be done, but he thought the hon. Minister should take the House into its consideration on the matter of its composition, for that was a very important question. The Government had acted in rather a frivolous way this session, advocating policies which they had not thought out and which those who had thought out condemned and condoning policies which they had not thought out and which those who had thought out approved, and now the whole country was left in the dark as to the matter of higher education. If people were appointed on the commission who knew anything about the subject, they were all men of strong opinions, whose views would be tolerably well known; but if they appointed men who knew little about it, he was a little uncertain as to the advantage of the commission. The only thing to do was to appoint a commission which would give the Government a policy. He hoped it would be the right one, and that the Government would stick to it.

What is your policy?

said the right policy was to develop the colleges into universities as they became strong enough. It was a policy he had maintained for three years, and the hon. Minister alone was the obstacle to the carrying out of that policy. That commission was either going to assist the Government by suggesting a policy which could not be carried out, or else they were going to have a commission to recommend the only policy which would solve the question, and he hoped the hon. Minister would be man enough to put the right people on the commission.

said he had intended to mention this matter under the next sub-head, but as he was afraid that he might lose his opportunity of speaking owing to the views held by Mr. Chairman that the matter could not be dealt with under the next head owing to a motion which appeared much lower on the order paper, he would make his few remarks at that stage. Hon. members opposite had stated that morning that the hon. member for Uitenhage should have said what the policy of the Minister ought to be in regard to this University matter. He (General Hertzog) thought it would have been much better if these hon. members had said what should not be the policy of the Government.

Hear, hear.

said he thought everyone who had read the documents laid upon the Table was convinced that the Minister would have done much better if he had not permitted himself to be so much influenced by propositions from across the sea, or by people representing the donors of this gift, and had been more guided by what was desired by this country. (Hear, hear.) If they read these documents they noticed how step by step and day by day people had prescribed to the Minister what should be done, so that eventually he (the Minister) had allowed himself to be led so far as to adopt standpoints which he would not have adopted had he taken account of the wishes of the people of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that in the future, when this matter was dealt with—however grateful they might be—and he was very grateful for the gift offered to the Union—they should protest strongly that anyone should try to tell them what they should do in South Africa. What they should, in the first place, take into consideration was “what are the requirements of South Africa.” He must say that he had been surprised at the correspondence which had taken place.

Although this had been going on while he was in the Cabinet, he did not know anything about it until it was laid on the Table of the House, that was to say, the most important documents he knew nothing about. He wished to refer to the matter that morning, because it had been alleged recently that he had had a hand in the drafting of this University Bill. He wished to deny this most emphatically. It was true that he had been instructed, together with the Minister of Defence, to assist the Minister of Education in the drafting of this Bill, but the only part he had had in the Bill was that on the 14th or the 15th of November, 1912, he had been asked to see the Minister of Education to consult him about a telegram appearing in the correspondence. The questions raised in the telegram were in regard to residence and admission examinations. That was his share in the work of drafting the Bill. Why had people contended that he had taken part in the drafting of this Bill? Simply to make it appear that it was with his consent that the clause appearing in the Bill dealing with the use of the Dutch language had been inserted. He denied that emphatically. The Minister of Education would certainly endorse that denial. He went even further and contended that this clause had been inserted in the Bill after he had left the Cabinet. Was that so, or was it not so? The Minister of Education would be able to answer that question. If he said no, the speaker would reply that the 14th or 15th of November last was the last time he had ever been consulted in regard to the matter. That was quite clear from the reply sent to Sir Richard Solomon on the 16th of November. That telegram had been sent after the speaker had been consulted. In order to prove that he had had nothing to do with the drafting of the language clause, he wished to say that on the 22nd of November the original Bill, as drafted by the Minister, was sent out to certain persons, marked confidential. That Bill still contained the old unaltered clause in regard to the use of Dutch. That was clear evidence that the clause had been afterwards modified, that was to say, after the last time he had been consulted on the Bill, and after he had left the Ministry, The clause was amended some time after the 15th or the 16th November last.

Well, as regarded the University question itself, General Hertzog proceeded, so far as he knew, it was the intention to refer the whole question to a Commission. The Minister knew that he (General Hertzog) had been one of the first to advise that course. The Minister had not followed that advice, no doubt for good reasons, though now he would be obliged to take that course. All he wanted to say now was that the Minister could come there with a draft Bill this year, and next year, and he could keep on doing so for ten years, but he would not succeed until he took into consideration the true requirements of South Africa, and in the first place the requirements of the Dutch-speaking section. He was not in any way opposed to a University being established, and, as a matter of fact, had long since been of opinion that the time had come for a University to be established here. Such an institution would be a great benefit to the population, but whatever else, it should not require sacrifices from either section of the population. The draft Bill which had been proposed in that House would have required the Dutch-speaking population to make sacrifices which those people were not prepared to make. He wished to emphasise this point, and would add that the Dutch-speaking people would never be prepared to make such sacrifices. No one in that House, if he wished to work for the true interests of the Dutch and English-speaking population, had the right to ask them to make such sacrifices, and the Minister was the last person who had the right to ask the Dutch-speaking people to make these sacrifices. If the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa, for the sake of peace, went so far as to say, “We shall have a University here as the result of which either Stellenbosch or Grey College, where proper provision is now made for the training of students in the Dutch language, shall be detrimentally affected in this regard.” the greatest harm would be done.

If that were done, a feeling, which would continually grow stronger and stronger, would be created, that the Dutch language was not receiving what was due to it, and that it was always the Dutch language which was called upon to make such sacrifices. He would say exactly the same if it were asked of the English language to make such sacrifices. In South Africa they would never get a proper understanding by following such a policy; there was no necessity to demand such sacrifices from either the Dutch or English language. (Hear, hear.) A few persons might be satisfied if sacrifices were made, but a deeper and deeper feeling of injustice would be created. It was their duty to see to it that in these matters both sections of the population were dealt with fairly and justly, and, therefore, he agreed with the remarks made by the hon. member for Uitenhage, that the solution would not be found in the establishment of one University, because by the establishment of one University the requirements of both sections of the population would not be met. They should not be afraid of the word “University” and regard it in the way some people did, as something not of this earth. (Hear, hear.) There was no cause for that, the matter was not as involved as all that. If they accepted the principle that colleges would be able to develop into Universities, why should they not allow the present colleges to do so? (Hear, hear.) Why give the chance to only one college? He thought it necessary to warn the Minister, as he feared that otherwise the same thing which had happened this year would be repeated next year. No one knew better than the Minister what he (General Hertzog) had always felt in regard to his scheme. So far as he had been able to he (General Hertzog) had always offered his services to the Minister, or rather had stood at his side. (Derisive laughter.) He (General Hertzog) had always been a, loyal colleague, although he had, perhaps, not always been properly appreciated. But he had also been the first person—though, perhaps, that had been the cause of less pleasant relations—who had objected to an attempt which had been made in the beginning to sacrifice the existing colleges for the sake of a University in South Africa.

What do you mean?

said that the first opportunity he had had of speaking to the Minister on the University project was when the Minister expressed the opinion that the colleges must come to an end.

When was that?

That was two years ago. (Ministerial laughter.) He would not go into the matter any further at the present moment, but if the Minister would go to him, he would give him the day and date. For the present he would not go on any further, as he might disclose secrets. No one knew better than the Minister that he (General Hertzog) had more than once said to him that seeing where this matter was going to end he (General Hertzog) wished this half million at the bottom of the sea. He had seen where this project was going to lead them to, and he saw that the consideration of the gift impaired the consideration of the Bill.

said he only wished to remark that what had taken place between two Cabinet Ministers or what took place in the Cabinet should be kept secret according to constitutional usage. (Hear, hear.) When a Minister took office he accepted responsibility not to make public what took place while he was in office. What happened in Cabinet during that Minister’s term of office was not to be published, and anything which happened between one Minister and another was to be kept secret, except with the consent of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Malan) would continue to stick to the constitutional usage.

For how long?

I have always done so and always will do so. As regarded the facts of this question, he wished to point out that the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) was a member of the Cabinet when it was announced in the Speech from the Throne that they were to have one University for South Africa. In those days the hon. member was not in favour of a policy of two or more Universities. It was in 1911 when the hon. member, as Minister, approved of the Speech from the Throne which referred to one University. The first draft Bill was sent out to the colleges in 1911, after the second sitting of Parliament, and he (the Minister) wished to point out that that was a measure drafted in consultation with the other members of the Cabinet, and consequently also in consultation with General Hertzog. (Hear, hear.) He (the speaker) was disclosing no secrets in mentioning those facts, as they were printed in the correspondence. In the circumstances he (the Minister) could not understand how the hon. member could say that on the 16th of November, 1912, he was consulted on the matter for the first time.

denied that he had said that.

replied that the hon. member had stated that on the 16th November he had heard of the Bill for the first and last time. In regard to the clause dealing with the Dutch language, General Hertzog was quite right; that clause was changed after he left the Cabinet. The speaker had already given an explanation of the clause. In his opinion clause 157 of the Constitution applied to the Bill, and it was his view that clause 18 of the Bill was not in conflict with clause 137. If it was that was certainly not the intention when the University Bill was before the House he (the Minister) had pointed out that there was no intention to infringe the South Africa Act, and if legal advisers considered that the language clause infringed clause 137, then he would be quite prepared to alter it. The hon. member for Smithfield was fully aware of the difficult task the Government had in drafting this Bill. They had not only to deal with educational interests in South Africa, but they also had to look at the colleges. In the first place they had to ask “What is good for South Africa?” and then “What must become of the existing colleges?” Not only had these institutions got rights, but they also had a number of friends in Parliament and in the Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) It was no good, therefore, saying “We shall do what is theoretically good for South Africa,” they must also have regard to the colleges. Then, in the third place there was the promise of support by Messrs. Wernher and Beit. The hon. member knew that negotiations had been commenced before Union and that the donation was made to the Government of the Transvaal, and that the Transvaal Government before Union had negotiated with Mr. Beit and that the letter which an hon. member had referred to had only been sent in confirmation of certain verbal negotiations before Union. Well, General Hertzog should know that the Government had these three different matters to consider. It was easy enough to deal theoretically with the matter. It was not difficult to draft a Bill dealing with the existing colleges, nor a Bill to satisfy the conditions of the gifts. The scheme of the late Mr. Rhodes for the creation of a university at Groote Schuur had been a failure, because he (Mr. Rhodes) had taken no account of the existing colleges. The Government had to follow a particularly difficult course, and had to steer through these three great difficulties. In these circumstances, he thought the commission referred to in the Select Committee’s report would be placed in a similarly difficult position, and the recommendation was therefore that the commission would go into the whole matter. (Hear, hear.) Effect would be given to the Select Committee’s recommendation, and a commission would be appointed.

said that the Minister had not answered the question that he had asked. He did not want to answer the hon. member for Smith-field, and he did not want to know the secrets of the Cabinet. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Smithfield had infringed the well-known axiom of responsible government. He hoped they had heard the last of these stories, because they were disgraceful, not only to himself and to the Government to which he had belonged, but to the House. All this trouble had been caused by the action of the Minister of Education. The trouble really lay at the door of the Minister. He found in a letter, dated 9th November, 1910, the following: “The Government proposes that a Statutory Commission shall be appointed to prepare a scheme within the next few years,” as was done, he understood, in the case of the London University. That letter was signed “J. C. Smuts.” If the Government had appointed that Statutory Commission, they would have been saved all this trouble. Instead of dictating, the donors said they were interested to see the Government proposed to appoint the Statutory Commission. They offered £500,000 for a university. The Minister of the Interior said the Government would appoint a commission to devise a system. The donors replied that they were glad to see what was being done. What then happened? Two years had passed, and no commission had been appointed. Would the Minister give them an assurance that the Government intended to legislate on this matter next session? There was no reason why, if a proper commission was appointed without delay, they should not be able to deal with this important matter. As he understood the condition of the bequest was, that something should be done by the Parliament of this country before 1915.

said he wished to reply to the remarks of the Minister. Of course, if the Minister referred to the Bills of previous years, these had been sent to him and he knew about them. He (General Hertzog) had, however, referred to the measure which had been before the House this year, a measure which had been drafted after he had left the Cabinet. And he repeated that neither directly nor indirectly had he been consulted in regard to this measure, and he had nothing to do with the drafting. Possibly it had been sent to him after he had already left the Cabinet, and the Minister himself admitted that clause 18, which all the trouble was about, had been amended. He was sorry if he had let out any Cabinet secrets, but it was not right that the Minister should allow these rumours to go about without contradicting them. Accusations had been levelled against him (General Hertzog) that he had had a hand in the drafting of the Bill. Even the member for Hoopstad had alleged that, and he (General Hertzog) was even more entitled to the protection of the Minister in this regard now than when he was a member of the Cabinet. As regarded his views on the donation, he was not aware that these could be called a Cabinet secret, as he had not made a secret of them in the past, and on the contrary had many times repeated them in public. Naturally, when he entered the Cabinet, he accepted a certain responsibility, but which measure ever came into this House on which all members of the Cabinet were in full agreement? There were always minor matters on which they might disagree, which were not sufficient to warrant their opposition to the whole principles of such measures. Of course, he and they accepted responsibility, but he did not say that he had taken up exactly the same position in regard to former Bills as he would perhaps have done in regard to the last one. He had not the least desire to relieve himself of responsibility.

said that, after the statement that the hon. member for Smithfield accepted full responsibility except on the language clause, he would not pursue the matter any further. The hon. member had not referred to the language clause, but to the full responsibility of a Minister. In reply to the points raised by Sir Bisset Berry, he wished to say that in 1910 they aimed at appointing a statutory commission, not a Royal commission. That idea they had to give up, on account of certain difficulties. The commission which it was now proposed to appoint was not the same kind of a commission as they aimed at in 1910. He would appoint the commission as soon as possible, and its action would be unfettered.

said he thought this was the proper place to urge upon the Minister to make this Department a live Department—(hear, hear)—to collect statistics and put before the House some information not only in the meagre report they had got, but with regard to the education of the whole Union. They were the people in that place who eventually had to vote the money, not only for higher education, but primary education all over the Union, but they knew nothing of what was going on. As far as they could gather from the reports in the Press, four divergent systems of education were being built up in South Africa. Surely, the Minister of Education, although he did not control absolutely the whole matter, could be the means of bringing these together in a way that they in that House could not. One fact stood out, and that was that in this South Africa of ours, in the Union, the education of a European child was more expensive than in any part of the world. (Hear, hear.) Now, the question was whether they got value for their money.

called the hon. member’s attention to the fact that they now had before them the vote for Higher Education.

I am talking of the salary of the Minister of Education, and, if you rule that I cannot, I am stifled, I am muzzled. Proceeding, he said that the whole subject of education ought to be in charge of this Minister, who ought to rise to his duties and put before the House some conspectus of what the position in the whole country was. In regard to this grant for higher education, very much the same remark that he had made about general education applied. They only knew that in the Transvaal—and he hoped he was not going to tread upon anybody’s toes—a pupil cost the Government £140 a year, rather more, he thought. In the Cape the cost was about £45. Did they get their extra value in the Transvaal, or did they not?

What is the cost in the Free State?

£100.

: £110.

I am speaking in round figures. Proceeding, he said he wanted to know whether they got better value for their £45, or whether they were justified in paying these large amounts? If the whole matter had been gone into and carefully examined it would be found to be most extravagant.

He did not want to say a word against higher education, but it was a matter for the individual. (Hear, hear.) The children of the poorer classes had to pay for the children of the wealthy. What was being done in the Commonwealth of Australia? There they spent £51,760 on higher education, and they had 2,560 students in their universities, or exactly £20 per head. In South Africa they had 1,203 students, and their expenditure was £68 per head, or more than three times what they spent in Australia. The question was, did they get three times the value for their money. (Hear, hear.) Do not tell him that the less expenditure in Australia was due to the concentration of higher education in one place in Australia, They had five Universities there. Proceeding, the hon. member said that if anything was wrong with their primary education, the University was to blame. The University prescribed certain examinations, the University for which they were asked to vote a large sum was the ruling body. It was not the Minister of Education or the Superintendent of Education who settled what their education should be. It was the University that dominated their primary education.

said that the statement made by the Minister showed the frame of mind in which he was in. According to the Minister the great difficulty of this University education was that there were three different considerations. One was what was educationally desirable, the second was what was desirable in the interest of existing institutions, and the third was the gift. It was most dangerous that these contrasts should be held. What was in the interest of education was to develop the existing institutions, which had been called into being by the needs of the country, and this would give the donors the scope they required. It was this distrust of existing institutions that was at the root of the trouble. This accounted for the original proposal of 1910, which was to abolish the colleges and concentrate higher education at Groote Schuur. It had been made perfectly clear in the papers that there was to be concentration of higher education at Groote Schuur. He believed that the right solution was to work on safe lines, but so far the interests of education and the interests of the existing institutions and the donors had suffered by the manner in which this matter had been managed. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he wanted to identify himself with the remarks of the right hon. member for Victoria West in regard to other matters. He thought, however, the right hon. gentleman went a little too far when he said that the University dominated the education in South Africa, because he (Mr. Fremantle) thought that the University had endeavoured to work in co-operation with the heads of education in the different Provinces. He thought the Minister had not put before the country the real facts connected with educational matters in the Provinces. He would suggest to his hon. friend that he should see that members of the House got the reports of the Provincial Education Departments, so that they would be in a position to judge upon them. The time was coming very close when the House would have to decide upon the future of education, and he would ask his hon. friend if he would not send forward the publications to members of the House. It would be very important also if the hon. member could give an idea of the progress of education in South Africa. Progress was going on he knew, but in some places it was kept back. The Education Department of the Cape in certain matters was setting itself up against the doctrines of the whole world, and was refusing reforms that the whole world had effected. It was extremely difficult to get a dividing line between higher education and ordinary education. He thought his hon. friend had initiated very far-reaching reforms with regard to the training of teachers. These were going to have a very far-reaching effect. No matter how important they might consider the teaching of higher education, far more important was the teaching of primary and secondary education. In fact, the whole welfare of the country depended upon their primary and secondary education. (Hear, hear.)

said that nobody regretted more than he did that the House had so few opportunities of dealing with education, both primary and secondary. That had been left to other bodies, and whether they liked it or not, they could not get behind that. He could reprint parts of the reports of the various Directors of Education, if that was considered necessary, but that would swell the printing vote. Those departments were now coming more into line, and he had received an advance copy of the report of the Director of Education of the Transvaal, which was very interesting; and because it dealt with the question of a Language Select Committee, he would have it circulated amongst hon. members. If the hon. members expressed a wish, these reports could be supplied, but for the next two years the House would have to be satisfied to get its information about primary and secondary education secondhand. They must get it second-hand, for the Act of Union prohibited them from getting it first-hand.

said he did not think they needed any more statistics about education; that was not what they were short of, but real honesty of purpose and a little less high politics in educational matters. What the hon. member for Victoria West said about the cost of students in the different colleges was, no doubt, absolutely correct; but he (the speaker) could not help feeling that the right hon. gentleman, with his great experience in this country, had lost an opportunity in not exposing the hollowness of some of the things they had heard in that House. He did not know why the right hon. gentleman had not dealt with the question of the universities in South Africa, for he was the one man who might have given them light and leading, and anything he might have said on the subject would have received the great attention it deserved. He (the speaker) had nothing to do with the quarrel between the hon. member for Smithfield and the hon. Minister.

There is no quarrel.

proceeding, said he would call them differences of opinion When the hon. Minister got up instead of telling them anything about the Universities he had a little argument as to what took place on different occasions. It was intended to appoint a commission, but they were faced with a choice of evils. They must either have one University in which they had professors capable of teaching in the various subjects, whether they could speak in both languages or not; or they must have two Universities, one of which would be devoted exclusively to professors who taught in the English language, and the other devoted exclusively to professors who taught in the Dutch language. He did not think that would be a good system in the interests of either the Dutch or the English section. So far as the English people were concerned it would be all right, because they could get professors to teach in the English language at once, but when they came to the Dutch language they found great difficulties, unless they went to Haarlem in Holland. No doubt they could get from there professors of higher culture, who would be an ornament to any country, but whether the kind of language which they would teach, and whether the results they would get, was what the Dutch-speaking people of this country wanted was another matter altogether. Whether they could start using the books of the students of Holland, he (the speaker) was not competent to say. It was obvious they could have two Universities if they wanted them, but they must settle the question of whether they were going to have one University or two. If they were going to have one they could not have a bilingual University in the sense that some people in this country wanted it. They could not have it for various reasons, which he would not go into. They have not got it at Stellenbosch, and he very much doubted whether they would ever be able to have it in the sense that many people wished for. If they were going to strive for that idea they would never have people educated in South Africa to rank with the standard of education reached in other countries.

Why not?

Because you cannot get suitable professors. Proceeding he said that they had to be frank in those matters. The fact that people did not speak their minds was a great defect in this country. Some plain speaking would help them all. He had an earnest desire to see the advantage taken of the gifts which had been promised to them, and he wanted that desire to be carried out with the concurrence of all sections of the people in the country. It was no good going on year after year equivocating and bringing forward things they did not pass. The most humiliating spectacle he had ever witnessed in that House was when the Minister of Education during the second reading of the University Bill—

said the hon. member must keep to the matter under discussion.

said he did not want to rub in the humiliation. Although that kind of thing was going on year after year, and they would get no further forward. They were making people feel very sore, raising acrimonious discussions and doing nothing from the educational point of view. He hoped the hon. Minister would appoint a Commission divorced from all ideas of political consideration, and that at least one person would be got from some other country who knew nothing about the politics of this country, who would go into the educational point of view and tell them how best to organise their Universities.

He did not think there should be any insuperable difficulties in the way of bringing in a measure that would meet the wishes of both sides of the House. They could either have two Universities or one University, in which case for some years the lectures would have to be given in English. There was nothing derogatory to the Dutch people in that. There was nothing in that that would affect their dignity. In the past they had not been in touch with Universities unless they went abroad, so that they could not get Dutch professors from the Dutch population for a time. But for Heaven’s sake let them look on the difficulties that existed in a straightforward and fair way. He hoped that next year his hon. friend would come to the House, having had a year to go into the matter, look the situation in the face, and tell the House whether they were going to have a University or not. It was no use going on year after year pretending they were going to have an establishment which never materialised. The question of developing the higher thought of the people of this country was much too great to be thrown into the pot of little party dissensions or internal dissensions, which made for nothing but unhappiness among the people of both races in this country. (Opposition cheers.) He protested against this in the strongest terms. He believed there was a total misunderstanding about what the donors desired. The donors offered a gift for the benefit of the youth of this country. They desired to see proper opportunities given to Dutch and English youths of this country to take advantage of a higher educational system. They did not want to interfere with the Dutch language or anything of that kind. If the Minister had in this country educated men of the standard fit to occupy chairs in the University of South Africa nobody would raise objection. It followed in everything in this country that wherever they could get a young South African fit to occupy any position—he did not care what it was—it was he who ought to occupy that position. He (the speaker) stood for this. In this case, whether it was for education or anything else, where they could not find a man of the standard of training in this country for the particular work they wished to be well done, let them go to another country and get the man out. It was no disgrace to them. If America wanted somebody to teach them South African history they would come to South Africa. If only his hon. friend would leave the intriguing and high political standpoint and deal with the matter from the educational standpoint, pure and simple, he would get over all the difficulties that faced him. The Dutch people were a right-minded and intelligent people, and he thought that if the situation was explained to them in clear terms, they would fall in with the scheme that would make for higher education and the greater fitness of the population. He wished the Minister would face this question in a straightforward way. Let him say that it was his intention to appoint a small purely educational commission, so as to enable him to come to the House next year with legislation. When people made a big gift of this character, he thought they were entitled to some consideration from the Government, and if they went on year after year and did nothing, the donors would become disheartened. He hoped the Minister would face the situation, not from a narrow standpoint, but in a perfectly honest way, and one that would lead to them achieving those ideals for which they were striving. There was too much mistrust in the air, and the sooner the Minister divorced this question from things which did not concern it the sooner they would achieve the end they desired.

could not understand why they were not allowed to discuss lower education. It was comprised in higher education, and there was a Secretary of Education. The Minister ought to adopt broader views of his work.

said he agreed with the last speaker that they should endeavour to keep this university question out of the arena of party politics. There were other solutions to the ones that had been suggested, and there was the proposal that there should be one university with two separate sets of professors, so that the people of the country could choose which lectures they wished to attend. He thought that the last speaker had expressed himself somewhat unfortunately with regard to the Dutch language in respect to the university question. They knew very well what he meant, and that he did not mean that the Dutch language should be suppressed, but there was just the chance that in the country the real meaning might be distorted. Hon. members on his side of the House had not the slightest desire to suppress the Dutch language. He wished to protest against the possible distortion that if they had one university there was the possibility that the Dutch language would be suppressed The question of expense ought not to be considered at all, and by the use of common-sense the difficulty would be righted in time. The hon. member for Smithfield had tried to load his dice against the English language, and it would be monstrous if he (Mr. Botha) did not protest against any loading of the dice against the Dutch language. The speech of the hon. member for Yeoville was liable to misinterpretation.

I had hoped that my language was so clear that it was not possible to interpret it in the sense which my hon. friend has done. If I have left on the mind of any hon. gentleman the idea that I wish to do anything derogatory to the Dutch people or that would have a tendency to interfere with their language rights, then let me remove it.

said he rose for the purpose of removing some aspersions that had been cast on him. He had been accused of wanting to interfere with the Provincial Councils—nothing of the sort, but he did want to get information. If there was no one in the Education Department who could give a conspectus of the educational position, all he could say was that the Minister of Education had not been doing his duty for the last three years. The hon. member for Yeoville had accused him (Mr. Merriman) rather severely for not entering into the differences of opinion and for not giving his views about the University question. Why should he? He (Mr. Merriman) was not on the University Committee and had no knowledge of what had taken place. Speaking generally, however, as one of the Philistines, he was entirely in favour of the proposal of the hon. member for Uitenhage for developing the existing institutions generally.

said he wished to draw the attention of the Minister to clause 30 of the Public Service Act, in which it was provided that no official in the public service should remain beyond the age of 60 years. With the approval of Parliament, he could go on from year to year, but in no case after his 65th year. Yet the Cape Superintendent of Education, who was 68, was still kept on. Why? Certainly, the officer in question was in the service of one of the Provinces, but it was provided in the Public Service Act that Provincial officials came under the provisions of that Act.

said that the contract of the present Superintendent-General contained a provision which excluded him from the operation of the rule referred to. If the official in question remained in the service, it was solely because of the terms of his contract.

said he was in full accord with a great deal of what the right hon. gentleman had said, and so were his (the speaker’s) colleagues. Too much attention was bestowed on the higher branches of education and too little to the lower. There was not the slightest doubt that if the colleges were full the cost per student would be less, and yet it was seriously proposed to introduce another scheme for teaching the same people. The State paid the major portion of the cost of the education of the wealthier classes of the country who were getting more than their share of the revenue available for education. He made his protest against that.

said the cost of the administration of the Department was excessive. The amount it expended was only £117,000, yet the staff cost £2,020, or 18 per cent. of the total expenditure of the Department. It was absurd to pay the Under-Secretary of such a Department £1,000 a year; he had not a word to say against the gentleman personally, but there was not sufficient work to justify the cost, the principal duty of the Department being to pay out money.

The tendency was for the Department to encroach upon the duties of College Councils. He was very much astonished that the Minister had not pushed on with the Higher Education Bill. This Bill was introduced as far back as February 6th, and to-day it stood as the 25th order on the paper. In this part of South Africa they were suffering from very great disadvantages by reason of the inequalities regarding support received from the State by the colleges of the Cape Province, as compared with the colleges in the other parts of the Union. In this Province the colleges had to pay half the interest upon their loans, while the northern colleges had all their money found, and he noticed that the accounts of the South African College for the present year showed a deficit of £673.

said he regretted that the Minister once again had not seen fit to put any grant down towards the Inter-State Native College. There was a tacit understanding that a grant would be made, but they had been waiting and waiting until they had come to the conclusion to go on without State help and make a beginning with the funds at their disposal. (Hear, hear.)

said he wished to refer to the failure of the Minister to provide for the admission of the children of poor people into the colleges so that they would have an opportunity of obtaining higher education. It might be said that there were bursaries, but there were any number of children in this country fully qualified to receive higher education whose parents were unable to maintain them while they were being educated.

said he was greatly disappointed that the University Bill was not going to become law this session. This was going to severely handicap the various colleges, not only in the Cape Province, but also throughout South Africa. They wanted uniformity with regard to the treatment of their colleges— (hear, hear)—and that, he thought, was especially necessary in regard to the Cape Province, because they were handicapped in a way that the other Provinces were not. He hoped the Minister would see his way to do the same in regard to the colleges as had been done in regard to primary education in this Province, and that was to dispense with the interest on loans on buildings.

said that, in regard to the South African College, he took it that they had to find a sum of about £3,000 a year for interest, which would be sufficient to pay the salaries of 15 professors at £200 a year. What they wanted the Government to do was to follow the example of the Provincial Council in remitting the interest due from the local School Boards of the Province. Already the South African College had been able to do a good deal in the direction referred to by the hon. member for Springs. Owing to benefactions, the college had been able to lower the fees of students to a large extent; but what was wanted, in order to still further reduce the fees and make the college still more accessible to the poorer people, was to have this charge of £3,000 a year wiped out.

said that a very great hardship had to be borne by the South African College and the other colleges of the Cape Province. He thought the South African College had a claim to special consideration. He would appeal to the Minister to try and find some way of dealing with the present anomaly, due to the colleges of this Province having to provide interest on loans for buildings, while the colleges in other parts of the Union were free from any such obligation. If the colleges of this Province were doing their work efficiently, he did not see how it was fair to handicap them by making them find money out of the small amount at their disposal for interest upon loans on buildings.

thought that the Minister, perhaps by his action in bringing this forward, admitted that he wanted to get some uniformity in regard to higher education. They had got uniformity as far as primary and secondary education were concerned, but they had not got uniformity as regarded higher education. This was very hard indeed upon all the colleges in the Cape Province, and they were pleading for them in this matter. The amount involved was very small. He hoped that the Minister would give them the assurance that this Bill for higher education would be put upon the paper as soon as possible.

said he would like to ally himself with what had been stated by his colleagues. They had held their hands during the last three years simply in the expectation that they would have an opportunity of discussing the report upon its merits: but they had not had that opportunity, and they found the colleges in the Cape Province affected by this postponement. They were in the unfortunate position of not being able to develop upon natural lines, for two reasons. The first was, because they had not enough money; and the second was, that they had this university hanging over their heads. He did not suppose that there was another college in the whole of the Union which was so go-ahead as the South African College. It suffered from the fact that it was supported, not by the State, but privately. Individuals had provided everything. This had compelled it into a settled state of things, which had been attended with the most unfortunate results. They had to get a subsidy from the Town Council, or they would have been unable to start their Engineering School. Then, only two years ago, they had a Chair of Education, but they could not get any Government assistance, and they had to go round and ask people for the funds to support that Chair. That Chair had been most successful. He hoped that the Minister would put the South African College on the same footing as others.

said that the Cape members in endeavouring to get money for their colleges had made a complete case out for the State ownership of the colleges. The only way, and the only solution, was for the State to take over the colleges. He quite agreed with the statement that the S.A.C. had done a great deal. The children of the poorest people in the country, however, should have an opportunity of obtaining this higher education.

said he did not know of any State in the world that had gone in for the suggestion of the hon. member for Springs. As a matter of fact, even their primary education was not free all over the Union. He thought that if parents took a direct interest in higher education for their children they could pay something. (Hear, hear.) They must recognise it would be inadvisable to deal with these colleges separately from the University, and therefore to have two Bills dealing with the question of the colleges, and the question of the Universities, was not advisable. He was not going to proceed with this Bill. He wanted to point out that a parallel had been drawn between the ordinary schools and the colleges. The property that belonged to the colleges was private property, and therefore they could not be put on the same basis as the schools which were public property.

said he was sorry to hear the reply of the Minister. Quite apart from the question of the colleges being private property, and the School Board being public property, if the Minister contemplated putting all the colleges on the basis of the Cape colleges, then it was not fair to saddle them with this burden that they had borne in the past, simply because their system was the right one. The present method upon which the State money was paid out for education was liable to serious criticism. Institutions that had been forced into life by State funds were being pushed up by bursaries and other inducements at the expense of more active institutions and colleges.

May I point out that the question is whether these institutions were not better on account ofhaving to struggle.

said he believed in the principle of having to struggle, but they could carry that too far.

The sub-head was agreed to.

Sub-head B, Universities and Colleges, £95,939,

said the Professor of Pedagogy at the Grey University College, Bloemfontein, had only two students. Had the Minister insisted on greater economy at that college?

said the Chair of Pedagogy was a legacy from the Free State Government, but as the professor was giving lectures as well at the Normal College, Bloemfontein, his time was fully occupied.

He has three pupils at the Normal College. (Laughter.)

asked when the report of the University Council would be ready?

said he laid the report on the Table a few days ago, when the hon. member was absent, as he generally was when the House opened. (Laughter.)

said a very serious condition was arising all through the Union in consequence of a shrinkage in the number of teachers. The time had arrived when a forward movement should be made in this matter.

The sub-head was agreed to.

Sub-head C, “General,” £14,660.

asked whether the payment of £100 for compiling South African history was still being paid.

moved, on page 218, to reduce the amount by £100, being the item “Grant towards expenses of compilation of a South African History.”

drew attention to the diminishing number of new teachers.

The amendment was agreed to.

The sub-head was agreed to.

moved that the sub-heads be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On the sub-head A, Salaries, wages and allowances, £1,154,295,

observed that as it had taken the House two months at the beginning of the session in which to do six days’ work, hon. members were now trying to do two months’ work in six days. (Hear, hear.) The condition of affairs in the Postal Department was so grave that he felt compelled to move the reduction of the salary of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs by £1,000. The report of the Public Service Commission revealed a very grave state of things with regard to the Post Office Department. Ninety-six permanent appointments were made without any reference to the Commission; in other words, the department flouted the Act of Parliament. The Public Service Commission was intended to secure fairplay for the officials, and that the men should be promoted on the ground of merit alone. The reason for the passing of the Public Service Act was to secure for the men a certainty of fairplay. Where no such Act existed, experience had shown that favouritism and nepotism were practised. A most disgusting and disgraceful condition of affairs existed in the department in the Transvaal, where the men were not being properly treated, and where rank discontent existed from one end of the service to the other.

Business was suspended at 1 p.m.

There is before the committee an amendment by the hon. member for Troyeville to reduce the salary vote by £1,000.

Shame! (Laughter.)

Leave him alone, he’ll enjoy himself. (Laughter.) Continuing, the hon. member said he wished to draw attention to the serious charge made by the Public Service Commission against the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. According to that report, the department had refused to abide by the law. The point he wished to make was this: The House laid down certain demands in the form of a Bill, calculate to protect the Civil Service; but here, in their first report, the Commission drew attention to the fact that this department had violated the law, and that no less than 96 permanent appointments had been made in one branch of the service without reference to the Commission, The Commission told them that the Post Office authorities had said they did not come under the ordinary rules and regulations, and that they were not bound by the law. If they had given some reason and said that they would be bound by the law in the future then he would not have had a word to say. The serious point was that having broken the law they offered a defence. He took it that the Minister would tell them that serious notice would be taken of this deliberate refusal of high officers in a branch of the service to abide by the express wish of that House. When a man broke the mining regulations he could be prosecuted and fined, but here they had to sit by and see officials of the Government refuse to carry out the law. What notice was the Minister going to take of that? They could not sit down in that House and acquiesce in the express refusal of a department to be bound by a law laid down by that House. Who was to be master? Unless they had some means of protecting men in the public service from favouritism and injustice, favouritism and injustice would go on. When unrestricted power was placed in the hands of any man, no matter how good he might be, it followed that that man would abuse that power. The House was not in a temper at that late stage of the session to deal with these details, but he would point out that this breach of the law affected a very large number of men. When the matter was brought to his notice he looked askance at it and said that he could not think of using his position as a member of that Parliament in bringing forward personal grievances, and then he was told that it affected the interests of a considerable number of men. He would not give a single name to anybody. If a proper inquiry was instituted then he might be prepared to do so, but at the present time he refused to disclose names, because the position of his informants might be affected. He was sure that the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would be the last man in that House to misjudge in a case of that sort. He was sure the Minister was not to blame, and he would not blame him, but if this thing was allowed to go on he would be forced to blame him. He believed that the Minister had inherited this thing.

In Pretoria in March last a large number of men in good positions, intelligent men, saw certain changes taking place in the office where they were, and they at once did the right thing by sending in a memorial to their chief, protesting against what was going on, and asking, before further changes were made, in the way of promotions, that they should be heard. For nearly two months they received no acknowledgment of that letter. It was rude indifference of that kind that made men mad; that supercilious indifference had caused more strikes in the world than anything he knew of. After waiting for some time, they sent another letter, and on the 22nd May the Department replied: “It is quite impossible to reopen the question of promotion,” etc. These men saw all along that it was going to be too late, and protested in their letters, but no notice was taken of them. There were numerous cases, if his evidence were reliable, that men were promoted who ought not to be promoted, and men were not promoted who ought to be promoted. In Johannesburg the case was very much worse, but it was the same kind of case. Some time ago he put to the Minister no less than nine questions. In every instance the reply was altogether wrong or partly so. He did not charge the Minister with that, because he supposed that the Minister had to rely on somebody else to get the reply ready for the question. He had got 15 of these cases in the documents before him, but he did not desire to go into the details. He was convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that there was a grave condition of things existing amongst a very large number of public servants along the Reef, sufficient to justify the Minister in looking into the matter. If this went on, sooner or later there would be trouble. There was no worse servant than a discontented man. Favouritism always went hand in hand with oppression and injustice and iniquity of various sorts. He hoped the Minister would understand clearly that he (Mr. Quinn) did not blame him. After all, to whom should these men appeal? They had sent a most respectful letter to their chief. This House was the final court of appeal for every man in the country who felt that he was oppressed. He assured the Minister and the Committee that he had taken trouble to investigate these cases, and satisfy himself that the charges were just on the evidence brought before him. He wished to ask the Minister to direct an inquiry to be held, and he hoped that the Minister would tell him whether he thought there was something in what he had said or there was not. He only wished to add that the men did not want a departmental inquiry, because they said that would only make things worse.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken, although he had occupied the House for a considerable period, had not introduced a single fact in support of the formidable indictment he had presented against the Postal Department. In justice to the Postmaster-General and the men, he would point out that it was really impossible to judge of the justice or injustice, of the reasonableness or unreasonableness, of these claims without having the statement of the officer concerned, viz., the Postmaster-General. He understood his hon. friend to say that the charges were proved by the report of the Public Service Commission. He was sorry to hear his hon. friend the member for Troyeville bring such an indictment against the Post Office.

The Post Office was the best-conducted department in the country—(hear, hear)— and it had been conducted remarkably well, in the face of most conspicuous difficulties since Union. (Hear, hear.) The great grievance of the hon. member for Troyeville was that the Post Office ignored the Public Service Commission with regard to these appointments. If the hon. member for Troyeville, before he proposed bringing this indictment against the Post Office had referred to page 706 of the Report, he would have found that this question had been raised in the Public Accounts Committee. He would find that the whole thing was explained in a few sentences. The Postmaster asked for exemption in the case of the Post Office in making these Executive appointments, on account of having to deal with them immediately. How could the Commission of a great Executive Department deal with every little appointment? If these appointments had to be sent in every instance to the Public Service Commission, he was quite sure that the machinery of the Department would break down in 24 hours. These telegraph and post office appointments had often to be made by telegraph, and officers had to be sent here and there at a moment’s notice all over the country, and if these matters had to be dealt with by the Public Service Commission, it would mean disaster. He, however, rose to say a word or two to the Minister with reference to the Post Office Savings Bank accounts. These accounts dealt with financial requirements of a very great section of the poorer class of the community. The Minister said they had more depositors, although the amount deposited was less. In 1910 they had 20,000 more depositors than in 1909, but in 1911 the increase was only 14,990, and in 1912 it was 14,503. These figures showed that the matter should be very carefully looked into. His opinion was that the decrease was due to the fact that they had reduced the interest on Savings Bank certificates from 3½ to 3 per cent. The Minister was quite wrong in stating that he (Mr. Currey) desired to increase the interest on the ordinary deposits. He never suggested any increase of interest on ordinary deposits. In the Cape that interest had always been 3 per cent., but a man could not withdraw a certificate unless he gave six months’ notice or paid 10s. It was a serious matter to discourage poor people putting their money into Savings Bank certificates. For the sake of a half per cent., nothing should be done which would militate against people putting their money into Savings Bank certificates.

said he hoped the hon. member for Troyeville would get a better answer from the Minister than he had received from the hon. member for George. What appeared to him (Mr. Duncan) to be the trouble was, that in trying to unify the services, the Transvaal postal officials had been called upon to make very considerable sacrifices. He thought the heads of the department ought to have gone out of their way to make it easy for the men to accept the new state of affairs. The hon. member for Troyeville was quite right in not bringing individual cases before the House. (Cheers.) It was complained that Cape men had been put in a better position than officers in the Transvaal administrative branch, and that certain men in the Transvaal service who, before Union, were graded as third-class assistants, had suffered under the reorganisation carried out in the Transvaal in 1908. Under Union these men had suffered still further. Referring to the “Agricultural Post,” the hon. member said boots manufactured in South Africa were regarded as an agricultural product and were carried at a lower rate than the imported article, while South African seed was conveyed at 2d. a lb., against 8d. a lb. charged for imported seed. In consequence of this disparity, he was afraid that very often imported seeds were carried as South African seeds.

urged the laying of a telephone line from Middelburg via Elandslaagte and Blink-water to Sekukuniberg and Pokwani. Such a line would be extremely useful and beneficial. It had already been promised, and would be a better line than one from Lydenburg to Pokwani because, for the most part, Kafirs lived along the last-mentioned route and white people along the first. He suggested that the promise made should be adhered to.

said the charge for parcels coming from oversea was 9d. per lb., threepence going to the Imperial Post Office, 3d. being paid to the Mail Co., and 3d. retained by the Union Post Office. Yet the Colonial rate for the carriage of parcels—apart from the agricultural post—was 8d. a lb. That was excessive, especially when it was remembered that the Post Office made a cash profit of £85,000.

referred to certain appointments made in the Post Office, which, he was understood to say, had not been sanctioned by the Public Service Commission, and said that the hon. member for George was rather unsympathetic in regard to cases of grievances which emanated from the Post and Telegraphs Department. The question of the £250 barrier was one that affected a large number of men. He did not want to go into ancient history, but a number of men were recruited in England for the Cape when it was not anticipated that there would be any long wait or that there would be any barrier. Now, many of the men had found that the prospects held out to them had not been realised. That had given rise to very serious dissatisfaction. The present system was that a man had to wait five years at the barrier of £250 a year, and then go up to £320. The men would prefer to go up by easy steps with a maximum of £300. Another matter was the question of leave regulations. In reply to a question raised in the House, it was stated by the Minister that officers requiring leave appointed since Union had Been informed that 21 days per annum was the allowance. He (the hon. member) was informed that the Minister’s statement was not quite correct, because officers in different districts had been treated differently. The men wanted uniformity in regard to leave. In regard to the right of appeal to the Public Service Commission, it was a matter which he would ask the Minister to pay serious attention to. The men did not know at present whether the head of the Department could send on a petition to the Commission or not. There had been cases where the Minister had not sent forward papers because he did not think they represented cases that should go before the Commission. The men did not want the head of the Department to say whether it was a case for the Commission or not, they wanted the Commission to determine that. At present there were no regulations on the subject. The men wished to have regulations framed so that they might know what they should do. It was only fair to point out, in regard to the appointments he had referred to, that they were not appointments of any great magnitude. The Public Service Commission’s report indicated a very curious fact, which was that the Public Works Department did not object to have these appointments scrutinised, but said the appointments were made in ignorance of the provisions of the Act, whereas the Department of Posts and Telegraphs claimed the right to make these appointments, and yet the Minister was the head of both! Which side of the Minister was ignorant of the Act?

The next point he wanted to draw attention to was the want of system which prevented men in the lower branches of the Service, who had technical qualifications from getting appointments which needed technical qualifications, thrown open to them. He thought that the Minister would admit that the present state of affairs was not satisfactory. The Department, according to the Postmaster-General’s report, was giving bonuses to any men who obtained first-class certificates. What the men wanted, however, was appointments, and not bonuses, and when the time came to fill the appointments, men were taken from outside, and these men in the Service were left with their bonuses. That was a wrong state of affairs. The Minister might say that they wanted men with a general education; the men in the Post Office did not object to that, but wanted to be given a chance to compete for these appointments, because they got men from outside. Another matter he would like the Minister to deal with was that of compiling a seniority list for the Union. He knew the difficulties of the Minister, because he would probably say that it was difficult to compile a seniority list which would give full satisfaction. The men who had gone up North were now drawing higher salaries than the men who were left here, although they (the former) were their juniors, and the men suggested, therefore, that a proper seniority list should be drawn up. He thought it would be generally admitted that, considering the large number of men in the Department—no less than 8,039— there had been so few grievances amongst the men that he thought the Minister should go sympathetically into these grievances which had been brought forward. It was a very good thing, both from a business point of view, as well as from the Service point of view, to have contented men in the Service, and in most cases it did not mean any extra expenditure of money to redress these grievances and give fair and sympathetic treatment to the men. What they wanted was fair and equitable treatment. They wanted the conditions made known to them, and they wanted the right of appealing, right up to the Public Service Commission.

said that he would like to ask the Minister to take a note of the following: There was a great want to extend the telegraph line from Upington to Rietfontein, in Gordonia. Their neighbours on the other side of the line were doing their duty, not only in regard to the extension of the telegraph line, but also in regard to the extension of the railway line as well. A message might mean thousands of pounds to the Government. The distance was about 180 miles.

in dealing with the Postal and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, said that that was an old matter, which he had raised before, and also in the old Cape Parliament. He had always been in favour of that Association being recognised by the Minister, and he had never seen any good reason why it should not be so recognised. He understood that for many years a similar association had been recognised by His Majesty’s Postmaster-General in London, and surely what could be granted there, where they had thousands of men, could equally be done here. He had received information to the effect that the Postmaster-General in London had recognised the great success of that; and the association had been the channel by which thousands of men had made their grievances known to the head of the Department. It had not only proved to be a great success, but also a great advantage. An association like that could sift the grievances of the men, so that only proper grievances were brought before the head of the Department. The hon. member alluded to the question of that particular association having been raised while the Public Service Bill was being discussed. The Minister of the Interior at the time, who was now the Minister of Finance, had replied in answer to a question, that he did not know what were the objects of that particular Association, but he did not think that its object was to protect themselves by exercising political or undue influence. That had been the stress laid upon that particular sub-section of the Public Service Bill, and if the members of that Association had bound themselves together for these purposes, it would have been the duty of the State to step in. No steps, however, had been taken by the department to proclaim that Association an illegal one, or that being a member of that Association meant “misconduct” as defined under the Bill. The men themselves, therefore, had come to believe that they belonged to an association which was perfectly legally constituted, and could not see why the department should continue not to recognise them as a channel of communication of individuals and the department. He thought that there was a great deal of logic in what the men urged in that particular way. In the early part of that session, he thought it was April, a question had been put to the Minister of Railways and Harbours by one of his hon. friends on the cross-benches with reference to a movement which had taken place in Natal with regard to the railway men, and the Minister had said on that occasion that certain associations of these men were coming to interview him, and that he preferred to hear what they had to say rather than listen to their individual grievances. If the men in the railway service could form themselves into associations and be recognised, and have their grievances brought to the notice of the Minister, why could not the Postal and Telegraph Association be recognised in the same way? They asked of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs what the Minister of Railways and Harbours had granted to the railway servants of this country. In not recognising this Association the Minister was not dealing as fairly with his men as the Minister of Railways was dealing with the railway servants. He hoped the Minister would look into the matter and see if he could not give the required recognition. This Association had been in existence, in the Cape Province at any rate, for the last ten years, and the men were thoroughly in earnest about this matter. They represented a staff of 8,000, men, and he thought that there was justification for their appeal.

said that it was too late in the day for any modern Government to refuse to recognise legitimate associations of this kind. These men were placed in a peculiar position, and their only means of expressing themselves was through this Association. There was always the fear that if they expressed these grievances individually they would be sat upon by the officer at the head of the department. He thought that the Association was an excellent channel by which the Minister could learn the wishes of the men. He thought it absurd that official recognition should not be given this Association. He hoped that during the recess the Minister would go into the matter and see if anything could be done. He did not think that the time given to that discussion had been wasted, because it was their duty to see that the Minister replied to any grievances that might be brought to his notice by members in that House. Dealing with the difficulty between the Public Service Commission and the heads of this department, he said that they had had evidence that an agreement—a satisfactory agreement—had been arrived at. It was an agreement satisfactory to the Commission, to the Department, to the Public Service, and to that House. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, he held that the head of a department had no right to stop a legitimate grievance going to the Commission. He held that if an official wished a grievance transmitted to the Commission, it should be forwarded to the Commission If the head of the department wished to make any notes he was at liberty to do so.

I hold the same view. But it does take place.

said he supported the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, with regard to the high rates levied on parcels in the Union. With regard to telephonic extensions, he hoped that the Minister would be more liberal next year, so far as the Cape Province was concerned. He alluded to the present position in the south-western districts, and said that at Riversdale there was a complete absence of telephonic communication.

referring to remarks by the hon. member for George, said that he was more concerned with the cases of people who deposited in the Savings Bank amounts up to £500, for which in the Transvaal and Natal they used to get interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. until about a year ago. The amount had since been reduced to 3 per cent., and this was discouraging to the small investor who used the Savings Bank. He thought that every encouragement should be given these people to save their money, because they had been told that there was a difficulty in getting money for the development of the country. He knew that the reduction in the rate of interest had driven a lot of these people to other institutions. He would like to ask the Minister what was the reason for this reduction of the rate of interest in the Transvaal and Natal, and whether he did not think it would be good business, from the point of view of the Government and the department, to raise the rate of interest at least one-half per cent., in order to attract capital from the competing banks. Perhaps that was the reason why the Minister would disagree with that policy.

said he wished to know why the post office at Hekpoort had been removed from the old premises to the shop of Mr. Hartley, and why to the shop of Mr. Hartley, while plenty of other shops were available. When the removal took place the speaker had received many petitions on the subject, and he had laid them before the Minister. From the correspondence which had passed, it was clear to him that there were many postal officials who had not the least sympathy with the population of the rural districts. The former relied very largely on the post and telegraph. The police acted as postal agents at Hekpoort. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had informed him that the post office had been transferred because the police officers who had been in charge of the post office were too busy to attend to the post. The Minister of Justice had stated that the removal was unnecessary, and that only one postmaster should be appointed. There was a suitable man there already who would fill the post at a small salary, but it had been removed, against the wishes of the public, to a private shop, the owner of which was an enemy of the co-operative tobacco society. The Postmaster-General could not effect a change now, or so he said, because Hartley had fixed up an outer room as a post office. But that was no reason. The Minister should take the office back to the police station. Which was the bigger question: an outer room, or the interest of the public? He would conclude by asking the Minister whether he would lengthen the telephone from Bapsfontein to Waaikraal. He would personally guarantee the costs.

said he hoped the Minister would see his way clear to recognise the request of the men for official recognition of their organisation. He put in a plea on behalf of the carriers employed by the Post Office, and said that he would like the Minister to give an assurance that, if these men showed sufficient intelligence and qualification, no embargo should be placed upon their promotion to the higher branches of the service. There was nothing more calculated to fill these men with despair than the fact that there was no promotion from the lowest rung of the ladder.

said that, before the war, there was a bi-weekly post from Vrede to Harrismith, but nowadays there was only a weekly post. He urged the reintroduction of the bi-weekly post. Witzieshoek also demanded telephone connection with Harrismith, as the many white people there lived on the boundaries of a big Kafir location. The postal service from Verkijkerskop should be extended six miles to Trutersrust. At present the people in that district had to get their letters from Harrismith in wagons which were used for conveying cream.

asked the Minister to look into the case of the men who had been retained for long periods in certain salaried classes. He suggested that South African manufacturers’ catalogues should be carried at the Agricultural Parcels Post rate. At present the foreign manufacturers had an advantage over the South African manufacturers, so far as the sending of catalogues was concerned. Then, with regard to the charge for newspapers, which were carried at one third of the parcel rates, the officials had a curious way of calculating, for they made one-third of a shilling into sixpence. (Laughter.)

suggested that night telegrams should be received before 5 p.m.

urged the necessity for telephone communication with the western Free State; such a communication was urgently required between Dealesville and Bloemfontein. The eastern Free State this year was receiving some 300 miles of telephone line, whereas the western district was only getting 69 miles of telephones. Why this big difference? Boshof had only a bi-weekly postal service. They were no longer in the dark ages, and the western Free State claimed these advantages of civilisation so amply enjoyed by other parts of the world. Hope was all very nice, but their hope should eventually be realised. He quoted the cases of villages like Excelsior and Marquard, etc., all of which were provided with telephones. Why could not towns in the western Free State, such as Dealesville, get similar facilities. It was already twelve years old.

asked if it were within the bounds of possibility for Government to consider the introduction of 6d. telegrams. (Cheers.) He knew there was a loss on the sending of telegrams, but in the opinion of many people that was caused by telephones competing with the telegrams, owing to the lower charge for the former. The way to lessen the loss on the telegrams would be to reduce the charge. The hon. member complained of the great cost in the delivery of telegrams in country districts.

pointed out that there was no telephone between Dealesville and Bloemfontein, a distance of 36 miles. He pointed out that in case of sickness it was extremely unsatisfactory for anyone to have to go 36 miles to Bloemfontein to fetch a doctor, and he hoped the Minister would give the matter his consideration.

Now that no one else is standing up perhaps I may be allowed to address the Committee.

Does the hon. member reflect upon the Chair?

No. I found I was not seen, and I am merely making a statement of fact that I have not been seen all the afternoon. Proceeding, he said he wished to speak on the matter of cheapening the price of telegrams. Experience had shown in other parts of the world that a reduction in the price of telegrams always resulted in increased revenue. In England they were introducing the 3d. telegram, and if that could be done he thought in South Africa they could have the 6d. telegram with advantage to the people of the country. Regarding the statements made by the hon. member for Troyeville, a great many of them had not been replied to by the hon. member for George. The hon. member for George referred them to the Commission, and said that certain appointments had to be made urgently; but that did not reply to the point regarding promotion. When promotion was being decided upon the names of eligible men were forwarded to the committee and considered, and after the head of the department had also seen the recommendations they were forwarded to the Public Service Commission. That bore out the contention of the hon. member for Troyeville that promotion was controlled by the Executive head of the department. He did not say favouritism was indulged in; but he thought it was a matter for inquiry. He thought that the hon. member for Troyeville said that there was widespread unrest in the Post Office Service was borne out. An instance was the third-class clerks. Here they had respectable young men, who, after nine years’ service, were receiving in the Transvaal £166 a year. This was also a matter that could well be inquired into. Another point which the hon. member for George had not replied to was the correspondence between certain men and the departmental head. They wrote to the head and received no reply for two months. No more contemptuous treatment could be imagined. There was also the matter of the inequitable treatment of postmen. It had often been said that these men had no chance of rising. Some time ago regulations were issued, and it was thought that the men in the towns and the men in the suburbs would be treated alike; but that had not been the case. The men in the towns were paid at a higher rate than the men who were employed in suburban post offices, and the argument for it was that the cost of living in the centre of the towns was higher than in the suburbs. He thought the Minister would have some difficulty in explaining that satisfactorily. Dealing with the question of the recognition of the Postal and Telegraph Association, he said they on those benches were astonished to find the number of members who saw the necessity of bargaining between men and the individuals who employed them. He hoped that they would get support from these members in all questions of a similar character. He would say to the men of the Postal and Telegraph Association that they would never get recognition from members on one side of the House or the other until they were in a position to demand that recognition.

denied Mr. Van Niekerk’s statement that all the villages in the eastern Free State had telephonic communication. He remembered a number of large villages, such as Ficksburg, Senekal, Paulroux, and others, which had no telephones. These parts were thickly populated and should have preference over the thinly populated parts mentioned by Mr. Van Niekerk.

drew the Minister’s attention to the complaints of the Johannesburg postmen at the long hours they worked owing to the rounds being badly laid out. Then they thought that their duties and status should be defined, as their duties at present were somewhat promiscuous, and they often had to do other jobs. Again, they, unlike other officials in the department, did not receive overtime. There were less postmen than when rounds were shorter, and in consequence they were overworked. Then they complained that during the smallpox scare they had to deliver letters in smallpox districts, and even to the houses where patients were confined. After referring to the smallness of the postman’s pay and suggesting re-adjustment, he said he was aware that there was unrest in the Post Office, though not alone in the lower grades. In conclusion, he suggested that an impartial committee should make a thorough investigation of the many grievances that required adjustment.

said he did not know of any department from which so many complaints had come as the Postal Department, and there seemed to be cause for these complaints. In regard to the question of promotion, the postal servants complained that whenever a vacancy occurred, this vacancy was filled through a transfer from another Province, with the result that the whole Service stood still, and that in that Province there was no chance of promotion. He held that there should be a gradual promotion through men of the same Province. There were also grievances with regard to the status of post offices. They were ranked low, and the salaries connected with them were also low. They found that in “third-class” offices they had fewer assistants, but did more work than in the “second-class ” offices.

said that, as to the point raised by the hon. member for Troyeville, he did not think this had to some extent been made quite clear to the Committee. He rather failed to grasp the serious grievance the hon. member had against the Postal Department. It had been alleged that the Postmaster had been guilty of favouritism, and that there had been disgraceful and disgusting conduct. He (the Minister) expected to hear some evidence in support of these very serious statements, but the hon. member gave them no information. He had stated that some six or seven weeks elapsed before a reply was given to the letter sent by these men. He regretted that they were kept waiting. He would give instruction that in future, when letters or petitions were received that could not be dealt with at once, that a form of acknowledgment should be sent. He was surprised to hear that this had not been done in the present case, but he would inquire into the matter. With regard to the other grievances, he might say that the postal officials in the Transvaal were, to some extent, suffering under what they considered an injustice—not because of anything done since Union, but because of the state of affairs which existed prior to Union. A large body of post officials in the Transvaal had been drawing £150 a year for some time before Union, and had been marking time. After Union their cases were considered, and they were now progressing to the maximum of £250 provided for the general body of postal assistants. Men who for some years had been receiving £150 a year in the Transvaal, got, on reorganisation, an increase of £l0— £166. Now, since April 1 of this year, these same men had drawn £176 per year. Next year they would, in the ordinary course, get an advance of £10, and so on, until they got to the maximum of the grade. Transvaal officials were as well paid as those at the coast, and in addition, they had local allowances. He thought that this general body of men, whose work required efficiency and accuracy, but whose work was not of the greatest importance, received a very fair and very reasonable salary. If, after five years at that salary, they did not receive promotion, they went on to the relief scale, on which they progressed to £300, and, in addition, they got in Pretoria and the Transvaal a local allowance of £60, making a total of £360 a year. They were also eligible to be appointed to the better-paid positions. An ordinary man, if he did his duties in the Post Office, was certain to get, in course of time, £360 per annum.

Another reason why the men in the Post Office in the Transvaal were to some extent suffering under what they considered a grievance was that, at the time of Union, it was necessary, in order to establish uniformity throughout the postal system, to grade men in the Transvaal with those elsewhere in the Cape, for instance. Notwithstanding the fact that the men in the Transvaal were receiving a higher salary, they were put into the same grade as men in the Cape drawing a smaller salary, because they were performing the same duties. That applied to the whole of the public service. A man drawing £300 in the Transvaal was regarded for the purpose of grading and reorganisation as drawing £240. Now it was absolutely impossible to bring about any large scheme of reorganisation without giving rise to a good deal of dissatisfaction; but, if one took a broad view of the whole scheme, and took into consideration the position of the postal servants in the Cape, Natal, Transvaal, and Free State, he was bound to say that he had not seen a better scheme than the one the Government had adopted. He was very sorry to hear the hon. member for Troyeville, who was usually a very fair-minded man indeed, make these serious charges against the Postmaster-General of being guilty of favouritism.

I did not say that.

The words were that there was a disgusting and disgraceful state of affairs, and that he (Mr. Quinn) was satisfied from what he had heard, of course from the one side, that favouritism was used. It could not be used by any other person than the Postmaster-General.

Why not?

Because the Postmaster-General is responsible, and my experience of the Postmaster-General is quite the reverse. He is not a man, I believe, who could fairly be charged with favouritism and disgraceful and disgusting conduct.

I did not charge him with that.

continuing, said he would go into the matter and, if he were convinced that any good purpose would be served, he would cause an inquiry to be made. So far as he had gone, he did not think that any legitimate grievance had been shown, taking into consideration the natural results which would flow from the reorganisation which had taken place.

The hon. member for George had drawn attention to the necessity for increasing the rate of interest in the Post Office Savings Bank on certificates. On a previous occasion he understood the hon. member to refer to the desirability of increasing the rate of interest on all deposits in the Savings Bank. He agreed with the hon. member, but he could make no definite promise, as the matter was under consideration, and others had to be consulted besides himself. On the general question of the rate of interest on Savings Bank deposits, it was not quite so simple as it looked. Up to a few months ago the ordinary rate of interest for which the Government could borrow money was 3½ per cent. It was now 4 per cent. It might be said that they should now give 3½per cent., seeing that they had to pay the foreign investor 4 per cent. It should be remembered, however, that it cost as nearly as possible half per cent. on the total deposits of the Savings Bank, amounting to six and a half millions, to manage these funds. Un to six or eight months ago the Savings Bank was costing the Department in the way of interest and management 3½ per cent. Now that the rate of interest throughout the world had been raised by causes for which nobody here was responsible, the time probably had arrived when the rate in the Savings Bank generally, as well as on certificates should be increased to 3½per cent.—(hear, hear)—but the matter should not be rushed. If there was a change in the money market and the rate went back to 3½ per cent. they would be paying too much. At any rate, he agreed that the hon. member for George had made out a strong case for an increase of the rate of interest on certificates. He still thought that the Savings Bank was in a healthy condition. They had an increase in 1912 of over 14,000 depositors, as compared with 1911. It was true that money invested in certificates had been withdrawn, but he supposed that people with £200 to £1,000 were just as much alive to the advantages offered by the outside market as anybody in that House. As to the points raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg and the charges for carrying printed catalogues, the whole matter was being looked into. He thought, however, that the meaning attached to “Agricultural Post ” had gone rather far. He should not have gone so far as to accept boots as “agricultural produce.” With regard to the question of telephone extension mentioned by the hon. member for Middelburg, that was a very big question, involving very large expenditure. He hoped, if they were in funds during the next financial year, to place the money on the Estimates. As to the high rate charged for parcels post, he would go into that matter with the formidable deputation which was to wait on him shortly with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, at its head.

As to the points raised by the hon. member for Cape Town Castle, he (Sir Thomas) had always heard that the Postmaster-General was a most accessible man. He had not such a low opinion of that official as to believe that he could not see if the men under him were not presenting cases to him in all their fullness. He (Sir Thomas) had met some of these gentlemen, and he was sure they were incapable of keeping back anything in connection with any man’s case that ought to be brought forward. As to the necessity of the men in the general body marking time for five years at £250 a year, the reason for that was that there were not so many important posts as the officials wanted. If salaries were increased all round, and post offices were established wherever they were asked for and telegraphs and telephones extended whenever requested, the department would be in a bankrupt state. The department recognised that it was its duty to serve the public as economically and efficiently as possible On the other hand, the employees were continually asking for Promotion and higher salaries, and rightly so, because it would be unfortunate if they were all inclined to mark time; he did not blame them for seeking to better their position. The Government had to hold the balance evenly between the public and the employees. As to the men who were remaining stationary in the £250 a year grade, he was sorry he could not hold out any hope that any difference would be made in reference to their present position. In course of time they would go to £300 a year, and he was hoping that they would go to still higher positions. The practice with regard to leave was uniform. But it would be impossible for the relief staff to fill all the posts that would be vacated if leave were granted whenever it was asked for, and he regretted that men were kept waiting for leave. However, the whole question of leave regulations was now engaging the attention of the Public Service Commission and the Government. The Postmaster-General did not seek to stand between any officials who wished to go to the Public Service Commission, and all cases were forwarded to the Commission, if requested, except one case of an altercation between a postal and railway official. A large number of men had qualified in technical subjects, and it was the intention of the department to place as many of them as possible, but the openings were limited In regard to the question of compiling a seniority list, as suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), he really did not know whether the hon. member meant seniority in service or salary. The policy of the department was to look upon the man who was receiving the higher pay, without local allowance, as the senior man, and they did not want to publish a seniority list by which they might give the impression that promotion could only be made on the ground of seniority. (Hear, hear.) As hon. members knew, merit ought to be taken into account—and that was done. (Hear, hear.) Some members had referred to the Postal and Telegraph Clerks Association, and had asked that official recognition should be given to this Association. Well, he supposed that was a body to some extent like a Trades Union, composed of gentlemen in the postal department, who wanted to further their own interests. (No, no.) This matter had been brought to his notice only this afternoon, and his opinion was that these gentlemen had every right and every facility to approach the immediate head of their department. They could also approach the Postmaster-General, the Civil Service Commission and the Minister, and with the information which he had so far before him he did not feel disposed at the present moment to raise this to the standing desired by these gentlemen. (Hear, hear.) In regard to another point raised as to the position of postmen and their chance of promotion, he was all in favour of giving qualified men who were postmen every chance of getting up to a higher grade, but immediately they brought postmen into the general body of postal officials they would give a grievance to the men who were under them—men who had started at £90 a year. These men would naturally have a grievance if men coming from outside were put over them and paid higher salaries. A number of hon. members had asked for telephone extension, and he would avail himself of this opportunity of telling the House on what principles the department proceeded in erecting telephone lines.

With regard to the extension of telephone trunk lines, the lines on which the Government proceeded were that when a line was proposed and it was shown that there was a reasonable probability of its paying this year or within a few years, its construction was taken in hand as soon as the money for it was available but, on the other hand, if the department found that the line was not likely to pay, the Government asked the people concerned for a guarantee of about 12 per cent., representing the interest on the capital cost, depreciation and maintenance. The hon. member for Durban, Central, referred to the desirability of receiving night telegrams at any time. That was a very good suggestion. But he thought a small extra charge should be made for every late message received before five o’ clock. The hon. member for Boshof referred to a telephone line to Dealsville. The Department recognised that that place should be connected telephonically. It might be said that they were spending more money in the East of the Orange Free State than in the West; but a large part of the expenditure in the eastern portion was on account of the trunk line from the Cape to the Transvaal. The hon. member for Umlazi was anxious for the introduction of cheaper telegrams. Well, the present system did not pay, and he did not see how they would gain by 6d. telegrams. He also had to remember that they had these night telegrams. The hon. member for Springs felt aggrieved because the Public Service Commission received reports from the Postmaster-General, and did not act on its own initiative. He also complained that the postmen in the suburbs received less pay than the men in the town. It was true. Most of those men were coloured men, did very good work, and were well satisfied.

Oh, no, they are not.

said he would inquire into the complaint that postmen worked fourteen hours a day. The hon. member for Fauresmith drew attention to the fact that when openings occurred in the Free State men were brought in from outside. Well, it was the object of the Department to have one Service, and under that arrangement men in the Free State had a better chance than before Union, because they had a bigger service now and larger scope. The old Free State postal service before Union was very small. The service must be treated as one, and the Free State men would be considered when promotions were made. He did not think there was anything to complain of. He thought he had covered all the points, and hoped the vote would pass.

said he had left himself open to an attack, and the opening had at once been seized. He would say again that he had sufficient information to prove to the hilt all that he had said. He could have kept the House for hours with the cases he could have gone into. He did not give names because he would have put some men into a bad position. The Minister said, also, that he spoke from one side only. Well, the Minister did likewise. But the advantage was with the Minister, because he had officials to help him. The Minister very kindly suggested that if he (the hon. member) gave him the information he would inquire into it. He had thought of that himself, but had come to the conclusion that he had better not do it. Why did the Minister not deal with the most important point of all; the point of the Public Service Commission’s report? The hon. member for George had made a very lame attempt to deal with it. He had, quoted from the report that he was told by the hon. member for George that it was so much red tape. What would the other officials do when they had a gross violation of the law by the Postmaster-General himself. Other departments came under the Act, why should not he? Would the understanding have been come to supposing that the Commission had not reported on the subject. He thought not. He thought that it was unfair to refer to the work of the Commission as red tape. Another significant thing was that the Commission spoke of “partiality.” Why was that word used? Then he repeated that some wrong and partly wrong answers had been given to questions asked by members. He would again refer to the Postmaster-General. He had said nothing against the Postmaster-General. He had laid no charge against his ability or honesty. He had referred to the report of the Public Service Commission. It did not matter to him if the Postmaster-General was the most capable Postmaster-General that ever lived, if he was going to refuse to be ruled by that House he ought to go. If Parliament were to be flouted in this fashion, the thing must come to an end. The Postmaster-General had no right to take up the attitude he had taken in this matter.

complained that the matter he had raised had not been dealt with by the Minister in his reply. That was evidently because the speaker had spoken in Dutch, and although he understood English he intended to continue to use the Dutch language.

said he had replied to points raised by several Dutch-speaking members, and he had not replied to the hon. member for Pretoria District, South, because he did not see him in the House. He went on to give a detailed explanation as to the reasons for the change in the housing of the Hekpoort Post Office. Proceeding, he said that the hon. member for Troyeville had made a kind of apology for his references to the Postmaster-General. The hon. member for Troyeville had used the words “disgusting and disgraceful conduct.”

“No, I didn’ t.” (Cries of “order.”) In my first speech I did not use those words with regard to the Postmaster-General, but of the department.

I am very glad that the hon. member has in a lame way withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I have not withdrawn anything.

said there was no difficulty whatever in carrying out the Public Service Act, but although certain appointments were made without consulting the Public Service Commission, there was no desire to flout it, appointments having been made in the same way that they were made prior to Union.

said Ministers should not forget that on the Estimates was not the right time to make use of pin-pricks. They could do that when they were replying on a second reading debate, when no one could follow them. As to the hon. Minister who stood for one party and then joined another—

Withdraw!

“You are just the same.” The difficulty is that these converts are so frightfully zealous. Proceeding, Sir Percy said he desired to refer to the 110 officials of the Post and Telegraph Department who were retained in Cape Town when they should have been transferred to Pretoria. Was the duty of seeing that the Act of Union was carried out to be thrown on to a private member? He would like to ask the Minister when those officers were going to be transferred to Pretoria, how long ago it was he found they should have been transferred, but were not, and how many more there were?

replied that the men could not be transferred to Pretoria yet, because the buildings were not ready for occupation. Most of the officials who had to go to Pretoria would go there in the next three or four months.

said he would like to point out it was two years since he first raised that question. There seemed to be an extraordinary reluctance to do what was laid down in the Act of Union should be done.

The amendment was negatived.

On sub-vote (c), Uniforms, £6,700,

drew the Minister’s attention to the unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to the delivery of uniforms. There were cases where men had had to wait not only months but years. And then when they got them they often found that the uniform did not fit or were entirely unsuited to the climate of their districts. In the past the cost of unform in Natal had been about 30s. He asked the Minister if he would pay a little more attention to the issue of uniforms throughout the Union. He said that the summer uniforms in Natal were a step in the right direction, but they were far from the ideal. He also thought that every member of a staff should be supplied with a uniform. He felt sure that the matter only required a little attention.

The sub-head was agreed to.

asked the Minister whether he was satisfied that in entering into a contract with the Union-Castle Company he was not violating clause 6 of the Post Office Act. The Select Committee’s evidence showed that the Union-Castle Company had entered into a coal combine and had got pretty well the controlling interest. It was a question whether the Union-Castle Co. were not acting adversely to the interests of the trade of South Africa. The hon. member quoted from the evidence given before the Select Committee as to the effect of the “combine. ”

said the matter was being very closely watched, and would not be lost sight of.

What circumstances would, in the opinion of the Minister’s colleagues, justify action. (Laughter.) It certainly appears that the combine is collaring the coal trade of South Africa. If it is not a combine to-day, when does it become one?

replied that, before the Government would dream of taking action, they would take the best legal advice obtainable.

suggested the establishment of motor-car services.

said South Africa was threatened with a combination of shipowners, which was trying to hold the combination together, by compelling the shippers to sign a contract to ship only by their steamers. A good many shippers had refused to sign, and threats had been held out that a time would come when their cargo would be excluded. Another point was that, in this morning’s paper, an article appeared, from which it was evident that they were going to raise the rates of freight, and were going to differentiate. That was, without the slightest doubt, a contravention of the law. They had taken steps now to form a combination, and they were to keep it together by, at present, asking shippers to sign, but later on they would bring pressure to bear on them.

suggested that the Government consult the views of the Minister without Portfolio, because he said they were going to have a free market.

said that though they carried cattle free and reduced the rates on some things, but on other things that the people wanted the rates were to be raised.

said this matter of the coal combine was a very important one and it ought to be thoroughly discussed, but not now with an empty House. Would the Minister accept a motion to report progress?

said he could assure the hon. member that what he had said to the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, was the safe point. The Government were watching this thing very carefully indeed, and they were going to see that the law was not broken. They were taking legal advice on the subject, but he did not think it necessary to go into the whole subject at present, and he hoped the hon. member would not hang up the vote. In replying to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, he thought that hon. member would agree that it was quite impossible for the Government to take any definite action as things stood at present.

said he would leave the matter now, but would raise it on the Estimates of the vote of the Minister of Railways and Harbours

The report of the Select Committee is on the Order Paper. (Laughter.)

So are lots of others. (Laughter.)

also hoped that an opportunity would be given of discussing the matter.

The sub-head was agreed to.

Sub-head F, Subsidy to cable company, £8,825,

said that the Government had been in communication with the Imperial Government in connection with the erection of a high power wireless station in the vicinity of Pretoria. But until the Imperial Government had made its arrangements they were unable to do anything.

The sub-head was agreed to.

Sub-head K, Postage stamps, £7,000,

called attention to the question of the sale of postage stamps and the discontinuance of the payment of commission.

replied that it was quite true that the Government had ceased to pay commission on the sale of postage stamps, but in the case of postal officials the commission had been added to their emoluments. If there was a case of inconvenience to the public, he would look into it.

The sub-head was agreed to.

Sub-head O, Incidental expenses, £3,775,

moved to delete the item of “Subsidy to Reuter’s, £500.” He said he looked upon this as a waste of public money. It was put down simply for the purpose of giving Ministers a kind of advanced copy of cablegrams which were published in the afternoon papers.

asked for information with regard to the item of £500, Compensation under the Workman’s Compensation Acts?

said that the subsidy of £500 to Reuter’s was an old-standing item. It used to be voted by the Cape Parliament for many years, until the stress of times came. In the Transvaal it was customary for years to make a grant for the same service. The Government was simply continuing the practice that had existed prior to Union. As to the workmen’s compensation, that was paid to linesmen and others.

said the payment to Reuter’s was a piece of extravagance, and there was no necessity for it. What good were the cables to the departments?

They may be very useful.

What do heads of Departments want to know—what has won the Derby? (Laughter.)

said it was absurd to pay £500 a year to know that Lady So-and-So gave a dance last night, and what the Suffragettes had been doing lately. The High Commissioner in London could cable any important information.

“What would that cost?”

I should say that the amount of real information necessary could be sent for less than £500 a year.

The amendment was negatived.

The sub-head was agreed to.

moved to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

Leave was granted to sit again on Monday.

moved the second reading of the Excise and Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. He said there was nothing of a contentious nature in the Bill. He wanted to take the second reading so as to be able to put some amendments on the paper.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for Committee stage on Tuesday next.