from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Pietermaritzburg, in favour of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill.

from the inhabitants of Riebeek Kasteel and surrounding district, for railway communication with Hermon.

from the inhabitants of Kakamas Labour Colony, for extension of railway line from Prieska to Kakamas (two petitions).

from growers of Turkish tobacco in the western districts of the Cape Province, praying that the House may inquire into the existing state of the tobacco industry (ten petitions).

from J. N. Schonken, teacher, for condonation of a break in his service.

from the widow of A. R. Strauss, who was employed in the Native Affairs Department of the Transvaal, for relief.

from A. Caesar, a baker, who, after having been sentenced at the Criminal Session held at Cape Town, in 1912, to hard labour for ten years, received a free pardon, but has since suffered physically and financially from the sentence, praying the House to grant him relief.

from J. F. Cairns, Postmaster, for condonation of a break in his service.

from registered voters in Heilbron, for the extension of the Wolvehoek-Heilbron railway line to the town of Lindley and thence to Lindley-road (seven petitions).

Treasury Reports upon Petitions presented by Miss Levine Hendriette Samuelson and Miss Elspeth Wilson.

These were referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

Return (in part) of petitions, resolutions, telegrams, papers, and correspondence dealing with the services of Sergeant Purden as Public Prosecutor at Newcastle and with the appointment of his successor.

asked the Minister of Lands how many persons of South African birth have been settled on the land by the present Government since the inception of Union?

No record has been kept of the nationality of settlers to whom Crown lands have been allotted since Union under pre-Union Acts and Regulations. It would involve considerable labour in ascertaining the information, as it would necessitate reference to the application of each person to whom land was allotted. I therefore propose to confine myself to giving information in respect of the allotments in terms of the Land Settlement Act, 1912, which in my opinion may be regarded as giving a fair indication of the relative proportions as between South Africans and other persons to whom Crown land has been allotted since Union. The figures for Act No. 12 of 1912 are as follows: Under Section 11: 89 South Africans out of 170 allottees; Under Section 16: 165 South Africans out of 200 allottees. The totals, therefore, are 254 South Africans out of 317 allottees. These figures include all allotments under the Act to the 13th instant.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries whether any riot or disturbance took place in De Beers Mining Compounds during last year, and, if so (a) what was the occasion and nature of such occurrence; (b) what was the number of casualties, killed or injured; (c) did such casualties occur amongst free labourers or convicts; and (d) are such convicts controlled by employees of De Beers Company or by police entirely under the Government?

In reply to (a) (b) and (c) a disturbance occurred at the Du Toits Pan Convict Outstation on Sunday, June 22, 1913. The disturbance was caused by certain convicts, members of a Native Criminal Society known as the “Ninevites, ” who overpowered and stabbed a fellow-convict, an ex-official of their Society, who was suspected of having turned informer. The murderer was roughly handled by the convicts favourable to the deceased, but was well enough to attend court five days later. Other arrests were made without casualty and four convicts were subsequently convicted and hanged for murder. (d) The cost of maintenance and administration in respect of the convicts employed by De Beers is met by the De Beers Company; but the Superintendent and Assistant-Superintendent are Civil Servants appointed and paid by Government—the Company making a contribution to the Consolidated Revenue Fund equivalent to their salaries. The Government officials in charge also have a veto on behalf of Government on the appointment of other officers paid by the Company who are sworn in as constables. Weekly visits of inspection are made by the Magistrate of Kimberley.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government intend to abandon or to reduce the establishment at Tweespruit, in the Orange Free State; and, if so, what are the reasons?

It is the intention of the Government to discontinue the keeping and breeding of horses for stud purposes, consequently the Tweespruit Stud Farm will cease to be conducted as such. The reason for discontinuing the stud farms is that they were very expensive to maintain, and owing to the mail contract and the growth of private studs, farmers are now in a position to obtain stallions at a reasonable cost on their own account. The experimental work hitherto carried on at Tweespruit will be transferred to the Glen. I hope to arrange for the farm to be maintained by the Provincial Council as a farm training school for poor white boys.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether he is aware (a) that 90 tons or more of fruit (about 60 tons of which passed the Government Inspector) was shut out of the mail steamer sailing for Southampton on Saturday, 14th March; (b) that this has happened repeatedly this season; and (c) that this is having a detrimental effect on trade, particularly of softer kinds of fruit which only have a limited power of keeping in first-rate condition in cold storage; and (2) whether the Government have given, or intend to give, the necessary notice to the Shipping Company to increase the cold storage accommodation for next season, especially in view of the increased export, not only from the Western Province, but of pines from Natal and the Eastern Province?

(1) On four occasions fruit has been excluded from the mail steamer owing to lack of space. It is obvious that fruit does not improve by keeping. (2) I am endeavouring to ascertain from the fruitgrowers what space is likely to be required for the shipment of fruit next season, and as soon as I hear from them, representations will be made to the Union-Castle Company.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that exsignalman Richardson, of Greyville, who was arrested and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment by a military officer at Durban, during Martial Law, appeared before the Strike Inquiry Committee, which recently sat at Durban, expecting he would have an opportunity of answering any charges which might be brought against him; (2) whether the Minister is aware that the committee told Richardson that as he did not go on strike they could not inquire into his case; and (3) whether the Minister will, in justice to Richardson, cause an inquiry to be made into his case, either by a magistrate or an Inquiry Board?

(1) My attention has been drawn to the circumstances in this case. (2) Yes; Richardson did not go out on strike, and his case was not one with which it was competent for the Strike Inquiry Committee to deal. (3) A departmental inquiry was held at the time, and the Administration is satisfied there was no ground for stopping the engine, as was done by Richardson. It is not, therefore, proposed to re-open the case.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) How many persons were sentenced to death during 1913 (a) for murder, (b) for rape, and (c) for attempted rape. (2) what were the respective dates (a) of conviction, and (b) of the execution of sentence of death; and (3) was there any undue delay in carrying out any execution, and, if so, why?

(1) (a) 56; (b) 2; (c) 0. In 27 of these cases the sentences were confirmed.

(2)

(3) After considering the circumstances of each case, I do not think there was any undue delay in carrying out any of the executions. The longest delays were due to appeals or petitions made on behalf of the condemned men.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries: (1) Whether there are any mines on the Witwatersrand which are working three eight hour shifts per day with a blast at the end of each shift; (2) if so, which mines; (3) what arrangements, if any, are made by these mines for clearing away the smoke and dust resulting from such blasting; and (4) if smoke and dust are not removed, what steps does he propose taking to prevent loss of life among those men, white and black, who have to work under such conditions?

(1) The reply is in the affirmative. (2) In the Randfontein Central, Crown Mines, City Deep, and West Rand Consolidated, three shifts are used in sinking one shaft in each mine. (3) The dust and fumes are cleared within a few minutes by ventilation.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make inquiry into the circumstances of the trial and conviction of one Jacob Green, on the 17th January, 1914, for disobeying police orders, with the view of discovering the truth or otherwise of the allegation that he was ordered to drive his cab through a meeting of women on Benoni Market square, and whether he will report the result of such inquiry to the House?

Inquiry has been made by me into the circumstances of the trial and conviction of Jacob Green. I find that there is no truth in the allegation that he was ordered to drive his cab through a meeting of women on Benoni Market-square. He was charged on the 17th January, 1914, before the Assistant Magistrate of Benoni, with obstructing a policeman in the execution of his duty, in that, when engaged as a cab driver by Constable Grosvenor, to enable the said constable to effect an arrest, he drove away and disregarded the order, whereby the ends of justice were defeated. According to the evidence given at the trial by Constable Grosvenor, there was a crowd of women at the corner of Market square, Benoni, on the 16th January, 1914, and the authorities decided to arrest two of these women. For this purpose, the cab was engaged to convey the persons arrested, but instead of pulling up at the corner of the square, as he was ordered to do, the accused drove away. The women were all on the pavement. The accused, who was fined £1, or three days’ imprisonment with hard labour, gave evidence on his own behalf. He admitted that he had received the order from the police, but stated that he did not mean to disobey the police, and made no allegation of any order being given to him to drive his cab through a meeting of women.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the conduct and acts of Lieutenant Jordaan, an officer in the Defence Force, who, it is alleged, was guilty of insubordination and violence at Nelspruit shortly after the proclamation of Martial Law, and whose conduct and acts were calculated to lead to a serious racial conflict and to bloodshed?

The Commandant-General has already inquired carefully into this case, and in the exercise of the disciplinary powers vested in him, has disposed of it.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the contract in connection with the Post Office at Greylingstad?

A memorandum on the subject is being laid on the Table of the House.

The memorandum was as follows: An offer made by Mr. Campbell to let an office at Greylingstad for a period of two years at an annual, rental of £30 was accepted by the Government, and as a result the attached agreement was sent to Mr. Campbell for signature. It was duly signed by him, but was not completed by the Public Works Department in consequence of a fire occurring in the building proposed to be hired. Subsequent to this letter, a copy of which is attached, was sent to Mr. Campbell by the Public Works Department, binding the Government to rent premises from him for a period of two years, subject to certain alterations being made with a view to giving greater accommodation than was originally proposed. A new lease is in course of preparation, and will run for a period of two years as from the 1st March, 1914.

“Department of Public Works,

“ Office of the District Engineer,

“ Johannesburg. ” “18th March, 1914.

“ Sir,—In confirmation the verbal statements I made to you at Greylingstad on the 16th instant, I have to inform you that Government accepts your offer to rebuild the above premises in accordance with plan and particulars forwarded by you and to let them on a lease for a period of two years with the option of renewal for one year thereafter at a rental of £42 per annum, and further as Postal Department have been in occupation of these premises since the 1st March, 1914, the lease will commence from that date. A lease will be drawn up and forwarded for your signature in due course.—I have the honour, etc., —, District Engineer.”

asked the Minister of Justice whether he is aware that towards the end of 1912 or the beginning of 1913 a complaint was lodged against a native employee in the Telegraph Department by the owner of the farm Kopje Alleen, district of Standerton, the charge against the said native being one of trespass, in that he passed through the wire fence of the said farm without permission of the owner, but that the Attorney-General of the Transvaal refused to prosecute in respect of this charge, and, if so, what were the reasons for such refusal?

I believe the facts stated by the hon. member are correct. By section 139 of the South Africa Act all powers relating to the prosecution of offences are vested in the Attorney-General, who is not bound to give his reasons for refusing to prosecute in any particular case.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether he is aware that it is very difficult for the public to obtain copies of reports of Commissions and other Government publications, and whether he will cause steps to be taken to ensure that such publications shall be easily obtainable by the public?

I am not aware that there is any difficulty. The publications in question are held for sale by the Government Printing and Stationery Department, and any inquiry to that department, either verbally or by letter, receives prompt attention. In addition, the principal libraries throughout the Union are supplied gratis with these publications for the convenience of the reading public.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries: (1) What is the number of claims held by the Rand Mining Groups which are not being worked with the object of extracting minerals, and what is the amount paid to the Government in licence money by each group in respect of such claims; (2) are any of these claims being worked agriculturally, and by whom; (3) is any squatting existing on any such claims; and, if so (4) what is the total number of squatters, and what is the income derived by each group from such source?

(1) Claims are registered in the names of individuals and companies and not under groups. A compilation of the full return asked for would involve an immense amount of labour and would not be of value. The Government is aware that large numbers of claims are not being worked. To insist on working or on heavier taxation where conditions as regards capital or development are unfavourable would result in abandonment of claims and loss of revenue to the country. (2) With the exception of certain old agricultural leases on Klippoortje, the answer is in the negative. (3) The answer is in the negative. Validations of small existing occupations have been made from time to time under section 76 of the Gold Law.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is a fact that railway servants are not allowed to have three months’ holiday on full pay unless they are going to Europe or oversea, and, if so, what is the objection to a person spending his holiday in his own country if he does not desire to proceed oversea?

Employees entitled to and granted extended leave of absence can spend their holidays wherever they choose. Many years ago the Cape Government granted extended leave to a limited extent to certain daily paid employees to enable them to visit Europe, but the stipulation that the leave must be spent oversea was subsequently withdrawn. The original instructions issued, after the taking effect of the new Staff Regulations, embodying the conditions under which this special leave was still obtainable specified that it was granted for the purpose of proceeding oversea; but this restriction has since been removed.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report appearing in the “Cape Times” of the 16th instant, headed “Dishonesty in the Public Service,” in which Mr. Walton, a Magistrate in Pretoria, is alleged to have said: (a) “That he could not but hold the opinion that the standard of honesty in certain branches of the Service was disappointingly low”; (b) “That he could not give a prison warder a suspended sentence in view of the necessity of doing what was possible to re-establish the standard of honesty which should prevail”; and (2) whether such remarks were actually made by the Magistrate, and, if so, whether there was any justification for making them?

(1) My attention has been drawn to the statement and the remarks made by the Magistrate referred to. (2) I have inquired into the matter and find that the Press report of his remarks is substantially correct. However, as I find that during the last year out of a total of 5,237 policemen there were only 19 cases of dishonesty, equivalent to point three per cent., and in the Prisons Service out of a total Force of 2,225 there were only four cases, equivalent to point two per cent., I hardly consider the Magistrate’s remarks were warranted by the facts.

asked the Minister of Lands whether the existing weir at Douglas answers all purposes for impounding and storing sufficient water in the Vaal River for irrigating the lands of Douglas throughout the year, and, if so, will there be sufficient water obtainable from the same source for irrigating the proposed lands to be laid out on the Bucklands Estate acquired by the Government; if not, what steps does the Government intend taking so as to ensure a constant and regular supply of water for irrigating purposes at all seasons of the year to the lands of Douglas and Bucklands?

The reply to the hon. member’s question is in the affirmative.

asked the Minister of Justice whether any children are confined in the gaols of the Union on account of their mothers being prisoners; if so, how many are European and how many are non-European, and what are their respective ages?

The instruction issued is that when the mother is confined in prison she is allowed to take her child while at the breast in with her. At the present moment there are no European infants, but 40 coloured infants in gaol. The respective ages are: Two of 7 days, one of 10 days, one of 6 weeks, five of 2 months, two of 3 months, three of 4 months, two of 5 months, one of 6 months, five of 7 months, four of 8 months, seven of 9 months, three of 10 months, three of 12 months, one of 16 months, one of 18 months, one of 2 years, one of 26 months, one of 30 months, and one of 4 years. I am inquiring into the last four cases.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware of the great inconvenience caused to the travelling public on the Port Elizabeth-Avontuur railway by not having coaches with lavatories; and whether he will have the necessary coaches placed on the trains, seeing how necessary it is to have them for through journeys to Humansdorp and Avontuur and vice versa, the through journey occupying about seven hours from Port Elizabeth to Humansdorp. and from Humansdorp to Avontuur about eleven hours?

While I am at one with the hon. member for Humansdorp in regard to the advantage of coaches fitted with lavatories where long journeys are involved, I am assured that everything possible is done on this line to minimise any inconvenience that may result from the absence of coaches so equipped. There are conveniences for both sexes at a number of stations on the Avontuur line, and ample time is allowed at such stations. It should be borne in mind that a 2 ft. gauge line does not readily admit of the same facilities being provided for the comfort of passengers as lines of the standard gauge. The same type of coach has been in use on the Avontuur railway since it was opened seven years ago, and to make the necessary structural alterations on these coaches would entail considerable expense. A substantial loss is incurred annually in the working of this line and I cannot at present promise to do more than bring the matter to the notice of the Administration, and arrange to have inquiries made with the view of ascertaining whether anything can be done, at a reasonable cost, to lessen the inconvenience complained of.

asked the Minister of Finance whether he will cause an investigation to be undertaken of the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund, with a view to determining whether the position of the fund does not justify an increase in the benefits given thereunder?

I am prepared to cause the investigation desired by the honourable member to be made.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether his attention has been directed to a letter which appeared in “Ons Land ” on 26th February last, regarding certain inconveniences and irregularities to which passengers to Olifant’s River are subjected at Graafwater; (2) whether any, and what steps have been taken to remedy the inconveniences and stop the irregularities complained of; and (3) whether it is not possible to arrange that through passengers to Olifant’s River need not change to other carriages on their arrival at Graafwater, and that the train go through to Olilant’s River, instead of staying at Graafwater overnight?

(1) My attention has been drawn to the letter in question, and while certain statements contained therein are not borne out by the investigations which have been made, the charge of rowdyism on the part of a number of passengers—mostly natives—is substantiated. (2) The occasion to which attention has been directed was quite an isolated one; but conduct of such a nature should not have been permitted on railway premises, and such action will be taken as will prevent a repetition. (3) The extension beyond Graafwater has not yet been finally completed. The first section was opened for traffic in November last, and a further section in January, and it was not considered advisable to introduce night running over the new sections immediately on completion. Arrangements are, however, now being made for a through service, to operate from the 6th proximo.

asked the Minister of the Interior what steps have been taken in connection with the petition presented to this House on 7th May, 1913, praying that some fit and proper person may be appointed as a marriage officer in the Province of Natal, for the solemnisation of marriages of persons professing the Mohammedan faith?

I am not aware that any formal request has been advanced by the Mohammedan community in Natal for the appointment of Mohammedan marriage officers under the provisions of Natal Law No. 19 of 1881. There have been one or two isolated inquiries on the subject from individual priests, but they were held over pending a general consideration of Asiatic questions in Natal.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries: (1) Whether he is aware that a circular has been issued prohibiting the sale of golden syrup to natives and coloured people working on the mines; and, if so (2) whether timely notice was given to shopkeepers dealing in golden syrup to enable them to dispose of their supplies; and, if not (3) whether he will take into consideration the desirability of having the circular so amended that dealers in golden syrup may have an opportunity to dispose of their stock before the circular is put into force; and (4) whether in future the interest of shopkeepers in matters of this kind will be taken into consideration?

Very short notice of this question has been given. I shall be in a position to furnish a reply later if the hon. member will allow the question to stand down for the present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) How many sheep conveyed to Johannesburg from stations and sidings between De Aar and Kimberley and between De Aar and Prieska were placed in quarantine in Johannesburg between the 1st July, 1913, and the 31st December, 1913; (2) how many persons were prosecuted in connection with sheep placed in quarantine as above; (3) how many of them were found guilty and sentenced; (4) what was the amount paid in fines by the convicted persons; (5) what did the Government expenses in connection with the above prosecutions amount to; (6) how many farmers were prosecuted because they allowed the sheep, subsequently placed in quarantine as above, to be removed from their farms; and (7) what has the Government done to protect farmers living along the trekpaths against the infected sheep which are driven overland?

From the 1st July to 31st December, 1913, the following numbers of infected sheep were placed in quarantine in Johannesburg: from stations and sidings between De Aar and Kimberley (both stations included), 16,218; from stations and sidings between De Aar and Prieska, 7,603; (2) 33 persons; (3) 12 persons; (4) £65; (5) the costs in connection with those prosecutions amounted to £42 19s. 6d., being witnesses’ expenses; (6) no one; (7) in such cases the Owner was directed to clean by hand at once all obviously infected sheep, and to send the whole herd to the nearest public dipping tank, whereafter they were either sent back to the infected district from which they came, or else placed in quarantine in the nearest pound. The owner was then prosecuted.

of the Land Bank Act, 1912, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 3rd March, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

Tho motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petition from D. S. Schrader and 67 others, inhabitants of the north-west districts of the Cape Province, praying that during the present session legislation may be introduced and the necessary funds voted for abstracting water from the Orange Riverat Buchuberg, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 10th March, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petition from G. A. Kolbe, and 41 others praying for the remission of repatriation debts or for other relief, presented to this House on the 11th March 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petitions from W. Glasson and 55 others, O. Hirschman and 96 others, J. J. Marais and 30 others, and Dr. W. Lutz and 161 others—inhabitants of the district of Lindley—and the petitions from H. I. J. J. van Rensburg and 20 others, and C. J. van der Merwe and nine others—inhabitants of the district of Bethlehem, praying for the extension of the Wolvehoek-Heilbron railway line to the town of Lindley and thence to Lindley Road, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 4th March, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

Agreed to.

moved: “That the report of the Public Service Commission laid on the Table of the House on the 25th of February, 1914, be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers,” the mover said it was not the first time that hon. members on his side of the House had drawn attention to a state of affairs that was very regrettable. In 1912 the right hon. the member for Albany moved with regard to the Public Service. On that occasion he did not have the sympathy and support they hoped for from hon. members on the other side. They thought they would have received some consideration from hon. members on the other side, and if not from them, then from hon. members on the cross-benches. On that occasion they found the votes of the House against them, while the members on the cross-benches were also against them. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Durban, Point, but that was also rejected. Since then a Public Service Commission had been appointed, and the report, which he had in his hand, disclosed a most serious condition of affairs. He did not want to traverse the whole of the report or prejudice the case which the committee would have to consider, but he thought it was necessary to draw the attention of the House to two or three of the important points with which that report was concerned. The object of the Public Service and Pensions Act was to define the conditions under which the public service should be controlled, and the duties and powers of the Commission of three that had been appointed. Differences had arisen as to what those powers and duties were, and one thing necessary was that the House should amend the Act in order to define quite clearly where the duties and powers of the Commission began and where the duties and powers of the departments began and ended. There were a good many legal intricacies involved, and until the evidence of the members of the Commission and the heads of departments was taken, it was practically impossible to judge between them as to who was right and who was wrong. There had been considerable friction, and fiction of a character that involved two departments, the Commission and the Provincial Administration. There was a difference of opinion between the Treasury and the Department of the Interior, both of which happened to be controlled by his hon. friend the Minister of Finance The Minister had a great deal more to do than could reasonably be expected of one man—duties thrust upon him owing to the exigencies of Government work. There was a fight between both these departments and the Commission. Who was right and who was wrong it was difficult to say.

Then again, on page 8 of the report, difficulties were found between the Commission and the Provincial Administration. The law as it stood undoubtedly had been broken on two points. The first was the question of the promotion examination provided for in section 7, and which was fixed to take place in December, 1913. He believed that examination caused a considerable amount of excitement among senior officers, so much so that regulations carefully considered and promulgated were amended by a Government notice in June, 1913, amended again by a Government notice on the 15th September, amended again by a further notice in that month, and finally cancelled by a further Government notice. If there was that regrettable objection to any promotion examination, surely it must have been brought early to the notice of the Government, and he did not think that what had happened redounded to the credit of the Government. Indeed he did not think that these things redounded to the credit of either the Commission or the Government. The law had been broken, though it might have been broken by necessity and with the best intentions. But there was another instance where the law was not broken of necessity or with good result. On page 9 of the report there was a statement by the Commission, in which attention was drawn to a distinct violation of section 68 of the Public Service and Pensions Act, in the appointment of an officer who was promoted from first grade clerk to the post of senior clerk, in defiance of the recommendation of the Commission, which was particularly charged under section 68 with the duty of appointing and promoting officers. In order to avoid the proper exercise of the powders that this House had placed in the hands of the Commission, the Government created a new grade in the Department of the Interior, to which they appointed a clerk who had been in the position of inferior grade—from first-grade clerk to the post of senior clerk which had been created. The Commission said: “The Commission believe that no steps have been taken to rectify the illegality.” He (Colonel Crewe) believed that no steps had been taken to rectify the matter. The Commission went on: “So far as this officer’s personal claims to promotion are concerned, the Commission must state that he first entered the Cape Civil Service on the 28th December, 1903, at £120 per annum. At the date of Union he was in receipt of £219 per annum. This was increased to £239 in August, 1911, and in April, 1912, to £280 per annum, when he was promoted to a first-grade clerkship. His illegal promotion to a senior clerkship, with a commencing salary of £380 per annum, had effect from 1st August, 1913.”

That officer had been singularly fortunate, and he did not think anyone begrudged him his promotion; but the whole attitude adopted was to get the powers definitely set forth in clause 68 of the Public Service Act taken away from the Public Service Commission, to enable the Government to promote a particular individual over the heads of a large number of his fellows. Referring to page 9 of the report, the hon. member quoted: “The Commissioners do not wish to question the efficiency of this officer in any way. He, doubtless, possesses all the qualifications necessary for the efficient performance of the duties of a senior clerk, but then so do many other officers, whose claims to promotion upon other grounds were in many cases stronger —(hear, hear) and in such circumstances as surround this case, how can it be expected that a very large number of highly-efficient and zealous officers of the service can rest satisfied that promotion is meted out with a fair and impartial hand?” Proceeding, Colonel Crewe said that it was unfortunate that the Government should have taken the line which they had taken, and gone past the Public Service Commission, or, rather, violated their distinct recommendations, because the Commissioners had distinctly recommended against that appointment as unnecessary, and the promotion of that individual in consequence. There were other cases, such as on page 7, and one had only to look there, where in fifteen cases the Commission disputed with the Government powers which the Government had taken to itself, which the Commission said it had been charged with. He was not going into that, because there were several cases in which it might reasonably be said that the Government was right, and other cases where the Commission was right. In some of them there was considerable doubt. As a member of the committee which had been appointed by the Government in 1912 to consider the Public Service and Pensions Act, he thought it would be fair for him to say that, as far as he could read and understand the report, there was no doubt that the Public Service Commission had an unwarranted desire to secure to itself greater powers than the Act had given it. Whether the fight had induced each side to grab as much as it could, he did not know, but the Public Service Commission had taken powers which Parliament had never given it, and had never intended to give it, under the Act of 1912. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan), who was also a member of the committee agreed with him that the object of the Act was to leave the question of promotion and selection in the hands of the Commissioners as an impartial body, but that it had been made consultative on other points, and certain normal expansion was left, naturally as it must be left, to the departments concerned to which they looked to govern the Civil Service and its affairs. What had been the results? A condition of affairs, to which they had drawn attention in 1912, which had gone from bad to worse. It was difficult to blame the Civil Service. They were a body of people whom they knew, a fairly long-suffering body in times of stress and trouble when retrenchment had been necessary, and when the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had, although he thought unwillingly, come down with a heavy hand on them and had prevented increases of salary, even then the Civil Service had recognised that it had to stand by the State in time of need, and no serious difficulty had been raised. The same thing had been the case during the period 1904-1908, when they (the Opposition) had been placed in the same position, when they had a falling revenue which they had had to balance with the expenditure. There had been no dissatisfaction; and when the right hon. member had come into power he weighed upon them with a still heavier hand, but they did not find the conditions that they found to-day, when they found telegrams leaking out—a thing which had never happened before. Who had ever heard that the Public Service Commission had been charged as one of its functions, with the hearing of grievances? The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, proceeded the hon. member, had referred grievances to the Commission, and had made a statement which led the Civil Servants to suppose that the Commission’s duty was to inquire into all grievances, but out of 50 cases from the Cape, 29 from the Transvaal, 23 from the Free State, and 7 from Natal, only four had been submitted to the Commission, and it had submitted its recommendations on those four only. What the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had led them to believe was that the grievances went past the Postmaster-General and past him (the Minister) to the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission had been used by one Minister, at least—possibly by others—as a means of escape, and used as a kind of buffer when he had not been prepared to deal straightforwardly with the grievances, and had referred them to the Public Service Commission to see how they could be got out of the way. That was how the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had made that entirely erroneous statement, and misled the public service of that country. There were Ministers in the Cabinet who would never make that statement, knowing what it meant and knowing what dissatisfaction it would lead to.

The hon. member went on to refer to an officer appointed in 1911 at a certain salary, and stated that if that officer was drawing the increments which he had been promised at that time he would now draw £280, but instead he was drawing £260, although he was in a higher grade, but he had drawn the less amount because he was not drawing his increments. Did they think that was likely to give satisfaction in the Civil Service? He (Colonel Crewe) could only express his sorrow that the attention of the House had to be called to it, but it was absolutely necessary in the interest of the country, apart from the interest of the Civil Service, because the work of the country could not be well done on those conditions. They had a dissatisfied Civil Service from A to Z, and the work of the country must suffer. No regulations had been issued to date under the Act, and yet the Act had been passed two years ago. He knew a number of Civil Servants who had studied hard for the examination, but where were they to-day? There had been no examination. The difficulty was how all these things were to be rectified. When they looked at the Commission itself, he regretted that the appointments had been made which had been made. The Chairman was a supporter of the right hon. gentleman (General Botha); he believed he was a very good man, and he passed over his name entirely. But the Government had selected two junior officials out of the department and put them on the Commission. One of the officers had no administrative knowledge, and had been a magistrate. That was not the point. That officer, he was sure, had done his very best, but that was not the question. The question was whether the very best men had been appointed, and he ventured to say that the best men had not been appointed to that Commission.

When they took a junior official out of the Department of Justice, and a comparatively junior official out of the Treasury, and put them on the Public Service Commission they were going to have friction, because these gentlemen were put in a superior capacity to the people under whom they had been trained. We had had a wretched muddle from beginning to end, and the Public Service and the interests of the country had suffered. Those who sat on the Opposition side of the House did not want to attack the Government on the question of the Public Service, for they would rather see the Government in a position of impregnability on this point, but when there were these unfortunate conditions it was the duty of the Opposition to bring the matter before the House. (Opposition cheers.) As to the names of the gentlemen on the Select Committee he was not responsible for them—(hear, hear)—but there were three for which the Opposition was responsible. He would prefer to see on the committee the Minister of Finance, because he had an intimate knowledge of what had taken place in the past. He was heartily glad to see the name of the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. Becker), because he knew the Public Service from top to bottom, but they would miss an hon. member who had sat in this House, the late member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long). (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) had also rendered valuable assistance on the Public Service Act Committee. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the Government would see that it ought to put the Minister of Finance on the Committee, and although his time was immensely occupied, without him the Committee would not be able to do the work which it would with him. He hoped the Committee would assist in altering the condition of things which was doing an immense amount of harm, not only in the Public Service but to the work of the country as well, and that as a result of their work the conditions of the service would be improved. (Cheers.)

said he rose at once to reply to the observations of the mover, in the hope that a long debate on this matter might be forestalled. The Government welcomed the motion. He thought the report entirely justified the House in asking an inquiry on the matters reported on by the Public Service Commission. If the hon. member (Colonel Crewe) had not moved in this matter, he would have done so, because after these statements had been made there should be the fullest and fairest inquiry by an impartial tribunal, in order to try and find out what was really wrong in regard to the administration of the Civil Service. He hoped that when they had the report, they would be in a position to assess matters at their full value, and to make recommendations for removing such features as might appear objectionable in the present administration of the service. The hon. member (Colonel Crewe) had made a very fair statement, although in some of his remarks he might have gone rather far. Certain matters had been left more or less in the dark by the Public Service Act itself, and therefore occasioned the disputes which had arisen. He did not think the hon. member was correct in criticising the Public Service Commission. His (General Smuts’) own experience was that it was a most capable body, and when one considered the enormous amount of work it had to do, and the difficulties with which its position had been surrounded from the start, one had every reason to be satisfied with the work it had done. He need not say much about the chairman, whom he had known for a long number of years, and who had served under him. Hon. members who had seen his work would agree with him (General Smuts) that a more impartial man, and thoroughly straight and honourable man, could not he found in this country, and that was one reason, together with his great administrative experience, why he was chosen for the post. The other members of the Commission were by no means juniors. Mr. Hofmeyr was a joint secretary of the Law Department, and administered the biggest administrative department in the Union. Mr. Robinson was the second man in the Treasury, and was chosen because of his ability, knowledge, and special fitness for the post. He (General Smuts) doubted very much whether it would have been possible to have constituted a stronger Commission.

The report they had before them, he must frankly say, was in a certain sense misleading. It raised all those matters on which there had been a difference between the Commissioners and the Government departments. If one read the report, and one did not know what had been going on, one would come to the conclusion that there had been a constant battle between the Commission and certain departments, particularly his (General Smuts’). The truth was just the reverse. The Public Service Commission, in this report, had dealt only with those matters in which a difference of opinion had arisen. It had not dealt, however, with 90 per cent. of the administrative work on which no difference of opinion had ever been expressed by the Government; but from the report hon. members would arrive at the conclusion that there had been far more friction than, in fact, there had been.

It is still going on.

There has been very little friction indeed. In regard to all other matters appertaining to the public service, there had been no difficulty, and I feel it my duty to tell the House that the work of the Commission has been most valuable, not only to the Government, but to the country. Some people have the view that perhaps this Commission was unnecessary, but my own experience is that it is a necessary Commission, and has been doing very good work indeed. Of course, it was impossible to suppose that some difference of opinion and some friction on some matters would not arise, and these are the matters dealt with in the report. Let me say what the principal matter in dispute was. Continuing, General Smuts said the Public Service Commission was appointed with the definite authority to look after the personnel of the Service—the admission into the Service, promotion, and a man’s work in the Service. The whole idea was that there should no longer be water-tight compartments in the Service, but that the Service should be regarded as a whole, and that the Public Service Commission should look after the interests of the Civil Servants as a body and give them the rights to which they were entitled. Another aspect of the matter was that there should be no personal favouritism. There might be favouritism exercised either on the part of the Government or the heads of the Departments, and the idea in setting up this Commission was to have a body which would be quite impartial and would decide cases on their merits. The Public Service Act had not been working very long when the question occurred what about the grading of posts, what was the value of a post, and what salary ought to be attached to it? The Public Service Commission held that it was for it to say what was the value of a post. But there was no justification for that in the Public Service Act. The Treasury had put forward this contention, that it was perfectly sound policy that if it were to have the financial control of the Public Service and to be responsible for the finances of the country and the Civil Service it ought to state what the value of a post was.

It seemed to him that it was the plainest matter possible, and the Treasury had held throughout to this view that if a post were to be created and its value had to be assessed, it was a matter for the Treasury and not for the Public Service Commission. When a person had to be appointed to that post so graded, then the Commission came in and made a recommendation. The Commission resented the position of the Treasury with regard to the grading of posts. He did not want to appear to argue against the Public Service Commission, but he wanted to put merely to the House what the issue was that had arisen. In paragraph 17 of their report the Commission said: “The Treasury is only concerned in such matters (except in relation to the Union Departments of State, in the two classes of cases specified in the Act and already referred to) upon general financial grounds. Beyond this the Treasury is not concerned with the administration of the Public Service as a whole, but only with that portion of it which falls within the ministerial control of the Minister of Finance.” That, said the Minister, he must, of course, entirely repudiate. Proceeding, he said that the Commissioners in their report went on as follows: “The Department of the Interior is only concerned with that portion of the Public Service which falls within the Ministerial control of the Minister of the Interior: but it is the channel of communication between the Government and the Commission upon Public Service matters of general interest. This being the case, it would appear that there is no necessity for the maintenance in the Treasury and in the Department of the Interior of the special staffs which are now being maintained to deal with the administration of the Public Service as a whole.” What they had in the Treasury was a small body of competent men, he thought very competent men, to go into the question of grading. A department might say, “Such and such work is being done in our department; grade the post.” They had some men whose special work it was to go carefully into the work done in the post and to grade it. The Public Service Commission said that they must grade all the posts in the Service. Not a word was said in the Act. As a matter of policy, he thought the House and Parliament would hesitate a long time before they vielded to the Public Service Commission or any Commission in this country the right to grade the salaries connected with posts in the service. It could not possibly be done, and he was afraid, if the contention of the Public Service Commission were to be upheld, we should have a state of affairs in this country which certainly no Government would be held responsible for. The same applied to normal growth of departments. The Commission not only had to advise the Government in regard to questions of personnel, but when there was to be reorganisation or adjustment of departments, they must make a report before Government could sanction it. That he frankly allowed. It was fair and proper that it should be so. But a case which very often happened in the service was this, that there was some expansion in a department; a department said, “I want a man for this work or that work,” not in the way of reorganisation or adjustment, but in the way of normal expansion. That, they said, did not fall within the functions of the Commissioners. It would take far too long a time to ask the Public Service Commissioners to go into that question. There the Treasury set its staff at once to the question, and it was very often disposed of in a couple of days. If hon. members would read the report in the light of the statement he had made, he thought they would see what really was the issue which had been raised and how far the Public Service Commission were justified in the issues they had raised. It was only a small number of cases with which they had come to this Parliament. There were thousands of cases which had been dealt with by the Commission without any trouble to the Government.

Another matter mentioned in the report which he thought was a very proper matter for inquiry was the dropping of the promotion examination. He knew that the promotion examination was considered a very great feature of the Act, but it had always to his mind presented great difficulties as applied to the present service. They might apply it to a future service, but when they applied it to the present service they were at once faced with great difficulties. The first difficulty that turned up was in regard to the promotion of men beyond the first grading of clerical assistants. The first grade of clerical assistance went up to a salary of £360. To get past this grade and this salary the promotion examination had to be passed. This question occurred at once when they came to consider the difficulties. A man who was in the late Colonial Service was at a grade which eventually would carry him beyond £360. He was at the time of Union and perhaps still earning a salary below £360, but he was at a grade which would eventually carry him beyond £360. The Act said this man could not get beyond this £360 without passing his examination. The Act of Union, on the other hand, said that present and accruing rights should be secured to a man. (Hear, hear.) What then was to be done? They found that to apply the promotion examination to a man, who was in a grade which would carry him beyond the limit of £360 would be a violation of the Constitution. They felt at once that they could not do this. The first thing was to water the Act down, seeing that they could not apply the promotion examination to a man who was in the service prior to Union. They considered the difficulties, and finally they came to the conclusion that it was best to consult Parliament again on the question of whether the promotion examination should be applied to all men who were in the old Colonial Service, whether it was not a very unfair thing that a man who had entered the service and had passed examinations which were set at the time for his entry into the service should now after Union find himself barred, and that he had to pass a further examination.

His hon. friend had said that the Service was dissatisfied, seething with discontent. (Hear, hear.) He assured his hon. friend that that was not so. (Hear, hear, and dissent.) He was sure there was not a single member of that House who had the knowledge of the Public Service that he had Officially these things came before him. The trouble was that hon. members heard complaints now and again. They heard a small percentage of complaints. A very large percentage of cases where people carried on their work without any “grousing” or grumbling they never heard of. He thought this was a case where people were apt to be misled. They heard the exception and forgot the rule. He did not say that everything was right in the Service or that everything was right in the Administration. He thought it was to the advantage of the country that there should be as little dissatisfaction in the Service as possible They made great demands upon these men who performed very great functions in the life of the State, and there should be as little friction as possible. He was sure that the amount of friction was very often over-rated. They had to keep their eyes upon the possible sources of friction. In regard to the regulations which had been drafted by the Commission, he might state as soon as the regulations became known in the Service secret meetings of the Service were held. They approached him. When he went into the regulations he thought there would be some cause for discontent if those regulations were put through in the form drafted by the Commission. Hon. members would see the history of this business retailed at great length in the report of the Commission.

He thought the Government had just as much right to judge in these matters as the Public Service Commission had, and it was probable that he (the Minister) knew as much of what was going on in the Service as any member on that Commission, therefore he claimed to have a voice in the matter. He did not doubt, however, but what a settlement would be arrived at to the satisfaction of the whole Service. If the Government had adopted the leave regulations they would have seen a great deal of trouble in this country, and he, personally, wanted to see peace in South Africa. (Ironical laughter from the cross benches.) He did not think it was wise to trust the destiny of the Civil Service to any one person, no matter how eminent that person might be. Whatever views he advanced on the question, it was not with the idea of favour being shown to anybody, nor did he think any hon. member would suggest ulterior motives. His hon. friend had wound up his speech with not very good taste as regards the personnel of that committee. He asked why the member for George (Mr. Currey) had not been appointed. He (the Minister) had asked the hon. member to serve on the committee, but as he was already sitting on other committees it was not found possible for him to accept the position. He (the Minister) would have dearly loved to see the member for George upon that Commission. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the suggestion that he (the Minister) should sit upon that Commission, he hoped hon. members would not press the point, because he was the criminal in the dock and his department was adjudged to be at fault. When the report of that committee came before the House it could then be considered, and a Bill brought into the House dealing with the whole question. He welcomed the Select Committee, and he hoped they would be successful in clearing up the difficulties connected with the question.

said he wished to move an amendment to the number of members of the committee.

informed the hon. member that this matter would be dealt with later on.

proceeded to say that the Minister could not possibly know everything that was going on in the Service if he held that there was no dissatisfaction, and the Minister should see to it that there was as little discontent as possible. There was quite enough discontent in other directions. (Hear, hear.) He thought it was a totally wrong policy to do away with the promotion examination, especially seeing that the House had decided on this examination. He could not understand how the Minister or any committee could take to itself the right to cancel provisions which had been laid down in laws passed in that House. After careful consideration he thought that the standard of the examination was set too high, the result of which was that many old officials were forced to stand still. Dealing with the question of bilingualism, Mr. Wilcocks held that there was a demand all over the country that officials should be bilingual. Old officials, at any rate, had been bilingual, and he held the Government should see to it that as many officials as possible knew both languages.

said that hon. members would admire the attitude taken up by the Minister on the question. They had the Minister standing there in a white sheet, and in penitential mood, saying that he would himself have moved for a Select Committee if another hon. member had not. They had the Minister posing at one time as an autocrat and at another time as a yielding penitent in matters about which he did not care. He (Mr. Duncan) thought it was the want of attention that the Civil Service was suffering from at the present time. It was not that any serious grievance or wrong existed, but merely a want of proper attention being shown. This was displayed in regard to the Postal Department some time ago. When these people made complaints to the Government they were asked to send them in together with complaints which were being considered from nearly all branches of the Service. After waiting for about three weeks these postal clerks, not having received any reply, again addressed the Government, and were told the Cabinet were considering their grievances. After some further delay, these Civil Servants were informed that their grievances had been remitted to the Public Service Commission. This body, however, disclaimed having any knowledge of this, and he (Mr. Duncan) supposed the correspondence must have got lost in the post. (Laughter.) That was the sort of thing that made the men thoroughly discontented with the Service, because they believed that no interest was being taken in them. He thought that was one of the reasons that brought about the differences between the Government and the Public Service Commission. The Government let things drift on, and then, when the Opposition asked for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole matter, the Minister said: “Yes, by all means have a Select Committee, and take it off my hands.” He entirely agreed that that Commission was not intended to, and should not attempt to, relieve the Government of any financial responsibility. The Government was responsible to the House and to the country for its administration and for its finance.

It was not for the Commission to have the last word on a matter of that sort. The Minister said the Commission should not have the right to assess the value of a post, and he agreed with that. But they might carry that principle too far. If the Government decided that a man could be jumped up to another post on a higher salary, then he thought the Government was usurping part of the work of the Public Service Commission. It rested with the Commission to decide broadly on the status and the grading. With regard to the promotion examination, that examination was very carefully considered by the Select Committee, and there was this objection: that it might be held to conflict with the Act of Union. That was fully considered by the Select Committee, and it was thought that it did not conflict with the rights given under the Act of Union, because no one had a vested right to promotion. It could not be said that the Government took away any right from a man which he had before Union. That was not an argument which should induce the Government to take the drastic steps in connection with that examination. The examination, when applied to the older members of the service, must be very different from what they expected a youth to pass when he was just leaving school. He did not think a case was made out for the entire cutting out of that section, and he hoped the Select Committee would inquire into it. With regard to the dispute which had arisen between the Provincial Council of the Free State and the Public Service Commission, he did not intend to go into that matter in detail, because it was a matter affecting the Free State. The Provincial Council in the Free State in that case appeared to have set the Public Service Act entirely at defiance. That Act laid down the conditions under which a person in the service could be discharged, and one condition was that he could be discharged owing to any reduction, reorganisation, or re-adjustment recommended by the Commission. The Provincial Council of the Free State, for reasons best known to themselves, thought fit to dismiss a certain inspector of schools. They decided that his post was unnecessary. The Public Service Commission took up the view, with entire justification, he thought, that any reorganisation must follow a recommendation from them. The object of the Act was not to relieve the Government of any responsibility they held in the administration of the country. It was not intended to set up the Public Service Commission over and above the Government. In regard to the appointment of persons on which they had advice, the Government could override the recommendations, provided that the Commission was free to report to Parliament that they had made the recommendations. The action of the Free State Council appeared to be entirely different from that. They had discharged a person on reorganisation, but had used that power entirely illegally, because they could not get rid of that man except on a recommendation of the Commission. That was not a matter on which the Government could disregard the advice of the Commission.

It did not appear from the report, and it did not appear from anything the Minister had said, as to whether the Government had done anything towards vindicating the authority of the Commission on that matter. If the Provincial Council were left free to override the law as they had done, then they would get into a very serious position. He thought the Minister took too optimistic a view of the entirely happy state of things he thought went on in the Public Service. He did not want to exaggerate the grievances, but there were troubles, and he thought a great deal more than need be in the Service. They were largely due to a want of attention on the part of heads of departments and to too much being left to the subordinates. The subordinate was left to decide just according to his own sweet will, and when an inquiry was made it was most difficult to set aside what had been done. Those things would not happen so often if more attention was paid to the administration of the department by the Minister.

said the Civil Service would read with amazement the statement made by the Minister Without Portfolio of the complete contentment and satisfaction of the public servants with their present lot. The Minister ought to know that the Post Office was seething with discontent and with grievances. He did not suppose there was a member of that House who had not a brief to bring forward on behalf of the postal servants'! Difficulties had arisen in connection with the transfer of officers to the Free State, the Transvaal, and Natal. What would amaze the Minister still more was that the whole of the Service was discontented because the Minister had compelled those in the Free State to contribute to a pension fund—they were suddenly placed on a contribution scale.

By Parliament.

Yes, by Parliament. The Minister still refused to believe that those civil servants drew their salaries on the basis that they were not contributing to a pension fund. They had been contributing to a pension fund before they were compelled to by Parliament, and now they were paying doubly. To say that the Service was contented showed a complete ignorance of the true state of affairs. He was sure the Select Committee would deal with that question. It surprised him to find from the report of the Commission that the Government took no steps whatever to deal adequately with the Provincial Council in the Free State. He saw from the report of the Commission that there was an extract given of the correspondence. His point was that the Provincial authorities flouted not the Public Service Commission, but they flouted the Government. It was a curious position for members to inquire into, because it would show them another aspect of the Act of Union. The Administrator of the Free State thought that with the members of the Provincial Council he could do as he liked. He could not understand how the Prime Minister could allow the Administrator to behave as the Administrator of the Free State had behaved in that matter.

The position was this: Mr. Wessels was an inspector of schools. The Commission said that for 1913-1914 his salary was voted. Notwithstanding that they dismissed him! They wanted to get rid of him because he had vexed them in a report with regard to the payment of school fees.

What became of him?

I will tell you later. Continuing, he said they deliberately abolished his office because of this report of his which vexed the Provincial Council. He was not going to defend Mr. Wessels, because he did to think that he used proper language in the particular report but what he did say was that it might have been indiscreet, but his motive, his honesty, and his desire to serve his people was clearly manifest. He was trying to point out that, notwithstanding the fact that the Free State had a system of payment of school fees, yet by this system of exemption being in operation they found in country schools in districts where rich farmers resided 80 per cent. of the farmers did not pay school fees.

Oh, no.

said he would give the hon. member for Boshof the figures at a later stage. At any rate the result was that the office of Mr. Wessels was abolished. This was what he was trying to get at. He wanted to know whether in the present estimates any provision had been made for the salary of Mr. Wessels, For the past twelve months he had been drawing his salary. He was still there. He was still travelling about as organising inspector, but he was waiting every day for an indication that his cheque was not there. The Provincial Council was not responsible for the salary of Mr. Wessels, and whatever money was paid to him was lent to the Union.

He thought it was astonishing that the Government should allow any Provincial Executive re behave in this way. The only reason he could advance was that the Prime Minister was afraid to put his foot down and teach the Administrator of the Free State how to do his work. He thought that if the Prime Minister would only put his foot down he would be a stronger man in the Free State than he was at the present time. One of these days he quite expected a ukase from the Administrator in the free State deporting him (Mr. Botha) for daring to speak as he had done.

said he thought the hon. member for Fordsburg was a little premature in congratulating the Minister, because on previous occasions they had found at the end of the session that reports of Select Committees had not been considered. He was glad that they had had that discussion that afternoon. What had surprised him was that they had no statement from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs with regard to the extraordinary point brought out by the Commission as to only four points being referred to it for consideration. He thought that the Minister should really rise and tell the House and the country where they were. No one would dispute that it was never the intention of Parliament to place the Civil Service in the hands of the Civil Service Commission and absolve the Government from any blame. What they understood was that when the Commission named recommendations, and the Government departed from those recommendations, the onus lay on the Government to show good cause why they had departed from the recommendations of the Commission. In this case he thought there was good cause for sending this matter to a Select Committee. Continuing, he referred to the comments of the hon. member for East London with regard to the lack of support from the cross-benches when Sir Starr Jameson brought in his motion dealing with the Civil Service in 1912. They remembered the time because the hearts of the followers of Sir Starr were sore at the best man Government policy not being adopted; it was the time when good friends had parted. He remembered the occasion because there was some grave misunderstanding on the part of the parties as to what was the precise meaning of the motion. The Leader said it was not a vote of censure. Then another member got up and broke into a racialistic attack, and then they got into the slough of racialism. Then the hon. member for Durban, Point, moved an amendment, which seemed to them on the cross-benches to deal with the question practically, and which did not make the Civil Service a sort of victim to be fought over.

That was just what the hon. member for East London was pressing for. He (Mr. Creswell) seconded that amendment, and they on the cross-benches voted for it They expressed in perfectly clear terms what they were driving at, and Sir Starr said that the amendment practically expressed what was in the motion. There was always present a lack of genuineness in the Opposition. Continuing, he said that he supported the motion, but there was one thing missing, and they would move in that direction at a later stage. He would point out that a large number of the Civil Service looked to hon. members on the cross-benches to represent their views, and they thought it would be more satisfactory to have one of the members of their party on the committee. He viewed with alarm the Minister’s statement that all was well in the Civil Service and that there was no discontent. He would suggest to the Minister that it was a very dangerous state of mind to get into. He (the Minister) was in a position of peculiar difficulty to judge as to the general contentment of the men in the Service, and he ought rather to be on the qui vive. He did not impugn the Minister’s good faith in the matter at all, because he believed it was the desire of the Minister to see the Service in a contented frame of mind. He (Mr. Creswell) warned him to avoid the snare which was engulfing the Minister of Railways of always assuming that all was well, and that when there was a growl, of assuming that that person was raking it up in order to create trouble. In the Post Office they knew there was a considerable amount of dis-, content. So far as the Opposition was concerned they seemed happy at being on their old battle ground.

said that the hon. member who had just sat down had referred to the want of support given a few years ago, and one of his very curious reasons was a want of genuineness on the part of the Opposition, and the non-desire that the Service should be dragged in as a victim of political wrangle. This coming from the hon. member for Jeppe was certainly refreshing He did not agree with the hon. member for Jeppe that the Minister of Finance had welcomed that motion with such tremendous alacrity because he thought that the session would not allow of a proper discussion of the report of the committee. He (Sir Henry) might be doing the Minister an injustice, but he had thought the Minister rather wanted to avoid discussion, because they were calling attention to a most serious state of affairs in that country, and that was that no one, from the Minister downwards, seemed to pay the slightest attention to the law. He hoped that that motion would have some effect, as they had hoped that the motion with regard to the promotion barrier would have had

What was the use of their passing legislation when, from the Minister downwards, the Act was torn up? The Minister said it was quite true the law had been passed, but when he had begun to look into it he had seen how vague it was, and they had watered it down! What right had the Minister to water it down, because doing so was illegal? It was not the first time such a thing had happened that session, and in regard to the Land Bank the other day they had had another admission that there had been illegal action. Proceeding, he said that they heard that the Provincial Council of the O.F.S. had absolutely disregarded the law in that regard. That was a very serious state of affairs, and it was not the way these matters should be dealt with. The Minister of Finance would have the House believe that he had been quite prepared to ask the House to make the alterations in the law. Well, they had passed the Public Service Act in 1912, and they were now in March, 1914—he would not quarrel with regard to that, because there had been circumstances which arose which had occupied the attention of the House for some time, and had not allowed that matter being brought forward. But there had been nothing foreshadowed that any legislation was to be introduced to do away with the great and burning difficulty. Why had not the Minister foreshadowed that he was going to deal with the matter? No, the Act had been ignored, and illegalities had been committed. He could only assure the Minister that he was living in a fool’s paradise if he thought that there was no dissatisfaction. There was a great deal, and it ought to be brought to the Minister’s notice. Why did the Minister not do anything to remedy it? Nothing was done. If one looked at the functions of the public service, if they eliminated the purely clerical functions such as making records and keeping a list, they could not find anything of the slightest importance outside the very things which were contained in the report. The Minister shook his head; but he (Sir H. H. Juta) could be taken to read the report, and to be able to understand it fairly well, he thought. If the Commission had taken a wrong view on the one side, so had the Government on the other side. The great mass of the work which the Commission had to do was contained in that very section to which they had drawn attention. They had to make recommendations with regard to “reorganisation”—that blessed word —whenever anybody had to be got rid of, that “reorganisation” had to take place. (Laughter.) He had never heard of a public service which was so continuously being “reorganised” as theirs. (Laughter.) It was always being reorganised. In the rare intervals between those arduous duties, “regrading” was taking place, and in the meanwhile nothing was done for the Public Servants. These were the things which caused friction and trouble, tie could not understand why the Minister had not come forward of his own accord, and had to wait until that motion was brought forward.

said that he must envy the Minister’s cheerful optimism in regard to that matter. The report of the Commission seemed to show a state of absolute chaos in the relations between the Government and the Public Service and the Government and the Public Service Commission. Why, in every branch of the Public Service one saw that matters were quite contrary to what they should be. If members on that side of the House who had assisted in framing the Act of Union had thought that the Public Service Commission would have so little power and authority and would be treated with such contempt as it had been treated, he doubted whether the Act of Union would have been framed in the way it had been, with regard to that particular matter. The Commission seemed to have no more power than some of the Advisory Boards had had before Union, and some of the Commission’s recommendations were accepted and some were rejected at the whim of the Government. The hon. member referred to page 9 of the report to show the utmost contempt shown by the Government towards the Commission, and quoted further from the report to show the relations existing between the Government and the Commission. To his mind it was a waste of public money to have an expensive Commission which was supposed to do certain work when the Government apparently found they could do as well without it. What was the good of having a Commission if it was not to have the power which was conferred upon it? It was not merely a dispute with regard to one or two matters; it was apparently a hopeless conflict between the Minister of the Interior, who was at the head of that Service, and the Commission. Apparently he wanted to appoint a Commission, and yet control the Civil Service in his own hands when it suited him to do so. The report showed that it was a dummy Commission with no real power to do anything. If the Commission was to continue in the position in which it was shown to be in that report, unless there was some radical alteration, to his mind, it was better to do away with it altogether. As it was, the Government could shelter itself behind the Commission if that course was found to be desirable. The powers of the Commission were being whittled away, and he hoped that the result of the committee’s report would be that there would be some legislation introduced this session setting forth its definite powers, so that it would be impossible to treat the Commission with the contempt with which it had been treated, as was shown by that report. One thing was clear, they could not possibly go on as they were going on at present, or there would be further chaos in the Public Service. It was to be hoped that the Select Committee would reduce that chaos into something like order.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the committee consist of seven members.

moved an amendment that the number of members on the Select Committee be nine instead of seven.

seconded.

moved a further amendment that the number be ten instead of seven

seconded.

put the question that the word “seven” proposed to be altered remain part of the motion, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—82.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Bekker, Stephanus

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris, David

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henwood, Charlie

Hewat, John

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—13.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Maginess, Thomas

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

H. W. Sampson and C. A. van Niekerk, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendments proposed by Mr. van Niekerk and Mr. Andrews, dropped.

The original motion was then agreed to.

moved: That the Committee consist of Mr. Duncan, Sir David Hunter, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. E. N. Grobler, General Lemmer, Mr. H. C. Becker, and the mover.

Agreed to.

moved: “That the Government be requested to consider the advisability of introducing legislation during this session for the unification of native taxes in the various Provinces.” In the course of his remarks Mr. Van Niekerk pointed out that, a different state of affairs existed in practically every Province. In the Transvaal there were three sorts of taxes for natives. Generally a tax of practically £3 per head was paid, while every native with more than one wife had to pay an additional £2. In the Cape it was difficult to find out what was actually paid. They paid different taxes under the existing location ordinances, and a hut tax in addition of 10s. per year. In Natal they paid 20s. per year and a hut tax of 14s., but the 20s. tax had been suspended in 1913. He believed there was a further tax of £3 for every native living at a mission station in Natal. In the Cape the position was regulated by a number of Ordinances. Seeing that in each of the Provinces there was a different system, he thought the time for unification had arrived. He regretted that the Select Committee on Native Affairs had not yet reported on the question. He thought the Government should see that some steps were taken. He would be pleased to see a Select Committee appointed to go into the matter. In the Free State the farmers living on the borders, especially of the Cape, suffered greatly under the present state of affairs, as when the time for the collection of the tax arrived the natives for a while quietly slipped over the border. Naturally this complicated the labour position. His (the speaker’s) intention was not to make the position of the Government difficult, but he would appeal to the Prime Minister to do something so as to place all the Provinces in a better position.

said it would be better for him to reply at once, as a debate upon that question might only result in creating difficulties. It would be advisable to avoid a debate, and he hoped therefore that the mover, after hearing the statement which the speaker proposed to make, would be able to withdraw his motion. The Government had for a long time past considered the question of equalisation of taxation as far as it applied to natives, and the Select Committee on Native Affairs had also gone into the question. It was one of the most difficult questions that they had to consider in South Africa. The Transvaal Government had already done something in that direction, and he remembered very well what difficulties they had to encounter. To give an instruction to the Government at the present time would only result in creating more difficulties, and it could not reasonably be expected that the inherent difficulties connected with the matter could be overcome in a couple of years. Many hon. members would grow grey in dealing with the subject, and would pass away and be succeeded by their children, who in turn would grow grey before that question was finally determined. He spoke for the moment on the native question generally.

It was a fact that they had different systems of Kafir taxation in operation. There was the hut tax of 10s. at the Cape, which was applicable to all locations, that is to say, 10s. for every hut, and thus in practice for every wife. That tax was paid to the State. In private locations the owner paid 10 s. for every Kafir living there who was really required for the work in such location, whilst the owner paid a further 40s. for each squatter there, though that was not an actual tax payable by the natives. In the Transvaal it was not the owner that paid, but the native.

Those systems had been in operation for a long time, and any sudden change would bring about a state of chaos, seeing that both whites and natives had got accustomed to these various systems. Under the Glen Grey Act a native in a location paid a rent of 3s. per morgen, with a minimum of 15s., provided he had an individual title. That was in the locations. If the native bought ground outside the location in the Cape, he stood, so far as taxation was concerned, in exactly the same position as the white man. In a few of the old locations which existed before the Glen Grey Act was passed, the native who owned an individual title paid 10s. for his piece of ground of about two morgen. When they went into the question it would be found that the native at the Cape paid a fairly heavy taxation, except those who worked as servants throughout the whole year. Where the natives had their own government they were subject to a tax imposed by the local authority and had to pay large sums in that way. The hut tax at the Cape in the past year produced the sum of £111,300. It would be exceedingly difficult to tackle the question of taxation until administration everywhere was the same.

Take for example the Free State, where it was totally different to any other portion of South Africa. In that Province coloured persons also paid the native tax, whilst in the other Provinces that was not the case. Every coloured person or native in the Free State who was between 18 and 60 years of age had to pay a poll tax of 20s. per year, which brought in a total revenue of about £67,200, in addition to which, when they lived in a municipality, they had to pay the municipal rates. Those rates differed of course, in the different municipalities. In addition to that, in the locations at Thaba ’Nchu and Witzieshoek, in the Free State, they had to pay special rates.

In Natal the tax was 14s. for each occupied hut, no matter whether the hut was in a location or on private ground. There was a poll tax of £1 on all natives who did not pay hut tax, but in the Act of 1913 that tax was suspended. The native taxes in Natal produced £206,310. One kind of native was free from taxation in Natal, and that was the native who had built a proper house and lived as white people live. Then there was also a tax on mission stations, which had however really nothing to do with the matter. They would therefore see that there was a poll tax which was suspended, and a hut tax which was in reality a tax on wives.

The taxes in the Transvaal were entirely different. A native living on a farm who worked for at least three months in the year paid £1 per year. A native who lived within the borders of a municipality also paid £1. All other adult men paid £2, and every man who had more than one wife paid an additional £2. A native with two or more wives thus paid £3 or £4, depending on whether he was a farm labourer, or lived in a municipality, or not. Those taxes in the Transvaal produced £395,000. In the Transvaal they had also to pay pass fees, but it was assumed that the employers paid for those. Most of that money was paid in at Johannesburg, where so many natives were working.

Those, then, were the different systems in operation in different parts of South Africa. The time was not ripe for deciding such a question as that by means of a motion. The hon. member who moved it should withdraw the motion and await the report of the Natives Land Commission. They could then study that report and take the necessary measures. Nothing would do more harm in South Africa than to deal with the native question in fragments and scraps. It would be much better to wait for the report of the Commission, and then appoint a Select Committee to consider it. Even if the motion were agreed to, he could not promise that the Government would take action, as they were not at present able to deal with the question as it ought to be dealt with.

said that the figures given by the hon. member for Boshof were hardly correct, but the Prime Minister in his able speech had corrected them where they were wrong. There were still one or two points that he (Mr. Schreiner) would like to point out. The member for Boshof mentioned the £1 native tax in Natal as the principal tax. This was not, however, the case. The hut tax of 14s. brought in £190,000, and the £1 was only levied on those natives who did not pay the hut tax and on Europeans, and that was the point. This £1 tax only brought in £45,000. He thought it was only right to correct what might be a wrong impression. He remembered a speech which was delivered by the Prime Minister detailing the amount of taxation in the various Provinces, which was as follows: The Cape 1s. 9d., Natal 4s., Orange Free State 3s. 4d., and the Transvaal 6s. 5d., per native. He (Mr. Schreiner) had never had the opportunity of correcting those figures, especially with regard to the Cape Colony. He wished to point out that in the Transkei Territories, which had a population of over 1,000,000 natives they not only paid hut tax and quit-rent yielding close on £100,000, tut they were taxed in other directions. Their own estimate for last year was £80,000. According to a return furnished by the Government in 1911 the direct taxation on natives in the Cape Colony amounted to £147,000. To that they must add the £80,000 that the Transkeian natives taxed themselves, which would bring it up to about £230,000. What did the natives use that £80,000 for? Last year they voted £21,000 for education, £8,000 for industrial and agricultural education, £16,000 for the erection of cattle and sheep dipping tanks, and he saw from this year’s report that the amount they had spent and would spend on cattle and sheep dipping tanks and their maintenance was estimated at £100,000. Then there was £20,000 for Public Works.

Those were all matters of expenditure which would have to be looked after by the Government of the country, and those people with self-government relieved the Government of all that. The total of £230,000 was nearly the same as in Natal in direct taxation. He had worked out the figure and he thought they would find that in the Cape Colony with one-and-a-half million natives, that £230,000 worked out at 3s. per head and not 1s. 9d., as was stated last year. In Natal, with its one million natives, it worked out at about 5.s. per head. In the Free State, with 340,000 natives and taxation amounting to £57,000, it worked out at 3s. 4d. per head, so that the Cape and the Free State were paying just about the same amount. The Transvaal, with one-and-a-quarter million natives, paid £395,000, which would work out as the Prime Minister had said last year, at 6s. 5d. per head. What he felt was this, that if there was to be uniformity of taxation it would inevitably be, not in the direction of levelling up from the lowest to the highest, but of levelling down from the highest. He was upheld in that contention by all the evidence which was laid before the Select Committee. The committee was never asked to report, but he wanted to point out this—that the result of the evidence taken there convinced most of them that the taxation in the Transvaal, at all events, was much too high. What he felt as the result of all the evidence was that a sum of about 20s., or possibly 25s., was about the proper limit of what should be imposed on the natives of the Union. Referring to the taxation of natives who went to work on the mines, he said that the great statesmen of the past had gone in the other direction. They said if a native would not work, tax him, and try to make him work by taxing him, but to tax natives because they were working was unthinkable. The result of all the evidence put before the Select Committee brought him to the conviction shared by other members of the committee, that the only tax that it was right to levy on natives qua natives in addition to whatever tax they paid along with Europeans was the tax on land. When they paid hut tax or wife tax it was a tax on land, because if the native had a hut, he had land. The hut tax was only another name for a land tax. The natives of this country were by nature agricultural peasants, and that condition was what they should try to preserve for them. He hoped the time would come when the Cape native policy of individual tenure of land would be extended throughout the whole of South Africa and that a quitrent would be levied on which the natives would have no objection. If they had such a tax it would cover the cost of the administration of native affairs.

Continuing, he said that, according to a Government return in 1911 the Union received in direct taxation from the natives £875,000, and the cost of administration and education was £388,000. The excess of receipts over such expenditure was £487,000. He allowed that there might be other items which should be included in expenditure, but he felt that the native was not receiving a fair return for the taxation which he paid, and instead of being taxed the amount necessary to meet the expenditure, part of the natives’ taxation and especially in the Transvaal was going to support the white population of the country, i.e., a considerable proportion of the amount received in taxation went towards the cost of administration for the European. Let him take the case of Basutoland, where they had a, hut or Poll Tax of £l, which in 1911 amounted to £84,000. They received also Customs dues from the Union amounting to £45,000. There were about 550,000 people in Basutoland, and this worked out at 2s. 5d. a head, which was the Customs contribution of the natives at present. By means of that Poll Tax and the Customs Revenues and the few other incidentals, £145,000 was raised in. Basutoland in 1911, while the expenditure totalled £122,000. He felt certain that the amount of direct taxation on natives, nearly a million, plus the amount of indirect taxation through Customs, a little over a million, i.e., two million more than covers the expenditure of every description on natives throughout the Union. There was the proof. It was before their eyes. In Basutoland they had a surplus every year. If the question came up for solution in the near future, he hoped it would not be in the direction of levelling up to the Transvaal, but rather in the direction of levelling down to some amount that would be fair to the natives of the whole of the Union. Continuing, he referred to the question of education, which he said was an important point. In the Cape they had done their duty and 60 per cent. of the direct taxation was given back to the natives in grants for education. In Natal it was 12 percent.—that was the figures for last year—in the Orange Free State 9 percent., and in the Transvaal 6 percent. What was more, the £6,000 that was given for education in the Transvaal was also intended to cover the case of the coloured people. In view of the desire on the part of the native, for education, was it right to take so much and give so little back? He believed that Natal, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal were increasing their contributions year by year, but at a very slow rate. He did not think that justice was being done, and he believed that everyone in that House was desirous of doing justice to all concerned. He did not see how the Government could introduce a Bill this session, because it was too big a question, but he pleaded that this Book of Evidence taken before the Select Committee should not be kept under lock and key, but spread throughout the country. He hoped that the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk) would see fit to withdraw his motion and leave the whole question until that Government or some Government took it into serious consideration after perhaps further investigation, should such be found necessary, and attempt to solve that great and important question, but as the Minister of Native Affairs had pointed out, it involved almost every question in connection with the natives. The discussion that afternoon could do nothing but good. They had a tremendous native population in the country, and he regretted to see that so few members took an interest in the natives and left it to a few members to do so. He hoped that the time would come when members would be so well instructed in regard to the natives, not only of one Province, but of all the Provinces of the Union, that they would be able to give an intelligent vote on matters dealing with the natives.

said that the matter was not so simple as it seemed, and was full of complications. He supposed that the meaning of the motion was that uniformity of native taxation was desired, but that was a very difficult task. (Hear, hear.) If they endeavoured to institute uniform taxation, there was such a diversity of tribes, and there was such a diversity of circumstances amongst the natives, that the task was at present altogether impracticable. The hon. member quoted some figures in regard to native taxation in the different Provinces, and went on to say that there was some necessity, when the time arrived, for getting some equalisation of taxation for the native population, but the difficulty was to get some taxation which would touch everybody equally, and the task was one which they would have to abandon for some time to come, because circumstances were so very different in different parts of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) He thought that their efforts would have to be directed towards bringing the circumstances of the natives more into line rather than the taxation of the natives in any hard-and-fast line. He hoped that the hon. member would withdraw his motion, and that the Government would give the matter consideration, and as time went on, that they would find that they were getting nearer and nearer to a solution, which at present did not seem to be possible.

said that the Minister of Native Affairs had given certain information which he did not know before, and he was indebted to the Minister for that information which he had given, with reference specially to certain taxation in Natal. As the Minister had given the promise he had, he (the hon. member) would withdraw the motion.

By the leave of the House, the motion was withdrawn.