May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister if he can give any information to the House about the Easter vacation. Hon. members would like to have certainty about it as soon as possible to make their arrangements in due time and it will be convenient if the Prime Minister could give us enlightenment upon it.

Yes; quite willingly. I think that this is a question upon which the whips have consulted each other, and I will say that unless we should decide otherwise, the Government thinks that we should adjourn on Thursday until Monday, i.e., that Friday alone will be a holiday. But it is of course a matter for the House, but I think that this more or less is the general feeling which has been communicated to me.

I find on this Vote, Item (C), compensation allowances for loss of office owing to reorganization and retrenchment. Will the Minister be good enough to lay on the Table a list of those affected by this particular item?

When the Minister introduced his motion to go into Committee, he said that on this Vote was an amount of £30,000 which had been put into the Vote in accordance with the report of a Commission which has been sitting during the past year. Will the Minister inform the Committee in rather more detail what this Vote is for precisely, and what the exact recommendation is of the Commission?

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the item Natal Police Superannuation. The Minister said that this fund was bankrupt. At the time of Union this force ceased to exist, and no more men were recruited for it, and, therefore, there was no £ for £ contribution by the Government.

Before you put the question I think this is the proper Vote on which to revert to the discussion we had on Monday in regard to the police circular which has been issued by the Minister of Justice. Now my right hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) addressed a question to the Prime Minister and asked whether that circular was an individual act of the Minister concerned or whether it was the act of the Cabinet and represented the policy of the Government. That question has not been answered. The Prime Minister did not answer, but we are very anxious to know whether this circular represents the deliberate policy of the Pact Government or is an arbitrary act of the Minister of Justice. If it is the act of the Government then we know where we are, then we know the circular has been issued with the authority of the Cabinet as a whole, while if it is merely the act of the Minister, then I wish to point out what the position is under this circular and the unfairness with which the police and prison officials of this country are treated. The Minister has told us this circular is intended to be applied also to the prison officials. Therefore we must assume the police and prison officials are singled out for this special treatment. I say this is unjust treatment, and it is in conflict with the policy laid down by Parliament more than once. Parliament has dealt with this question of promotion on bilingual grounds in the public service and railway service more than once, and a strong precedent has been laid down. In the Act of 1912 it was laid down that men in the public service, the clerical and administrative sections, as well as men in the railway service, would have five years’ time before the bilingual rule was applied to them. They had a period of five years in which to qualify bilingually for promotion.

That is done away with now in the new Act.

That is the policy laid down, those men have five years in which they could qualify, and that policy is in operation. It is not abolished by the Act of 1923.

Yes.

That is the position in regard to men who have been appointed to the railway and public service after 1912. As to men appointed before that period, they are protected, I assume, under the South Africa Act. No law has been passed in regard to them. The South Africa Act says they shall retain their existing and accruing rights. What happens now? The Minister, either with the assent of the Cabinet or on his own arbitrary motion, puts the police and prison officials under this ban and tells them they shall not have promotion if they have not this bilingual qualification.

That is not so if you read the circular.

That is so. We can assume there will be a uniform application of this circular, and the result will be that while Parliament has given long notice to other people in the service this thunder clap is hurled at the police without any notice. The least that should be done is that the police and prison officials should be treated in the same way as the rest of the public service. They should be given proper notice and a proper period in which they can qualify. Do not lure them into the service, and then commit this injustice. We heard at the elections that a large class of public officials, scab inspectors, commandants, etc., were to go if the Pact came in. These poor deluded men in the police and prison service were not told that they should go or at any rate be debarred from promotion. The Prime Minister has got their votes—they voted for him but now, without notice, they find they have bought a pig in a poke, and they find this is to be the measure of justice to be meted out to them. I think we all agree that bilingualism is a good principle, and that the civil servants of this country should be bilingual, and this should be applied not only to the public service and railway service, but also to the prisons and police, but I say: do it fairly, give proper notice, do not be unjust. I am very much afraid that as bilingualism is being worked now it is going to be a discredit to bilingualism itself. We hear it is to be applied to common labourers. If a man wants work as a labourer on the railways at Maritzburg, he is asked if he is bilingual. We shall soon see it applied to the unemployed and applicants for relief work. I have seen a circular issued which is going to make a screaming farce of bilingualism in this country. It is the weekly edition of bilingualism in the Agricultural Department. Let us be fair to our police and prison officials and do not let us apply a different rule to them from that applied to other members of our service.

I believe that in a large number of instances, these attacks are made more upon me personally than upon what I have done. There is also an attempt to cause dissaffection among the police and prison officers. We are told by certain newspapers that there are a large number of these men on the eve of resignation. I am quite certain that there is not a single man who will resign. They know their position much better than hon. members opposite. The attitude taken up by hon. members opposite is one of pure political hypocrisy—absolute political hypocrisy; and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition says they should have received notice. They did. They received notice from my predecessors as far back as 1917. I will read the circular of 1917 which is mentioned in the circular I have issued, and I will ask this House to judge of the honesty of the political attack upon me in this House. That circular issued by my predecessors in August, 1917, reads as follows:

Very much the same as the beginning of my circular. It goes on to say this—

If it was “incumbent” in 1917, they must know of it in 1923. The circular continues—

Not a bar. Read your circular.

Now as far as I understand the attitude of hon. members of the Opposition, this circular of the late Government means nothing. It was meant as a sham and was not acted upon; because if it was meant to be acted upon, surely these men should know Dutch eight years after the date they were told it was incumbent (verplichtend) on them. I have great pleasure in comparing this circular with my own, which it was said did not make any distinction between those men appointed before 1912 and those appointed after that year. I ask what distinction was made in this circular of 1917? The only difference, I venture to say, is that my circular is clearer and more easy to understand; whereas the objection was made that it was difficult to understand. My circular says—

Whether in the case of exceptional circumstances a similar practice was followed by the late Government the hon. Leader of the Opposition will best know. The result of my circular is that equally with that other circular, I take into account the efficiency of a man and I can make it a decisive factor. But I do not tell them that it is obligatory on them to learn both languages. I understood the hon. members in Opposition to say we were carrying out the policy of the Opposition and that we got into power merely to do that, but when I do that, as in this instance, they are dissatisfied. Then I go on to say—

That is our examination for promotion from the ranks to N.C.O.s and officers. The circular continues—

Is there any difference in principle between the two circulars? I cannot understand why a man who has been unwilling to qualify for a number of years should be retained, and surely that is just. I have said, and say again, I will do everything in my power to see that the police service is administered in such a way that no harshness shall be inflicted on the Force by that rule. The question is whether the advantages counterbalance the disadvantages; otherwise a man’s services should be dispensed with. As I have said efficiency has been preached, and I am sure the Opposition does not intend to protect inefficiency, but also wishes to see the efficient man protected. I place the same imprimatur on their wishes in this respect.

Then you need not have issued that circular after all?

Whether I issue the circular or not is my business.

It is the business of the country.

The late Government could issue what circulars they liked; I did not interfere with them. But their chance has passed. The reason I issued that circular is that I am not satisfied, and the country is not satisfied, that in all cases police officers have made sufficient use of their opportunity to learn both languages. I am not speaking for myself alone. The same complaints are being received in 1925 as were received in 1917. I wished to place the seal upon the policy of the past, which it was necessary to do in order to make clear what value we attach to the question of bilingualism in this country, which will prevent either section of the population from being prejudiced. Merely to retain people who are unilingual, if they have no other claim to be retained, is not justified. I think it is essential in all Services. I may say I have not sent the identical circular to the Prisons; in spirit their instruction is the same one and it is the intention to apply the same policy in both cases.

You might read the other circular.

You may take it that it is to the same effect. The intention is the same, namely to see that the Service should not be impaired by the retention of men who have failed to utilize the opportunity of qualifying in the other language. The only thing that can possibly impair that intention is the involuntary effect upon me of the speeches made in this House. I shall do my best not to be prejudiced by these speeches, and I shall try to continue unprejudiced even after hearing the political hyprocrisy that is preached by the press of this country, and members in this House, but it makes it more difficult—it will certainly not make me withdraw one single step. I was told by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—I have not got his special knowledge —that all the Police and Prisons vote went to the Nationalist party.

He didn’t say that.

He said we had secured the Police and Prisons vote, and that we are now in power by reason of these votes.

I said many.

You said they voted for us. I have not the special knowledge of the right hon. member for Standerton as I was not in charge of any of the records showing the way in which any one voted at that time. If they voted for us at the last election, you will find that they will vote for us at the next election, and that their minds will not be disturbed in any way by any action I commit in connection with this matter, as they will appreciate the fair and just treatment to which they will be subjected, notwithstanding the effect of the speeches of hon. members opposite and of the press, they will not get as sick of this Government as they certainly became of the previous Government.

I do not know why the hon. the Minister has spoken with such heat. He seems to be under the impression that we are making a personal attack upon him.

I am quite sure of if.

Let me assure the hon. Minister that he is entirely wrong. We look upon him as a great asset to this side of the House.

You did not in the last election.

So far from attacking him we welcome his presence in the Cabinet.

Thanks.

The hon. Minister has quoted as justification for his circular the notice which was issued in 1917. I find nothing whatever in the circular of 1917 to justify what he is doing now. The circular said this: all things being equal, preference will be given to the officer in the police who is bilingually qualified. With that I absolutely agree, and that rule can be applied without any injustice.

What is the difference.

Why is the Minister not satisfied with that notice in 1917? Why has he gone further now and made the difference, and said in the present circular that it is not a case of preference, but that no man, except in exceptional cases, unless he is qualified after two viva voce examinations and one written examination, will have promotion in the police force? That I look upon as a breach of faith. It is not a case of attacking the Minister or the Government: it is a case of justice. This House is the highest court of this land, and I appeal to the Minister of Justice to do justice to the men who are serving under him in the administration of this country. Unless we give these men proper notice—a period of time, just as we have done in the case of the other services—we are not treating them fairly or justly. There is no doubt we are drawing a line of distinction and meting out different treatment to the Police and Prisons Departments from the others. I appeal to the Prime Minister not to be party to this thing. There is no reason for it, and I cannot understand why there should be any intention to do it. Let Us avoid the appearance even of doing injustice to these people. We have in this House ourselves, through Select Committees, after proper enquiry, given a period of time to the other services. Let us do the same to the police, and let us fix a day beyond which they must be qualified if they want to be promoted; but do not let us come down on them with sledgehammer methods, without any notice. There has been no notice in their case, neither in 1917 nor at any other date.

Your circular did not give a period.

Unless they pass these examinations and satisfy the Minister they will not be promoted. I do not think that is fair to those men whom we are bound to treat with the same consideration as the other branches.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has a few times called upon me, and I must reply to him. The hon. member for Standerton began here this afternoon, and what he actually wanted the hon. House and also the country outside to understand, and this will of course happen, was that the hon. Minister of Justice was engaged in committing a great injustice to the police to say the least.

And against the prison warders.

And against the prison warders. Now I am glad that when he got up the second time he showed us wherein he thought that this injustice lay. It is in nothing else but that the hon. Minister of Justice did not say to the police: look, I am not going to commence to-day but in three or four years only. Everything comes down to that. I want to point out to him that this was not his point when he rose the first time. Then his attack on the Minister of Justice was that he had dared to say to the police you must please see that you know both languages.

No, that is not so.

Yes, that was the position of me hon. member, and he now wants to give it another milder colour. The attack comes down to this that no time was given. Now is this honourable? That was when he got up the first time, and then he had not yet heard of the circular that his own Government had issued. Is it honourable when he sees that a circular has been issued by his own Minister in which the same thing is said?

Our circular says something quite different.

What is said to-day and also what was said in 1917 is: you do not know the two languages of the country and if you do not know them then you will suffer in your promotion. That was said in effect in 1917 and in what does that differ from the circular of the present Minister of Justice? Let us be honourable and say that what the Minister of Justice has done here is nothing more than what was done eight years ago when the police received notice that they should know the two languages. What is still stranger to me is this. This is a question of administration and consequently everything depends upon how it will be interpreted. I am prepared to accept that under the previous Government nothing was done. I will also accept that under this Government effect can be given to it. The whole question is: how can it be carried out? I ask further of the late Prime Minister if it is honourable that after the Minister of Justice got up yesterday and informed the House, the police, and the country, how he intends the circular to be executed, and how he is going to do it, I ask again, if it is honourable that to-day this should all be pushed on one side and simply one should rise and point to the circular as to something which has been fixed and which cannot be modified. The House and the people have the right to expect that when the late Prime Minister rises he will show more fairness. At the elections it was the hon. member for Standerton who went from political platform to political platform and cried out to the police and the officials how they would be treated if the Nationalist Party came into power.

And there they have it now.

I am glad to see that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) acknowledges it and what he is doing here this afternoon is simply attempting to let the people think that this has happened. Let me tell him: we have the right to expect more from him and let me go further and say that I fully support what the hon. Minister of Justice has said that this is more a personal attack on him than anything else, and that the hon. member for Standerton is attempting to justify to the people what he previously said. He has twice called upon me to say if the Government knew of the circular or rather if the Government is accessory to the circular. I want to tell him that in the first place where questions of administration are concerned, I leave it to my colleagues in their departments to do what they think best, and what the hon. Minister of Justice has done here is nothing more than what I expected of him, viz., that where he feels that there is incapacity in his department he will warn the department. For these reasons I am fully satisfied with what the Minister of Justice has provided in that circular and with the explanation he has given of it.

Oh yes, with the explanation.

Naturally, hon. members hear so unwillingly that the hon. Minister of Justice will be ready to do no injustice to the Government service, although it is not stated in the circular. That is the whole reason of the attack. I want to repeat again that I hope that the late Prime Minister in the future will really act better, in a way that will become him, more, and that is expected from him.

The matter which has been raised this afternoon is one which peculiarly affects the Province from which I come, and one of whose representatives I have the privilege to be in this House. The hon. the Minister of Justice in his speech, stated. or rather charged, the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) with having raised this question from a political point of view, and in order to score a political point over the hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. I may say that I have received communications from the men themselves, people in the police force and in the prisons service in Natal, and they have placed the same construction on the circular which has been issued by the hon. the Minister, which the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) indicated in his speech this afternoon.

That is the plain meaning.

The explanation which the hon. gentleman gives is that the circular which has now been issued is practically the same circular which was issued in 1917. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Bloemfontein says “Hear, hear.) How does he account for this circumstance; when that circular of 1917 was issued it created no uneasiness in the service.

It was not taken up.

Anyhow it brought no protest as far as I know from the police or the people in the gaols in Natal.

They were not stirred up.

There has been no opportunity on our part to stir the men up, but it is not difficult after the explanation of the hon. the Minister of Justice to realize why the men are now agitated. In the circular of 1917, the men were told this: “a good working knowledge of Dutch even in Natal will be a circumstance which the authorities will take into consideration in the granting of promotion.” And under the circular many officials in Natal made an attempt to acquire a working knowledge of Dutch in the hope of securing promotion. To-day the circular tells them this —and this is the great difference as far as the men are concerned—“promotion shall not be allowed unless these men have a full knowledge of Dutch.”

Of both languages, not of Dutch.

That in Natal means the men must learn Dutch compulsorily. The men are now told that, notwithstanding that circular they need have no apprehension, because the Minister will decide; the Minister will be careful that no case of injustice is inflicted in that Province. If this question of promotion was to be left to the discretion of the Minister of Justice, what was the necessity of the circular which states in so many words that promotion shall not be allowed unless the people have a knowledge of both official languages. I understand from the speech of the right hon. gentleman the leader of the House, that he now associates himself with the action that has been taken by the hon. the Minister of Justice. I can assure both these hon. gentlemen that the explanation which has been given this afternoon will not satisfy the people who are concerned in Natal. The hon. gentleman the Minister of Justice knows as well as I do that it is practically impossible for the men in Natal to acquire a knowledge of Dutch which will bring them within the scope of this notice; it is practically impossible for the men to acquire the Dutch language. What can this circular possibly mean? If it is going to depend upon the ipse dixit of the Minister of Justice, why the necessity for this circular ? To tell the House and the country that the circular of 1917 is the same circular, or a similar circular, to that which has been issued by the hon. the Minister of Justice, is an insult to the intelligence of this House as well as to the intelligence of the men concerned in the service. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister may take the consolation if they like, that this is merely an agitation which has been engineered on this side of the House for purposes of political propaganda, a course of action which, of course, would have been entirely foreign to the hon. gentlemen when they sat here. I ask the Minister to believe me when I say that I have myself received communications from the men who are concerned, men who did not vote for me at the last election, men who voted for the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and for members of the Labour party.

Has there been one case of injustice? Can you quote one case of injustice?

The circular has only just been issued. Will the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs give us his guarantee that there is going to be no case of injustice in this matter? If so, how can he do it? As I understood the Prime Minister, he made the most extraordinary statement that, so far as this circular is concerned, it was the independent action on the part of the Minister of Justice. So I take it that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs knew nothing about this circular when it was issued. Is that so?

Can you quote one case of injustice?

I want to ask the Minister of Labour did he know about this circular before it was issued? I take it for granted that neither of these gentlemen knew about it.

You are taking too much for granted.

I ask them both, can they stand up in this House and tell the men of Natal that the circular of 1917 means no more than this circular issued by the Minister of Justice? I challenge them. On the one hand, the men are induced to try and obtain a working knowledge of Dutch under very difficult circumstances and, if they succeed, they will be rewarded with promotion. By the circular of the present Minister of Justice they are told in so many words that, unless they acquire the Dutch language in addition to their own, then promotion will not be allowed. Then when we raise this question we are twitted with raising it for political purposes and the men are, forsooth, told “You need not be alarmed; the Minister of Justice will look after you and see that no injustice is involved so far as you are concerned.” I do not think the men in the Service will be satisfied. I would again point out how difficult is the position so far as the people resident in Natal are concerned. Men in the police and in the prison service have to know not only English but also Zulu. Many of them are too old to acquire a further language, and it is physically and practically impossible for these men, however good their intention, except in a few rare instances of younger men, to acquire this second European language. It seems to me that this is the first step in the direction of a policy which is going to bring about the most serious ill-feeling between the residents of the province of Natal and other parts of South Africa. If any attempt is made to force the pace in that province it is going to make it extremely difficult for those of us who represent that Province to sit in this House and “stomach” some of the legislation which has been foreshadowed.

Secession.

The hon. member (Mr. Robinson) has challenged me. I will say this to the people of Natal that, so far as it affects their prospects, I am perfectly certain that this circular issued by the Minister of Justice is not going to be one whit more prejudicial to the prospects of any man who is affected by this circular than by the circular issued by the previous Government. What rubbish to talk and quibble! Here the previous Government issues a circular saying that a knowledge of both languages is incumbent.

No, an important factor.

It is incumbent. You had better listen to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan); he is warning you. It says that a knowledge of both languages will be taken into consideration in questions of promotion. In other words, there is the chance of promotion and the man who has got no knowledge of both languages is passed over and the man who has got such knowledge is given promotion. No, he is not barred; he is only passed over. What makes me a little bit suspicious that it is not altogether on the part of the members of the late Government an intense desire to see that in the Police and Prison service there is no ground at all for thinking that some new and worse policy is being pursued—that there is in it a little of the desire to try and make good those fearful pictures of persecution that they painted at the time of the election.

How many hundreds of men have been dismissed by you?

For unilingualism—not one. This is a new departure on the part of the Opposition, this statement that such a circular will make every member of the public service feel insecure. In 1923 the late Government issued new regulations for the permanent Defence Force, which is a branch of the public service. In these regulations it was laid down that men qualifying for promotion from corporal to sergeant, as well as officers of commissioned rank qualifying for a step in promotion, would have to pass a qualifying examination, in which 50 per cent. of the subjects would be held in English and 50 per cent. in the Dutch language, and as 60 per cent. marks had to be obtained to qualify a man for promotion, a man who knows no Dutch is disqualified.

You would not pass the examination.

Probably not. But if I were given a year’s notice, I would, and so would most men.

Do you consider a year’s warning sufficient?

These poor fellows were given no warning, and the Commission reported that that was unfair. When these things are done by men of their own kidney, and when they are done by the good holy South African Party Government, they are quite right, but it is a wicked thing, a foul injury, when it is done by this wicked ministry. Many officers of the Defence Force wrote protesting, and when the opinion of the law officers was asked for, whether it was in conflict with section 144 of the South Africa Act, it was held that the regulations were perfectly valid. The conclusion of the whole matter is that we have got to make up our minds that South Africa is, and is going to have more and more of this peculiarity that we are a bilingual country. We have to make up our minds that it will be more and more incumbent on every member of the service to be bilingual. Hon. members opposite can gibe as much as they like, but they did not gibe at the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he did not talk Dutch.

He had a little more sympathy with the men.

Honesty, straightforwardness and frankness are characteristics of the late Minister of Railways, but he does not show that sort of sympathy which makes you say “your heart bleeds.”

Do you approve of that circular.

It is just on a par with this circular and that is interpreted by my hon. friend. What a Minister says in this House is as good as a circular—it is published to the world at large. So far as we are concerned what my hon. friend says in this House will be borne out by practice. The Opposition has taken this matter up with a view to making people’s flesh creep, and it will have the same effect as their attempts to do the same before the elections, for people will find that an ounce of practice is worth a bushel of listening to their speeches.

We are all very sorry for the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, for if there is one thing which has been made self-evident to-day, it is that they knew nothing of this circular. It is the general opinion of the country, and of members of this House, that the hon. gentlemen are not consulted with regard to the policy of the Government. We have had it again to-day that the Prime Minister is not always consulted, and that he appears not to have known of the circular issued by the Minister of Justice, and that touching faith and belief which the Minister of Defence has in the righteousness and integrity of the Minister of Justice is not felt by some people who a short time ago were public servants. The Minister of Defence said we must be satisfied with the assurance given us by the Minister of Justice, that so long as he administers the Department, no injustice will be done. I am not satisfied with that assurance, and the country is not satisfied. I know of many individual cases of public servants who have rendered admirable service and who have been dismissed by the Minister of Justice to make place for his political supporters. What about the court-messengers?

They are not public servants.

It is because we know of these things, and of the injustice which the Minister has done to many public servants that we are not prepared to take the assurance which he has given the House to-day. Gross and grave injustices have been done.

Where?

I have mentioned the messengers of the courts, and there are justices of the peace.

Are they civil servants?

They are working in the interests of the country. And when we find they are similarly dismissed how can we expect—

What about the Defence regulations?

They are entirely different from the circular issued by the Minister of Justice. When the Minister of Defence comes back to a more reasonable state of mind, and when he is not in that excited condition in which he is at present, I would ask him does he approve of the circular issued by the Minister of Justice? And if he had known of that circular would he, as a member of the Cabinet, have given his approval to it? Perhaps the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will reply to the same question; he is now busy with his colleague, who has carried out the same policy as the Minister of Justice. There are two members of the Cabinet of whom the public are afraid—the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture, who have ruthlessly got rid of public servants, not on account of inefficiency but because they were not strong supporters of the Nationalist Party. The interpretation the Minister gives of his circular to-day is entirely different from the interpretation the Minister has given on many public occasions and indeed, gave last Saturday at Retreat.

I have already denied that.

The Minister did not deny it. He made a sort of rambling statement of what he said. I believe there are notes to show that at Retreat the Minister said it was his intention to have only bilingual servants in the public service, and to give no promotion whatsoever, irrespective of the qualifications of the individual, if the individual was not proficient in both languages. I asked the Minister the other day how it is he comes to sit in a Cabinet with two Ministers who are not bilingual.

They are not public servants.

No, but they are servants of the country. Then the Minister said that it was necessary for public servants to be bilingual because they come into intimate association with the public of the country.

I was speaking of the police.

Do not the two Ministers come into intimate association With the public of the country? Only to-day I received a postcard which asked me to say who ruled the Government and who ruled the Prime Minister, was it the Minister of Justice? I am inclined to think the writer of that postcard was right. I think the Prime Minister acknowledges he was right because I think the Minister of Justice has very often put the Prime Minister in a very awkward position indeed, and he has never put the Prime Minister in a more awkward position than he has to-day. One thing is certain. There is during the last few months, through the action of the Minister of Justice, a feeling of unrest in the country, and I use the word “suspicion,” among a large section of the English-speaking people, as to what the conditions are to be under which they are living.

Now we will bang the drum.

Racialism again.

I challenge anyone to accuse me of one racial act since I have been in Parliament. I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to show from the files of his department that while I administered that department a single one of my acts was actuated by racialism.

What about the sheep inspectors you dismissed?

I am glad the hon. member has put that question. We found— not I found—the department found that it was necessary to alter the system—

I am sorry, the hon. member’s time has expired.

I think we can see where the unrest is. I do not think there is one member of this House who has not found it difficult to understand the mental attitude of the hon. members opposite. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said the Minister of Justice was quite wrong in issuing a new circular. He said, “Why not act on the old circular and then there would be no unrest? Well, what would have been said if the Minister had acted on the old circular? Suppose he had said the police were given warning eight years ago that it would be incumbent upon them to become bilingual and that now that notice was going to be carried into effect without further delay? What would have been said to that?

We acted on it all along.

The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) told us that the railway servants were given five years’ notice. The Auditor-General’s report dealing with the South African Railways and Harbours shows that the Minister of Railways was actually notified that every effort had been made to comply strictly with the Act of1912. But the Railway Board had to ask that there should be no further promotion in the cases of those railway: servants who had not complied with the conditions of the Act. At page 71 of the Auditor-General’s report he points out that the Act of 1912 provides that an officer appointed to the service shall not be promoted to any higher grade than he has attained to in five years’ time unless he passed the prescribed examination in both languages. The General Manager advised him that since August, 1921 every effort had been made to comply strictly with the Act. The Auditor-General stated that it was for the Administration to adjust the salaries of the officers concerned in accordance with those requirements. Yet as a result of what had taken place, the Railway Board found it necessary to pass a resolution on the 6th August, 1924, to the effect that approval be given to Parliamentary sanction being sought to condone certain cases of promotion which had been granted contrary to the provisions of the Act. Revision of the Act was to be asked for so that payments made to certain members of the staff who had received promotion ultra vires should receive Parliamentary sanction. The Railway Board suggests that officers who do not comply with the language qualifications required by the Act should be debarred from further promotion.

Is that what the Minister’s circular means?

I am telling you what the circular says, “debarred” means “debarred.”

How clever!

The hon. member is a lawyer: has he ever seen a proviso in a statute? There is a proviso here in Mr. Roos’s circular.

They have had five years’ notice.

They have had eight years’ notice; unless the circular of the late Government was not meant to be acted on. The only difference between this circular and the Defence Act Regulations (referred to by Col. Creswell) is that one is more lenient than the other. It says you shall actually write your examination in the other language. How many members of the House could write an examination in the other language? It is one thing to speak and another to write in the medium of another language. I think these Defence Act regulations are absolutely and obviously unfair, and would even be unfair after eight years. The Minister is simply carrying out the exact terms of the laws of 1912 and 1923. My hon. friend from Natal may rest assured that the Minister of Justice appreciates the exceptional circumstances there, and will take notice of them; but in any case where a bilingual test is really necessary an officer who is not bilingual cannot do his work. I think the claim as put forward in the Act of Union, and subsequent legislation, is not an idle claim. It is seriously claimed that this is a bilingual country and we must enforce bilingualism as early as we can. The speech however, of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is the same camouflage and has all the merits and demerits of the hypocrisy he has practised for the last fourteen years—of putting things on paper and not carrying them out. We are not prepared to do that.

I should like to reply to the charge of the hon. Minister of Agriculture who stated that I dismissed 400 scab inspectors on racial lines. The hon. Minister has all the files of the Department at his disposal. I don’t know whether the Minister is carrying out the same policy as I did. From the first day I entered that office I gave every officer of that Department the fullest opportunity of putting his views in writing and said I would take the responsibility for my actions and put down reasons for disagreeing. I did not say I was not going to consult the public officials of the Government as the Minister has said. As the hon. Minister knows, recommendations were made to the Secretary for Agriculture, and through him to the Minister, that it was unwise to have a system whereby—when we hoped in a few years’ time to get rid of scab—the sheep inspectors would go on the pension list, and therefore as their services could be determined, every sheep inspector was informed that at a certain time his services would come to a termination, his pension would be compounded, and in future every sheep inspector who did good work and kept his district clean would be entitled to a bonus.

That is why we are in such a mess.

The Minister would find, on consulting the files, that these inspectors—and that is where I join issue with the Minister of Justice—signed on for further service. Their nationality was not considered. I did not go individually into those appointments; the Secretary for Agriculture gave his approval to each one of the recommendations that were put up—a different thing from what a Minister does. The Minister will find that in every case, except some thirty or forty, they were appointed under the new conditions. I will bring up an absolute case. In the Free State he has dismissed an inspector of thirteen years’ standing who had a clear record and came forward on the call of the Government when the rebellion came; and later, as the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) knows, he put in his place a man who took another view when the rebellion broke out. I am not mentioning cases where I cannot bring up chapter and verse.

You are quite welcome.

I can mention a case at Swellendam which was submitted to the magistrate for enquiry. The enquiry substantiated all the charges, and the man was suspended. Then the Minister came into office, and, despite the recommendations of members of both parties, the man was re-instated.

Order! I would remind the hon. member we are now on Pensions.

I am sorry, but after the charges brought against me by the Minister I was obliged to reply to the Minister of Agriculture. An interjection from a responsible Minister like that has to be replied to. I am not going to refer any further to that. There have been many opportunities of dealing with this case. I say that the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Justice has caused the gravest unrest throughout the country. A large section of people in this country believe, I believe justly, that they have had their services dispensed with on account of their not holding the strong political views of the hon. the Minister of Justice, and I think the Minister has made that clear in the course of many of the speeches he has made throughout the length and breadth of this country. It is hoped that the discussion which has taken place to-day and which took place the other day will cause the Prime Minister to interfere, and that the Prime Minister will see that the interpretation of this circular by the Minister of Justice will not be alone left to his discretion, but that the Prime Minister as the head of the Government will see that no injustice is done to anybody, because if that circular is carried out the gravest injustice will be done. I am sorry the Minister of Defence is out. He referred to the protest of certain officers of the Defence Force in connection with getting a certain notice. The Commission which the Minister of Defence appointed referred to that matter and considered that it would be unfair that they should get notice, and notwithstanding that warning the Minister himself says that he approves of the circular of the Minister of Justice, the circular which states that except a man can pass an examination viva voce twice, that is two examinations.

If he can pass one, he can pass the other.

And also a written examination he will not be eligible for promotion. That is an injustice. The Minister must now it is a grave injustice. The circular to which the Minister refers, referring to a talking knowledge of Dutch in his department. I know from experience in making appointments that if a vacancy occurs and you are sending an officer to a district where the great majority are Dutch-speaking people it is advisable that the department concerned should choose a, man who has a workable knowledge of both languages.

A working knowledge.

What is the difference?

One is bad English, and the other good.

One is English and the other Irish.

What was meant was that he would be able to carry on the ordinary duties entrusted to him. I think that is all that should be expected. As I said a few days ago in the course of time in this country everybody will be bilingual, but that is different from trying to force people who have no opportunity, as in Natal, of making themselves acquainted with the Dutch language. And indeed, until latterly, they were not sure with what language they had to make themselves acquainted, because if it was high Dutch they might have found it difficult to pass an examination in writing if so required. Under the circumstances I think we have a perfect right to bring to the notice of the House and the country the extraordinary action of the Minister of Justice.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member says hear, hear, but he is very uncomfortable. He has not got that brazen look he generally has. The hon. members will find it difficult to explain the action of the Minister of Justice to their constituents.

The time of the hon. member has expired.

I would ask the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), as the responsible leader of the South African party, just to take stock and review the road which his party is now travelling at the heels of the late leader of the Unionist party. As I sat here this afternoon and listened to this debate my mind went back to about six, seven or eight years ago in the early days of my parliamentary experience when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who was leader of the Unionist party, sat where he is sitting now and the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) sat here with Gen. Botha as the leaders of the South African party, and my mind goes very vividly to the debates we were accustomed to in those days Precipitated by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) when he was doing his best to raise and arouse political support for his party against the South African party on racial lines. We have—fortunately for South Africa —during the last four or five years dropped that policy to a large extent. It was wrong. We on the cross benches protested time and again against this policy of the Unionist party of raising racial feeling in the country and exploiting the language question and the racial question in order to secure political support. We protested time and again.

As you protested in Durban in December, 1914.

The hon. member need not get excited. He is having a very good innings. With the consent of the South African party he has been allowed free rope to wallow in the racial mire that he used to enjoy so much. And that would not be so bad were it not for the fact that he is dragging at his heels the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the South African party. We supported the South African party—I appeal to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—in resenting this frequent and constant racial attack which came from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and to-day as I listened I could not help recalling those days, and I bitterly regret that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has allowed his party to be swayed over in that direction.

Do you regret the circular?

The hon. member has really had a good innings on this subject. Does he mind if I say a word or two? When I have finished I am quite prepared to listen quietly.

I don’t want you to finish your ten minutes before you tell me about the circular.

I want to say that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) might have had some justification for his remarks to-day had he cited one case or quoted one instance where injustice had been done at the hands of the hon. the Minister of Justice.

The circular has only just been issued.

Let me deal with that. In 1917 a similar circular with slightly different phraseology was issued saying that it was incumbent on public servants to know the two languages, and in the Dutch version a stronger word, obligatory was used. The circular is here and an hon. member will read it. The same racial row or trouble, the same apprehensions might have been raised when that circular was issued, but the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) knows that everything depends on its application; not on the mere fact that it had been issued, because the 1917 circular was issued and administered with a certain amount of equity and justice according to local circumstances. We have heard from the Minister of Justice that it will be applied in such a way as not to impose any injustice or hardship on the unilingual man if he does his part efficiently and plays the game. When there are any instances, not merely on the publication of the circular, but of any injustice being done, then there might be some justification for a little criticism, if not, for the feeling that has been raised at this juncture. I deplore the fact that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has allowed himself to be stampeded on this point. If the right hon. gentleman had done what he should have done, he would have waited to see how this circular was administered, he should have waited until there was even one case of injustice; then there would have been some justification for the attitude he has taken up. When, however, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) talks about people being put out of the service at the hands of the Minister of Justice, the right hon. gentleman cannot realize what has been the position before this Government came into power. During my term of office, it has been my experience as Minister for two departments that a good deal of my attention has been taken up by representations which have been made to me by dozens of people in the public service who have been dismissed from the service in the last two years, for reasons which they say were not justifiable. No fewer than 183 of the staff of my department were dismissed in one year, and people have been coming to me daily, pointing out that they have been dismissed against the law or for unjust reasons or for this or that; so hon. members on that side of the House need not come along and talk about any dismissals since we took office, because we have a long way to go before we can catch up to the dismissals made by our predecessors. I believe the public service will believe that, in spite of this circular, they will get a straighter deal from this Government than ever they have experienced at the hands of the other Government. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) spoke of the great feeling of unrest in South Africa. Yes, there is a feeling of unrest, but it is amongst the supporters of the South African party because they are out of office and someone else has got the reins of power. That is the reason for this preliminary canter on racial lines and language lines which has been indulged in by our friends on the opposite benches. They should tackle us on economic questions. If they would confine themselves to social and economic matters then I say they should fight as hard as they can, but if they are going to depend for their success in the future on racial and language questions, raising trouble when there is no need, it is going to be a sorry and a bad day for this country. I deplore the fact that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) should have allowed himself and the South African party to be dragged, as they have been, at the heels of the Unionist party, whose game it was in the past and who failed.

We have listened this afternoon with very great interest to certain questions which have been put, and all we can say is that we admire the stolid stubbornness with which those on the other side of the House have refused to give a plain answer to a plain question. A question was put to the hon. the Minister of Defence, as to whether or not he, personally, approved of this circular, and a question whether he knew of its intended issue before it was issued, and his answer was “You’re another, we only did what you did.” I ask him if he will answer either of these two questions. The simple and plain question was also put to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and his answer was “You’re another.” He said “You dismissed 183 men—”

I never said “Your are another.”

Let me have the names of these men and the reason for their dismissals. I challenge the hon. the Minister to lay such a return on the Table and to mention a single one now. What was the answer of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? He said that we were raising racial questions.

That is your stock in trade.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs another plain question. Will he go to his constituency in Greyville (Natal) and tell his constituents there, whom he is supposed to represent, and put to them that this attempt on the part of the Opposition to-day to secure what they believe to be justice for the people to whom injustice will be done by this circular, is a racial issue. The hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) interrupts. The hon. member is destined for far higher paths: such a matter as a meeting of constituents will not interest him soon. As I was saying the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs should go to Greyville and tell his constituents that, and he should take with him the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). Will he ask that hon. member to accompany him on to that platform and tell the people of Greyville that the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) is animated by feelings of racialism? This party had a powerful supporter on Friday night when the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) made the speech he did. I would just like to ask one further question. Will the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for the benefit of his constituents, or such of them as are Dutch say all this to them in Dutch?

I will try. I am not afraid.

Pas op. We have not yet got an answer from those two hon. gentlemen as to whether they in their personal capacity approve or do not approve of that circular. The Minister apparently accepts it as explained by the hon. the Minister of Justice, when he says that in spite of that circular there will still be a balance of injustice on our side. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is prepared to condone a good deal of injustice apparently, in order to make up the leeway. To get back to the question which was raised before these charges of racialism were made and before these evasions of questions took place, I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the important point which underlies all this; that is a question of how are they going to treat the men, not those affected by the Acts of 1912 and 1923, but the pre-Union men, men who one might describe as belonging to the older generation, men approaching the age of superannuation. These men, it would seem, will lose their chance of that further period of five years which they justifiably expected to serve as a matter of course. I would like to know whether you are going to treat them in such a way that they will not get their five years or their promotion. On both of these points a large amount of injustice will be done to these older men. This is a very sore point with these men, many of whom are married. Many of them in the course of their duties have to carry out their work in such a way as to make it impossible for them to pick up another language. To many people the picking up of a language is a very difficult thing indeed. A great deal of hardship will be done to the police, many of whom will lose all chance of promotion if this bilingualism circular is insisted upon. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the circular and to rely upon the circular of 1917.

One might easily say of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that his attitude is quite consistent. When he entered Parliament for the first time posters were exhibited in his constituency stating: “Don’t vote for Boydell because he is supporting Smuts on the bilingual question.” This attack came from Sir Percy Fitzpatrick who was sent down by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to drum it into the heads of Durban that this man would be dangerous as he was in favour of bilingualism.

That is incorrect.

That was not at the time that my hon. friend opposite was trying to upset the constitution. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has stated that the Minister of Justice is an asset. We know why this attack has been made. It is the Minister of Justice who brought Lucifer down from his high pedestal and who broke the leader of the South African party. That is why the attack has been made on the Minister of Justice and not on account of bilingualism. The speech the right hon. member for Standerton made today he dare not make in Standerton, and he has been led away by his friend who has always been an enemy of the Dutch. His friend has collared the party and it is the old story—the flag and racialism. There is a great newspaper campaign in progress in South Africa and even in England; “The Spectator” has fallen to it. According to a cablegram from England, “The Spectator” gives prominence to “a striking article on the growth of racialism in South Africa, and tearing away the veil of pretence which has so far hidden from the rest of the Empire the actual situation in the Union of South Africa.” Another link of Empire! “The Spectator” goes on to state that the British are being squeezed out. Can you give me the name of one Englishman who has been dismissed by the Government?

Mr. Sandys, of Durban.

“The Spectator” article is an echo of a campaign that has been going on in South Africa. It is the same old campaign that the hon. gentlemen thought would turn the election, but the English-speaking men turned round and got tired of it. We are told that the police are upset. Where are the police upset?

In Natal.

All right, we will come to Natal. Who has upset the police in Natal?

The Minister of Justice.

No, the members of the South African party. In Bloemfontein there are large numbers of policemen who can only speak one language, the English language. The Chief of Police is a Canadian, and the second-in-charge is a Scotsman, who cannot speak Dutch. Not a word of protest have I had from the Free State from these men, in fact before I left, they were satisfied with the way in which they were being treated to-day. They were certainly far more satisfied with the way in which they were being treated now than they were under the last Government, and they said so generally. I should say that the police ranks, the English police, voted to a man for the Pact Government. Where is the dissatisfaction coming from? Natal. Are we to understand that in Natal we are never to ask these people to learn the Dutch language?

I did not suggest that.

Why should not the Natal policeman speak Dutch, as well as the Free State policeman?

Where is he going to learn it?

The majority of the children are becoming bilingual.

Where is he going to learn it?

Where other people learn it. We required the Defence Force officer in Natal to learn Dutch. The regulations which were issued said that he must pass in the Dutch language. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) made what he thought was a deadly attack on the Minister of Agriculture. I say that the farmers of South Africa are behind the Minister of Agriculture, bilingual though he may be, and not only the farmers of South Africa, but even the South African press. Listen to what the “Cape Times” said, only this morning. It never said this about the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). They said he was a very cheery sort of chap. This is what they said about the present Minister of Agriculture—

The whole of the farmers of South Africa are behind the Minister, because, although he was sneered at just now by the right hon. gentleman for having said that there should be correspondence one week in English and the other week in Dutch—

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I think that hon. members of this House will be prepared to admit that officials are treated with the greatest patience. We know that most of our English-speaking fellow citizens find it hard to learn another language and that it would be stupid not to take account of that. But what is the consequence? I just want to give a practical example of what has happened. It was in one of the camps along the canals where the unhappy Afrikanders have been congregated through fourteen years of bad Government which we have had. I give an instance of what has happened and happens to-day but which we may hope that, now that the hon. Minister’s attention is called to it, he will take steps that nothing similar will happen again. Amongst all these people a few of whom only can speak English, a policeman was put by the old Government who could not speak a word of Afrikaans. The consequence is clear—“unpleasantness.” The policeman ordered that fires were to be put out which the people had made outside. He was not understood and in order to make his meaning clear used the method of moving his feet about in the fire and stamped it out. I must say that I am astonished that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is not in a position to understand these things, and when mistakes are pointed out to him such as happened with the appointment of 400 scab inspectors that he is not sufficiently courageous to stand his ground. The present Minister of Agriculture has the courage to say: “I have done what has been done and I am responsible.” And what does the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) do to get out of difficulties about the appointment of these 400 political agents. He goes away and creeps under the small back of the Secretary for Agriculture. Is it manly for an ex-Minister to say that the Secretary for Agriculture had done it? Into what position does he bring the secretary over against the present chief? Is it manly what the ex-Minister has done? To return now to the circular. Eight years have now elapsed since the first notice in 1917 and hon. members on the other side of the House know that in eight years much can be learned. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will agree if he recollects what he learnt in the years 1901-’19. If he compares his reports to Gen. de la Rey full of the most honourable republicanism and not eight years later when to Campbell Bannerman he was full of the reddest imperialism he will see how a person in eight years time can learn, and I think that he should keep this in mind in exercising his criticism on the Minister of Justice. There is only one point that I still want shortly to bring to the notice of the House, and this is in connection with what the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. van Hees) read out of the opinion of the Auditor-General who is a reliable, frank official. And what does he say about clerks that are appointed in the railways and harbours and get increases in conflict with the law? The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said in his speech—and if he says so then, perhaps he knows something about it—that the police did not vote for the South African party, but for us. He seems thus to know what happened there. He possibly will also know how the clerks in his department voted. The result should establish that they did not vote for him, but for the hon. member who now occupies the seat for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay). If this is so then I must say that they are people of honour and commonsense who do not allow themselves to be bribed by the particularly favourable circumstances which the former Government gave them, viz., illegal promotion and in conflict with the law. And for the reason that they did not allow themselves to be bribed, I say that the clerks are clearly people of honour and sense, and I feel inclined to vote for the Indemnity Law which the Railway Board recommends on their account. I will repeat that I do not doubt that the attitude of the Government will be an attitude of great patience as the hon. Minister of Defence and the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs also feel, and if the hon. Ministers who do not belong to our party express their confidence in the Minister of Justice we can also trust that the Government will act with patience.

Now that we have got down to a quieter atmosphere in regard to this question, I want to ask the Minister of Justice for his attention for one minute. So far two Cabinet Ministers have spoken in regard to this question of the now famous circular issued by the Minister of Justice, and both these gentlemen have been careful to say that they approve of that circular only after having heard the explanation of that circular given by the Minister of Justice, the inference being the circular pure and simple does not meet with their approval. Having heard it explained, may I say watered down, by the Minister of Justice, they now approve of it. Well, the police force of this country do not sit in this House nor do they all have the opportunity of studying either the “Cape Times” or “Die Burger,” and what I fear is that the police force, disturbed as they are by that circular, will not have the advantage of reading the Minister’s explanation in conjunction with it. I would like to ask the Minister, therefore, if he will agree to supply a copy of Hansard to all the police stations in the Union or will he, recognizing that even his own colleagues on the Ministerial bench qualify their approval of the circular by the statement that their approval is based on his explanation of it, recognize that there is a case for the issue of a new circular? It may be the new circular will not differ materially in its effect from the old, but if it contains the Minister’s explanation it may have a soothing effect. What I would like to know next is this. Whatever is or is not to be read from the Minister’s circular, that is not the circular which has been issued to the police and has led to these representations being made to members of this House. I would be no party to stirring up unnecessary trouble, but the complaints have come from the police themselves. A complaint has come to me from a Dutch-speaking constable who came with this circular in his hand and asked me about it. What the police have seen is not the circular issued by the Minister but the circular issued by the Commissioner of Police. In that circular it is said quite plainly that no police officer, unless he can reach Standard VI. in both official languages, may hope either for promotion or retention in the service after the age of superannuation. Does the Minister propose to have that circular, which he has told us he knows nothing about, withdrawn? He has already told us that he regards the test of passing Standard VI. examination a ridiculous one. I ask again, does he propose to have the circular withdrawn? Are the police to be left under the impression that that circular of the Commissioner embodies the official will or are they to be told that that circular is not to be enforced? Another point I would like to raise is this. Reference has been made to the circular of 1917, which did indicate that promotion would depend largely upon the bilingual capacity of persons in the police. That is true, but nothing in that circular or any previous Act justifies the Minister’s circular so far as it refers to superannuation. It is one thing to say: You shall not receive promotion until you satisfy us that you are bilingual. It is wholly another thing to say to a man now reaching superannuation age: Although it is customary to retain your services until you are 55, you shall not now be kept in the service after you are 50 unless you are competent bilingually. I hope the Minister will recognize that it is not fair to say to a man: You are not now being kept on past 50 because you have not become fully bilingual. I am pleading the case of a constituent of mine who was a Dutch-speaking constable and who could not fully qualify in the English language. He can speak English, but he cannot write official reports in English. I know this man. He has good conduct badges nearly a yard long on his sleeve. He is content to remain a constable, and all he wants is that he should not be superannuated at 50. He has been in the service a great many years. He did not come into the service after the Act was passed. If he goes at 50 it will not only throw him out of employment at an early age but it will affect his pension rights. I hope the Minister will see that whatever stand he takes about promotion it is quite another matter in regard to superannuation.

I might perhaps answer the question at once. The hon. member will see that the section dealing with superannuation makes no reference to any examination. I think he feels with me that it would be foolish to let a man of 50 pass an examination of the VI. standard or any other standard. My idea is that the officer of the man would send in a report. I certainly would not allow any examination of any kind in such a case. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) referred to the terms of an addendum to the circular. I am endeavouring to obtain a copy of that. I agree in regard to superannuation that if there is no knowledge of one language and the man is efficient for the position he occupies he should be retained.

Do I understand that the Minister agrees entirely with what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said the other day?

In regard to superannuation, yes.

On a previous occasion the hon. member referred to more than superannuation.

I do not know the terms of the circular and therefore I cannot say anything about that. I am answering the hon. member’s question.

I should like to refer to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who gave the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) a lecture on consistency. I think we have a case here of Satan rebuking sin, because the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is the most inconsistent being I know. He had, for example, belonged to every political party.

He knows something about them.

I know, but is that why he has congratulated every Minister of the Crown in turn? When a member acts in that way there must be some object; we have the right to inquire as to the object; and I should like to know whether it has anything to do with a speech he made at Kimberley.

What was that?

The speech in which he advocated “Jobs for pals.” The hon. member complains that people are not consistent. We know his past, but perhaps we do not know his immediate past. There is a letter which he wrote in January, 1921, when he was very anxious to become a member of this House.

To what is the hon. member referring?

I am using an argument in reply to the argument used by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow).

I cannot allow the hon. member to go into the past of another hon. member except in connection with this vote.

Do I understand that I cannot reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North)?

Is that in connection with this vote?

I am following the same lines as the hon. member. I am not discussing the consistency of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I want to follow the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) and discuss his consistency.

He wants to read a letter on republicanism which I wrote.

Do I understand I am out of order in doing what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) was permitted to do?

I have already said that if the hon. member wishes to refer, to anything in connection with this vote which concerns the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) I will allow him to proceed; otherwise not.

I am proceeding on the same lines as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North).

I must ask the hon. member to stop that point. It has nothing to do with this vote. (Interruptions.)

I am asking the chairman’s ruling. Do I understand you refuse to allow me to go on on the same lines?

So far as I can see it has nothing to do with this vote and therefore I must rule it out of order.

I cannot clearly understand, and I want to be clear. Am I ruled out of order for replying to the hon. member? My reply is quite as relevant as the whole speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), but if I am ruled out of order I must of course sit down.

The hon. member had better sit down then.

I can quite understand that the hon. Minister of Justice is anxious to have this vote passed but we cannot allow it to go through so easily. Here an attack has been made upon a circular about equality of language in the police service of the Minister of Justice. The attack commenced with a sham attack by the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) and he also is now out of the House and will certainly not come back quickly to-day. The assistant leader or the Opposition jumped up after him but he did not go into the circular but attacked the Minister of Defence. To get further from the circular he went on to attack the Minister of Agriculture. He jumped around and only to get away from the circular because they are ashamed of the arguments which have been used here by their leader the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) went still further to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. After him came the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and he also did not confine himself to the circular. After him came the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) who tried to attack the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). He was not permitted by the Chairman and he ought to be thankful for it. Thereafter all the members of the Opposition remained perfectly quiet; all that they now want is that the Minister of Justice must answer the question of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), namely, whether it is stated in the circular that the police must pass Standard 6.

That is not all that we shall hear.

No, that is not the only thing that we hear. We hear much from them about injustice but we challenge them to name one instance of injustice to these people. If they make these accusations and say things in the presence of the responsible Minister what will they broadcast in the back-veld where the people are not so well enlightened. We challenge them here in the House to give one instance of injustice. The Opposition has never shown us for a minute that they are worthy of the name of Opposition and I request them please to accept our challenge. Their whole attack is based on the prophecy of the hon. member for Standerton and he has seen here again this afternoon that they are disappointed with his prophecies. We think for example of one of his prophecies that he and his party would be back in office within three months.

To a point of order. The hon. member opposite may remember that I consigned him to a very warm place last session. Now I will consign him to school.

What is the point of order?

The hon. member is talking about the late Prime Minister and says he wants to be at the “hoof van sake” in three months.

I can assure the hon. member I am watching the debate.

I am certain you are watching, and I am watching. The point I raise is that I am entitled to ask whether my point is a good one or a bad one.

The hon. member may proceed.

I hope that you will concede me the few minutes that have become lost through the interruption and that you will not deduct it from my time. Hon. members on the other side of the House now seek all sorts of things to defend themselves with reference to all these prophecies. The hon. members opposite are bitterly disappointed. Perhaps some of them believe the phophecy. No, there is not one of them who believes them. Then there is still hope for them. But there are still some of their followers who believe it and their leader now goes around making known how large and strong and full of hope the future of the S.A.P. is. These are the prophecies of the late Prime Minister and on this the sham attack was based. I asked hon. members to give a single instance of injustice and to show me where the circular of the Minister of Justice differs from that of 1917. The only objection which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has is that no time has been allowed and no date fixed. If a date had been fixed a week or fourteen years later he would have had no objection. He says “we are agreed the public servants must be bilingual but the principle must not be applied unjustly.” This injustice has not yet occurred. Let hon. members show us where injustice has taken place. If it has occurred, name it then! If it has not occurred what right have hon. members to say such things. The hon. members for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) have said that the police are concerned about what they infer from the circular. I can understand this if hon. members in the House come and say that things are contained in the circular which are not there and I ask what conclusion the poor police will come to from their speeches. We must be honourable and not stand and talk in a childish way. I expected that the Opposition would give instances of injustice. No, they make a sham attack and then retire. I want to give them the chance but they will not produce instances. We expect that if they come with such bogeys that they will substantiate their criticisms. The hon. member for Standerton says that the Minister of Justice is an asset to the S.A.P. If possessing a man is worth so much to him then he will become hopelessly insolvent and the S.A.P. had better abandon such an asset. The S.A.P. gave us a halt and hopeless Government and thereafter became a useless Opposition of no use to the country.

Mr. Chairman, if I overstep the very narrow limits which you have laid down for the conduct of this debate, it will only be because I am tempted by the remarks of the other side, who seem to have enjoyed a considerable amount of liberty in their rejoinders. I wish to refer to the difficulty of acquiring a knowledge of the Dutch language in Natal, and to quote, for the information of this House, a statement from the “Public Servants’ Magazine,” a journal that can in no way be considered to have been at any time favourable to the party to which I belong, and whose sentiments are generally accepted as being those of the Labour party. That journal states, under correspondence from the Natal Midland branch—

That is from the current issue of the “Public Servants’ Magazine,” and that only serves to bring home what I said the other day in connection with the difficulty experienced by anyone, however willing, in acquiring a knowledge of the Dutch language in Natal. This is a very real and genuine feeling, and I do resent the remark of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who said he would like to know whether Natal is a part of Madagascar or of the Union. Remarks of that sort are calculated to wound and to annoy us when we are debating a subject which is a proper one for the consideration of Ministers.

I thought you wanted to secede.

We have never wanted to secede from the Empire, but I think the hon. member will hear a good deal about the desire for secession from the Union if the reasonable feelings of the people in Natal are to be scoffed at in the way in which he would set out to treat them, for you must bear in mind that education in Natal has not, up to now, embraced very largely the teaching of Dutch. That has not been altogether the fault of the system. It has been incidentally affected by the difficulty of getting thoroughly qualified bilingual teachers, by our isolated position, and the problem of nationality, but there is no doubt that if the policy enunciated by the Minister of Justice in his circular is to be adopted, in a very short time every child in Natal will have been legislated out of the public service which is the heritage of the people of Natal—that is the point I want to make, and it is being very seriously brought home to the people of Natal at the present moment—that unless more consideration is shown in regard to this bilingual matter, the children who are growing up to-day will all have been legislated out of the State service in another ten years. That is not the fault of Natal, although probably a fault incidental to the system; a fault that is being gradually cured, and I do ask for reasonable patience in this matter on the part of the Ministers who are to-day in control of affairs. The hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said his mind carried him back many years. He almost pathetically referred to the attitude of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) in remonstrating against too drastic an application of bilingualism some years ago. I hope that the Minister’s mind also carried him faithfully back to the time when he offered £50 reward to anybody who could prove that he voted for the Nationalist party, for that would give a certain amount of balance to his observations. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs’ defence of the circular seemed to me unfortunate and weak. He called on us on this side of the House to mention cases of injustice that had occurred under this circular; in other words, we must blindly assent to a circular which we perceive to be unjust because for the moment we cannot produce any cases of injustice, and certainly that seems a very Machiavellian argument, and such as one may expect from the Minister’s entirely changed point of view in these last days. The Minister of Defence also referred to this circular, and as far as I was able to judge of his defence, the only reply he was able to make was that the predecessor of the Minister of Justice had laid down some drastic rules relating to bilingualism during his term of office. He went on to say that if anybody were given a year’s notice, and if he were given a year’s notice, he would pass the qualifying Dutch examinations in terms of the circular. I thought that was a very bold thing to say. If every official in Natal were to be called upon to take one year’s notice of the necessity of qualifying in the Dutch language or leave the service, I am sure 75 per cent. of the English-speaking people would be obliged to leave, not through any fault of their own, but because tuition in the Dutch language is absolutely at a premium in Natal and can only be got under very difficult conditions. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who is so completely equipped to misinform this House on almost any subject— guaranteed to put you wrong on anything. He is the gentleman who told us the other day—I thought he was an apostle of non-racialism—he was pleased to accuse England of having conferred a knighthood on an illustrious South African in connection with the theft of certain land by England from the Free State. These are non-racial sentiments, indeed, from a man who lectures us to-day on racialism! As has been pointed out, his facts are totally wrong. He might as well have come from Madagascar himself as get up and try to get us to believe such a travesty of the history of his native province— the Free State. On these misrepresentations he tried to malign the memory of a great man who is gone, and to besmirch the history of his own country. That is the man who presumes to lecture us on racialism, and who went so far last week to be labour us on a set of facts entirely and unutterably wrong. I only want to make one more remark in regard to the Defence Force circular. The Defence Force circular applies to certain examinations which were required to be passed by members of the permanent force. Let us be clear about that. That circular did not refer in any way to the citizen soldiers, who are not required to pass any test in regard to bilingualism. That applied only to the permanent force. It is perfectly well known that members of the permanent force were provided with a school at the depot at Roberts Heights. Every effort was made to assist these men to overcome the difficulty of bilingualism. They were in daily communication, there were members of both races in a standing regiment at the same station, and there were ideal conditions there for the study of the language. There is no parallel whatsoever between the two cases compared by the Minister of Defence.

It is very peculiar that 15 years after the commencement of the Union we should still have to listen to such speeches from the Natal members as we have heard to-day. A few days ago we heard from an hon. member—and a very responsible member, a former Minister—that in Natal the Zulu language is of more importance than Dutch. If this is the spirit that prevails in Natal than it is very sad. Then one can understand that the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Marwick) actually says that they are ready to break away from the Union. This is what he said on the interruption of a member, that he is prepared to break away from the Union but not from the Empire. If he is prepared to do this what then becomes of the slogan, “South Africa first”? Is not this the Empire first? If we, after 15 years, have to listen to such speeches from responsible members from Natal, then it is not to be wondered at that the people there have not yet come to the state of respecting the other language. If we in the Free State had taken up the attitude and had said that the Basuto language was of more importance than English what would then have happened? We can well imagine the shouts of indignation that would have gone up from the English-speaking people. And rightly. But we in the Free State did not say that English was of less value and that we should rather learn Basuto. We appreciated that English would be a great value to us, and we are practically bilingual in the Free State to-day. If Natal had taken up this attitude from the commencement of Union and said that the knowledge of Dutch was necessary to every person in the Union, then you would not to-day have heard all these complaints. Then we should not have heard the speeches that we have heard to-day. The hon. members from Natal must now once and for all see that they cannot just talk about bilingualism and say that they approve of it in theory but that we must wait a bit in practice. If we are not going to carry it out in practice then we shall never have a state of things where the one portion of the population will respect the language of the other portion. I reckon that this debate about the matter is a great compliment to the present Government. The hon. member who has just sat down has tried to make an attack in this matter upon the Government. From what he has said it appears very clearly that he is convinced that the Government is going to carry out this policy, that it is not only going to remain a circular and that the Minister of Justice and all the other Ministers will see to it that the public service becomes bilingual. The previous Government honoured this principle on paper, but I accuse them to-day of being the cause that a large portion of the public service is not bilingual to-day. The previous Government never exercised the least pressure. Their circulars, because they did not act upon them, soon produced the impression in the public service that they meant nothing, that it was nothing but throwing dust in the eyes and the officials could speak what language they pleased. The consequence is that sometimes when you ask unilingual officials who have been fifteen, sixteen, seventeen years in the service why they did not learn the second language they ask: “Why should we learn Afrikaans?” The Government never insisted upon it, the Government did not take steps. I do not blame such a man that he did not take the trouble of learning the second language. He knew that the circular had no meaning in practice. The previous Government are to-day accused that they produced the impression in the country and in the public service that bilingualism was empty talk and nothing more. If they had done their duty then we should have had bilingualism to-day in the public service. Now they come and they attack the Minister of Justice, and I want to say here at once that we have not the least doubt that it is a personal attack on the Minister. Nothing else. All the speeches have shown a peevish and complete hate against the Minister of Justice. But I say that if they attack the Minister of Justice then they attack us too, every member of the Pact Government. But the attack is made in the second place as an attempt to regain support. They feel as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said that the police and the public service voted against them. They feel that they must to-day do something to win back those votes. And in view hereof they appear as the ostensible defenders of the people in public service. But we have perhaps come more into touch with these people than they because the people were afraid of them and did not give their opinion, and we know that in the service it was strongly felt that an injustice was being done in relation to bilingualism. This is the feeling among English just as well as amongst Afrikaans-speaking people, and the Opposition will not have much success if it attempts to win back votes in this way, and the South African party with their tactics are attacking one of our strongest points. I regard bilingualism as one of the strongest points of our programme, and I can assure hon. members opposite that I feel very sorry about their attack. The people in the country know that we stand for language equality and they are very strongly in favour of bilingualism outside. I would advise the Opposition to attack us on stronger points than bilingualism, scab and abolition of titles. Before I sit down I want to say that I hope that Natal will soon send other members to this House other than those who are to-day sitting on that side of the House, and with other views upon this question of bilingualism.

I rise to correct the statement which has been made by the hon. member who has just sat down. I was somewhat surprised to hear him make that statement, because he is studiously moderate in what he says. He asserted that the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) had stated that the people of Natal took far more interest in the Zulu language than they did in the Dutch. That was not what my hon. friend said, and everybody who knows the political record of the hon. member for Dundee will know that such a statement is absolutely foreign to his outlook. What he did say was that a policeman in Natal would find a knowledge of the Zulu tongue of more use to him than a knowledge of Dutch or Afrikaans.

Why?

Because the vast majority of the people who live in that province are Zulus. I protest against that remark of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) being turned into a statement derogatory to the dignity of the Dutch language. It is no use attacking us for raising racial issues—we are not raising racial issues. It has been stated from this side of the House—and I repeat it—that on the question of bilingualism we are absolutely at one with hon. members opposite, but where we differ from them is that we are not in favour of this principle being carried out at the expense of men who have been many years in the service, and who have had no opportunity of learning the other language. If the circular means that men of that kind are not included, why does not the Minister say so?

What about the 1917 circular?

The 1917 circular stated that a working knowledge of both official languages would be regarded as an important factor. I say, frankly, that it is incumbent on every member of the civil service to learn the other language, but, that is quite different from saying that he is not to be allowed promotion unless he has qualified himself by an examination in both languages. In regard to the administrative and clerical divisions of the public service the language obligations of the people have been laid down by statutes which are accepted by everybody in this House. In regard, however, to the police, prisons and Defence Force, we have statutes governing them, but we have no provision whatever as to what a man’s obligations are in regard to qualifying himself in both languages, and, therefore, a thing like this circular can be sprung on them at a moment’s notice.

As the Defence Regulations were?

The Minister of Defence stated that the commission reported adversely on that, and said that these regulations ought not to have been sprung on them without notice. Seeing that the Minister was aware of this fact, why was this circular sprung on the police without notice? I do not for a moment quarrel with the finding of the commission that better notice should have been given, and I say exactly the same in regard to this circular. The 1917 circular was not a peremptory circular denying promotion.

Is preference a bar?

No. I should have thought the hon. member knew that. The Minister should tell us frankly that he is going to revise the circular and to see that it is not to operate harshly on men who came into the service before 1912, and who have had no proper opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of the other language. If he means to use the circular in this way, for heaven’s sake let him say so, and let him issue a new circular saying that it is not going to be interpreted harshly. The Public Service Act provides that, and I think it is only fair that other services like prisons and defence should have the same privileges and the same safeguards in regard to this matter as the other branches of the public service, and I suggest to the Minister that he should look at this matter not from a controversial point of view, but recognizing that it imposes, as it does, a great hardship on a great many of the best men in the service and, from that point of view, he should state clearly in a new circular the spirit in which he intends to act in this matter.

May I make an appeal to the sense of fairplay of hon. members opposite, especially hon. members from Natal? May I take them back to the time of Union and remind them that in 1909, when the Act of Union was passed, Natal was given the opportunity by referendum to say whether she would come into Union or not? That was a privilege which no other Province had. May I remind hon. members opposite that at that time there was considerable discussion on Section 137 of what is now the Act of Union and that Natal, with its eyes open, decided then to come into the Union? When section 137 became the law of the land, I must confess that I had so much confidence in, and that I trusted so much the members of the National Convention that I thought there was now an end to all language troubles in South Africa. I thought when section 137 became law in this country every English-speaking official would see that he learnt Dutch, as every Dutch-speaking official, I am glad to say, has seen that he learnt English.

No.

I will challenge the right hon. gentleman to go to any part of my constituency and address in English a man who draws pay out of the coffers of the State, and I guarantee that that person will be able to answer him in English. Let him go with me to any English-speaking centres and he will find that my language will not be known by the officials. To-day in Cape Town you can go into very few public offices and be replied to in Dutch if you address the officials in Dutch. Why? Because hon. members opposite take up the attitude which they are taking up to-day, and which they and their press have encouraged their officials to take up ever since the time of Union. I submit that this whole agitation is in breach of section 137 of the Act of Union. Let us show South Africa that when we make an agreement we do not make it with mental reservations. Section 137 says that “both the English and Dutch languages shall be official languages of the Union and shall be treated on a footing of equality and possess and enjoy equal freedom, rights and privileges.” How can the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) say that when he helped to make this the law of the country he intended to tell the policemen in Natal, fifteen years after Union, that it was only eyewash, that in Natal the Dutch language can never be treated on a footing of equality and that it never can enjoy equal rights and privileges? It is leading us into the temptation of believing that hon. members opposite when they say one thing always make mental reservations. When I was at an English Inn of Court I remember that, in connection with the Indian civil service examinations in England, nobody could hope to get a decent position in the Indian civil service without knowing some of the Indian languages. Here, hon. members opposite want men in South Africa to be able to get promotion, to be able to go from step to step, without knowing one of the official languages—a language which has equal rights and privileges. Up to quite recently a knowledge of Dutch in this country was a bar to promotion, especially in the police. I know of a case of two men who joined the police in the same year—1902. The one was a Dutch-speaking policeman and could write reports in English and Dutch, and could give evidence in English and Dutch. The other was a man who did not know Dutch at all. The man who knows both languages is still a policeman who patrols the countryside, and the other one, whose proud boast it was that he does not know Dutch, is to-day an inspector of police. I appeal to the sense of fairness of hon. members. Let me implore the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and others not to use their legal skill to try and show that when you said one thing you meant another. May I point out that the circular of 1917 was not protested against? Men were not stirred up and in that circular it is pointed out that it is incumbent on them to learn Dutch, incumbent to learn the other official language. Eight years afterwards my hon. friend the Minister of Justice says “you shall not receive promotion, except in exceptional circumstances.” To the ordinary man in the street what is the difference between saying to a man “it is incumbent on you to learn Dutch,” and saying to him “you shall not receive promotion unless you know Dutch, except in exceptional circumstances?” I have on many occasions admired the great skill of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) in splitting hairs. I am not now asking my hon. and learned friend to show his skill in splitting hairs. I ask him what is the difference between these circulars? The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) said that, after the circular of 1917, policemen in Natal were prepared voluntarily to learn Dutch. But now that the Minister of Justice has said that these men shall not receive promotion, except in exceptional circumstances, they become stubborn and say: “We did not mean what our leader said in 1909 when the Act of Union was passed.” Fortunately, all the Dutch-speaking police I know have learnt English, and I hope hon. members will not seek to make political capital, because they have been found out. I think the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) did not make that mental reservation in 1909. When he said they should be treated on a basis of equality he meant it. I want to appeal to the sense of fairplay of hon. members opposite. When you said Dutch should have equal rights, did you mean it should have equal rights, or was it merely equal rights on paper?

I feel that the spirit the members of the Convention had in view was that we should not force one another’s language down our throats. It is a matter on which we should take a broad view and not a narrow-minded one such as is being taken by the present Government. The last Government did not take that narrow-minded view; they left the matter to be worked out in the due course of time. As a result a large majority of our officials are able to address you in both languages. I think if we are to try and force one another’s language down one another’s, throats, it is going to have a very bad effect.

I want to get back to the vote on pensions and ask a question or two on this particular vote. I see that the sub-head (c) shows an increase from £308,000 to £346,000 in respect of compensation allowances for loss of office owing to reorganization and retrenchment. The original sum was sufficiently large, but it seems an extraordinarily large amount to burden this country with to ask them to pay: £346,000. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why there should be this large amount. Then I would like to say a word on these war pensions. I do not know what the report is, but I again say that this House should not be asked to vote money upon the recommendations of a commission until the House has seen that commission’s report. Otherwise this House simply becomes a rubber stamp. Surely if Parliament has control of the finance of this country, if we are to be the real authority and not a rubber stamp, then we should make an early and effective protest against this. The Minister was good enough to offer to show me personally this report, but it is not me personally he has to-satisfy, it is the 135 members of this House. Until members have had an opportunity of seeing in what respect this vote is necessary we should not be asked to pass it. I am going to ask that this vote stand over and that we proceed with the others. Otherwise the Minister is going to force us into the position of voting money on the recommendations of a report which we have never seen, but which in two days’ time we are told we shall see. The hon. Minister the other evening said that this item was in consequence of the recommendation of the commission but when we pointed out the difficulty that we had not seen its report he said: No, my decision has been come to independent of the commission’s recommendations. We, however, can only take it that this vote is consequential upon the report of this commission. There is one other question I want to raise. I notice in this morning’s “Cape Times” a wire from Pretoria giving a report from an article in the Government organ in Pretoria, “Ons Vaderland.” In that article it is said that legislation is proposed forbidding the payment of pensions outside the Union of South Africa. I want the Minister to tell us right now whether there is any truth in that statement. If there is, we should take it up immediately. To suggest that people who have earned their pensions cannot spend them wherever they wish, to suggest that because they have the bad taste to prefer not to live in South Africa they must be deprived of their pension, is, to my mind, a most alarming suggestion. I would like to know what the Minister’s suggestions are. I move—

I am afraid I cannot accept the motion. I hope to have the opportunity of replying to the points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), but there is nothing in them.

Why not reply now?

As I said when I introduced the vote originally, I am asking the House to vote this money on account of a report from the Pensions Commission. I also stated further that, apart from that report, the Government in the exercise of its discretion considered itself quite justified in asking the House to vote this money for the reason that what the Government proposes to do, the late Government has done in similar cases. It is a fair and reasonable request we are making. During the former regime the Treasury cancelled a number of pensions, both in respect of services in connection with the Great war and others connected with the three South African wars—the Boer war and others.

Was that on account of fraud?

No; I am dealing with cases of over-assessment. In cases connected with the Great war pensioners who had been over-assessed were paid a gratuity. In the case of the Boer war the Government says they must be dealt with on the same ground. These gratuities were not paid until October, 1923, when the Government decided in respect of these cases that the gratuity would also be paid. Members will see that previously a discrimination was made and no gratuity was paid from a certain date. The view that the same gratuity should be paid in respect of the Boer war was endorsed by the commission— which included two members of the opposite side of the House. They were unanimous in agreeing that these gratuities should be paid. We are asking that effect should be given to the recommendations on the lines of similar cases which were dealt with in 1923.

The motion was negatived.

A certain matter has been raised here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) with reference to persons who are to-day out of the Union but who draws pensions from the Union. In connection therewith I addressed a question recently to the Minister of Finance about the payment of pensions to persons oversea who had left the Union.

I would like to point out to the hon. member that he is here discussing a subject which requires legislation and I therefore cannot allow him to continue.

I understand that but I am now placed in a worse position. I already raised the point when the Speaker was in the Chair but he also declared me out of order. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has put the other point of view and I cannot answer him.

He only asked the question and the hon. member can do the same.

I bow to your decision but I should like to have stated the opposite position to that put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) asked whether I would lay on the table a return of the cases where officers were compulsorily retired, in respect of whom pensions must be paid. I may inform him that I have laid a list of all officers retired to September, 1924, and I do not think there were any others after that day. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) raised the question of the deficit in connection with the Natal Pensions Fund—the bankrupt Natal Pensions Fund as he put it. The reason for this Vote is that this fund has become exhausted because you have granted greater benefits than the income was equal to, and the Government will in the future as I have already indicated be forced to make a vote out of revenue to meet the liability. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has raised the same point as the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)—the question of gratuity to ex-burghers to which I have replied. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked why there is such a big increase in this vote. The principle increase is on account of the legislation we passed a few years ago whereby officers are entitled to commute a portion of their pensions, and that a larger number of pensions have been compounded than was estimated for—£80,000, whereas we put down £25,000.

You have not answered my question about over-seas pensioners.

This matter has never been considered by the Government, and no legislation has been contemplated.

I have been waiting for the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) to be present but I see that he has once again run away. I want to show the necessity for giving correct quotations I asked him for the page and the date of the Auditor-General’s report from which he was quoting, and he told me page 77 of the Report of 1923-’24. I can find nothing on that page in terms of what was quoted—absolutely nothing at all. I think the hon. member when he gives information to the House should be more careful, so that we can follow him. We are entitled to have proper references. I say that when the hon. member was asked for the page he said “77.”

Seventy-one.

No; seventy-seven. I have nothing to do with the correct page, he gave seventy-seven. I say it is quite impossible for us to follow what an hon. member is quoting when it takes you half-an-hour to find what the correct page is. Now, his quotation has been found on page 71, let me tell him that what he said in making his point was so much hot air, because the Auditor-General says—

The hon. member omitted to say the late Government was in power, and that the hon. Minister was chairman of the Board which passed the resolution.

I only want to show to the hon. member that he is wrong. On page 71 I read plainly “unless and until he has passed a satisfactory examination in both official languages.”I think the hon. member brought the House under a misapprehension about the decision of the present Government together with the Railway Board, which shows that the present Government cannot be criticized, that it is not brutal and unfair as the hon. member wishes to make out. The only thing the present Government has done is to propose not to carry out the law with all possible severity as the contravention by the previous Government might have caused. Our Government said that they are prepared to pass an indemnity law to protect the people who would otherwise get into difficulty through the misdemeanours of the previous Government. Thus, if the hon. member had quoted the page correctly, he would have to say that if there is any blame—and there is blame— that it should fall to the account of the previous Government, and if praise has to be given and praise must be given—then the present Government must receive the praise. Then he would have been right. Now he is wrong and has misled the House.

I should be glad if the right hon. the Prime Minister would give us an assurance before this vote is taken that the circular issued by the hon. the Minister of Justice will not be acted upon in so far that an interpretation that can be put upon it literally will not be placed upon it. It is an important point, and I intend to have my rights in spite of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I have just as much right as they have to express my views on a matter of grave public concern, and I certainly am not going to be put off my stroke by their gibes. The Prime Minister occupies the important position of Leader of the House, and this circular has been brought to the notice of the Government, which lays down unmistakably that irrespective of the time the officers of the police force have been in the service, and whether they were in the service before Union or not, there will be no further promotion for them unless they pass two viva voce examinations in the Dutch language and a written examination as well. All I want from the right hon. the Prime Minister is that he shall state to the Committee before the vote is taken that he, as the head of the Government, will see that the interpretation of that circular will be of such a liberal character as not to do a great injustice to any member of the forces. I think it is within my rights and privileges to ask this, and I think the right hon. Prime Minister, as Leader of this House, has laid upon him the duty of giving me a straightforward answer to that question. It affects a very large number of people, and I think in the interests of these people alone, and for the purpose of removing the grave uncertainty that exists, we have a right to have a definite statement from him, especially as it was self-evident in the course of the discussion this afternoon that he had not been informed of the issue of this circular. I gather that the first he knew of the circular was when the discussion was raised the other day, and under these circumstances I think that before the vote is taken we should have a solemn assurance from the Prime Minister, as head of the Government, that he will see that no injustice is done to any member of the police, or to the gaolers and warders throughout the Union, and further, I should like to have from him an assurance that a circular of this sort will not be issued in connection with other departments, and that he will see that Ministers in other departments—the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or the Department of Defence, for example—will not act as admirers of the Minister of Justice and, perhaps, hastily and unthinkingly sign a circular of this character with regard to their departments.

We do not act hastily.

Well, that is the whole trouble.

He does not act at all.

He did not Know anything about it.

Unfortunately, in this case the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as mentioned by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) had no opportunity to act. Had we not brought the matter to the notice of the House he would not have known anything about it.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.

I have nothing more to say. I am simply waiting to see whether the Prime Minister will reply to the questions put to him before the debate adjourned. It is very important and we should like to know what the Government really intends to do in the matter.

It is wonderful to see the behaviour of the Opposition. They catch at every straw but always sink deeper. It is also remarkable to me that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) can ask the hon. Prime Minister if he will give him the guarantee and promise that he will not allow the circular of the Minister of Justice to be applied. What right has he to ask this? His Leader has said that the police voted for the Nationalist party, and what right has he then to represent that he wants to protect the police? He need not trouble himself about it. I believe that every portion of the people is satisfied that they voted for the Nationalist party. The people thank the Lord and heaven that they have Become free from the reign of terror and do not want that Government back because it is hopeless. The people have been fed on promises for 15 years. Do members opposite think that the people are without sense and all capacity of understanding? It is useless for the Opposition to come with such little straws to the House. They catch at every straw they can reach and still sink deeper and deeper. It has appeared to-day in the House that the previous Government issued a similar circular which went further than that of the Minister of Justice. No, the Opposition again want to make political capital out of the matter, but the time for that is past. The people do not want to hear a word about promises, the people want to see acts. It is for that reason the old Government fell to where they sit now. They were 14 years in power, and what was the consequence? Nearly the whole people was ruined and we had bankruptcy on all sides. It seems to me so strange that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is so wilfully blind. He came and said that we had received everything in good order.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote under discussion.

I abide by your decision and I shall return to the question of pensions. Why do the Opposition object to the money that is asked? It is actually the money which has been robbed from the old burghers. The previous Minister of Justice took away approximately £35,000 from the burghers. Now they want to object to the money being paid. The report of the commission has not yet been laid on the Table, but I believe firmly that the commission’s report will show that an injustice has been done to these people. The anxiety of the Opposition will have no success. When we were in Opposition we fought the South African party Government, we kept to the point, but then we always gave proof of what we said. Their present action will benefit them nothing. The country outside does not bother itself about it any more.

I believe we are discussing the vote under the head of pensions, not racialism. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not a fact that what has caused the pensions fund to be so low is that a large number of men have been retrenched, also, that owing to the abolition of office many have been put on pension before their time, the result being that the pension funds are very low. I would like to ask whether in future the Minister will charge to the Consolidated Revenue Fund any pensions which are paid out to any individual who is retrenched before his time or owing to abolition of office.

That is being done now.

Not in every instance. There is a certain gentleman employed in Cape Town to-day at a salary of £30 a month who was put on pension 18 years ago of over £22 a month, owing to abolition of office. I consider it is a shame that some men, after serving the country well for 25, 26 or 28 years, are put on pension at £4 12s. 6d. a month. I, therefore, approve of the increased vote for pensions. Although the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) blames the Labour party for the increased Vote, I, as a member of that party, hope and trust that this Vote will be further increased. You have got no right to put men on pension at £4 12s. 6d. a month when they have served the country well.

In this essentially bilingual debate we must give effect to bilingualism and, as a Dutch-speaking member of this House, I will address the House in the English language. I thought after the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) had very tactfully sounded the retreat at a late hour this afternoon, that the other members on his side would realize that it was useless to continue this fight against very heavy odds. Not only members of this House, but the public at large, will, I think, realize that they have suffered hopeless defeat in their attempt to make political capital out of bilingualism in this country. There will be a feeling of very keen disappointment that hon. members on the other side of the House have thought fit to make political capital out of a matter which is so important to the future well-being of both races in South Africa. They may try to convey the impression that they are doing it in the interests of the public service—of the police in this case—but I think that the man in the street will not be deceived by these tactics. Here we have the matter of bilingualism, which is undoubtedly a corner stone in the Union edifice, and yet they insist on making use of it for the purpose of making political capital. Another aspect of this question is that this matter of equal language rights is one that is very keenly felt by the majority of the European population here in South Africa. The South African party are doing their best to try and catch votes and make the public service suspicious that they are being harshly dealt with by the Government in a matter which is absolutely essential if we are to have racial co-operation and goodwill in the future. The effect of this attitude on the part of members of the Opposition will be to discourage those men who are honestly trying to make an attempt to learn the other official language, while those men in the civil service who are not doing their best to acquire a working knowledge of the second official language are being given an incentive not to try and acquire that knowledge. In the circular of the Minister of Justice there is a reservation that in exceptional cases the circular will not be applied. On the other hand, in the circular issued by the late Government we have identically the same idea as regards acquiring a knowledge of the other language, but with no reservation about making allowance for any exceptional case. We heard this afternoon that the Minister of Justice was an “asset” to the other side of the House. I think I may say that the discussion which has taken place on this matter is going to be a distinct asset to the party sitting on this side. We had an extraordinary statement from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. Van Heerden) this afternoon about forcing the second language down the throats of the people. Imagine, after fifteen years of Union, to have that sort of talk about forcing down the second official language. I hope and trust that the Opposition will have learnt the futility of making an attack of this sort, that on future we shall have a better spirit, and that members of the Opposition will not make political capital out of questions which are absolutely essential to the well-being of the two races.

I do not desire to give a silent vote upon this important matter, nor do I wish to accentuate the nature of the debate which has taken place thus far. I realize at best that it is a very delicate and difficult subject, this language question in South Africa. Personally speaking, I do not stand back for any member of this House the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) included, in my love of my mother tongue.

Perhaps you are protesting too much.

At the same time I stand also for a very high ideal in our public life.

Then read section 137 of the Act of Union.

And that is the hearty cooperation of the two white races in this country. I think that this co-operation can only be attained by a spirit of toleration and moderation upon this question of language. This spirit of toleration followed by the late Government has borne ample fruit. I have a witness in this House to-night in the person of the hon. the Minister of the Interior who, like myself, is a great lover of his mother tongue. During the recess, from more than one platform, he openly, honestly and fairly declared that bilingualism has made marvellous strides in South Africa and he expressed great gratification that since Union 73 per cent. of the population of this country has become bilingual.

Thanks to the Nation a list party.

I should say thanks to the spirit of interpretation of the great foundation stone laid between the two races at Union, that spirit being followed out as closely as possible by the late Government, nothwithstanding the circular of 1917. Look at the spirit in which that circular was carried out. That is what I wish to draw this committee’s attention to—the spirit in which that circular was interpreted by the late Government. I do not look upon this question from a party point of view. The Minister of Agriculture may laugh.

Why should I cry?

You may laugh. You seem to treat everything as a joke. You ought to bear in mind that we are discussing here a very serious matter. I have no time to-night to deal with the circular of the Minister of Agriculture, that impossible circular, the bi-weekly edition. We can carry out this, keeping in mind our great ideal which I take it for granted we in this House all have at heart, namely the co-operation of the two races. We can only realize that spirit by carrying out this language question in a broad and tolerant spirit. When I went to school I did not know a word of English. I found great difficulty in acquiring the second language because I grew up in a Dutch-speaking home. To-day there are thousands of Dutch-speaking people living in the back veld and country districts far removed from the towns, especially the older generation, for whom it is impossible to acquire the English language. The same thing I realize applies to sections of the English-speaking people. Notwithstanding that, we have made wonderful progress because we have been free from the element of compulsion. The hon. Minister no doubt honestly wishes to further the cause of bilingualism, but I am afraid this element of compulsion is going to have a disastrous effect upon bilingualism. Both the English-speaking and Dutch-speaking people are freedom loving people. I myself should very much resent being forced to learn any language. But if you remove the element of compulsion this country will go along, as it has done in the past, splendidly on the lines of bilingualism. A great deal has been said about Natal. I was in Natal two years ago, and there I addressed scholars at the technical institute in Durban, and in the course of my address, I pressed home this question of the necessity of acquiring the second language in order to group up the two sections of white people in this country. That sentiment was endorsed by everyone present including the teachers and schoolmaster. We are all anxious to develop along the lines of bilingualism. I plead with the Minister to withdraw this circular. He is not going to do any good by it to the cause he has at heart. I believe the Minister of Justice honestly desires to apply the principle of the two languages.

Your colleagues do not believe it.

But I believe he is going to retard the cause he has at heart by this circular.

I am sorry but the hon. member’s time has expired.

I will answer at once the appeal made to me by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and the appeal by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). Now let me say immediately that what concerns the appeal by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) I have been so little affected by it that I can give him the assurance that the Minister of Justice will not be so foolish as to repeal. There is a limit to everything, and that there is also a limit to the question of fixing a limit or of making compulsory the learning of the two languages was also certainly the feeling of hon. members on the other side of the House when they sat on these benches. They passed no less than two laws to compel the unwilling to become bilingual within a certain time or that they should progress so far that they should at least have a practical use of both languages. The hon. member does not want that the hon. Minister of Justice of this Government should be weaker than the former Minister of Justice. In 1917 a circular was issued, and see now, he tries to forget the thing and hide it under the seat. That circular was exactly of the same tenor as that of the hon. Minister of Justice, but then he says “Look to the application.” Precisely. “Look how good their intention was,” he says, “and look how well it was carried out; there was absolutely no grievance.” But may I ask the hon. member by what right he creates the idea when to-day such a circular is issued, that it is done with a bad intention? Whether the previous Government brought this into practice or not? If this was not done, then it was a bit of fraud, and then I say that this Government cannot do anything of the sort; either they carried this out satisfactorily without its having any effect, and then I say that we who now sit on these benches can also do the same. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) rose and has practically shown us nothing else except that while he is busy talking on the lines of those who have been busy stirring up racialism during the last few days, he still tries to protect himself as regards his voters Dutch-speaking and English-speaking.

You cannot ascribe those motives to me.

Nor do I ascribe any motives to you, but I show the method and I say that no one, whether English-speaking or Dutch-speaking, can put his finger on the circular and show that it contains anything that is unjust or unfair. Nothing. I also have not heard a single hon. member trying to do this, but what they have tried is to work outside, to create a feeling against the Government, because that cannot be done. Now I come to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who has done his best at every discussion of the matter if he only had the chance. The circular of 1917 distinctly says in the Dutch text that the learning of the two languages shall be compulsory, that is “obligatory.” Thus the policeman must know both languages. Now the hon. member naturally is silent. “Incumbent” is in the English but your own translators translated this in the Dutch text “obligatory.”

What about examinations?

It is true that if anyone in the police force wanted to rise to a certain higher rank that he had to pass an examination. Certainly, and why not? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has done his best here to allow as much bitterness as possible to arise in this debate and has put me two questions. The first is if I would give him and the House the assurance that the circular issued by my colleague the hon. Minister of Justice would not be applied in an unjust way. That is what the hon. member asked. Not so? The hon. Minister of Justice laid the circular on the Table and thus everyone knows what it contains. The hon. Minister went further, and where we all acknowledge that a great deal in practice depends upon the application of a circular—he declared how he intended to carry it out. Is there anyone that can say anything against this? Can the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) make any objection to it? No one can do so. The hon. member has done his best, but he can adduce nothing; and what does he now do? He tries to be unfair and insulting, and in his attempt to be insulting he comes to me and he asks that I shall help him to insult the Minister of Justice. Now I just want to tell him this, that he is an hon. member of this House and I believe that he is a gentleman, and it has always been the custom that a gentleman takes the word of another gentleman. If this is the case, then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort must take the word of the hon. Minister of Justice, and he can thus understand that I unhesitatingly refuse, or rather that I am excused from the assurance—and he will not any longer insist on it. In the other event he is not a gentleman, and then I refuse to give him my word. You must choose; you must take the word of my colleague as a gentleman, and then we have satisfaction, or you refuse and then you have no right to my assurance. Then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) asked me a second question and he wants me to give him the assurance that no similar circular shall be issued by one department or another. I wish to tell the hon. member that the same right which he and his Government had to issue the circular in 1917 we will retain to ourselves to prepare any circular of a similar nature as far as any other department is concerned. I wish to tell the hon. member that this Government has been called to govern the land and to carry on the administration, and this Government does not intend to be taught how to govern by hon. members on the other side. They had had 14 years and whatever they did or whatever they did not do the people anyhow have had enough of them for the present, and so long as this Government sits here the Government will carry on the administration along lines which it considered right and fair in the interests of the country. If there is one thing which has struck me it is this that they have not said that we prepared a circular which can be applied wrongly, and which could be unfair and unjust to the police, nor have they said that they hope that we will carry it out in a way that will meet the police, and that the requirements will be carried out in a just right way. If they had taken up this line they would have been right and they would have received the assurance that they wanted. They have tried to bring the Government and my friend next to me into suspicion with the people outside and scream and behave in a coarse way here in the House, and they try to produce the impression outside that already something has been done which is unfair and unjust. I say, in conclusion, that my hon. friend for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will understand that I refuse, flatly refuse, to give the assurance he asks for, but I give him the assurance that any impertinent questions of this kind will be declined by me at all times.

I am very sorry indeed that the Prime Minister has descended to imputing unworthy motives to members on this side of the House. Both he and other members on the Government benches are trying to make out that we are launching a racial attack. Far from it. The dispute in this House is not one of principle, but one of method. No one on this side of those House but will agree that the sooner the civil service is bilingual the better, but we join issue with hon. members opposite on the question of method. I am very sorry for the tone of the Prime Minister and that of members on the other side.

You are sorry you are no longer one of the Ministers of the Crown.

No sir; members of Dutch extraction on this side of the House are very fond of the Dutch language, but we are not cranks, like the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) who harries a unilingual dining-car steward and tries to get a unilingual policeman into trouble. That sort of thing does not help the Dutch language. I listened very closely to the apologia of the hon. Minister of Justice, and the speech from the Prime Minister. Boiled down it amounts to this. We admit we have issued a very alarming circular, but they say: “We are good fellows. We will not enforce it with full rigour.” The Minister of Justice says: “My bark is worse than my bite. I mean well by the service,” but the services are beginning to feel his bite is worse than his bark. When the Minister of Justice expresses sympathy with the civil servants they must be reminded of the fate of the oysters in the “Walrus and the Carpenter”—

That is just what the Minister will do. Those of the largest size will be sorted out by the Minister. “with sobs and tears, holding his pocket handkerchief before his streaming eyes.” What struck me was the new type of administration of the Minister of Justice. He goes to one place as Mr. Tielman Roos; he goes to another place and says: “I am talking now as the Dictator of the Nationalist party in the Transvaal”; at another place he says: “I am speaking as Minister of Justice.” He has embroidered on that policy of plural personality. His attitude amounts to this: “Do not listen to what I say in the circular. Listen to what I say in the House!” To my amazement three other Ministers endorse that view. Though they admit they never saw the circular before it was issued, they say: “Now we have heard the addendum of the Minister we are not prepared to oppose it.” Obviously, until this afternoon they had never heard this explanation, so, obviously, they must have had serious qualms about it. The Minister of Justice is a lawyer and he knows that written evidence is considered best evidence. The House and the country are entitled to know whether he is going to stand by his written or his spoken word.

I never said that. It is absolutely false.

The hon. Minister is like the Prime Minister, of whom it has been said that when he gets up he does not know what he is going to say, and after he has sat down he does not know what he has said. He made a melodramatic appeal that we should take the word of the hon. Minister of Justice as regards the sympathetic enforcement of that circular. From what we know of the recent irresponsible conduct of the Minister, his assurance that he is not going to enforce this circular is not very reassuring. I am afraid we cannot allow the police to be at the mercy and whim of the Minister.

You cannot allow it?

I know the Minister is adopting a dictatorial tone. It is very extraordinary that a party which talks of democracy introduce Bills every one of which breathes the spirit of autocracy. It is the very negation of democracy. I do not see a single Bill in which the Minister is not taking far too wide powers—undemocratic powers. We saw the other day the Minister of Justice over-riding the Public Service Commission, and there are numerous other cases. Here the Minister at his mere whim and caprice is going to have men dismissed and retrenched and retarded in their promotion.

Where do you get that from?

From the Minister of Justice.

Dismiss?

And from what the Prime Minister has said; we must take his word and that of the hon. Minister of Justice that, whatever the circular may say, they are going to deal gently with the police. And so we come back to the point that on the mere caprice of the Minister men in the services are going to be dismissed or retarded in their promotion. There is no Minister big enough to assume such dictatorial powers as the Minister has assumed. We know that in various other lines the Minister likewise is going to assume dictatorial powers. He asks: “Do you accuse me of evil intentions?” Well, politically we do, in this case, and I think the country does. (Interruptions.) I was speaking in the political sense. I do not think there is a single member of the civil service who does not accuse the Minister of Justice in a political sense of having evil intentions. Fine words butter no parsnips, and after what the Minister of Agriculture has been doing we are not going to accept mere assurances from Ministers. I notice the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was very silent all afternoon. It is true he spoke once, but he very carefully evaded the point. Both he and the Minister of Defence refused to say whether or no they approved of the circular. There is one member who has not bowed the knee to Mammon, my hon. friend with a smile over there. I understand he honestly condemns this circular. Other members of the Labour party have remained silent, and the Minister of Defence temporized and tried to get out of it.

The hon. gentleman who has just sat down evidently did not listen to the speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) who said, referring to the circular issued in 1917: “Don’t think about the circular; take the spirit in which the administration was carried out.” The hon. gentleman is not waiting for the spirit.

We have seen some of the spirit.

I say, as a member of the Labour party—I do not pretend to speak for the party as a whole, that we have been tinkering with this question of the two languages in the public service for the last tenor fifteen years, and it is high time it was brought to a finality, so that they will know where they are.

Do you approve of the circular?

Yes. I have no hesitation in saying so and I believe every citizen of South Africa will be very pleased indeed when we come to some finality instead of going on in the way the late Government did in issuing circulars, carrying them into effect on the sly, and withdrawing them when a protest was made. That is the spirit we hear so much about.

Are you bilingual?

The hon. member said we have accused the members on the other side of launching a racial attack. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) this afternoon said “we are glad the Minister of Justice was included in the Cabinet, we were not talking about the Minister of Justice personally, he is the greatest asset to us.” Why, if the hon. the Minister of Justice is guilty of all these racial acts and cannot be trusted as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has stated, why is he an asset to South Africa, or an asset to the South African party who have launched this attack for purely party purposes?

He is a liability to South Africa.

Then the hon. gentleman who has just sat down talks about the Minister of Justice touring the country and in one place saying “I am the Minister of Justice,” and in another place, “I am Tielman Roos.” Will the hon. gentleman read the speeches of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and in his calmer moments read his own speeches in the country districts, and compare them with the speeches made in the towns. Will he read the speeches he made to gatherings of Dutch citizens when he said that the Labour party are wagging the Nationlist dog, and then when he comes among the English people when he said the English are in a very parlous position, because the Nationalists are doing what they like, and the Labour ministers are only cyphers. When in the country they raise the country against the town and vice versa. They stir up English against Dutch and Dutch against English. They divide every section of the community in the various parties in the hope that their party will continue to rule to the great detriment of this country.

That is soap box oratory.

It is better than the polished oratory that comes from the hon. member and as far as I am concerned, I am never ashamed of the fact that I have spoken from a soap box to the common people. The hon. gentleman says he is the son of soil and is proud of his Dutch nationality.

So am I.

And yet he stands up in this House and instead of leaving it to the “by jingoists” who say “we don’t want to fight but by jingo if we do” —instead of leaving this to the by jingos he stands up in the House repeatedly and tries to instil suspicion in the English against his own fellow-countrymen. If the Dutch cannot trust their own nationality to give a square deal to the Englishmen, where are the Englishmen going to be? I want to warn hon. members on those benches that they are stirring up not the English community against the Nationalist party, but the English community against the Dutch as a race irrespective of parties.

Nonsense.

You cannot stir up the English against one section of the Dutch without affecting the other. You are trying to tempt hon. members on this side to make racial speeches and to undo the good work that has been done within the last twelve months, instead of welcoming the co-operation of the vast majority of the Dutch you are doing your best to drive the British worker and the Dutch worker miles and miles apart.

The old game.

As I have said the hon. gentleman should read the speeches of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and his own speeches, and see whether he is trying to bring prosperity and peace to South Africa. We should be doing our best to deal with the economic questions of this country and build up a race which will be a credit to the country.

I do not know what the ranting typically soap-box speech we have had has got to do with pensions, but as the hon. gentleman has seen fit to make a personal attack on my patriotism, I think I should answer him. All through my career I have always stood by my country. When we had a Republic to fight for I did not do like some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side. I stood and fought to the last ditch and when later on we became a Union and we had to defend our country on larger issues, I also stood my ground, but my hon. friend has no country. I have even heard him in this House befoul the Union Jack.

Shame.

Yes he did. He has no nationality, no patriotism, he is an outcast and a renegade nationally speaking.

Withdraw.

The hon. gentleman must withdraw.

I withdraw as the hon. Chairman says I must. I hold no brief for the Union Jack. I was not born under that flag, but as he accuses me of lack of patriotism I want to say that I went through the valley of the shadow with my people. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture can confirm that. I stood by his side. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) cannot. No man on the opposite side can point a finger at me, but when I hear an hon. gentleman of the calibre of the gentleman who has just sat down speak of patriotism, it is my duty to say what sort of patriotism he has. He is a declassé, he has no patriotism, no country. I have always looked upon South Africa as my country and have stood by the country in the broader sense. I have not taken the smaller sectional view of some of my friends opposite. In the past on this side of the House we have tried to see the big side and not the lop-sided view of nationalism of those on the Government side of the House. I really cannot understand how the hon. the Minister of Labour and his colleague, whom I think are hon. gentlemen, not of the type which I described the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) just now, and how they can square their convictions with the company they keep passes my comprehension.

I did not propose to intervene further in this debate and would not have done so had it not been for the language of the hon. member who has just sat down, the insulting language used in his description of my hon. friend the member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). May I say this in regard to the concluding remarks of the hon. member for Pert Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that my hon. friend the member for Brakpan is a man I have tried; I have known him for years, I have known him as a man of his word and a loyal man, and I have never heard words fall from his lips so entirely unfitting and unworthy of a gentleman and an hon. member of this House as those that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) just now. I am proud to be associated with my hon. friend the member for Brakpan and after this speech I am proud to be sitting on the opposite side of the House to the hon. member who has just spoken.

I take it that we have all listened with pleasure to the address of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and not only the members in the House have highly appreciated this but also the country outside. We appreciate it that an English-speaking member rises and fights an attempt by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who says that he wishes to kill race hatred in the land to drag it back to its former state. Well we appreciate it that he (Mr. Waterston) who has been represented to us as such a terrible man should get up to defend South Africa, and I think that the people of South Africa will honour him for it. I know his past, but in so far as the future is concerned the people of South Africa will honour him for it. We can almost feel ashamed about the action of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He has got up here and made a terrible attack to drive in a wedge between the two parties to the agreement, but it is in vain, we have experience of that sort of thing. We experienced it in 1911 and 1912 when a political party knew him and also someone else with him because they could not see such misrepresentation through and were too weak for it to drive a wedge between our people. We know what it meant and happily to-day we stand together, English-speaking and Dutch-speaking, and we say that we will run the country in the interests of South Africa. We intend to go along this way and whatever the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) or other members may do we have resolved to keep the “Pact” in being and to save our people. I think that before the general election comes—because hon. members opposite are busy preparing themselves—we shall again have a campaign of terrorizing to frighten the officials and the people away from the Nationalist Government. We mean to go on in this way, and we know that our Ministers will so govern that the people of South Africa will stand together at the side of the Government.

I have listened very attentively to-day to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and during his speech my memory went back to the distant past. I remember so well how he was one of the great champions for equal language rights. I remember also well how his first lieutenant of to-day, Sir Thomas Smartt, fought him at that time. As a matter of fact his speech today proved what a marvellous change he has undergone. I can almost say that the hon. member reminds me of grandfather Isaac who said: “The hands are those of Esau, but the voice is that of Jacob.” If I had not personally heard the speech of the hon. member I could never have believed that he had turned such a complete somersault. I am sorry to find him in this society. It only shows again how the South African party has been swallowed up by the Unionist party. He is no longer himself. There are only six of the South African party on the other side of the House.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote under discussion.

Now I am coming to the point the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) stood in the past precisely for what we would gladly reach to-day. He was a prominent member of the National Convention, and he helped to draft Article 137 of the Constitution, and when he and his Government issued the circular of 1917, they did it to preserve appearances, but he did not dare to carry it out in practice. The people have experienced in the past that they could expect nothing from the previous Government and therefore they have put a people’s Government in power who will carry out the will of the people. Since the election, English-speaking and Dutch-speaking Afrikanders have come into touch with me. They were political friends and enemies and all expressed their pleasure at the result of the election and with the behaviour of the Government. I am glad that the Minister of justice has shown that he is not only a man of words. I have every confidence that he will apply the circular with all sympathy. I wish to give the Government the assurance that their action meets with the approval of the people. In connection with the address of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) I agree with the Minister of Defence that I regret that there is on the side of the Opposition a speaker of Dutch who allows himself to be used to whip up the English-speaking section of the people against the Dutch-speaking people. The two parties which support the Government have for ever shown to the world that no race hatred can exist in this country. We have laid it down clearly, and we stand by it. It is the Opposition who try to mislead the country and it makes me think of the saying of Abraham Lincoln—

We have heard the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central)(Col. D. Reitz) on the question of patriotism. I have ways understood that patriotism meant proper Government and love of the people, but if we go through the history of the late Government how much love of the people shall we find in their record? You will have to search very far to find anything having been done to better the conditions of the great mass of the community; the love they have shown towards them was shown on the Witwatersrand in 1922. Their idea of loyalty is loyalty to those at the very top, but I submit that it should start at the very lowest rung. Loyalty to one’s fellow man denotes loyalty in every direction, but what was the loyalty preached by the late Government in 1922? As a matter of fact they preached disloyalty to the workers on the Witwatersrand. They said in effect to the workers, betray your fellow workers, no matter how many women and children would be thrown on the streets—

That has really nothing to do with pensions.

I realize that, Sir, but I was only following the lead of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) to indicate how little of what he has said had to do with pensions. He started off by telling this House that, after all, the matter before the House was not one of principle. I am sure that everyone on the Government side of the House, including the Labour benches as well as the great mass of the public outside, will agree that this debate started by the Opposition is not one of principle but one of political expediency. This question has been revived simply at the behest of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). The remark of the hon. member for Bloemfontein about the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) having fallen from his high estate has been sadly justified by the discussion to which we have listened to-day, inasmuch as he has had to take over the second-hand political rags of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the late Unionist political party. We know that only consisted in the past of racialism, and it is being dragged in now to divide the people on racial lines. In 1910 Sir Percy Fitzpatrick asked for a fresh start; when they did not get the spoils of office they turned round and attacked the very people they wanted to start with. They attacked them with the weapon of racialism, and charged them with doing everything they possibly could against the British people. I well remember the by-election at which the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was returned on the first occasion to this House. What was that election fought on? As far as we were concerned we endeavoured to fight that election on the economic problems affecting the people of this country. We endeavoured to bring before the public of South Africa the principle that racialism should be broken down in this country and that the people of this country should devote themselves to trying to improve the lot of the masses of the community. What did the Unionist party do? The Unionist party came along to Durban and said: “Every vote given for Boydell is a vote for Botha and Smuts and, therefore, you loyal British people don’t be traitors to your race; don’t vote for Boydell, because, if you do, you are voting for Botha and Smuts.” I have a suspicion that there is something at the back of this discussion to-day. I believe there is likely to be a by-election within the next month or so and they are probably trying to find a seat for some of the other discarded Ministers. They know that the programme of legislation which has been indicated by the Government during this session is one which will meet with the wishes and approval of the vast majority of the people, and, therefore, they say: “We must have a cry; we cannot have a cry about the economic question,” and the best cry they can possibly engineer is this which they have found so useful in the past, viz., the cry of bilingualism and racialism, and the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has fallen to it. I was surprised at that, because he surely has had experience of the bating to which he was subjected by the Unionist party until at last he gave way to them. Three years after that the people of South Africa said: “We may have stood you and the South African party for twelve years, but bow that you have taken to yourselves a new mate, the Unionist party, we cannot stand you any longer,” and after three years, this wonderful combination fell to the ground, not to rise again for many years, if at all. I have the honour of representing a constituency very much to the chagrin of members on that side, because it is a loyal British constituency which, according to the South African party, disgraced itself by sending me to this House. In that constituency we have a Very large police force, and I want to say this, that, in spite of the racial attacks which Were launched against me on that occasion and the obloquy to which I was subjected, as the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has stated, a large portion, if not the whole, of the police force voted for me, in spite of my alleged lack of patriotism and my supposed Bolshevism.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has told us a great deal which I have no doubt he thinks is very interesting, including particulars of the people Who voted for him arid so forth. We have heard a great deal from him about patriotism and the shortcomings of the South African party and the wonderful influence of the old Unionist party. As a member of the old Unionist party I suppose I can feel complimented upon that. But that is not the point. We have been accused in the course of this debate by hon. members opposite of having stirred up what they Call the racial question for purely party purposes. After all, who is responsible for this debate? We have had speeches made by hon. members opposite, both at the election and since, about the failure of the late Government to carry out the law in respect of bilingualism and promises made broadcast that when they came into power they would see that that was put right. We did riot hear so much at that time on that subject from hon. members who sit On the cross-benches. I congratulate the Government, because I think they have got the hon. members there pretty tame on these things. As the result of these speeches and promises, I suppose the Minister of Justice, either liking to do so or not liking to do so—it is rather immaterial—put out his circular, and we have had hints in the newspapers that other circulars are to follow, and, generally speaking, that bilingualism is rather to be ridden to death. The natural result of that is that people have got nervous. It is the fact, of course, that in the public service there are far more English people who do riot know Dutch than there are Dutch people who do not know English. But the point is that there are large numbers of English people in the civil service whose duties have lain in the towns. They have lived amongst the urban population, and we all know how difficult it is to pick up Dutch when the people with whom your life is mostly cast happen to be English people. I do not believe there is one single person, whether on this side of the House or not, who does not admit that the principle contained in the Act of Union with regard to the language question is to be given full effect to, but, of course, it can only be given effect to without causing trouble if it is done reasonably. It has been said that some 73 per cent. of the people in the public service are at present bilingual. Surely that is very good progress. There was a great English statesman whose motto was to leave well alone, and I think Ministers would have done well to have left well alone. If they had simply drawn attention to the circular of 1917 that surely would have been sufficient. No doubt the debate has led to some hard things being said on both sides, but I maintain if the members of the Government had considered the inevitable result of putting this circular out on top of the speeches they have made, and the anticipations they have aroused; if they had proceeded in a more conciliatory spirit, we should not have heard some of the speeches we have had to listen to and this unrest in the country would not have been aroused.

I do not think anyone can take exception to the speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down. It was the speech of an English gentleman, arid whether one agreed with it or not, no one could take exception to it. We have to contrast that with the speech of a political hooligan, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). He has told us what a wonderful soldier he was in the Boer war and in the great war. He might have left that to somebody else. He read his articles about the great war, and in those articles also he told us what a wonderful soldier he was.

No; they were quite correct.

The hon. member has never read those articles. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has made a personal attack upon the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) this evening, which was unworthy of a member of this House. Having made his speech and fired his shot, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has run away. But let me say this, the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) is one of the most respected men in the Labour party. He was accused by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) of insulting the Union Jack. Let me tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) that the hon. member for Brakpan has fought for the Union Jack; has served in the British Army for seven years and has been decorated by the King for his military services.

He has the Royal Humane Society’s medal for saving life.

Yes, he is the only man in this House who has the Royal Humane Society’s medal for saving life. His speech to-night, coming from an Englishman, was probably one of the most manly speeches made in this House. It was far more manly than the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) who with his usual devilish ingenuity has attempted to set the veld alight again with racialism. There was never any of this racialism in this country, there was never any of this stirring-up of the Dutch against the English and the English against the Dutch, until Jameson and his friends came out here. It was not until the Jameson Raid that division was created between the Dutch and the English peoples of this country. No speech had been in worse taste than that of Col. D. Reitz who scorned the British flag and left this country rather than live under it. He was a member of the Nationalist party until an Opposition attorney came and took his work away. I and the other members of the Labour party entirely agree with this circular and we will back it up through thick and thin. Members opposite are not going to make a split in our ranks. The Prime Minister is our Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice is our Minister of Justice. We know that, once we are divided what we shall get. We shall get what we had before, when the Working classes were whipped with scorpions. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) put more men under the land than he put on it. I have differed in many cases from the Prime Minister but we from the Free State know the Prime Minister and know that his Word is his bond, always. Can that be said for the hon. member for Standerton? As far as the Labour party is concerned we are not going to be divided, but we are going to stand by these men through thick and, thin. We have thrown in our lot with them because that is the only way we see salvation. Men like myself, born of English parents, are not going to be divided by that other set. It is the old story of the Union Jack and beating the big drum. You failed at the general election and you will fail again. The police and civil service are not afraid, they know it is the old story. I remember when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) tried to take away our birth-right and to turn us into a place like the West Indies, where we should be ruled by the capitalists. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is getting too hot and going over the rails. The Dutch do not like him because he is not playing the game with the Dutch. The English sneer at him. He is out-heroding Herod. It would be better if he stuck to his own side on the question of language because he is an outcast amongst the Dutch.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “outcast.”

I did not mean to take part in this debate, but after what has been said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) regarding myself, I must say something. Regarding the subject of the debate, I feel that we are wrongly attacked. The attack should come from this side on that, and not from that side on us. The English-speaking section of the public service in Natal, who are unable to learn Dutch because they have not the opportunity, are being attacked. But I did not rise to enter into that. I want to refer to a matter which has been referred to by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) a couple of times. He has told the House I had told him that I was a member of the Australian party. The truth is, I visited Australia nearly twenty years ago and while I was there I associated myself with the Australian Labour movement. I spoke on their platform once or twice and wrote articles; but I was never a member, I was merely a visitor. Before I went to Australia I was for years a native administrator in Central Africa, and subsequent to my visit to Australia I was a native administrator in another part of the world. Consequently I learnt to mix a little anthropology with my socialism. I have learnt that a Labour party which is clad in the clothes of Europe is absolutely useless and dangerous in a country like South Africa, which has not a homogenous white population, but is faced with native and Asiatic problems, and if European or Australian labour principles are put into practice in South Africa we shall commit racial suicide.

We, in the Labour party, have had experience of men of the type of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). God help the Labour party that has to depend on that type of individual. There was one thing he said apropos of this debate, that the English-speaking people in the public service were being attacked.

And the Dutch.

He did not say that.

No, but I will speak for the Dutch.

I am dealing with the attacks on the English-speaking civil servants; What is the object of the circular? I think it is the condition of promotion and the retention after the superannuation age is reached that they should know both languages. Members of the Opposition still try to drum into the minds of the people of this country that this circular is nothing more or less than an attack upon the English-speaking section of the public service, and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) endorses the correctness of what I say. The Minister has said it is going to be applied in every case. How can it only apply to the English-speaking section? There are Dutch-speaking policemen in the country districts all over the Union and they would have just the same disabilities, or perhaps even more than the English-speaking section of the police. It only shows how much credence we can attach to the asservations of the members on this side of the House. I remember at the beginning of this session the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) told us that he was going to cooperate with the Government and to bring in no factious and fractious opposition, and this is how he does it. They cannot even choose their ground of attack well and have always attacked the Government for going in the direction on which they themselves have tended. We want everybody in this country to be working together, but the Opposition with their newspaper reports and speeches in the House are trying to stir up racial feeling. I met an English-speaking policeman this afternoon who immediately showed his racial feeling by complaining of the racial feeling shown in the speeches already made by hon. members on this side of the House. It is a standing disgrace that they play on the strings of racialism which are so ready to be aroused; a man who has no right to do it because he had been associated with Dutch policemen; but he is now on pension, and he feels that he can express himself along the same lines as hon. members here. I want to say in support of statements made by Labour members that I refuse to accept these people as custodians of English sentiment or the English flag. It is absolute impertinence on their part, and especially on the part of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). It would be a sorry day for the British race, the English-speaking people in South Africa or anywhere in the world, if they had to depend on the custodianship of these hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that it was autocracy on the part of the Minister of Justice to issue the circular. I suppose this circular is not ultra vires the Act. I suppose the Police Act allows the circular; and who passed that Police Act? Was it the present Government? We were in opposition in those days, and how we thundered against the first clause of that Act until the regulations which it was proposed to legalize were placed on the Table of the House. They drummed it through. They used their steamroller majority to get it through. Where were you then? But surely this sort of regulation was contemplated. I have listened very carefully indeed to the comparative readings of the two circulars of 1917 and 1925 respectively, and I fail to see any essential difference, with this exception, that the Minister of Justice’s circular was clearer, more definite and honest. He told the policemen exactly what they had to do in order to retain their service, or rather to carry on their service, namely they had to have a working knowledge of Dutch. The circular which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is backing had the same effect, but, following his usual policy, he never told the men what he was going to do, but the circular was in vague terms which could be worked about as you like.

No, I speak in my mother tongue. I am very sorry that the debate is so hot to-night in the House. With regard to the circular, I also cannot entirely agree with it. It may hit my people just as hard as the English-speaking people, especially, e.g., if such a circular is also issued by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, because there are a lot of Afrikanders on the railways.

They know English as well.

They do not know English. The hon. member on the opposite side is what we call in Afrikaans “omgekrap,” (upset) and this is because the Opposition has shown that they can oppose. Members on the opposite side tell us that the Opposition is worth nothing and to-day we have shown that they can stand up to it and they have only just begun. We will show our teeth much more if more of these circulars are sent out. But what I am sorry about is the intemperate language which is being used in this debate in the House to-day. I have heard words that I have never yet heard in the House, such as “gutter rags.”

The hon. member is still a young member.

Yes, but I have been a great deal in the House and listened to the speeches of the older members of Parliament. They never spoke about “gutter rags.” The misfortune is that members on the other side are full of corns.

Order, the hon. member must address the Chair.

If any one touches the hon. members then they scream on account of their corns. But I want to still say some nice things and ask the hon. Minister please to withdraw the circular. It is going to do harm on all sides. Dutch-speaking as well as English-speaking will suffer. I am bilingual, and I hope within a few years the whole country will be bilingual and that everyone will be able to speak the two languages.

What is the hon. member’s objection to the circular?

The circular is a bit too rapid. The hon. members are so thin-skinned. It is their corns and then they cry.

We laugh.

They will later on have to weep a great deal. We are now in March, but if such motions come before the House then we shall have to talk ten days in succession about them and I am afraid that we shall still be sitting here in December.

We have had to listen the whole of to-day to the attack by the Opposition and to the way in which the Opposition has shown its teeth, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) has said. It is, however, very unfortunate that when the Opposition want to show their teeth they do not choose a better subject. If they are anxious to show their teeth why did they not choose a big question, say one of the great economic problems of the country, and give us their views upon it. But now they come here with a little question and try to stir up race hatred and in that way to show their teeth. I will only say to my hon. friend that if he calls that good opposition and says that it is showing teeth then he has no idea of what a debate means. The criticisms of the hon. members opposite did not coincide, and I do not believe that there are members who actually know now what they want. All that we have is that they have introduced into the debate race hatred, a thing which does not exist. Further, they have twisted the words of hon. members in their absence, e.g., the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who has alleged that the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) made incorrect quotations here. If we come to the arguments of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) then we must come to the conclusion that his only difficulty is that no time was given to the people. Then if we take the explanation given by the Minister of Justice it is entirely clear that that difficulty also falls away. He has read out the circular of 1917 which clearly proves that the officials concerned have now had eight years notice to learn Dutch. What notice must they have then if eight years is not enough, but it is not the intention to kick out people who are unilingual. The object of this circular is, as I understand it, to once and for all have a fixed rule. No injustice is going to be done, and not one of the members of the Opposition was able to mention a single case Where injustice has been done to the police. The whole attack was based upon distrust and suspicion, as the member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has admitted. He, however, has so lowered the tone of the debate that other members had no further desire To take part in it. That is his custom, he does not profess argument, he can only lower the tone of the debate so that other members cannot take part in it without feeling that they have degraded themselves. All that I can say in this connection is that we take it whence it comes. I hope that if the Opposition are going to show their teeth in the future that they will really show their teeth and will not first take them out and only show us the gums.

I feel that this matter is of such great importance that I cannot record a silent vote. With regard to the effect of this circular, in my district there are policemen who cannot read and write English. I would be the last person to advocate the effect this circular would have On them. They are efficient men in every other way and I should be very sorry to see their promotion affected by the circular of the hon. the Minister of Justice. The hon. the Minister knows that what I am saying is correct because he has had communications from my district in regard to these policemen. The effect of this circular is going to be that really efficient men who have a workable knowledge of say, English or Dutch, are going to have their promotion impaired, men who have been in the service for many years and who are quite good and efficient policemen. On the other side of the House they are very fond of saying that racialism is dead.

No.

They cannot say that after the debate which has taken place this afternoon. It is to be deplored that so much feeling and racialism should have been imported into this debate. There was no need for it. The eyes of the universe are at the present time upon South Africa. We know that in other European countries taxation is so heavy and in South Africa taxation is so light that the eyes of the world are directed towards south Africa in regard to immigration. Our greatest need in this country is a larger European population; for we know that by natural means you will never overtake the coloured population. What affect is this debate going to have? Is is going to induce immigrants to come into this country? Hon. members ought to look ahead and realize what the effect of a debate like this will be. Let the Minister of Justice, in his wide perspective, if he has it, say that he is going to withdraw this circular. If he will do that we shall all be happy and contented and we will not be injuring South Africa.

Vote as printed put and agreed to.

On Vote 8, “Provincial Administrations,” £1,885,

The Minister of Finance had a meeting at Durban some time since with the various Administrators, and, I think, came to some agreement with them. Is the Minister prepared to lay the Agreement on the Table, or report what took place at the meeting, or make a statement in regard to it?

No, I shall introduce a Bill into this House to give effect to the agreement. There is no agreement to lay on the Table.

When is this Bill coming before us?

As soon as it is ready.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services,” £11,000,

I would like some information with regard to the item “Payment of Compensation arising out of Witwatersrand Industrial Disturbances, 1922,” £4,000.

Hon. members will remember the discussions that took place in the House during last Session when the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) brought up the case of the people who were insured under Lloyds’ policies, which Lloyds refused to pay. We had a discussion in the House and the House adopted the motion of the hon. member, and I then said that the Government would look into the matter, and, if Lloyds would not pay, I was afraid that the money would have to be paid eventually out of public funds. We have tried to get Lloyds to reconsider the position, and we thought of instituting ah action, but if we had taken an action the proceedings would have had to be started in England, and that, of course, would be a very risky and costly thing. The Government decided that it would not be worth while, and decided to ask Parliament to make the necessary provision to settle in cases where people were insured and where Lloyds would not pay the insurance. That comes to about £3,500. The other £500 is made up of payments made in cases where we reviewed awards made by the commission under the previous Government. I also undertook at the same time that the Treasury would look into the cases where awards were refused and we would review them, and see, where there were hard cases, whether we could not try and meet the people. In just a few instances the Treasury thought that further consideration should be given to the claimants and an amount of approximately £500 would be paid under this head.

I would like to draw attention once more to the very large amount which these commissions are costing. Here is an original estimate of £10,000 and a revised estimate of £17,000. It seems to me that we are wasting money. A good number of commissions are roving the country and some of them owing to their personnel do not carry a great deal of confidence in the country. I think the Minister should consider whether we cannot limit the number of these commissions. I would make two suggestions. The first is that in future judges should not be taken from the bench to preside on commissions unless there is very grave reason for doing so. From many points of view it is not a good thing, although I am quite aware there is a good deal of precedent for it. It always seems to me a bad principle, because if you take a judge from the bench and make him a member of a commission, the inevitable result is that he is, to some extent, brought down into the arena of controversy. Hon. members opposite have in the past said things decidedly uncomplimentary about judges who have been appointed to commissions.

There have been no judges appointed on commissions, I think.

Yes, there has been one just recently.

No. I will explain if you will allow me. This is a Conciliation Board formed under the Act, the members of which themselves unanimously asked if Mr. Justice de Villiers would consent to act as mediator. We did not appoint him. It is not included in these commissions either.

That is not the point at all. The point is I think it is a mistake that judges should be invited to go down into the controversial arena.

Since this does not include any judge, the hon. member cannot discuss the matter.

I am discussing the way in which the money is to be spent. There is another point. We are continually hearing that legal work is in arrear and altogether it is desirable that judges should stick to their own business. There is another suggestion I would make. That is, there are far too many members of Parliament appointed on these commissions. People say: So and so is appointed on a commission, that is a job for him, a reward for political service. Sometimes hon. members are made commissioners to enquire into the truth of their own statements. There was a case mentioned the other day. I think it would be good if we could pass a self-denying ordinance and rule that no members of Parliament should go on commissions at all. After all, Parliament is in the position of a judge and it is a pity hon. members should be placed to some extent in the position of advocates. I know there is a great deal of precedent for it, but I think it would be a good thing if neither members of Parliament nor judges were appointed to commissions in future.

I cannot help rising to express my view, which is contrary to that of the Hon. member who has just sat down, in regard to the personnel of commissions. With regard to the importation of judges into commissions, I largely agree with the hon. member. But I want to say this—I have always held a position contrary to that of the hon. member in regard to members of Parliament sitting on commissions of enquiry. For this reason, members who have served on commissions are able in this House to discuss these matters with first-hand knowledge; they are thoroughly conversant with the subject and able to enlighten the House more than the perusal of a blue-book. I remember the instance of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission which brought in three reports. We had a much more illuminating and shorter discussion owing to the fact that members of this House who took part in the commission were conversant with the subject and Were able to enlighten the House on many important points.

I also agree with the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) that we appoint too many commissions. I imagine that the public outside is noticing this, and that it will get the impression that when the House is not sitting the members of Parliament have nothing else to do, and that therefore commissions are appointed to keep them busy that the Government must find jobs. I should much like to know if this is the principle of the Labour party, “One man, one job.” It seems to me that the Government during the elections acted solely as if they knew everything that had to be put right if they obtained a majority, but now that they are there they know nothing and have to appoint commissions for each small old things. I can assure hon. members that the public is noticing this. I admit that under the previous Government too many commissions also were often appointed but not so many as now. Now hon. members come to the House and they have also to form part of various paid commissions. We are willing to serve on Select Committees. I personally am glad that I am not often chosen on committees because I am often not qualified to decide about all matters, but during the sitting of Parliament members of the Assembly must also serve on commissions and obtain evidence, and they get £3 3s. per day. This costs a lot of money. I protest against it. We were always accused that we spent too much money, but I think the present Government is much more royal in its expenditure.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has called attention to the great excess expenditure on the votes. I would like to point out to the House that there are three commissions which were practically appointed under the authority of the House. There was the Irrigation Commission, which my right hon. friend intended to appoint, I think, and I think everyone acknowledges the necessity for this commission. Then we had the War Pensions Commission, also practically appointed under the authority of the House. These two commissions had to travel about a good deal. Then there was the Currency Commission, and I think the House agreed that it was necessary that this question should be gone into. These three commissions cost £15,000.

There was another commission which I think was appointed by the Minister of Justice when the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Hattingh) was appointed to look into the questions of shop rents. I understand that that member had already expressed himself in favour of a reduction of shop rents. What weight can this House attach to such a commission’s report? It is really making a farce of the business.

The evidence might convert him.

It is not right to send out a man who is prejudiced or has taken up a certain attitude on the question he is called upon to investigate. It looks to me as if the hon. Minister had sent him out to get arguments with which to support his case. At any rate, I think my hon. friend will agree that such a commission is a farce. Perhaps my hon. friend the Minister can tell us when he is going to lay the report of the commissioner on the Table. Are we going to have a report? No doubt it must have cost a few pounds.

I am afraid the hon. member is wrong, and that I am the sinner. The Minister of Justice had nothing to do with the matter. The commissioner was appointed by the Finance Department. It would be difficult to find any commissioner who does not hold certain views on a subject which he is called upon to investigate. I did not know the commissioner in this case had expressed very strong opinions on the subject before. I am quite sure when the report is laid on the Table of the House hon. members will see that it is a report that will be of considerable value to the House. I hope to lay the report on the Table at an early date. It is also in the hands of the printer.

It is very refreshing to hear that the hon. the Minister of Justice is not guilty of this.

I am charged with it of course.

Well, I am surprised at the Minister of Finance. I thought he was a careful attendant of this House, and if he did not know the views that have been freely expressed in regard to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Rev. Hattingh) in connection with the rent question, he must have been dilatory regarding what has taken place in the House. I have risen, however, to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture if he will now definitely tell the committee when he will lay on the Table of the House the report of the Fruit Enquiry Commission. It is impossible to have a more important report in the interests of the fruit growers of the country. The hon. the Minister has been to the local agricultural show this week, and no doubt has seen the exhibit of the Western Province fruit growers and, having seen that, he will realize the importance of the fruit industry of this country. If there is anything the farmers of the Western Province are anxious to see—

That commission is not included amongst the commissions mentioned.

The hon. the Minister has told us the amount of £2,000 over and above the three specific commissions to which he referred.

This was a departmental committee appointed by the agricultural department. It was not a commission.

All I want to know is when the hon. the Minister will lay this report on the Table. I have been asked by numerous fruit farmers in the country to get some expression of opinion from the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the appointment of a Statutory Control Board in order to avoid chaos in the export of our fruit.

That is not included in the expenses of these commissions, and it cannot be discussed now.

The hon. the Minister of Finance was not able definitely to say whether it was included or not, but so far as he understood, he did not think it was included. If he will say definitely that it is not, that is another matter, but in the circumstances surely I am entitled to bring this matter forward, a matter which is of such vital importance to the fruit farmers in this country. Some time ago he was asked when the report would be laid on the Table and he said as soon as possible. That is a considerable time ago, and I would like to know what steps the hon. the Minister of. Agriculture is taking to have the report, which all the fruit farmers are eagerly asking for, laid on the Table of the House. I would appeal to my hon. friend to state whether I am correct in the assumption that the Enquiry Commission has recommended the establishment of a statutory board of control. Is that the case? That is what we are all, as fruit farmers, anxious to see.

On a point of order I do not think we should waste the time of the House in discussing this question. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I may state definitely now that no expenditure in connection with that matter will come out of this vote. It was a departmental committee appointed by the exchange, and no monies will be paid towards it out of this vote. I think the appointed the exchange, and no monies will be paid towards it out of this vote. I think the hon. member should await another opportunity of discussing this question.

I am prepared to do that, but the matter is so important, and, as the Minister knows, it is exercising the minds of the fruit farmers throughout the country to such an extent that, in courtesy to the House, he might tell us when the report will be laid upon the Table and what steps he intends to take in regard to the establishment of a board of control.

I only want to say to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) who is so concerned about the fruit farmers that I am still continuing to look after their interests and if the hon. member will exercise a little patience the report will be laid on the Table. It is in the hands of the printers, and as soon as it comes from the printers, it will be laid on the Table of the House.

Before you put the vote, I should like to interrogate the Minister of Justice on the question raised by the member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) with regard to placing judges on commissions. It will be remembered that some years ago some criticism was made of the report of a certain judge by the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and I think that is a kind of thing that we should not subject our judges to But, before going further in the matter, I think if the Minister of Justice would tell us that, as far as he is concerned, he is not prepared to have judges appointed upon commissions, except in very extraordinary circumstances, we can save any further discussion this evening.

On that question I would like to say a word. I hope the Minister will not take the advice of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and leave judges off these commissions. My view is that a judge should be set apart in cases where there are disputes to act as mediator or arbitrator. He would deal with all the labour questions which arose. When there are no disputes he would be doing his ordinary judicial work. I think we should have a judge to whom the interpretation of Acts could be taken and who would be a mediator or arbitrator in matters of dispute between employers and employees.

I cannot allow that discussion on this vote. That question can be raised on the general Estimates, when the salary of the Minister of Labour is under consideration.

With the leave of the House,. I would be prepared to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He asked what opinion I would express about the advisability of placing judges upon commissions. I must say that I am entirely against judges being placed upon commissions for this reason, that the reports of those commissions and matters arising out of those commissions may very easily be the subject of judicial investigation at a later stage. Obviously it is wrong that their opinions on such matters should be given in advance of and affect their judicial decisions. The position of mediators and arbitrators falls under a different heading. Taking an ordinary commission I entirely agree that it is not advisable to place judges on such commissions.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 10, “High Commissioner in London,” £2,100,

I would like to ask what induced the Government to remove the headquarters of the continental office of the High Commissioner from Rotterdam to Milan. After all, the biggest part of our export trade to the continent has gone to Holland or Germany. It seems to me strange to move the office to Milan. Have the Government done that for the sake of the meat trade, and have they done it upon the recommendation of Mr. Spilhaus?

This question was raised by Mr. Pienaar when he arrived in Europe. He expressed his opinion that it would be desirable to move his headquarters to Italy. The Government informed him that that was a matter on which he best could form an opinion. Mr. Spilhaus agreed with Mr. Pienaar’s opinion that Milan would be better. As hon. members know, there will be a very important exhibition at Milan this year, and as a result we hope trade with this country will be developed to a considerable extent. The ground in Holland and Germany has been well ploughed. Now it is thought that equally valuable work will be done elsewhere by having the headquarters at Milan at least for the time being. Mr. Pienaar and Mr. Spilhaus both agree that Milan is the best place for the headquarters at the present.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 15, “Superior Courts,” £1,875, put and agreed to.

On Vote 17, “Prisons and Reformatories,”£7,810,

The Minister of Justice made a big release of prisoners recently. In his explanation he said one of his motives was economy. I do not see where economy comes in here. I should have thought there would have been a saving instead of an additional amount to be voted. Perhaps the Minister will give Us some explanation.

This has nothing to do with maintenance.

Yes. Prisons’ and gaols’ staff are referred to I think the House is entitled to some explanation. Is the Minister going to give some reply?

I do not know what reply to give. These are salaries which are due to our officials and employees, and I suppose we have to pay them.

Are you going to save money by the release of prisoners?

I think we are—eventually. As far as transport is concerned you have prisoners going with their escorts from place to place and both the cost of transport and salaries Were previously underestimated.

Is the transport item for prisoners who have been released?

No.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 18, “Police,” £16,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 21, “Mental Hospitals and Training Schools for Mental Defectives,” £10,000,

I would like to ascertain from the Minister of the Interior what the intentions are with regard to Fort Napier at Maritzburg. All sorts of contradictory statements are being made as to what the Government’s intentions are, and it would be interesting if the Minister would say what the actual position is.

I must point out this is for hospitals and training schools for mental defectives.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 23, “Public Health,” £10,000,

This is a good opportunity for the Minister of the Interior to make the statement about the position regarding plague. Members attach great importance to it and would like to know something about it.

I will gladly comply with the request. I may just say here that during the short session of Parliament from August to September a question on this matter was addressed to me, and I said that the position with regard to plague was fairly serious, and that I was afraid it would become more serious. The plague was introduced into our country by the second war of independence and it gradually spread from the port towns to the country, not to the people but to the rodents of the veld and it is under the ground that the ravages of the plague are being spread. The plague then spread from the coast to the interior of the Cape Province, but it did not prevail much in the Cape Province because there are not too many rodents in the Karoo, and because no grain farming is carried on there, but latterly it has spread to the Free State and also to the Transvaal, where there are many rats, and Where grain farming is carried on, and this has made the position serious, so that there was an outbreak of plague at Kroonstad, and there alone the number of deaths in consequence of plague was no less than 250. It was clear that the spread, of plague went further, to the eastern portion of the Free State, and the position was regarded by the Department as rather dark. It was clear to me that it was necessary to do certain things if we were successfully to Combat the plague. In the first place more scientific research should be undertaken to ascertain the causes of this spreading and the means of prevention. We have an institution, the medical institute in Johannesburg, which has done and is to-day still doing outstanding work in other respects. For instance in connection with the scourge of consumption, which is creating such devastation amongst the mining kaffirs in the Witwatersrand, and which has caused loss of life on a large scale. It has practically been stopped by the discoveries of the institute, and we have every reason to expect if the opportunity is given to them that they may make a discovery that will be of great importance in connection with the combating of plague. Therefore I have provided more money for that institution. The Government will contribute another £2,500, and the same amount is being given by the Witwatersrand University so that the institution will have £5,000 available in addition to the £10,000 it gets to-day. It will have this £5,000 to make further investigation With regard to plague. This has placed this institution in a position to obtain the services of an expert, Dr. Graham, an entomologist, and he is engaged in operations in the field to investigate in situ the spread of the plague. The institution has gone further, and obtained the services of an expert bacteriologist. In the second place it was clear to me that We could not with success fight or keep under control the plague unless we had the hearty co-operation of everyone in the country and of all bodies in the country whose co-operation had to be assured. For that reason I called a conference in Bloemfontein, more particularly with a view to fighting plague. There were in the first place representatives of the town councils, because on them rests under the Public Health Act the obligation to take preventative measures also to fight the plague. With the object of obtaining the co-operation of the back veld I also invited representatives of the magisterial service, farmers’ associations, police and the railways and harbours. The conference was held in Bloemfontein, and although there was some criticism— I do not know if this was made with the best intentions, but let me accept that it was so— I am glad to say that we have the hearty support of the public in general.