announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Swart from service on the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities and had appointed Mr. van Rensburg in his stead.

I move—

In so doing I want to refer to an incident which occurred when the second reading and committee stage were taken. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) remarked that in dealing with this question of wages paid to the coloured employees in the railway service, I had put my foot into it. I want to say clearly that both as regards this question of rates of wages paid to coloured employees and any other matter in connection with the railway administration, the Government has nothing to hide from the House. I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), and more especially the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), when they take part in the ensuing debate to deal with this question, because it is important that the Government should know what the feeling of hon. members opposite is in regard to this matter. No one regrets it more than I do, but it must be generally recognized that there are unfortunately a large number of coloured people in south Africa who have not reached that stage of civilization which we would all like to see them reach. That, unfortunately, is true, and the Government is genuinely anxious to help the coloured people in the great effort which they are making to raise themselves in the social and economic scale. It is no friend of the coloured people who makes this issue a political one. The Government has a duty to the coloured people, and is prepared squarely to face that responsibility, but we must face the facts. Unfortunately the coloured people have not all reached that stage of development which we would like to see them reach.

Have you two civilized standards?

I am giving the hon. member all the information he wants, and I now include him in the request I make to hon. members to declare openly what their policy is in this regard. The position in regard to coloured labourers is this: The daily rate of wages paid to coloured employees outside the Cape Peninsula, that is beyond Bellville, is—married 4s. and single 3s. 6d. These people are employed mainly on open lines and at stations.

That is without privileges.

Yes. The natives under the same conditions receive 3s. 6d. a day whether they are married or single. This excludes the docks, where both coloured and natives receive 4s. 6d. a day. Serangs, both coloured and native, get from 5s. 9d. to 7s. 9d. a day, watchers of cargo 5s. 3d. a day, coloured winchmen 6s. a day, and coloured constables 5s. a day. I want to stress that these conditions of pay were taken over by me from my predecessor, and I have made no change in any way by which the wages of these coloured men or natives have been lowered. I have not waited for the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), with this sudden interest of his, to raise this question. I have sat in this House for eight or nine years and—I do not want to do an injustice to him—but to the best of my recollection I have never before heard him raise this question.

You never listened properly, then.

I am prepared to accept his statement that he has done so. The position at the present time is this. We have actually improved the conditions of the coloured men since we took office. We have given the coloured employees four days paid leave per annum, which the previous Government did not do. We have widened the scope of employment for coloured people at the docks and in the railway service generally. While there is this variation in the rates of pay, I want to stress the point that coloured gangers or porters employed in the railway service receive the same rates of pay and share in all the privileges which a European porter or ganger would participate in. I have no intention of changing that. Those privileges include their rights to come on to the permanent staff and become members of the superannuation fund. In conclusion, I want to put two questions to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), as a responsible leader of the South African party, and I will also include the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I want to ask these hon. members whether they approve of this policy of substituting coloured labour for native labour at the docks? I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is not going to run away again—that he is not going to evade this question. I have put the question to him twice, but he has not replied, and I now put it for the third time, as I am sure his constituents will be glad to hear his reply.

You had better give him notice of that question.

I agree with the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) that it is a rather difficult question. My second question to the hon. members representing Cape Town, and more particularly to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), is, whether they are in favour of this agitation which the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has raised with regard to the coloured worker?

What right have you to ask the question?

I thought hon. members there always spoke with one voice. I have a right to ask, and, if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is not prepared to reply, I would ask the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) what his view, as Leader of the Opposition, is. Is he in favour of this question being raised, as it has been raised now, in order to create trouble amongst our coloured employees? I want to ask him definitely whether he supports this agitation? I want to warn the House that, if this agitation continues, no service is done to the coloured man. The policy of this Government is to assist the coloured man to advance to the European standard of civilization, and as he reaches that civilized standard we are prepared to treat him as employee equally with the European. This agitation is not doing the coloured man a service. The coloured men have already found out the methods of the Opposition.

You might say something about the colour bar.

Motion put and agreed to; Bill read a third time.

I shall not detain the House much longer, but I just want in the first place to emphasize again what I said last night, namely, that the Public Service Commission has a high and important duty conferred upon it by the law of the land that as, far as the commission is concerned I have always had the highest respect for it in view of the high position it occupies, and of what we all require of it. As I said last night, I go still further. With regard to the establishment of the commission I was from the very first in favour thereof in the National Convention, and I am to-day still in favour of it. But the commission is not the highest body in the land in so far as the public service, and the appointment and promotions in the service are concerned, the highest body is the Government of the country and on the Government rest the task and the obligation to step in when the commission does something in conflict with the interests of the country and to do on its own responsibility what the commission should have done, but has left undone. I want to emphasize here that the Government does not in the least intend to in any respect interfere with the task and the obligation that is laid on it. Any Government that does its duty will try, will feel itself bound, to step in when it is necessary and of this a report has to be made to Parliament. The whole discussion about the appointment where the Government has overridden the recommendations of the commission is thus not only justified, but it is the duty of the House. That is the reason why a report has to be made. I wish to point out that in the course of the nine months that this Government has been at the head of affairs far more than 1,000 promotions and appointments have been made, and members will agree with me that it is to the credit of the commission that only five instances can be mentioned where the Government has thought it necessary to override the recommendations of the commission. On the other hand, it is just as much to the honour of the Government that it wants as little as possible to interfere with the work of the commission, where it is not necessary. Yesterday I asked the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) about the appointment of Captain Lane in the department of which I am to-day the head. We must understand that Captain Lane was taken and placed at the head of the office of the Prime Minister and he was not alone placed over the heads of other officials, but at a higher salary than was provided for the post. And as the hon. member says, it was not done upon the initiative of the commission, but on his own initiative. He gave his reasons to the House and I quite agree with them. I have no objection to his reasons, namely, that the Minister cannot work in his department unless he has a man who will be properly able to carry out the duty. He thus settled that the test of the appointment must be that the man shall comply with the requirements of the office or the department and with the public interests That is how he stated the position and I agree entirely. I have nothing whatever to say against the steps he took. But then he must understand that he cannot to-day complain of the hon. Minister going to work in the same way, and if the Minister says that he is convinced that a bilingual officer is necessary for the appointment. When the commission then comes and says that a knowledge of both languages is not necessary for an appointment then I say that the Minister is the person who must decide what the requirements should be to serve as a test for suitability for the post intended. This must be done. But I will not at all take it amiss of my friends opposite if they want an explanation of the appointment. If they ask for no explanation, then we may expect that all sorts of malpractice will creep in and that nepotism will again be the order of the day. Therefore the Act provides that a report must be made to the House. But what I do object to in hon. members opposite is the bitter spirit in which they make their criticisms, and in which they uttered their charges against the hon. Minister. Even the most moderate of the former Ministers who have taken part in the debate, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has made use of the words “jobs for pals.”

I never used the phrase “jobs for pals” in this House.

The hon. member used the expression yesterday in the House, and if he goes to the “Cape Times” he will find that those words are in the report. And he said further—

I never said that. The Public Service Commission I was defending.

There it is in the report of the “Cape Times.” It is wrong again then? The hon. member has forgotten about it. I do not take it amiss. He was in earnest and did not take account of everything that he said. And he, one of the most moderate members of the Opposition, brought reproaches and charges in a tone of bitterness which are not proper to a debate of this sort. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) followed him, and he went a few steps further. I am glad to see that the “Cape Times” did not report his speech. I think he only got six or seven lines. But he is a person who really is a man that I like to meet, but as soon as he comes on the political platform or rises in this House then the old Adam comes up again, and we hear again the bitter things that we heard ten years ago. Three former Ministers have got up. They have not spoken about anything else. Although the financial affairs of the country are before the House, they spoke about nothing else, but all merely stormed about the appointments which, as they said, had been made for political reasons. They got no further. Now I wish to say that if we are going to act in this way then we shall be sitting here until July or till the end of October.

Say, rather, to January.

The hon. member for Standerton got up to set fire to the veld to cover his retreat. He has at least seen that the battle is lost. If another attack comes I can give the hon. member the assurance that it will fall just as flat. I do not wish to discuss here the number of the typists. That position that hon. members opposite take up is that the Government can say to the highest official that that official must know Dutch and that the Government cannot do that to a typist as well. What then must become of the public service, how will it go in the Department of Agriculture where practically 70 per cent. of the work is in Dutch? Over 1,000 people have been appointed or promoted, and have we not a right in five instances of saying that we cannot accept the recommendations? What must become of the public service? The action of the Opposition gives clear proof that they are again raising the “racial cry.” I want to say to the member for Standerton: As long as he goes on in this way he will not get what he states he wishes, but he will get what his action shows that he wants, namely, race hatred. We shall get it everywhere in the service. My friends opposite are engaged in stirring up race hatred in the land. The hon. member for Standerton has gone from political platform to political platform and preached race hatred, and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was a good and true follower. The people outside will understand it. Where they have not yet understood it he can be assured that they will understand it more and more. I want to say something more in conclusion. The hon. member for Standerton has said that there is “congestion and muddle” in the work of the House. I now demand that the Opposition will show me where the congestion and muddle are. I understand what it is. It is because from the first day we have had work for the house, while the previous Government always wasted the first fourteen days before they made a beginning. Can they mention a single day when they did not know what would be on the Order Paper? I challenge the two hon. members mentioned to give me a single instance where they did not know the previous day what would be on the Order Paper. I say this here in all seriousness that hon. members opposite do not want that we should do more work than the former Government in a session. Yesterday a full day was wasted, and during the past two weeks a quarter of the time has been wasted in similar attempts. The whole reason why the hon. member for Standerton is so anxious to accuse us of such things was for no other reason than to blind the public to what has happened here in the House.

I think that we have during the last five minutes listened to the most entertaining lecture that has ever been delivered in this House. I do not want to go in for the prevailing habit of the Government benches by attacking with a tu quoque. I only want to ask the hon. Prime Minister this: What he considers we are sitting on these benches for? Is it just to dot the is and cross the t’s and to say “ditto” to what he chooses to put before us, or are we entitled, as his Majesty’s Opposition, representing the great bulk of public opinion in this country (Cries of “No”), to put forward our criticism of the measures brought before this House by the Government?

Lots of fun.

It is perfectly legitimate for us to have our fun as well as to do our duty, and I think that any fair-minded man would say that we have tried to do our duty in the way of criticizing all measures put before us by the Government; and if the process has taken some time, it is simply due to the extraordinary character of the legislation that has been put before the House—legislation such as the country never dreamed would have been put forward by a sensible body of people. That is why we have had to fight. The hon. Prime Minister must remember that we are living under a free constitution, and while he may be able to put the gag on people on his side of the House—yet, whatever may come under the Emergency Powers Bill—there are at present no constitutional means by which he can stop those who are opposed to him from giving free expression to their opinion. We stand here, solid and united, behind our great Leader on the vital and fundamental issues laid before us in this legislation. We are proud of that Leader, and may I say we are especially proud of the magnanimous and dignified attitude he adopted last night in the face of one of the greatest insults which could be thrown across the floor of the House—thrown, not by an irresponsible back-bencher, but by the Minister of the Interior, the leader of the Cape Nationalist party. Formerly the Minister was a man who expounded—I have no doubt excellently— the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount. How far he has gone from this is illustrated by what he said last night. The Prime Minister gave him the opportunity of admitting that what he said last night was said accidentally in the heat of the debate, but he did not avail himself of it when the House met this afternoon, as I had hoped he would.

Naturally not.

Naturally not? We know that if he had been big enough and generous enough to say, on reflection, that he spoke in the heat of the moment, this House would have been big enough and generous enough to have taken him at his word and forgotten what he said.

You have had nothing to talk about.

We should have had nothing to talk about? But the hon. member admits, by his question, that we have something very solemn and serious to talk about. I have never heard a grosser insult in this House, and I leave it at that, with the regret that the Minister did not take the opportunity he had when he came to the House this afternoon to say what the Prime Minister suggested to him as the explanation.

He flattened you out.

The hon. member says, “He flattened us out.” But we have not finished yet. His little quips cut no ice with anybody.

You have not finished abusing fair equality.

Is that really the considered view of the Minister of Mines? If so, God help us. We have had two what must be referred to as flattening-out speeches, one by the Minister of the Interior and one by the Prime Minister. What contribution did the Prime Minister make to one of the most momentous matters that has come before the House, namely, the functions and powers of the Public Service Commission? He said he had the greatest respect for the Public Service Commission. He does not appreciate, I think, the force of the arguments put before the House yesterday. All he can do is to say that the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was a bitter attack, which is very amusing.

He did not hear it.

Well, perhaps that is the reason. The hon. member for Yoeville made one of the most restrained and forcible speeches this House has had for some time, and he might have been excused for speaking more strongly than he did on the subject. He said yesterday—

The whole attack made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior ignored the fact that that was the fundamental principle which the hon. member for Yeoville laid down. Granting that this is the position, then in individual cases Ministers may come before this Parliament and justify their action in overriding the Public Service Commission in certain cases. There are five outstanding cases, all of which must be read in conjunction with the declarations made by Ministers outside and inside the House. The significance of this becomes sinister in that in the case of four of the most important posts in the civil service, the Public Service Commission has been deliberately over-ridden for reasons which have not been appealed to the judgment of the House. They have been over-ridden by one or two of the most powerful members of the Ministry, including the Minister of Justice and Agriculture, both of whom figure prominently in the cases before the House now, and they are gentlemen who, in and out of the House, have intimated that their desire is to appoint people to posts in the public service and on political ground.

You never did.

If it has been done, I for one would object to it. But we certainly never laid it down as a policy which was subscribed to by the party. If there were any individual cases the Opposition had the fullest right to bring them before the House. Did they ever do that?

Yes.

The point is not whether or not, in any individual cases, persons were appointed for political reasons, but what is your declared policy in that respect. We have had these utterances to-day from the Prime Minister; but what did the Minister of Justice say in this House about three of four weeks ago? He said in his opinion the commission should be abolished because it was useless. What does the Minister of Agriculture say? When we hear important people like that laying down on wholly contradictory lines important points of policy for the public service—points of the utmost importance not only to the service but to the public at large—we want to have the position precisely defined and to know what the attitude of the Cabinet is in regard to these matters. When we hear the Prime Minister’s utterance immediately following that extraordinarily venomous outburst by the Minister of the Interior against the Public Service Commission, and when we remember what the Minister of Justice said a little while ago, one is reminded of that passage in one of Fenimore Cooper’s novels, where an old Indian chief is sitting smoking his pipe and a deputation from the enemy come and address him. He finished his pipe, turns round and says: “My brother speaks with a forked tongue.” The Ministry has been speaking with a forked tongue on these subjects and that is why we, as an Opposition, challenge the Cabinet and will go on challenging them until we have a definite ruling from them as to what the Cabinet position is. I will ask the Prime Minister to remember that if the Public Service Commission is guilty of what the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Gen. Muller) referred to: That they used to act to order of the Government—and if they are liable to all the spiteful things that were said by the Minister of the Interior last night—there is only one course open, and that is to present an address to this House praying for the removal of that commission, so that the matter can be thrashed out on the floor of the House. When I heard the Minister’s speech last night I happened to have the cuttings kept in the House of the debate on the Public service Bill in 1923, and one of the persons who made a speech immediately after the mover (Mr. Duncan), then the Minister of the interior, was Dr. Malan the member for Calvinia, who agreed as to the importance of the Bill because, as he then said, while Government came and went the civil service would remain, and there must be the best machinery possible to carry out the law of the country, and it should be of such a nature that it could not be used for political purposes. Does the hon. Minister of the Interior stand by that now? If so, how does he stand by his speech last night? A part of the debate turned on the question of bilingualism. I don’t wish to go into that subject except to say that the Minister of Railways and Harbours made a statement in the House a couple of days ago which was much on the same lines and almost word for word the same as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has repeatedly said in the House. The Minister of Railways and Harbour’s point was that in the case where it was unnecessary bilingualism was not going to be thrust down the throats of the people. The Prime Minister spoke of the poor little typist. Such a case is as important as that of a man drawing, say, £900 a year. He said that the reason given by the Minister of Agriculture was an excellent reason for getting rid of her. The section of the Act which provides that no person is bound to be bilingual except for the purposes of promotion, and then not until after a service of five years, was actually introduced by Dr. D. F. Malan himself, now the Minister of the Interior. I refer the House to the Select Committee’s report on the 1923 Public Service Bill. In the case of the typist, the five years are not up yet. Does the Minister of the Interior stand by his own compromise as accepted in 1923 or does he not? What he proposed then is entirely inconsistent with what the Minister of Agriculture has done, and what the Prime Minister has laid down. This matter affects thousands of people in the public service and thousands of people who have to deal with the public service, whose interests the Public Service Commission are to safeguard and for whom they must act as a sure and safe shield.

Hear, hear.

I like to hear that sneering laugh. I would like to know what he is going to preach to the public service as indicated by that sneer. How will he deal with the rights of the public service and reconcile it with his sneer. I should like to refer to the case of Mr. Venn. I cordially endorse the principle laid down by the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) yesterday that the Government is the supreme executive power. That was an expectant point of discussion on the Public Service Bill of 1923, as to whether the Government or the Public Service Commission, or the proposed Advisory Council should be the governing executive body. But it is clear that you cannot have two governing bodies. The Government must ultimately be responsible. In 1923 it was laid down that, although under the 1912 Act the powers of the commission had been set out, it had not been laid down what the effect of a recommendation of the commission was to be. Anyone who has studied the reports of the Public Service Commission from 1912 onwards must have realized that there was a constant difference of opinion between the treasury and the Public Service Commission as to their respective powers, and in 1923 an effort was made to make those powers more definite. In 1912 nothing was laid down as to the governing force of any kind, hence the long difference of opinion existing between them. In the Public Service Act 1923, section 3, it is laid down that in regard to a recommendation by the Public Service Commission in respect of any appointment there should be no rejection or variation without the sanction of the Governor-Genera. Before that, any Minister could object to a public service recommendation. Now the recommendation can only be rejected on Cabinet advice, and to day the Cabinet, as a whole, is responsible for the rejections of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission in all the cases under discussion. With regard to Mr. Venn’s case, he is a pre-Union officer, and that is a point which has not yet been considered. On this point I want to know again what is the policy of the Government about pre-union officials in regard to bilingualism. Are they going to thrust bilingualism down the throats of pre-Union officials, or are they going to adopt the line followed with great success by the late Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), or are they going to make changes which cannot be brought about without a policy of vindictiveness?

That is your general charge.

When people speak as Ministers have that is a general conclusion. We do not want the Public Service Commission taken away, so that there will be no check. I should like to know in Mr. Venn’s case whether his being turned down will debar him in future from all promotion. A great deal was made by the Prime Minister with regard to the Select Committee recommendation of the office of Secretary of the Interior, that it is one that need not require a bilingual officer. In the event of a difference of opinion as to an appointment, it is perfectly clear that the Government has the right to deal with the matter, but it has not the right to throw a pre-Union man out on the ground of bilingualism. The question of bilingualism can only be approached with a due regard to the existing circumstances of the case. Why all this heat about it? Why should the Minister of the Interior attack the Public Service Commission, seeing that it has done nothing but its duty? The Act lays it down that if the Cabinet is unable or unwilling to accept the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, the commission shall report the matter to Parliament. What more temperate language could be used by the commission than it did use in this connection? What earthly reason was there for the heated attack made by the Minister on the commission? What is there in the report of the commission which transcends the duties of the commission or offends the canons of good taste?

That seems to be the only point in your speech.

I am afraid the Minister has been studying the Diamond Control Bill all the time I have been speaking. The functions of the Public Service Commission are defined by law, and are designed to protect as far as possible the service from improper appointments, and to maintain a contented service; and the man who strikes a blow at the position of the commission is doing a great disservice to the country. When one remembers the attitude taken up by the Minister of Justice on the Public Attorneys Bill and looks at the report of the Public Service Commission on the Bill with regard to the appointments of officials under that measure, I ask if there is not a very great ground for believing that there is a great deal more behind this than people are willing we should believe? As regards bilingualism, I have looked through some of the correspondence which has been placed on the Table. The Minister of Justice told us the other day when dealing with the Police Circular that he proposed to introduce similar provisions in the Prisons Department in regard to language qualifications. By a lapse of memory he forgot that he had actually about two months before that introduced the same provisions in the Prisons Department, but on a more aggravated scale. A circular dated December 24th, 1924, issued by the Department of Justice with regard to language qualifications in the Prisons Department states—

That has been described as a Christmas message of goodwill in the Prisons Department. The Minister of Agriculture issued a circular on February 24th. That circular lays it down that in future all correspondence between the different officers of the department and between the department and the public is to be conducted in English and Afrikaans in alternate weeks.

Now you are sneering at bilingualism.

I am pointing out the reductio ad absurdum of this principle of thrusting bilingualism down the throats of the people.

Why sneer at the Dutch language?

I am not sneering at the Dutch language.

Of course you are.

The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs apparently knows as much about the Dutch language as he does about the ordinary decencies of debate. He knows that I have not sneered at the Dutch language; he brings a totally untrue charge against me knowing that he is perfectly safe to get a cheer for it from the hon. members sitting behind him The circular mentioned both the official languages, and I was not sneering at either. That circular is a reductio ad absurdum of bilingualism.

Why?

Surely the Minister cannot defend such a silly proposal. What we are afraid of is that the fine words of the Minister of Railways are not going to be carried out in every department. We are fortified in that view by the facts set out in the carefully considered and temperate report of the Public Service Commission, and we are fortified by other references, statements and actions of Ministers and also by the charges and sneers we get from the Minister of Defence and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). The Public Service Commission, and the public service itself, should not be treated in the way in which they have been treated by the Government. None of us desire—above all things that is so—to make use of this as a party weapon. The issues are too big for that. But if any party has ever had time after time thrust upon it most damaging weapons which it could use for party purposes if it wanted to do so, it is our party since the Government came into power and since this session began. The party opposite has time after time done things which are making the greatest inroads on the rights and liberties of various classes in this community. As long as we have this sort of thing to fight against, and so long as the Government intends to whip any section of the community with scorpions, so long will the Opposition fight against it as much as it can We are prepared to be judged by what we have done in this House, and we feel confident that the verdict of the country will be: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” Let me issue this warning to the Government—let them not forget the words of Kipling’s “Recessional”—

Let the Government think of that, and of the effect of its actions and speeches on the peace, prosperity and happiness of one of the finest countries in the world, which might be made one of the best countries to live in, but whose future is being imperilled by the type of legislation which is being brought forward by the Government and the kind of language which has been indulged in by hon. members opposite.

I only wish to refer to one or two of the very remarkable things that were said yesterday by the hon. Minister of the Interior, namely, that in consequence of the want of bilingualism 27 translators are required in the service. The hon. Minister of the Interior has been the Minister for eight months and he could surely know that it is not because the bilingual officers cannot get into touch with the public, but that most of the work is caused because we have a bilingual system, and we have always taken up the position that for the sake of bilingualism we were prepared to make sacrifices and also to pay. But here the Minister says that 27 translators had to be appointed. He knows only too well that this is not a proper statement of the position. It is possibly due to this that he is pressing Afrikaans so much that he is causing very much double work and double expense. As to the circular of the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to say, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has said that we are joking with bilingualism, that we shall incur great extra expense if the scheme of the Department of Agriculture is carried out, to have an Afrikaans and an English week. The criticism of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) I will leave there. I do not regard it as a question of jocularity, although I acknowledge that it is a laughable matter. I see that the Minister of the Interior asks, or at least the head of the department does, for particulars in order to introduce the thing. Perhaps the hon. Minister will accept the advice of such a humble person as myself and will not introduce such a ridiculous system. It will mean that one week all correspondence in the Department of Agriculture will be in English and the following week all in Afrikaans. If a farmer comes in the English week then he will have to wait till the week is over. But what is more is clearly that the correspondence between the Minister and the respective departments, between the Minister and schools of agriculture and other departments, will also fall under the system.

Where will the public be otherwise.

I say I thought his intention was to introduce an Afrikaans week to meet the public, but he goes still further. It is not only with the public, as I have already said, but also in the inter-departmental correspondence that the system will be introduced. Now I only wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he possibly can tell us what the consequence will be, e.g., in the case of the chief veterinary surgeon, who is better able to express himself in English than in Dutch. If he has to send a document on a very weighty and responsible subject to one or other heads of the agricultural departments in the Afrikaans week. Will he not say that he is not capable of expressing himself sufficiently well in Afrikaans and will he not have to go and write the document in English, after which it will have to be translated into Afrikaans? Naturally the same will take place in the English week with reference to one who is better acquainted with Afrikaans. I do not take a back place to anyone on the Government benches regarding love for the Dutch language.

Hear, hear.

I have already fought a lot for the Dutch language before the hon. member knew that there was a Dutch language, but I am against it that we should import bilingualism into the service at the cost of competence. We must not do harm to the service by the measure and cause delay of work on hand by introducing the system that the Minister of Agriculture appears to intend doing. The Minister of Finance shakes his head. I know that he will not do anything similar in his department.

Is it true that 90 per cent. is English to-day?

I want to ask the Minister of Finance., or perhaps the Prime Minister, if they will state whether a similar thing will be introduced in the other departments to that proposed in the Department of Agriculture. If it is the intention to introduce the system of an Afrikaans week and an English week in all the departments, then the Minister of the Interior must prepare not for 27 translators but for 2,700. If the intention does not exist, then I ask the Minister of Agriculture what he is going to do with the correspondence between his department and other departments with reference to the Afrikaans and English week. I come again to the Minister of the Interior. He has said that so many translators are necessary because officials are not bilingual. I shall be glad if he will tell us—the Department of Education is one of the most bilingual—in what language reports are made. Whether the reports are drawn up in both languages, because if in his department he should wish to introduce the system it will be necessary that his under-secretary should prepare the reports in both languages. This will also mean that more translators will be necessary.

What about letters?

The letters are naturally dealt with in the language in which they are written. I am glad that this is the general practice. There is another question that I should like to touch upon with reference to what the hon. the Prime Minister has said. After all the reproaches which he has uttered that we are raising racial feelings I am almost frightened to touch upon it.

Not racial feeling, but race hatred.

I gave the Minister of Agriculture notice this morning that I would bring certain instances under his notice. They do not concern Dutch-speaking or English-speaking persons. They are all cases of Dutch-speaking persons. They refer just as much to the comrades of the Minister of Agriculture as to our friends. They concern people who fought together with us 25 years ago. I hope he will give me just as polite an answer as my question. The first is the case of the dismissal of inspector Swart. I want to ask the Minister if he has anything further to say in connection with this matter besides the letter that he read out during the debate we had upon simultaneous dipping. The man was not incompetent but, during the debate, it was suggested that he was appointed as chairman of an election committee.

The hon. member cannot refer to a previous debate.

Cannot I give an answer to what took place in the previous debate. I will make no quotations.

Hon. members cannot refer to previous debates, otherwise it would mean that debates could be continued endlessly. The hon. member can mention the matter. Hon. members must understand that the ruling was given to prevent constant repetitions of what has already been said about a matter of a previous debate.

If you will only warn me when I go too far I shall be glad. I think I can reproduce the position clearly without repeating myself. The Minister of Agriculture read a letter of the 22nd June, 1923.

The hon. member must clearly understand that he cannot refer to anything that took place at a former debate. He cannot reply to what the Minister said during a former debate. He can only mention the matter.

That is just what I am trying to do. Let me put the matter in this way. Inspector Swart wrote in the month of June, 1923, to his department and said that he had made a mistake in not having reported a certain man. It was twelve months before the general election. I understand that he was dismissed on account of that letter where he said a year previously that he had made a mistake. He was not punished by his department for the mistake. Let me tell the Minister of Agriculture this: That I know the man. I said to him: “You fool, why do you take another man’s fault on your shoulders?” because that was what actually happened. The other man made a mistake. Inspector Swart did good work and my complaint is that the man is punished for the fault committed by him 14 months previously, yet his department had not punished him. Am I now entitled to ask if special instructions have not been given to go through certain files to find out if certain persons have not committed one fault or another? Otherwise I cannot understand how this fault was so accidentally found out. I ask the hon. Minister how the fault was discovered. If he has instructed certain people by whom the files were to be gone through. I also know that scab was almost eradicated in the district of Inspector Swart. I understand that it is now .007 in his district. That means that there is hardly any scab. It is, of course, possible that when he was dismissed there was more scab and that it has not been brought back to .007. But, notwithstanding this, the Minister knows that his work was good and that he had his district almost clean. He is a person who, ever since he could carry a gun, always fought for his country, and he is a person who has always tried to do his duty. He had to give up his farming when he accepted the inspectorship. It was, of course, his own choice, but it is a fact that his farming was so neglected that he had only his salary to live upon. He has a wife and nine children. He has done much good work, and I make an appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter. I ask the Minister if such a punishment should be laid upon him and his family for a mistake of that nature. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture mentioning the facts, but the answer was that the matter was finished with. I asked him again whether the nature of the mistake required such a punishment? I come now to Col. Alberts. He was chief of the sheep division, and joined the service seven years ago. Then there was much scab in the area where he was appointed, but Col. Alberts has done outstanding work and kept the district nearly clean. On the 27th August he received notice that the Minister had decided to move him to Vryburg with effect from October. He was a farmer in Standerton and he would naturally remain there.

Why did he then become an inspector?

The Minister knows well enough that many of the inspectors are farming at the same time. He wrote to the Minister that on account of his wife and for other reasons he did not want to leave Standerton. He further pointed out that his district was a difficult one, because large movements of sheep took place there to the winter veld and back, owing to which the danger of spread of scab largely increased. Further, he mentioned in the letter to the hon. Minister that it would be difficult for a stranger to properly deal with the district and for all these reasons he requested the Minister to cancel his removal. His department recommended the Minister to comply with this request, but the Minister answered: “No; he must go to Vryburg.” Then a telegram followed from Col. Alberts on 22nd September. It asked when he was to leave for Vryburg. The answer was: “You must not leave until further notice.” Thereafter, Col. Alberts asked if he was to go on with his work, or what he was to do in the meantime, and he then called attention to his district being a difficult one, but that he had good hope of conquering scab in a short time. He asked again for another chance, then he received the answer “go on with your work.” Then came the letter of the 1st October in which the Minister said that he wishes senior inspector Alberts to be removed to Aliwal North in place of Inspector Coetzee. Alberts left for Aliwal North. He left on 20th October for Aliwal North, and at the end of October, nine days after, he received a telegram that he was dismissed. Now I do not know whether I have clearly stated the matter, but as it appears to a man who is not interested in the matter the position seems to be that Col. Alberts had to go. He was not told immediately that he had to go, but he was told that he would have to move to Vryburg. He protested, but finally he said that he would go. Then he asked the Minister when he had to go and suddenly the plan was altered and he was told to go to Aliwal North. He agreed to go there, and when he was there ten days, he gets notice of dismissal. It appears to me to be a case of bluff to induce a man to send in his resignation. If it is not so, I should very much like to hear from the Minister of Agriculture why he was dismissed. I will put my questions precisely: When did he conclude that Col. Alberts was redundant, in August or between the 20th and 29th of October? Further, whether I am not justified in coming to the conclusion that I have done? The same applies with reference to Inspector Erasmus, of Zoutpansberg. I am sorry that I have not got the facts here. I asked this morning for the papers from the Department of Agriculture, but they could not then give them to me. It is of course my own fault that I waited so long to ask for them, but I should like to have information from the hon. Minister. Then I have another point which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Justice. I refer to the incident of the discharge of Messrs. Kleinhans and Jacobs as Justices of the Peace, and why Messrs. Engelbrecht and Grobler were appointed in their place. It is a matter of general interest, was the answer given to my written question. I should then like to ask the question how he will explain that it is in the general interest that he discharges a man like Kleinhans, who has all his life been an official, a farmer of standing, known in the whole district, with great experience as magistrate and Justice of the Peace, and who is fully bilingual, and how he can say that it is in the general interest to appoint in his place Mr. Engelbrecht, who is altogether unknown in the district. The same applies with reference to Mr. Jacobs, a capable farmer of good standing, bilingual, who has been replaced by Mr. Grobler, who possibly knows English—I cannot exactly judge about that—but who certainly is not fully bilingual and who is entirely unknown in the district. I do not know what the reason is but one would almost think that it is in connection with the fact that one of these men did not go on military duty during the last strike when the order to that effect was given.

No; because two Nationalists had to be appointed in place of two S.A.P.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said that two Nationalists had to be appointed. I shall be pleased to have the answer to my questions.

The more I hear the arguments of the Opposition the more I am convinced that it is true what the member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said: “The Opposition was too bad to govern; as an Opposition they are worse still at opposing.” It is clear to me from the arguments which have been put up since yesterday against this side of the House that it was intended to put up a smoke screen because the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had to sound the retreat. What we have just heard was the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) again and the member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) who has let off steam with their accusations of race hatred. I would like to deal with the questions one after the other, but before I do that, I want to answer what the hon. member for Ermelo has said here. He has asked whether the one mistake that he made was the only reason why I dismissed Mr. Swart, of Ermelo. He has quoted a letter. I shall not refer to that letter. He knows quite well what is said in that letter.

I can read it to the House.

I am not going to refer to it because I am not going to go into it. The matter is simply this: The man made the mistake, and he acknowledged it. I looked up the file, as I always do. That is not the only reason why I dismissed him. He may have done good things, but I cannot take that into consideration if he makes a mistake. He is an officer of the Rifle Association and I cannot keep officers in my department who may be hindered in the execution of their duties.

Why not have told him so?

Why is it necessary to give him all these reasons. Those officials are in the service on a monthly contract. He knew this, and I could accordingly discharge him. I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with this.

Why did you not tell him so?

I also wish to tell the hon. member that Mr. Swart came to see me. I said to him: Do you know of the mistake that you made? He denied it. There were witnesses present with me. I then showed his letter to him and he had to acknowledge it. I now come to the second case, and this is the instance of senior inspectors Alberts and Erasmus. He has asked when I came to the convictions that Col. Alberts had become redundant. I came to it when the chief veterinary surgeon returned from the Cape Province, and he said that a veterinary surgeon had been appointed to that district and that Col. Alberts was no longer necessary there. Erasmus and Alberts were not the only discharged. Messrs. Kolbe, Cooper, Cronwright and Weber were also all discharged because the chief veterinary surgeon saw that they had become redundant. What must the Government do then with redundant officers? We are accused that we appoint officers over the head of others. We are accused of “jobs for pals.” Do hon. members know those officers? I am certain that the hon. member for Standerton will acknowledge that those appointments of Messrs Weber, Alberts, Erasmus, Jordaan and Enslin were “jobs for pals.” They are not officials who were in the service. They were outside the service and were put over the heads of people who had been for years in the service. To-day members opposite come with hypocritical faces and accuse us of such things. If one lives in a glass house he should not throw stones. If you play at bowls you must look out for the rubber. The hon. members for Ermelo and Rondebosch referred to the circular with reference to bilingualism. This is only a questionaire which I have sent to the department to find out if it will be inconvenient if we conduct the correspondence in the department and between the schools of agriculture alternate weeks in English and Dutch respectively. But I want to tell them that I have unilingual officials who are as loyal to me as is possible. I do not know how the circular came into the hands of the hon. member. Immediately after I had sent out the circular I saw that it appeared in the “Pretoria News.” One of the first requisites in officials is that they should keep the secrets of their departments, and especially should not reveal them to newspapers. I then instituted an enquiry, and a unilingual officer then wrote the following letter to me—

Let me now read to hon. members what that person wrote to the hon. member for Standerton. The letter covering the circular read as follows—

Who gave him this unjust treatment? I proceed—

I read this to show that there are English-speaking officials—and I think it is the case with almost all—who are loyal to me and obey my orders, but I wish to mention that the overseas newspapers, e.g., “The Observer,” that speeches such as we have to-day had from the hon. member for Rondebosch where he was engaged in setting the country on fire. The newspaper says—

It is such members that bring the name of South Africa into a bad odour overseas. But I want to return to the bitter attack that has been made here. I will begin with the appointment of the entomologist in Pretoria. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) says that it is not necessary for him to be bilingual. Let me tell the hon. member that this is the man that has to go to the farmers’ gardens to make investigations about pests, etc. He must thus be bilingual. Allow me to tell hon. members that the Public Service Commission is very busy urging this matter and the commission tries to cross me where I, as far as possible, want my officials to be bilingual. What do they say now in their last report to me which I have got to-day?—

Now what does Mr. Lounsbury say?—

The Public Service Commission told him that he should give a certificate to the individual that he was bilingual. He is unilingual, but we notice what he says. I then pointed out that the person was unilingual, but the Public Service Commission would not listen to that. I therefore insisted that the person should be bilingual, and I leave it to the House to decide about my action. I will now come to the appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys. Members have said, that I went and appointed a man quite outside the public service. One thing is certain, and that is that we have to do here with one of the most important departments, which was acknowledged by my predecessor when he drafted the following minute on the 9th August, 1923—

Therefore before there was another such post the Minister had already asked for a man to fill it. A person can, according to this statement, make himself competent within six months in economic questions. It took Dr. Geldenhuys, after he had passed his B.A. examination, seven years to study agricultural economy. Now hon. members wish to say that six months is sufficient. The minute say—

Thus he acknowledges himself that he said to the commission that he had found a competent man and that work should be found for him. “Jobs for pals.” Must I then now be compelled to appoint that individual? I have nothing to say against him. He is one of my good officials, but for that post we require a man who has made a study of economics. But why actually is he recommended? Because he has “a desire to investigate economic matters.” Because he has a penchant that way is he fit to be appointed? No, hon. members should leave that kind of thing alone. If they want to place themselves on a high level like the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), then they must not come with such things to the House. I will ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) what he thinks about the matter.

It is a family affair.

The hon. member for Standerton asks if I knew him. I am sorry that I did not know him because then I need not have been searching the country so long for an economist. When, however, I saw what he wrote in the “Agricultural Weekly,” it was clear to me that he was the right person. The Public Service Commission says that no grade is necessary for that high post. The commission is in this respect not logical, and it makes me think of the boer who came to ask President Kruger for an appointment. The President said to him: “Look here, Uncle Gert, all the high appointments have been filled and for a clerk you are unfitted.” I recommended eight officials for the new Department of Expansion. One of them was Mr. F. J. du Toit, who has taken the B.A., but he does not hold the degree M.Sc. The commission say in connection with reference hereto—

Is the commission logical in making such a recommendation? In the lower grades they want an official to have a degree in agriculture. But for the higher post anyone can be taken. The object of members opposite is that we should make a mess of the matter. The commission says further—

Thus in the case of the Department of Expansion it is not necessary to advertise, but in appointing Dr. Geldenhuys the post should have been advertised. It was known from the newspapers that such an appointment would be made. It is a very lame excuse of the commission and hon. members here. It is not necessary for me to refer any further to the fact. It is the object of hon. members opposite to sow bad seed. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) thinks very little of a degree, and says “I have not got one.” I am sorry that he thinks so little of his own academic degree. I will now return to the question of the typist. It has been said that we have here an unhappy lady whom the Minister of Agriculture after 15 months will not appoint, and that the Government approves of this. If we look at the facts we have here again to do with the question of race hatred. I told the Public Service Commission that I could not appoint her, but after I had had an interview with the head of the Forestry department under whom she works. I told him I was inclined to allow her to work a further two years in the department if she will learn the second language. The commission said: “No; you must appoint her.” But what does the Act say in this connection? Section 13 (2) of the Act says that the probation time of such a person shall not be less than one year and not longer than three years. As the law says this, why do the commission then want to compel the Minister to appoint her within 15 months? Does this not show that the commission has resolved to baulk the Government in the execution of its duty? The commission has now got legal advice and says that it is prepared to keep on the entomologist for another twelve months. This poor lady is thrown out of the service by the commission because the commission will not give her another chance. Officials are willing to learn another language, but the commission refuses to give them the opportunity of doing so. I just want to say this in addition. The reproach has been thrown at our heads that we take people from outside and appoint them over the heads of our officials. I would like to ask the hon. member for Standerton about the appointment of Dr. Bok. There were hundreds of magistrates in the country who were his senior when he became secretary to Gen. Botha and he was appointed over the head of all those other officers as Secretary for Justice, because he was competent. I appreciate this, because I have great respect for him, but when former Ministers on the other side of the House have done it, then it is no sin. If the Nationalist Government now appoint a man like Dr. Geldenhuys, then it is a great sin. Hon. members know that their attack is a hopeless one. We are going to deal honourably and fairly with the officials and we are not going, like our predecessors, to do a thing and then shield behind officials. I take the full responsibility upon myself for the appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys and the position in connection with the entomologist, and I leave it to the House to decide whether we acted wrongly. I can only give the assurance that so long as the commission acts justly we shall accept its recommendations. But when it makes a recommendation which is not in the interest of the public service I shall, without hesitation, discard the recommendations. We have done this in the past and we will do it in the future, when we think that the public interests demand it. I think that I have been clear. I have made it clear why I acted in that way, namely, because it was necessary in the interests of the service. I have the support of the officials and they can be assured that anyone who is competent will get the promotion he deserves, and that he will get increases whenever he has a claim to them, but I am not going to allow the Public Service Commission to dictate to me.

I think the hon. Minister of Finance deserves the congratulations of the whole House. Usually the Opposition, when a financial measure like this is introduced, criticized the financial policy of the Government. This is the time for doing so. I say that the Minister of Finance is to be congratulated, because ever since yesterday not a single member of the Opposition has criticized the measure which is submitted by the Minister of Finance for the approval of the House. What has happened? The Opposition have clearly forgotten that they have here to do with a financial measure. They have tried to put up hares and to make an attack on the Government about something that has nothing to do with the matter under discussion and no less than three former Ministers, one after the other, have tried to chase hares, and the one was more unhappy than the other. And after the first two had made an attack you would have expected that the more responsible members would have been satisfied, but when they saw that the attack had failed they made another attack. After this had hopelessly failed the Leader of the Opposition came and tried to raise dust and to put up hares, but what is the Opposition engaged in doing? They are busy criticizing the Government about certain appointments which have been made without the recommendations of the Public Service Commission being accepted. With reference to the appointment of the Secretary for the Interior the Public Service Commission said that it was not necessary that a person who fills the post should be bilingual. Now I say that I am astonished at this, now that we have had the Union for 15 years—and at the commencement of the Union it was clearly laid down that both languages had equal rights—we still have a Public Service Commission which doubts if it is necessary to appoint a Secretary of the Interior who is bilingual seeing that this is exactly a position where it is so essentially necessary. I am surprised that after 15 years we have a Public Service Commission which tries to make a failure of Art. 137 of the Act of Union. Can we be surprised that the Minister of the Interior has stuck to his guns and made the demand of bilingualism? And if we now had to do with the appointment of an incompetent person then we could understand it, but the Public Service Commission have themselves acknowledged that the new secretary is just as good if not better, than the one recommended by the commission. If the Government do not act firmly in so far as the execution of the provision of the Act of Union is concerned, then we are going, I prophesy, to see that a large class of officials who for 15 years have constantly set their faces against bilingualism will also further continuously baulk the Government in its policy. I am glad that the Government demands that they shall be absolutely loyal to the Government. Another proof of disloyalty we find in the circular of the Minister of Agriculture which was not yet ready for publication to the public in general, but which was published by a responsible official and why? To raise an opposition of the nature of what we have now had from members opposite against the Government and to put the Government in a wrong light. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture has taken vigorous steps against such officials. The Government is in a difficult position in carrying out its duty and to bring the national policy into practice, and we cannot allow that the execution of the duty should be made still more difficult by officials who will not carry out the policy. When the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was still in power he did not retain officials who had different views to his own. And now they expect that we should keep on the same people who are not in sympathy with our policy. If we want to do a foolish thing then it would be that we should retain high officials who will not carry out the policy of the Government. Then we should find that constantly information would be furnished to baulk us. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has tried to make a very strong point in connection with the circular of the Minister of Agriculture. On the one hand they say that we should give time to officials to become bilingual, but if we give time and opportunity to them that is not right either. The Minister of Agriculture wanted to make an experiment. He asked if it would be possible to carry on the correspondence in English one week and the next in Dutch. We know that to obtain a proper knowledge of the language you must get as much practice as possible. Now the Minister wants to give the staff the opportunity by this measure and then it is made ridiculous, but so long as hon. members opposite try to make fun of bilingualism in our country, so long will we find officials who seek their protection behind those members and who will try to baulk the Government. When the Government, of which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was the head, came into power they laid down the principles that our Minister is now carrying out. They were also of opinion that the Ministers had the right, disregarding the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, to appoint a person if they thought that the person recommended was not a suitable man. The hon. members for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) must now clearly understand that they are no longer governing. They were in power for 14 years, but now the responsibility for the appointment of officers rests upon this Government. The people outside feel and understand fully, and so do English-speaking members of this House appreciate the necessity for bilingualism. What is the difference between the policy of the former Government and this Government? The former Government was in theory in favour of bilingualism, but the present Government is carrying it out in practice. With these few words, I will end, and I hope the Government will not be frightened by the attack from the other side, but that they will continue to put bilingualism into practice. It will operate for the good not alone of Afrikaans-speaking people, but also of the English-speaking part of our population.

It must be evident to everybody who has considered the recent report of the Public Service Commission that the rupture which has taken place between the commission and certain Ministers was the logical outcome of the conditions under which the Government came into office. They had made profligate promises of preferment and of new appointments broadcast among their supporters. It was understood by their supporters that if the Nationalist party came into power they would settle accounts with those who had assisted in suppressing the rebellion. This is no secret. It was stated openly in this House by the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Gen. Muller) in referring to the dismissal of Gen. Enslin and Col. Jordaan. He said: “I know the sheep division very well, the people who fought against us got promotion. The first step was their appointment as sheep inspectors. During the election they were actively against me and shortly after became sheep inspectors, colonels and lieutenant-colonels, but the day will come when we will settle with them. They became sheep or land inspectors. If the Government wants to carry out the will of the people, it will settle with them once and for all, because they will scheme in the dark if they get a chance.” To give his warriors a taste of blood the first act of the Minister of Agriculture was to dismiss Gen. Enslin and Col. Jordaan. In his defence of that action last year he would have had us believe that he entirely forgot they were his opponents in the field. He said: “I did not think of these gentlemen being in the field against me, nor did I know Mr. Enslin was a supporter of the South African party. I was under the impression he was a public servant and a neutral, but now I learn he was a South African party adherent.” I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Minister for the Interior. We have heard of the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, and, listening with rapt attention to the Minister of the Interior, I was almost persuaded to that compelling doctrine, which he proclaimed with every pontifical breath, of the infallibility of more than one Pope! I hope I shall not bring myself under a Papal ban if I say that the Minister’s unfairness to officers coming under his ministerial portfolio once again proves the truth of Bolinbroke’s words—

The Minister spoke of Mr. Pienaar in terms of tombstone panegyrics, but he ignored the fact that nobody had attacked Mr. Pienaar. We knew he was a man of good ability and we never attacked his qualifications, we only laid stress on the constitutional position. He was promoted over the heads of others, under conditions which robbed men of their rights. The existing and accruing rights of Mr. Venn and Col. Williams were trodden underfoot by the Minister of the Interior, who comes here in a state of passion and speaks of the Public Service Commission in a manner which does no credit to the high office he now holds. The whole effort of the Minister was to uphold his action, and the action of every other Minister who had put his foot through the Public Service Act. I notice that the Ministers who have spoken are absent from the House—having fired their shots they have conveniently run away. The recommendation of the Public Service Commission was over-ridden in the case of Mr. Lamont, and the commission has not been advised that the action of the Minister in this matter has been approved by the Governor-General in Council. In other words, we have no information here as to whether the Public Service Act has been approved with—whether this matter has been approved by the Government or not. We simply have a letter from the Minister of Agriculture hectoring, bullying and browbeating the commission. I should like every English-speaking servant of the country to have heard the Minister of the Interior declaiming with all the bitterness which he employed against the assertion of the legal rights of that section of the service by the Public Service Commission. It was insufficient for him to deny these rights entirely, but he must come here and hit the commission under the belt by accusing it of taking its “instructions from Irene”! The gentlemen forming the commission are not permitted to defend themselves in the press or elsewhere—they are tied up, while the Minister of the Interior uses his fists upon them. This is the sort of conduct which the whole of the service has been called upon to witness at the hands of a Minister who, before he stepped down from the pulpit, preached, doubtless with ability, the doctrine of peace and good-will towards men. I am reminded of a remark made by a gentleman no longer a member of the House that it was a matter of regret that the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) had descended from the pulpit, because he had been going down ever since. Those who heard him last night will heartily agree with that conclusion. I now come to the case of the Minister of Justice, who also, having heard the rumblings of the coming storm, has seen fit to absent himself from the House. I wish to deal with the case of Mr. Sandys, which was brought before the House last night by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson). At the instance of one of the leading barristers of South Africa, who could not speak with sufficient indignation of this matter, I took up the case of Mr. Sandys, and obtained from him a written statement of the facts, which are in acute contrast with the remarkable statement made last night by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn). Mr. Sandys was appointed in 1914 by a Minister of the Crown in the following terms—

From this it is evident that the appointment was to be cancelled through the chief magistrate. But the chief magistrate, writing to Mr. Sandys, on his relinquishing office after eleven years’ continuous service as court messenger, placed on record his appreciation of the manner in which Mr. Sandys had carried out his duties, adding that Mr. Sandys had always given every satisfaction to both the officials and the public. Mr. Sandys’ dismissal caused universal indignation among the legal practitioners of Durban and Maritzburg, and they sent a memorial to the Minister asking for his retention. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) seems to have inside information on the subject, because he said it was not true that the whole of the practitioners in Natal had signed the memorial. One would like to know how the hon. member had access to this information. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) should be quiet for a moment.

Then you must not talk such rot.

It seems to me that the hon. member should consider the similarity which he bears to the creatures mentioned in the Scriptures who were possessed of an unclean spirit.

The hon. member must not make such remarks.

I bow to your ruling, Sir.

On a point of order, I would draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) charged the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) with talking rot. I say that is most unparliamentary.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) is not entitled to say that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) “talks rot,” either. Hon. members must kindly have more regard to the Parliamentary language which is to be used in debate.

I think if the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) will show me the courtesy of allowing me to state my case without the kind of interruption which seems to be usual with him, we shall get on very well together. I was dealing with the grounds upon which Mr. Sandys could be dismissed, and the only grounds upon which he could be dismissed without notice—incompetence, neglect of duty and misconduct There was not only that petition from the practitioners from Maritzburg and Durban, but a large number of practitioners went out of their way to write Mr. Sandys a sheaf of letters, which I have here, telling him of their regret that his services were being dispensed with. He was advised by the Minister that he would have an opportunity of applying for the appointment, and he relied upon that. The Min inter wrote to him informing him of the cancellation of his appointment on September 11th, and he replied awaiting the Minister’s notification of the new conditions under which he was to be entitled to apply for the appointment. At that time Mr. Spargo was employed as a deputy of Mr. Sandys. Mr. van Belkum, whom we shall hear more of, had been dismissed for neglect of duty some time previously. After Mr. Sandys had been notified of the cancellation of his appointment, Mr. Spargo applied to him for recuperative leave. He was not very well. Mr. Sandys, in good faith, granted the leave, and wished Spargo “Goodbye” and an early recovery. It was discovered by Mr. Sandys that Spargo left the same evening for Pretoria, I believe in company with the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), and he was also accompanied by Mr. van Belkum.

On a point of personal explanation, that is absolutely untrue.

The hon. member was at Pretoria. If he did not accompany these two gentlemen to Pretoria, he met them in Pretoria.

On a point of personal explanation, that also is untrue.

I think the hon. member has had occasion to remember before that it is a dangerous thing to say in his haste “all men are liars”! I think he has had occasion to apologize four times in one day, and publish his apology broadcast throughout South Africa, admitting that, whoever else spoke the truth, he was a little wide of it on that occasion. As I was saying, Mr. Spargo went to Pretoria and he had a mysterious interview there. I think that accounts for the absence from the official documents of any application by Mr. Spargo Tor the appointment. An interview took place with the Minister and the Minister decided to appoint to the post of court messenger “Mr. T. H. Spargo, c/o George Reyburn, Esq., M.L.A.” Simultaneously with Mr. Spargo’s return to Durban, Mr. Sandys received a notification of Mr. Spargo’s appointment as his superior. I put it to this House under what rule of discipline would it be considered right or proper for a Minister to receive a subordinate, or receive representations from him without any sort of reference from his superior, who came to him without the knowledge of his superior, who came to him having got sick leave from his superior to recuperate—under what principle or discipline was it right for a Minister to receive that man and appoint him in place of his superior officer without any notification to the persons concerned, the magistrate and the messenger of the court? Undoubtedly the conduct of Mr. Spargo in this case was reprehensible and mean. It is well-known that the Minister of Justice has a warm corner in his heart for the “sly drink-seller,” but it is a matter of surprise to find him putting a premium upon and rewarding sly conduct in the Government service.

Spar go never saw the Minister.

Is there anybody who will not condemn the administration of the service or the administration of a department on these lines? If that action connotes the Minister’s conception of the proper administration of his office, I maintain that it is wrong and that it is entirely against the interests of the public service. It is a wrong example to every branch of the service, and it is a wrong example to the public. The hon. member for Umbilo stated that Mr. Spar go was a member of the South African party council. I have here a telegram from the head organizer of the party in Durban stating that Mr. T. H. Spargo was at no time a member of the party council.

He said his father.

I can only go by the hon. member’s speech as reported. I come now to the statement of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who rather excitedly interjected that Mr. Sandys was in receipt of an income of £4,000. I have a written statement by Mr. Sandys that there was no man living who could truthfully say that he had received a greater nett income than £1,500 a year from this post. To make sure on that point, I telegraphed to him again, and in his reply he states: “Profits from office of the messenger at Durban never exceeded £1,500 a year.” Mr. Spargo was discharged on October 18th, 1924. When he came back, he went to Mr. Sandys and notified him that he had been appointed as his master, but that he would like to carry on as his subordinate in the meantime. Mr. Sandys very properly showed him the door and paid him off. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) spoke of this as though it had been unfair, but it seems to me it was in accordance with civilized practice. The hon. member referred to the employment by Sandys of some Indian deputy messengers. Mr. Sandys informed me that it was utterly impossible to trace Indian litigants in a place like Durban, unless you had Indian messengers. In no case, he said, was a process ever served by an Indian on any other person but an Indian or a native. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) suggested that Sandys, in this matter, showed partiality for “Yellow Asia.” I would remind the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) that his defeat at the Provincial election was due to some leanings he had towards this “Yellow Asia.” He will remember the publication “Actions Speak Louder than Words” in the “Critic” (Natal). He was elected to the Durban Town Council on a programme, one plank of which was the restriction of political economics and industrial penetration of Asiatics. But when an Indian, who had impersonated his uncle for eleven years and had passed himself off as a licensed holder and got the renewal of a licence under false pretences, had his application for further renewal rejected by the licensing officer, the hon. member voted for his licence being granted.

I voted against it.

The hon. member had a meeting with the Indian congress under the chairmanship of a Mr. Soobradje Rustomjee and owing to the winning influence of Mr. Soobradje Rustomjee, the hon. member no doubt felt that it was advisable for him to vote for the licence to be granted to this forger.

I have already said I voted against it.

You voted for it.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) has already said twice that he voted against it. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) must accept the hon. member’s word.

If he can explain what is in the paper, I will accept his word.

The paper apologized a week afterwards.

The gramaphone record of the Labour party knows nothing about it. I have the issue of the paper for the following week here and it does not apologize.

Will you make that statement outside this House?

I will make it outside the House as often as you wish. I am not like the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) who when challenged to make his statements outside this House shrank from doing so! The hon. member says, according to this paper, that he was asked to discuss matters with the Indian congress, and other members of the town council did so, too. He said: “You will agree when the appeal came before the town council the first time, I voted against it.” Exactly! But he voted for it the second time! That shows that the hon. member was conveying an incorrect impression to this House. After the meeting with Mr. Soobradje Rustomjee, he found it was advisable to vote for it. Coming back to the appointment of Mr. Sandys, the hon. member for Umbilo arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Sandys derived an income of £6,000 a year for five years. I think he arrived at that from information given by his friend, Mr. Spargo. He said it was clear Mr. Sandys had received £6,000 a year or more. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs put the figure at £4,000. He, too, is apt to state things he is not always quite sure about. Mr. Sandys has stated unequivocally that he has never, from this source, received more net income than £1,500 a year. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs stated a Greyville that the South African party Government spent £200,000 a year on salaries and wages for sheep inspectors and these men were all friends of the South African party. They were like the South African party missionaries. He said, further, in one district there were 18 sheep inspectors and not a single sheep. I pointed out in some correspondence which I published in the leading newspapers in Natal that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs when he made these statements was competing with Baron Munchausen. But up to the present moment he has not replied to me, but has maintained a very sensible and discreet silence. Among the subordinates of Spargo is one van Belkum. We have heard from the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) about “Yellow Asia,” but van Belkum has been under civil arrest at the instance of an Indian. Mr. van Belkum was appointed by the present Government as a member of the Rents Board, and most of the troubles of the Rents Board arise from the Indian landlord, but the Government see nothing incongruous or wrong in appointing as a member of the Rents Board one who has appeared on three different occasions before a magistrate under civil arrest.

Who arrested him—Sandys?

Mr. Sandys was in one instance provided with a warrant on the initiative of Mr. Ahmood Rajah, and in that process he came into durance vile. Let me say, in justice to Mr. Sandys, that, although he has had thousands of cases, there has never been an occasion when he put a man in civil prison where he can avoid it, and the case of Mr. van Belkum was no exception. He has caused as little humiliation in this matter as he can. I bring this matter forward to point the dangers of employing a member of the Rents Board a man who was financially embarrassed to Indians. Now Mr. van Belkum has not only had this appointment as a member of the Rents Board, he has also been appointed as chief assistant to Mr. Spargo, in which capacity he gets £45 a month. I shall be glad if the hon. Minister of Justice would tell us whether he is related to Mr. van Belkum, who claims him as a relation?

He is not.

He has referred to the Minister as his “swaar,” an indefinable relationship which I do not undertake to define! There certainly seems to be something unusual in the showering of these offices upon him, and I must point out that, according to the magistrate, he is not fitted for carrying out his duties, because the Justice circular of 1921 lays down that it is undesirable for an insolvent to hold the office of court messenger, and Mr. van Belkum is virtually insolvent. Nevertheless his appointment has been persisted in without reference to the magistrate, who did not receive notification until the appointment had been made.

I am sorry to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.

The hon. Minister of Labour said in this House in April, 1922, that, like Gen. Botha, he believed the greatest service a man could do was to bridge the gulf between the various sections of the Dutch and English in this country. Now that was the principle which has been indelibly accepted by the South African party, and was one of the principles which the hon. Prime Minister helped to lay down. So long as this party adheres to those principles, I, as one of the Dutch-speaking members—

Dutch-speaking?

Yes, Dutch-speaking. I for one will remain a true and faithful member of that party.

We don’t want you.

The hon. Minister of Justice after the elections started “cooing” and asking us to come over.

Hundreds have come.

Let me say here that we will not accept that invitation to be caught in the meshes in which we would ruthlessly have to sacrifice the principles for which we stand.

So you have principles, have you?

But the hon. Minister is no more a cooing dove; he is a roaring lion. He has changed his skin.

Devouring the sinners.

We are not to be daunted by the roar of the hon. Minister, but, with a fixed determination, we are going to abide by our principles.

They stick to you.

Have the hon. members on the cross benches stuck to their principles? One of their principles is that there should be no alliance with any other party. A man who does not stick to a fundamental principle is a worm, and in time of stress ninety-nine out of a hundred who do not stick to their principles are traitors.

What does the hon. member mean to imply? Does he attribute to the hon. members of the Labour party that they are traitors ?

To their principles.

If the hon. member attributes that to the hon. members of the Labour party he must withdraw.

I withdraw, Sir. The Prime Minister shortly after he took office gave a message to the people of South Africa in which he said he was not the representative of one section or party, but the representative of all sections of the community. I ask the members of this House whether that statesmanlike policy has been carried out, and whether all sections of the community have been dealt with faithfully and justly?

Yes.

Can anyone who has calmly considered the position say that policy has been carried out? Since the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been in power the hon. Minister of Justice has openly declared that the Public Service Commission should be done away with.

Hear, hear.

I hear hon. members say “Hear, hear,” but do they realize that if you do away with the Public Service Commission you are doing away with one of the corner-stones of the Act of Union? Members on this side of the House will not allow any corner-stone of the Act of Union to be torn down. Then he is in favour of the resignation of all the administrators, or such of them as do not agree with his views.

No, they do not agree with the views of the country.

Last night we had a full exposure of the unfortunate incident of Mr. Sandys. Here we have the Minister of Justice, who holds the keys of justice, doing what, to the ordinary mind, seems a very unfair thing to Mr. Sandys.

What are the keys of justice?

I have had occasion to look up what at the time of the Roman Empire was the idea of what justice meant, and I will give you the definition of Justinian—

For sixteen hundred years that definition has stood good and should stand good to-day. The Minister of the Interior had occasion, at the Koffiehuis, to initiate what is a new doctrine— new to us, but not new to them—that everything being equal, he is going to appoint Nationalists to the public service. I can understand hon. gentlemen on the other side saying “Hoor, hoor,” and endorsing that sentiment, but what about the hon. gentlemen on the cross-benches? Do they endorse that sentiment? What does it mean? I ask the House how many of the English-speaking people in this country are enrolled members of the Nationalist party? How many of the English-speaking people are members of the Labour party?

Two.

Is this not a total departure from the fine sentiments expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister at Bloemfontein, when you consider it carefully? And do the words of the Minister of the Interior at the Koffiehuis tally with the fine sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister shortly after his appointment, as Prime Minister, at Bloemfontein? The Minister of the Interior has let the “cat out of the bag.” The country now knows exactly what the policy of the Government is. If an English-speaking and a Dutch-speaking citizen, who is a Nationalist, come along, other things being equal, the Nationalist is going to get the appointment. It is quite clear that the Labour party are being used as tools to carry out this policy.

That does not go down any more.

At Bethlehem, during the Nationalist congress, one speaker said that the Labour party were being used us a wooden leg by the Nationalists during the elections. The Prime Minister said he was using the Labour party as the donkey to pull him out of the mud. Notwithstanding the “straffing” which the Labour party are receiving, we have not heard one bray from any of them except the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). He reminds me of the Hottentot and his mother who got into an aeroplane and was told by the pilot that he was not to say a word while travelling in the air. But the poor old mother fell out. The Hottentot did not know what to do, and after a quarter of an hour he said: “Mr. Pilot, my mother has fallen out”; and that is the position of the member for Maritzburg (North). Through the linguistic contortions of the aeroplane, bombs are being strewn in his constituency, and these bombs have caused him to awaken to the fact that they are doing a lot of harm, and he has had to speak. We have had a small voice from the wilderness, because the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) does not know where he is and has lost his bearings. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) in making reference to the speech which was made by the Minister of the Interior at the Koffiehuis, when he stated that, everything being equal, he would appoint a Nationalist every time, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, with a smug smile said, “Hear, hear.” I notice that in 1923 the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said he had not eaten meat for six years, when the question was being discussed of the meat bounties, and it is quite clear that the Minister has a bad digestion. I can tell him that what appears to-day sweet to the taste will decidedly prove sour in digestion. Apparently the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is very fond of having his photograph taken. A short time ago we had a photo showing him shaking hands with an airman, but it is a pity that yesterday afternoon, when he said “Hear, hear” when the remarks of the Minister of the Interior were being referred to—it is a pity we could not have taken a photo of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and sent it to Natal so that his constitutents and the whole of Natal might see the attitude he is taking up on this question, an attitude which spells the exclusion of all the English-speaking people from the civil service. I presume the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was born in England. If not, will he please tell us where he was born? Now as a Dutchman, I want to make it clear that I agree that we shall in time Have all the public service bilingual, but we have got to go slow. You cannot force this step. Particularly is this so where the people of Natal are concerned. The Minister of Post and Telegraphs knows I am correct. The people of Natal have never had an opportunity of learning the Dutch language. It was only in 1916 the Province of Natal passed the Ordinance which gave both languages equal rights in the schools. Before that there was a dearth of teachers, there is still a dearth of teachers of Afrikaans. Natal has experienced great difficulty in getting qualified teachers, and had to import some from Holland. The Natal people have now come up to the scratch and are doing all they can to teach their children Dutch. The number of European pupils in Natal is 30,288. The number not learning Dutch is 9,793. It is estimated 8,889 are in Standard I where second languages are not taught. The policy of the Natal Educational Department is to fix one language in the children’s minds before they begin with the second one. The children in Standard II and over who do not take Dutch, do not number more than 1,000, or just over 2 per cent. So far as the Dutch-speaking population is concerned, 551 pupils are not learning English, which represents also about 2 per cent. therefore in Natal they balance equality. The people of Natal have realized and now understand that it is necessary for their children to learn both languages. There are many men in the public service who, I realize, have never had the opportunity of learning Dutch. Are they to be ridden over roughshod because they never have the opportunity? I think it is only just and fair they should first have that opportunity. I put forward Natal because I notice the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has not got up and defended the rights of the people of Natal.

No one is infringing their rights that I know of.

I appeal to the Government to see that the rights of the people in Natal are justly and fairly dealt with on the language question. Their position is different to that of people in the other provinces. The hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has been in Cape Town for about 15 years during the sessions. How much Dutch does he know? Can he speak Dutch at all? With all the Dutch spoken in Cape Town one would have thought the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would have been a fluent speaker of Dutch. Of course it is possible he never contemplated being a Minister. If the ministerial members of the Nationalist party are going to carry out this policy they should insist that members of the Cabinet who do not speak Dutch, should be compelled to learn it.

When I heard the speech of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) I thought at once of the elections. Then he did nothing else but make speeches, speeches that were suggested to him by his superiors. He did nothing but raise race hatred during the election. Continually he beat the big drums about race hatred. He declared that if the Nationalists came into power then the last Englishman would be put out of the country, then there would be no room for the Englishman in the public service. Every day it was the same tune. I said then that the member could just as well put a gramaphone on the table and let them hear one of the speeches of the leader of the party, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I had to my great sorrow to hear the hon. member call himself a Dutch-speaking person. He is not that at all. He can’t make the speech which he has just made in Dutch, he is not able to do so. He is not a Dutch-speaking person. He has accused us of intending to do an injustice to the English-speaking officials. That is untrue. We want to give everybody alike equal and fair treatment. It is the people who talk like the hon. member who do the most harm to the English-speaking. They say that these people do not need to learn Dutch. That an official does not require it. There they do wrong. They should learn the other language, and I am glad that the Government is imbued with the spirit to do justice to the second language. It is high time. We have sat here for years and had to see how the former Government continually appointed unilingual people. Our demands were constantly overlooked. More than 200 people have been appointed on commissions, not 20 of them belong to our party. Now when we appoint people and now when we do justice to people the hon. member for Newcastle talks, now he sounds the loud trumpet of race hatred. It is really painful to hear, after a Dutch-speaking member, what an English-speaking one fabricates. This he also did during the elections. He then told the same story, and he knows that it is untrue. I regret that I must say of the hon. member that he is not able to make his speech in Dutch. He is of a good family, but if he talks in that way here then I regret the tone he adopts. He is not the only man who can make claim thereto that he is a Dutch-speaking Afrikander. When he had not yet sat here, when he could talk outside the House, where the rules of debate do not matter, he often abused us as poisonous snakes. Now under the rules of the House he talks of worms. The member will, however, have to give account of that expression to his electors. I will take care of that. The Government has said that in connection with appointments in the public service in the event of equal qualifications they will appoint the Nationalists. I honour them for that. Fifteen years we sat here under a Government who did not ask for equal qualifications. There was never a talk of that who only appointed South African party people. Now the hon. member has a lot to say about the appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys in the Department of Agriculture. Is this because a person is bilingual? Does the hon. member think that we should have got somebody from overseas for that appointment? We have suitable people for these appointments in our country amongst the sons of the soil. They possess the necessary ability. The name of our country has been made to stink oversea, because we have always stated that our people were not good enough, that the Afrikander was not good enough to occupy a post. That time is past. We have competent people, and it is high time that they should occupy the high posts in the country.

I also happen to come from one of those areas where we do not hear much Dutch. When I was a member of the Cape Provincial Council, one of the first things I realized was the necessity for every man in this country to learn Dutch, and whilst my sympathy goes out to every Dutchman who upholds his language rights, I consider that it is the duty of every Englishman to see that his children learn Dutch. We in the eastern portion of the Cape, who have not the advantage of coming into contact with our Dutch brother citizens, are at a tremendous disadvantage, and I spent six months in a Dutch village trying to learn Dutch which is a very difficult task for an Englishman. At school we were taught high Dutch and the time I spent in learning that was practically wasted. The position today is that men who were born forty years ago in the Eastern Province had not the advantage of acquiring a knowledge of Dutch and therefore, suffer a great handicap, but to-day the position is different, and a man who fails to take advantage of the opportunities the schools now afford for his children to learn Dutch is failing in his duty to his race and to the country of his birth or adoption. In the Transkei, as in Natal, we are doing our very utmost to learn it. I welcomed the speech yesterday of the Minister of Railways and Harbours in which he recognized that in certain parts of the Union, citizens have not had the advantage of facilities for learning Dutch, and the Minister’s statement that he did not intend to enforce the language regulations in his particular department in such areas was applauded on this side of the House. If that can be done in the railways, surely that principle can be extended to other departments. Further, we have in this country a large number of natives who have joined and are joining the civil service who have never been taught Dutch. Is the Minister of Justice going to enforce the language regulation against them? In the Transkeian territories we have an administration established under the old Cape Government which I think is a credit to South Africa; it is generally admitted that in the Transkei we have the finest native administration in the Union. Many of the magistrates and administrators in the Transkei were born and bred in the territories, and in many cases were educated at Lovedale, a native institution and include such men as Sir Walter Stanford and Mr. Arthur Stanford, Mr. Brownlee and others well known for their knowledge of native affairs. Our magistrates are largely drawn from the territories; they know the native languages but unfortunately they have never come in contact with Dutch citizens and have little or no knowledge of Dutch. Where, then, are you going to obtain your future administrators of the native territories if the language qualifications are insisted upon? The men who understand the natives best are those who have lived amongst them and the natives respect those who know their conditions of life and language. If, however, the language regulations are carried out rigidly it means that in the conduct of native affairs you are not going to have the best men, and this is a very serious matter. In the Transkei specially it is necessary that the Government should look at the language question from a most sympathetic point of view, and the regulations should be broadly and equitably interpreted, as indicated by the Minister of Railways. I hope never to take up a racial attitude in this House, and I wish to repeat the words of the Minister of Railways, when he said there are questions arising in this House which should be above party or race. The language question is one of these, and we should realize that we cannot learn each other’s language in ten or fifteen years. It is going to be a slow process, and the slower the process the better the foundation. Hon. members opposite may feel that they are doing their duty in trying to encourage the English element to learn Dutch, but they should be content with encouragement and not try to enforce a knowledge of their language. If hon. members will only realize that we the British section, are trying to meet our fellow Dutch citizens in this matter, that is the most they can expect of us, and if they give us credit for that the country will go ahead, and in 30 or 40 years’ time the racial and language questions will no longer be discussed in this House.

The House has been very fully occupied in discussing questions relating to men, but in regard to this matter of messengers’ fees, there is one person in connection with this question who has never received a word of consideration from hon. members. I mean the person who has to pay the fees. Two or three years ago, the then Minister of Justice brought in a recommendation to increase the fees, and I objected to any change being made on the ground that the fees were too high. The Minister agreed to accept an amendment that Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban should be excluded from the high fees. I did not put forward that amendment because I felt that it would be wrong to have persons in the other parts of the Union paying high fees, while people in these three favoured towns would be paying fees which would be something like 25 per cent. less. It has been stated to-day that the profits in some of the districts have amounted to over £300 a month, and you have three big towns, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban where these large amounts are earned. I am not going to deal with any question of one man being more fitted for this office than another, but I do wish to deal with this matter from the point of view of the public interest. I am one of the strongest advocates of good wages and good salaries, but I would urge upon the Minister to seriously consider the whole position. The magistrate of Durban, the magistrate of Johannesburg, and the magistrate of Cape Town are all drawing less salaries than the messengers. That is not reasonable, it is not fair and it is not just. If the Minister had made the salary £1,000, instead of £1,500, it would have been a good salary for this position. You have in Durban, I understand, at least six magistrates in Johannesburg about an equal number, and in Cape Town five or six. What is the position? The highest paid magistrate amongst them draws £1,200 a year. The next magistrate in each of those towns who has to adjudicate principally upon civil cases is receiving—I speak subject to correction—less than £1,000 per annum. The messenger who serves the summonses, or rather who gets a number of men under him to do the work, receives double the salary of the average magistrate, although his work is not to be compared for responsibility to that of the magistrate. I fully recognize that the messenger has onerous duties to perform. I will deal with one district alone, and take as my authority the Government official returns. The messenger in that district is also deputy-sheriff. He earned £5,600 as messenger, or, at any rate, he was lawfully paid that amount whether he earned it or not. As the deputy-sheriff he received £600, and his total earnings were £6,200, a sum sufficient to run the whole magisterial division.

What did he pay his staff; what expenses did he have?

I cannot deal with expenses, that is a matter in his own hands, but suppose he had an assistant at £600 and two more at £400 each, and possibly a motor car or two, I should estimate that his net earnings would be at least £2,500 per annum, and I am not surprised that the Minister of Justice took the step he did. It is on record that a question was put to a former Minister of Justice about the fees in these cases, and he was asked how it was no action was taken. But nothing was done. The first action to be taken in this matter was taken by the present Minister of Justice. When you come down to £2,500, that is the salary of a judge; it is the salary of every Minister, except the Prime Minister, in this House. There is not an official connected with this House or the Senate that has a salary of £2,500 per annum. I ask this House: Are we doing justice by this country in allowing these fees to be charged and that salary to be paid? I make bold to say that two-thirds of those fees come out of the pockets of the very poorest.

And your Government did it.

I am not here talking for any party or Government; I am talking for the people, and if my friend wants to help the people the less Government and the less personality he puts into the case the better. It was not the Government, it was this Parliament which was responsible, and there were only two voices raised in this House in protest, and one was that of a gentleman who is not here to-day, and the other was that of your humble servant. Not a single voice was raised by hon. members opposite against those charges. I was sorry to hear when the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the name of Mr. Frank Nettleton to hear Mr. Nettleton’s name greeted with laughter. I want to say, as one who has been politically opposed to Mr. Nettleton, that I have known him for many years, and I know that any duty he undertakes to discharge he will discharge faithfully and with credit. I was very sorry indeed that any member of this House could mention Mr. Nettleton’s name with derision. Whether Mr. Nettleton is a Labour man or not, he is perfectly entitled to earn his living. I want the Minister of Finance to go into the whole question of these charges, and when he finds there is a balance of a considerable sum I want to ask him is it not his duty to reduce those charges so that the public will not be called upon to pay them? I ask the Minister of Finance: Do you think it is the duty of a Government to make profits out of summonses? It is not the function of the Government to earn money in that way. I am sure the hon. Minister of Finance, who has filled his post with very great credit, ought to get a better source of profit than from the proceeds of summones served upon people. I have not succeeded in finding any other country where the Government have taken revenue from this source. I hope the Minister of Finance will cause some investigation to be made, with a view to bringing the fees down to a level which people can pay. I would urge that he should lump the non-paying and paying districts together with this end in view. This is not a new question; it is one which I have raised on several occasions. The Minister of Finance must know that the majority of persons connected with summonses and everything of that kind are poor people. I would further suggest to the hon. Minister that when a writ of attachment is made against a person’s furniture, the court should have the right to stop the sale if reasonable instalments are paid. Another question I would ask him to go into is in connection with civil imprisonment. If I am correctly informed, as I believe I am, the Government take the money for feeding civil prisoners and give them prison rations. I would further urge that the scale of salaries for messengers should be brought down to £1,000; there are not 20 magistrates in the Union who get that salary; while the risk of an action for damages can be insured against and the Government could pay for it. It is in these directions that thousands of pounds have been taken out of the pockets of the poor and placed in the pockets of the Government, and I propose to bring this matter up year by year in this House until some action is taken.

The political animosity displayed in the speeches given this afternoon by the hon. members for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and Illovo (Mr. Marwick) makes one rejoice to learn, notwithstanding the news received tonight that Madame Tussaud’s famous wax-works show has been destroyed by fire, the chamber of horrors has been saved. The speeches of these hon. members have shown the House what the unfortunate people of Natal have to put up with during the Parliamentary recesses and at election times. If the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), for instance, is not visiting the larger cities in Natal, endeavouring to kill the Indian Empire with his mouth, he is gathering together little groups of farmers at Thornville Junction, Richmond, and other small drops in Natal, and serving out similar dope to that which he saw fit to treat the House this afternoon. The hon. members for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), Umvoti (Mr. Deane), and Weenen (Maj. Richards) are other members who also get together in Natal and endeavour to scare the good folks there as to the terrible things likely to happen to them under a Nationalist Government. At a recent meeting held at Newcastle, the mayor of that town gave utterance on the public platform to this statement—

Foolish utterances such as this is largely due to the propaganda for which the hon. members I have mentioned are responsible. The member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) returned, as we all did, to his constituency after the last session of Parliament and in a speech at Mooi River in September last, he was pleased to say to his constituents—

That is what the hon. member for Weenen was kind enough to say in Natal about yourself—

The hon. member must not discuss the Speaker.

It was a pity you were not in Mooi River to tell him so. The hon. member for Weenen at that same meeting went on to state—

Hon. members will agree, after what they heard this afternoon. Is it to be wondered at that the Pact Government makes little progress in our gallant little colony? I had occasion, during last session, to invite members of the present Cabinet to visit Natal. Some of them came, and it did a great deal to counteract the political propaganda indulged in by our friends of the South African party there. The hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) for instance, is not so active as the other members I have mentioned, but during the last election period he told the people of Maritzburg that if the Nationalists came into power the streets of Maritzburg and Durban would run with blood.

I think the hon. member is drawing on his imagination.

I will admit that the hon. member does not believe this to-day, and from all appearances he is gradually and surely becoming a supporter in Natal of the Pact Government. He has been converted in many ways. I forgot to mention that when the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) held these little hole-and-corner meetings he always took good care to see that a reporter from a certain newspaper in Natal was present. And that paper recently, in making reference to the fact that the airmen had started off from Durban to deliver the airmail while there was a little haze in the atmosphere, put the following heading on the paragraph detailing the incident: “Sheer Murder. Mr. Boydell sends the airmen to their death.” The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien), who were accompanied by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) was invited, along with myself, to a meeting of coloured men in Maritzburg. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) was asked whether he thought the proposed Segregation Bill would affect the coloured people. (This was a meeting of very respectable coloured people.) He said: “Yes; I do, and the Pact members have said as much. We asked the Prime Minister for a definition of the coloured man, and he would not give it.” And he went on to state: “They’re squashing you out, though you have as much right to live as we have. This is another move to keep you out. That and other things go to show what the hon. members on the South African party side have to say in Natal. I have already requested the Prime Minister to “ca canny” in so far as the language question in Natal is concerned, and the hon. member for Newcastle this afternoon paid me the compliment of repeating practically all I had to say on the subject over again. There is no question whatsoever that the facilities for learning the Dutch language are nothing like the same in Natal as they are in the other provinces, and I was, therefore, delighted the other afternoon to hear the Minister of Railways and Harbours make his clear-cut explanation, that there was no intention to force the learning of Dutch on the artizans on the railway. I am quite satisfied with that statement and will continue to do my very utmost in Natal and elsewhere to tell the people the truth respecting the Pact Government.

After having listened to the very humorous speech from the member who has just sat down, I will endeavour to bring the debate back to the Public Service Commission: I suppose it is well known to all hon. members of this House what the origin was of the Public Service Commission. In order to let the outside public know the position I will endeavour to state it. Under section 142 of the Act of Union, it was laid down that the Governor-General shall appoint a permanent Public Service Commission. That was followed by an Act in 1912, and again in 1923. I shall later refer to the Act of 1923. Under the Act of Union, section 144, it was laid down with regard to officials existing at the time of the Union that they shall retain all their “existing and accruing rights.” Coming to the Act of 1923, we find the same principle embodied in section 100, which lays down that “existing and accruing rights” shall continue to those officers in the service at the time of Union. I take it the gentlemen who comprised the members of the convention clearly had in their minds that there would be a large number of men in the service who were not bilingual and could not become bilingual, and therefore their existing and accruing rights were to be preserved. Probably many of those convention members would by the light of later experience have wished to see something different laid down, but the Act of Union distinctly lays down the position with regard to bilingualism. Coming to the case of Mr. Venn. I have not the pleasure of knowing him, but I have had correspondence with the Secretary of the Interior, and I have had nothing but courtesy from that department. The correspondence and the conversations which took place with regard to Captain Lane started from the Premier’s office, and a letter was sent to the Premier from the Public Service Commission on the 11th of July, 1924. I quote the section applying to Captain Lane and Mr. Venn. The Public Service Commission wrote, inter alia, to the Premier—

Further it states—

In a minute—dated the 19th July—consequent upon conversations the Prime Minister had with the commissioners, they say—

Now I come to a reply from the Secretary to the Prime Minister to the Public Service Commission on the 11th of August, 1924. This reply clinches the situation—

There were two recommendations, one that Mr. Venn be appointed to the position Mr. Shawe was to vacate, and the other that Mr. Lane be appointed Under-Secretary to Mr. Venn. The Prime Minister in his speech very carefully evaded the whole point as contained in that minute. He did not explain what he meant by the use of the word “recommendations.” It surely meant that he accepted the commission’s recommendation that Mr. Venn should be placed in the position vacated by Mr. Shawe. In his address to the House he never explained it, nor did he attempt to state it meant anything else. It was left to one of his satelites—the Minister of the Interior—to explain. In a letter the Minister of the Interior wrote to the Public Service Commission on the 25th of August from Cape Town as follows—

Anyone capable of reading the document will see what the policy was. The Minister of the Interior says the Prime Minister can look after his own department and I will look after mine. There you have two voices, but I thought it was claimed the Cabinet always spoke with one voice? In the same minute the Minister of the Interior said—

Another remarkable paragraph appears in the document, where the Minister of the Interior said he would only be able to agree to the appointment of an officer who was really efficient and thoroughly bilingual and capable of sympathetic relations with the general public. He writes further—

The Minister of the Interior was preparing the way for the difficult position he now finds himself in. I will prove that Mr. Venn was capable of filling the position. A few days ago the question was asked whether Mr. Venn was bilingual. I put the question of Mr. Venn’s connection With the civil service, and I think it will not be wasting the time of the House if I gave some of the answers, namely: I find that Mr. Venn joined the public service in August, 1903, having been chief clerk and accountant in the Hospitals Department; subsequently accountant in the Colonial Secretary’s Department, and in May, 1910, was transferred to the Department of the Interior, in which he has since remained. The Minister of the Interior said—

That may be all very well when the Act of Union has been in force for 50 years, but not after 15 years, more especially seeing that Mr. Venn and other officials in his position had been assured that their “existing and accruing rights” would not be affected under Union. The Minister said—

Is it because Mr. Venn is only unilingual that he is going to be debarred from all promotion in the future? Is it not nonsense to say because a letter in Dutch is sent to a Government department the head of the department must be able to speak Dutch? Surely the secretary’s staff attend to letters. Again, every caller does not personally see the head of a Government department. But if the position set out by the Minister of the Interior is correct, what is the position of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and that of the Minister of Defence? Do they, when they receive letters in Dutch—seeing that they do not know the language—immediately read and reply to those letters themselves? I throw this question out as a challenge, for they are incapable of so doing. Had Mr. Venn known only the Dutch language I wonder whether his promotion would have been similarly barred? The treatment that has been meted out to this unfortunate man is unfair and unjust, and the Government have flagrantly broken the provisions of the Act of Union. The Prime Minister referred to the member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) as a nice man but a bad politician, well this applies more strongly to the Prime Minister himself. He is a clever man, and I like him immensely as a private individual, but as a politician he is a very difficult man to understand. In his memorandum of August 25th the Minister of the Interior, as already stated, wrote—

Did he ever send for Mr. Venn? No! When the Minister returned to the Transvaal somebody whispered in his ear—

There is a friend of ours, a Mr. Pienaar. Send for him.

Doubtless Mr. Pienaar is a very fine fellow. The Minister never told us that he sent for Mr. Venn, and he misled the commission when he wrote: “So far I have not been in a position to judge of Mr. Venn’s capabilities.” The Minister has admitted that Mr. Venn is a capable man in every respect. The Prime Minister when speaking displayed unctuous rectitude when he asked—

I would remind him that sub-section 3 of section 15 of Act 27 of 1923 says—

That is all that was necessary. The Public Service Commissioners have done their duty fearlessly, not caring whether the Minister thinks that they are an excrescence. I again ask how and from whom the Minister came to hear of Mr. Pienaar? Are there any hon. members in this House who can enlighten us on this point? All the explanations we have had about the extraordinary abilities of Mr. Pienaar we on this side have never attacked. It has now been said that Capt, Lane was taken into the Prime Minister’s Office contrary to the Act. Two wrongs don’t make a right, even supposing that action were wrong. Last night the Prime Minister laid down an axiom which has been supported by the Minister of the Interior that once a proposal has been made by the Public Service Commission they are not entitled to have the option of making further recommendations on the same matters. Have hon. members ever heard so ridiculous a proposition laid down in regard to a service which it is our desire should be of the purest? When the Minister would not accept Mr. Venn the commission recommended Mr. Williams and this the Minister of the Interior rejected. While hon. members opposite say what a fine thing the Public Service Commission is, at the back of their minds they are desirous of doing away with its members and with the commission. I want to refer for a moment to the case of Mr. Lamont. I do not know Dr. Geldenhuys and I daresay he is a very estimable and competent young man, but we had in the service Mr. Lamont who, we hear on all sides, was a capable and efficient official. We have been told that there were too many men already in the service and yet what does this Government do? Regardless of the fact that they had a competent man in Mr. Lamont and regardless of the expense to the taxpayers, they imported into the service a man from outside at £900 a year. I hope the public will read carefully and digest what has taken place and what has been done in a most disgraceful manner. I see that the Minister of Agriculture laughs. He has been one of the worst culprits. The moment he got into office what did he do? He did not ask “are you bilingual,” he simply discharged men from the service and put his friends in. He said “I don’t care what anybody says; regardless of the rights of the people, I am going to do it.” I admire him for his candour; he did not, like the others, come here and attempt to throw dust into our eyes. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) in his speech said that the Government would see that the Act of Union was strictly carried out. Heaven help the country, if the way they acted in this instance is carrying out the Act of Union. I was quite prepared, when the country thought fit to send hon. members opposite back in a large majority to govern the country, to agree that they should be given every chance in the interests of South Africa to make a success. Well they have had their chance and they have abused it terribly. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) said—

I think the hon. member must have been in close conclave with some of the Ministers. This is the Hofmeyr incident over again. Are we going to adopt the American system that with every change of Government, men in high positions are to be ousted and replaced by supporters? Later on the hon. member attacked one of the hon. members here who had referred to that famous circular, namely, alternately one week Dutch one English. How lovely! Now we have got a new move. At the Koffiehuis the other evening a number of ladies decided that when they went into a store, unless they could be served in Dutch, they would not buy and would walk out. That is a recrudescence of an incident which occurred in the Transvaal in 1909 where a meeting was held and it was then laid down that if you go into a shop, ask to be served in Dutch and if they cannot reply in Dutch, you should walk out. We all know what ladies are—if they go into a store and can get an article for sixpence or a shilling less, they will take it whether they are served in Dutch or English. At that conference somebody wanted to lay it down that, if the Government sent you a letter in English, you should send it back and say you did not understand the language. However, one wise man got up and said “supposing you, got a cheque in English from the Government, would you send it back and say you don’t understand the language?”

I am very glad to finally hear the truth from the other side of the House through the mouth of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) when he said: “I am a very simple person.” Well, “so say all of us.” But he must be very simple to take up the position that he has. I should like to ask hon. members on the other side, and especially the actual Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and the hon. members for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. Pretorius), Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), and Bethel (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) if they would agree with the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. We must accept that they agree therewith, because they have done nothing else since yesterday afternoon than plead that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission should be accepted. They must thus agree with the recommendations of the commission. But are they then prepared to state in the country that they agree with the view of the Public Service Commission that the Secretary of the Interior need not be bilingual. This is a definite question that I put to the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members. I ask them if they are prepared to state along the countryside that they agree with the recommendations. If they are not prepared to do so, then they must stop wasting the time of the House. It is surprising to me that all the members of the former Ministry, who are still sitting in this House, state that they never knew to which party a man belonged when he was appointed. Well, over and above the smashing words that fell yesterday from the lips of the Minister of the Interior, I would like to ask if it is then quite casual that all the members of the respective land boards in the four provinces all happen to be men that belong to the South African party that almost every member of an important public commission, of a temporary or permanent nature, belonged to the South African party.

How did the Nationalists then get the majority?

Because the electors were tired of such happenings. It is hardly necessary, but I want to add a few words in favour of the selection made by the hon. Minister of the Interior in relation to the appointment of a Secretary for the Interior. I had the privilege of living in two districts where Mr. Pienaar was magistrate, namely, Ermelo and Barberton, and I would like to ask the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) if he does not remember that his own partner at that time—and all attorneys agreed about it—said of Mr. Pienaar that he, in so far as knowledge of law and general ability was concerned, was the most competent magistrate that they had ever had up to that date—so competent was he that his own partner said of him that if Mr. Pienaar had given a judgment it was actually unnecessary for an attorney to appeal. I am surprised that they, under the pretence of discussing public matters, can take two full days to kick up the dust. Would not their own Minister in similar circumstances have done exactly the same? I especially take umbrage at the point of view of certain Dutch-speaking, or so-called Dutch-speaking, members opposite. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) is especially one of those who tries to sow dissention between the Dutch-speaking and English-speaking portions of our population. The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has said that the hon. member for Newcastle has stamped himself as Dutch-speaking, but I must ask his pardon. He did not say so, but he said that he was “Dutch.” And there is a great distinction between Dutch-speaking and Dutch in the country. Besides the English-speaking there are a few exceptions, quite a number on the other side of the House who come under the expression “Dutch.” They are “Links of Empire.” The hon. member for Newcastle now comes here and thinks that he, as a “Dutch” member, should jump into the breach for the English-speaking and their language, and he comes here and insults the Labour party members by speaking of them as “worms.”

The hon. member must: not go further into the matter.

But I object to it that such insults are made here, as if we on this side of the House do not also represent the English-speaking portion of the public. Not alone that, but there are many names of English-speaking, people on the list of membership of our party. I feel sorry that they still think so. But this happens because they have entirely lost feeling with the Dutch as well as with the English-speaking population of the country. That is why they got such a thorough beating at the latest election. No, there are thousands of English names on our list of membership. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has said that the Minister of the Interior said in the Koffiehuis that in the future no Englishman would be appointed. This is an absolute perversion of his words. The Minister said no such thing in the Afrikander Koffiehuis. In this manner a breach is brought about between the English-speaking and Dutch-speaking portion of our population, and it may take years to put it right again.

The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) has paid me the compliment of reading to the House a speech I delivered last recess in Natal. Now if there is one thing the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) knows, is that I never say in the provinces what I would not say in this House, and, further than that, nobody has yet accused me of ever having made a racial speech. After the last session the Minister of Finance paid me the compliment of inviting me to sit on the Commission on War Pensions Grievances, and when hon. members read that commission’s report, with all its real significance, they will realize that my signature, which it bears, could never have been attached by a man with the slightest sensation of racial feeling in his veins. I merely mention these facts, Mr. Speaker, because if after what I have said what I feel constrained to say to-night, there can be interpreted anything by any member opposite as being of a racial character, then it will be due to one of two things only, either I shall express myself very clumsily or those who accuse me are wilfully blind to reason, to the position as it undoubtedly is in this country to-day, and to the state of affairs we are rapidly drifting to. I claim to be as true a South African as any member opposite. I have never known any other home, and I shall never know any other home. The whole of my interest, and the whole of my life and the whole of my future are devoted to this country, but I was trained in school where the guiding principle was always to give credit to the other side, even although you did not agree with them, and to give them credit for the same honest intentions which one has the right to claim on one’s own behalf from them. So that when the Government and the Nationalist party generally claimed to put in the forefront the principle that they were South Africans first and subjects of the British Empire next, I accepted that claim. I may not necessarily have agreed with it, because I have my own ideas as to what is the future of the Empire, and put the family life before that of the individual, but I accepted it and believed it. Now I regret I can no longer do so. The speech of the hon. Minister of the Interior yesterday I listened to it with feelings little short of horror. I can describe it in no other words. That speech has been flashed throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is being read in every home in South Africa to-day. In its bitterness it could hardly have been exceeded. It was directed not against us on this side of the House alone, but against the whole great section of South Africa which this side represents. Such bitterness could only have arisen from the desire to impress on these people that it is the intention of the hon. gentleman and those whom he influences that, so far as he and his party is concerned, South Africa from to-day is to be divided into two bitterly hostile camps. There can be no other result from such talk. There can be no other result from such a policy as the Government is pursuing. I wonder if the hon. Minister realizes the damage he has done? As I have said, I accepted frankly the expression which has fallen from them that they are South Africans first, and that they place South Africa’s interests in the forefront of their ideals and policy. That can no longer be accepted as correct. It is impossible for any party led by a Minister who can give expression to such words as the hon. Minister has used, both inside this House and outside, to say that he holds the interests of South Africa as a whole as the first great principle for which he is fighting. I would put the principles of the party opposite in their proper sequence. The Government and those behind it to-day are Nationalists first; that is their great guiding star; then they are South Africans next, and they are subjects of the British Empire last. That is not my interpretation; that is the logical interpretation of the policy which the party opposite have been following during the seven months that they have been in office. They have laid it down that the first desideratum of a public servant is that he must be a Nationalist. That is an impossible state of affairs. I do not object; there is no reason for objecting to a party doing the best it can for itself, but they have to remember that they represent only a section of the people, practically only one-half of the population of South Africa, and if they are prepared to ignore the interests of the other section, and if they are determined to consistently advance the interests of their party I at the expense of that of every other section of the community, they are placing themselves in a hostile position to every other section, with the result that a feeling of bitter resentment is being engendered. What is going to be the future of this country under such conditions? You have embarked on this deliberate policy and you have put up Ministers to make these bitter speeches. The rest of us are being slowly pushed into the position of outcasts. Only in future are members of the Nationalist party to be regarded as a primary consideration.

Nonsense.

It is useless shouting “nonsense.” It is the line you have deliberately adopted, that outside your particular circle there is going to be little or no consideration for anybody.

What did your Government do?

The hon. member will be able to have his say later. I am not concerned with the past; I am deeply concerned with the future.

Why don’t you answer his question?

I repeat what I have said, that is the policy of the party opposite, and it was noteworthy that the more bitter the remarks of the Minister of the Interior the louder was the applause. Now, sir, I come from a part of the Union (Natal) where we frankly decline to accept the position of outcasts or inferiors. I ask the House to go back to the time of Union. Natal went into Union voluntarily, knowing full well she was making a very great sacrifice of her independence, and knowing that her representation would be very materially reduced, knowing that she would be for all time in a position of numerical inferiority. However, but we felt that the right thing to do was to trust you freely and frankly in spite of that numerical inferiority. Now that was a great thing to do. It was a tremendous sacrifice to make in the interests of South Africa, but what is the position to-day? She finds herself differentiated against in every possible way and on every possible occasion, and is it to be wondered at that the patience of the people of Natal is being rapidly exhausted? This appears to arouse the amusement of hon. members opposite. To-day they feel they are in the position of the top dog and they are making the most of it, and when we come here to try and describe the position and deal with our legitimate grievances we are met with just the derision we are getting. Our views are not listened to; hon. members do not pay the slightest regard to what we say and simply jeer at us. To-night’s exhibition is a very accurate reflection of the general attitude of the Nationalist party.

What grievances are you suffering from?

I have a great regard for the hon. gentleman’s intelligence, and I think he at any rate will grasp what many of his friends on either side utterly fail to appreciate. When we went into Union we had a public service, a defence force and a police force second to none; our sons were all qualified to enter, and did enter that public service. That was the position when we joined forces, but to-day for all practical purposes they are absolutely barred.

What about our sons?

They are not barred because they can drop into any job they ask for and are doing so.

That is begging the question.

You have asked what are our grievances and I am telling you.

But should not they be qualified under the Act of Union?

I will deal with that directly. At Union we had a police force which as I have said was second to none in South Africa, but to-day the character and constitution of that force has been completely changed.

By whom?

By you. Destroyed in a colony where, if there is any portion of South Africa that requires a specially qualified and efficient police force, it is in Natal.

In what way has it been destroyed?

I will tell the hon. member. He probably does not know that we have in Natal, a very large native population living cheek by jowl with the farmer, in locations, and on private farms and so on. These people collectively are absolutely loyal and for that very reason you require, to deal with a people of that sort, a police force which not only knows the country from a to z, thoroughly understands the people and their characteristics and can speak their language almost as well as they can themselves. Unless you have a force like that it is not to be wondered at that undetected crime is on the increase in Natal. As an illustration of undetected crime of a very serious and growing character a neighbour of mine is now lying in a hospital in Durban poisoned presumably by a native servant by arsenic. He will never completely recover, and no conviction of the would-be murderer has followed. The natives in Natal to-day do not hesitate to say, as an old man said to me the other day, that the whole state of affairs is changed.

Since when?

Very largely since the present Government took office. A very respectable old native said to me recently “in the old days if anyone did anything wrong they were punished, but to-day the young men are saying you can commit a crime, but unless somebody sees you do it you can do it with impunity. That is what the natives are saying and it is a very serious state of affairs.

They go to gaol, but are let out again.

It certainly has been a great misfortune that the wholesale releasing of prisoners should have taken place without some consultation with the representative people themselves. I do not think the Minister meant to do more than bare justice, but at the same time he hardly realizes that in a place like Natal it takes a long and expensive process collecting criminals, and having collected them it is a mistake to lightly turn them loose again on society. The natives do not understand it, and regard it as a sign of great weakness and inconsistency. I would like to say further, in regard to the police, that I have many times, I think during the last six months, drawn the attention of the Minister of Justice to this matter, and I think he has generally accepted my view in a very sympathetic manner; in fact, I do not know that he has ever repudiated it. I think he was quite willing, so far as Natal was concerned, that these young Natal boys who understand the natives and speak their language should be enlisted in the police force for service in Natal. At any rate I accepted that as the view and informed the people of Natal, who were very grateful, but the fact remains for six months in spite of every effort I have been unable to get a single Natal boy into the police. First-class young fellows have been offered; good linguists, of the right age and the right character and the right educational qualifications, and every time they have been turned down for some trivial reason. The last lot I persuaded to present themselves were told to look for another job for another year. That does not help us in Natal, and I appeal to the Minister to give us that consideration to which we are entitled. So far I think I have been received sympathetically, but nothing has happened. I now come back to the position created last night by the Minister of the Interior. It is useless ignoring the fact that hon. members opposite are by the line they have adopted, dividing South Africa into two bitterly hostile camps, and if we do not by our protests now bring about a radical change of policy no one can say how or where it is going to end. I should be neglecting my duty if I did not stand up here and make that quite clear. Its immediate effect is patent; it is weakening the financial credit of the country; it is affecting immigration; and it is deliberately persisted in will bring about a cleavage of the people.

What deliberate policy?

The deliberate policy the Government are pursuing. Take for instance attacks on De Beers.

That is the cloven hoof.

That is exactly the empty laugh I expected to come after the remark I made. The attack on De Beers is what tickles the fancy of the hon. gentleman opposite, but when they are attacking De Beers they are attacking not only an institution which politically they hate but are attacking the shareholders throughout the length and breadth of Europe, and if that does not adversely affect South Africa and our credit I do not know what will.

The hon. member must not discuss the Diamond Control Bill.

They are affecting the credit of the country and you are putting back the clock 25 years. They do all this with your tongues in your cheeks, and whilst they are doing this, what about the native population and all they stand for? What is to be our position in respect to them? What are they (the natives) going to think about it all? Have you no regard for the position you are creating? Mr. Speaker, the people of Natal are deeply concerned as to our future, and candidly do not like the look of things. We base our claims for fair treatment upon the covenant of the Acts of Union and we say that covenant is being violated both in the spirit and in the act, and if the Government are going to continue departing from that covenant and violating the spirit of it, then I say without reservation, the whole position of the Union will have to come up for very serious revision.

This debate we have been enjoying this last two days has been one of the most dramatic fizzles we have ever seen in Parliament. The squib was very damp. The squib was carefully prepared in the Press. I remember coming down the Avenue seeing the “Cape Times” poster for the first time: “Public Service Commission Scandal.” We know the South African party is only the old Unionist party with a few remnants added to it. We knew we should have the same old things which new members have never experienced.

You are a remnant of the old Labour party.

I happen to be the leader of the party, and the one who has done much to discredit the party, to which the hon. members over there belong, among the people. But he is a privileged member of the House and if he will try to stop getting excited, he will be able to follow my remarks with a modicum of intelligence.

Tell us something about the Bethlehem congress.

I am talking about the matters that have been raised over there. When Ministers speak from these benches we are entitled to speak without continual interruptions from opposite. I say again we expected all this, but I am amused to see that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has not taken part in the debate. He has left it to the others. Once bitten, twice shy. He remembers, 13 years ago, putting his foot in it by accusing the Government of the day of precisely the same crimes, and on the same grounds, and then he had the grace to apologize for it. I think the words he used were used with regard to Mr. Roos. It is strange that two gentlemen of the same name have figured in the same subject. I looked up the debate the other day to read it, and it was exactly the same kind of attempt to play on English prejudice. He said of that gentleman at the time of his appointment—

Then he apologized. I don’t suppose anyone has greater respect to-day for the auditor-general than the member for Cape Town (Central).

But the Minister replied on that occasion and he has not replied now.

The Minister of the Interior chewed up your case yesterday, so that your leader had to get up and change the subject by talking about congested legislation. We know these people of old. It is only an old Unionist party trick. The stock in trade they have, when not defending De Beers, is to play on the English prejudice in this country, they don’t want racial equality, they want special privileges. They want ascendancy. The Minister of that day-to-day the right hon. member for Standerton— said—

That shows the hollowness of all this stuff. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) would be the first to-day to say that his suspicions of the Government of that day were wrong. And then the right hon. member for Standerton knows well to-day that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) would not willingly or knowingly bear any prejudice to a Dutch South African. We had hoped we had got past all that. But they return to their old plans, they have only one engine in the country, not the public, but the so-called public Press that sings to their tune and dances to their manipulations. This debate is not in the interest of the public service. It is pro bono Port Elizabeth, Durban, East London and Natal, where they think they have the means of raising prejudice and racial feeling between two races. On what does the indictment lie? That the Government have over-ridden the recommendation of the Public Service Commission? That is no ground for indictment. The law gives the commission no right to say that its word shall be law, but that the commission shall make a recommendation, and if the Government over-rides this recommendation the commission shall report it to Parliament. The mere over-riding of a recommendation is no indictment, and that was expressly stated by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). Where, then, is the only ground on which their indictment lies? The Public Service Commission is there as a watch-dog—it is a security that the public service shall not be run on nepotism, favouritism and corruption. We quite agree. Has there been any allegation of nepotism— has there been any allegation that the Government in the exercise of its discretion have been guided by any other consideration than that the public interests will be better served by over-riding the recommendation of the Public Service Commission? Has there been any allegation that in appointing Mr. Pienaar instead of Mr. Venn that the Government were actuated by any other motive than their regard for the public service? Does not the law expressly leave in the hands of the executive the ultimate responsibility? No, Sir, no such allegation was made or sustained and there again no indictment lies against the Government.

The commission is there to perform its functions.

If the commission on very frequent occasions sent forward recommendations which the Government did not think fit they should follow, that in itself displays a difference in opinion between the Government and the commission, and that difference of opinion is a perfectly legitimate one, and we should not be performing our duty to the country if we allowed the whole of these appointments to be made by the commission without exercising our own judgment. What is the meaning of this attack by hon. members opposite? Their attack was not on us for attacking the Public Service Commission. The “Cape Times” says the fault of the Government was in having over-ridden the recommendation of the commission. What is the explanation of this? The meaning of this is—just as in 1912—that simply having no other real ground of complaint against the Government— they do not dispute the right of the Government to over-ride the recommendation of the commission; they do not allege for one single moment that in the exercise of our discretion that we have been actuated by any other motive than the efficiency of the service. They do not allege that in the appointments we have made we have made bad appointments.

Then why is the commission so grossly attacked by the Minister of the Interior?

That is simply trying to shove the thing off. The Minister of the Interior smashed your attack and left you no position; even your own press organ in Cape Town has to admit that your attack entirely fizzled out. I am going to speak, to hon. members over there in these terms. You say that you represent the English-speaking people in this country. You continually say things for the purpose of trying to stir up racial feeling among English-speaking people. I say—as Leader of the Labour party equally representative of the English-speaking people as yourselves—that you do not represent the real, sound British sentiment in South Africa. You do not represent the same sentiments which men of our blood have taken with them when they go to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. When they go to those countries they make up their minds to throw in their lot entirely and without reservation with the Dominions in which they have pitched their tents.

I was born in this country and you were not.

I must ask the hon. member not to interrupt, and the Minister must address the Chair.

Is the prerogative of interruption to be confined to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow)?

I do not think in this debate there has been much prerogative of interruption. I know the galled jade winces. Ever since we have been in Parliament the Labour party has set its face against this attempt to stir up racial feeling. We have the right to say, when you have a repetition of 1912, that this is a repetition of the old Unionist campaign of trying to disseminate allegations which are not facts, and to spread suspicions which are entirely unfounded. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) asked us: “Why do you leave us to protect the English-speaking people of Natal against the wicked machinations of the Nationalist party?” What protection do they require? Is there any allegation of hardship, or of any attempt to deal with the people of Natal on racial lines? You know perfectly well there is no such attempt or danger. And it will be criminal for any Government to try and force people to regard themselves either British or Dutch, as standing on lower ground than the other race.

Why did the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) support me?

He knows very well what a tender spot this is in the minds of the people in Natal, and how malignantly certain influences will try to tread on that spot. On every possible occasion they will try and make the people of Natal afraid that they are going to be in some way interfered with when hon. members, in the exercise of their sense, know perfectly well that there is no such intention.

Do you say he is pandering to that?

I say that the hon. member was warning the Government to be careful with these things—perfectly rightly so—but there is no need for that warning. The Government are going to take care, but the hon. member knew perfectly well that hon. members like the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and others who sit behind him would neglect no opportunity to place the worst possible interpretation upon anything the Government might do in order to try and persuade people that the Government is trying to force things down their throat.

You know that is perfectly untrue.

When you hear the hon. member for Rondebosch and see him go rather white in the face you know you are getting somewhere near the spot.

You have been rather a pitiable figure during the last few days.

Pitiable in the hon. member’s eyes? May I tell him that there is nothing that delights my heart more than to feel that I have met with the disapproval of the hon. member, or, I may say, even the contempt of the hon. member? The contempt of the hon. member is something I prefer to his respect. With that charming manner of his, may I say that he does not stand in my mind in point of Parliamentary manner in all respects for my idea of the typical English gentleman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you whether the Minister is in order in insinuating that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is not a gentleman?

Is that what the Minister intended?

May I say, Mr. Speaker, I would not like you to interfere? Coming from the Minister, it is rather a compliment.

Will the Minister explain what he said?

The words I used were that the hon. member does not stand in my mind, either in his Parliamentary or other manners, as an ideal of the typical English gentleman.

He is an Irish gentleman.

He may be an Irish gentleman or anything else he likes. I would point out to the House that I do not impugn the sincerity of members of the late Government in calling attention to the fact that the Public Service Commission had brought to notice that their recommendations had been over-ridden, and in asking Ministers why they over-rode those recommendations. Those explanations have been given.

That is all we have done, except in the case of Sandys.

Oh! I think there has been a great deal more than that. There was the innuendo—“Public Service Commission Scandal.” The sincerity of an attack must be judged to some extent by the actions of hon. members themselves when they sat on these benches. Were they so very careful in all respects to see that there was no harshness with regard to language? I appointed a Commission to enquire into the Defence Force the other day. That Commission did not find that there had been no harshness in the Defence Force at all. Hon. members have all read that report. I am not saying that two wrongs make a right, I am denying that we have been wrong at all. I am denying that the English-speaking people of this country will receive any harsh treatment at all from this Government. I wish to refer to that Commission’s report to make clear exactly what the Government proposed to do with regard to the recommendation of that Commission. May I just pay a tribute to the members of that Commission for the excellent way they have done their work? I know my attention was drawn to the fact that the chairman, Gen. Lukin, during the election appeared on South African party platforms. But where soldiering is concerned. Gen. Lukin does not care anything at all about politics. He and the two gentlemen who assisted him carried out their duties very ably and deserve our gratitude. The essence of their findings was this. They told us that if the force is to be a contented one, if it is to attract the desired class of man and the officers are to carry out their duties efficiently, we must observe certain principles. It calls attention to the detrimental effect of giving commissions in the force over the heads of officers of long service to officers with no experience and training. The good South African Party Government gave commissions to men of no military experience and training.

Why are you referring to this now?

And they call attention to the change in the regulations in 1923 in regard to educational conditions and other cognate matters. With regard to the promotion to commission rank, I want to inform the House and through the House the members of the force, that the recommendations of the Commission will be adhered to in the future. The cadet system will be adhered to and entrance to that course will be by competitive examination open to every member of the ranks as laid down in that report. In regard to our arrangements for providing educational facilities we have been paying teachers but with little response. We shall try and make arrangements for more teachers and better teachers or by transport facilities to a Government School, so as to see that everyone who wishes to do so has the opportunity to qualify. In regard to appointments to the staff we shall also carry out the recommendations of the Commission and try in the fullest way to see that no officer shall in the future be appointed to a staff post unless he has had three years’ service as a regimental officer. Vacancies in staff posts up to the rank of captain will be filled by seconding officers from regimental units, and there will be interchange between the regimental units and the staff. Such officers will receive promotion in their regiment and not in a separate staff corps. Officers will only be transferred to the staff corps of the rank of major or higher. In regard to the language question the following instructions have been issued in regard to the qualification for promotion—

1. (а) All candidates who enter for promotion examinations will be examined as provided for in the regulations for the South African Permanent Force promulgated on February 1, 1923, that is, 50 per cent. of the examination will be in the English language and the balance in Dutch with the exception that—
2. (b) All pre-Union members of the South African Permanent Force who were 40 years of age on February 1, 1923, will be permitted to be examined in any one of the official languages, and if they attain the necessary standard of efficiency, such members shall be regarded as having qualified for promotion, providing they pass an oral test in the second official language of such a nature as will give evidence of their possessing a working knowledge of that language.
3. (c) The conditions of paragraph (b) hereof shall cease to have effect from and after February 1, 1927, and no member shall receive promotion after that day unless he shall have fully qualified therefor in terms of the regulations for the South African Permanent Force.

Does that mean that the examination will be in the dual medium?

No; one medium. The dual medium will not be insisted on with regard to the members of the force indicated and for the time indicated. That means that men who were under 40 at the date stated will have to pass the qualifying examination through one medium and satisfy the examiner that they possess a working knowledge of the other language in an oral test.

What will be the ultimate method of the tests?

The ultimate method will be the dual method as at present. This applies only to pre-Union men. The Commission also called attention to the unsatisfactory character of the organization of our artillery units. At present the practice is to promote, for the sake of economy, the senior battery commander to the rank of major and dispense with a regular brigade staff. Let me say that we have accepted the Commission’s recommendations and that the artillery brigade— a brigade of three batteries of four guns each— will be commanded in future by a brigade commander who will for the first two years have the rank of major and then of Lieutenant-Colonel. Major Wolmarans, who is to-day senior battery commander with rank of major, will now be promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel to command the Brigade. He will be promoted and the same thing will take place in regard to the S.A. Garrison Artillery. In regard to the Chief of the General Staff, we do not accept the recommendation of the Commission, we do not think anything is to be gained by re-opening that question. Now I come to the question almost the only one we do not accept, that the Act of 1922 should be repealed in regard to pay conditions of the old members of the forces who are still serving. We do not accept it for the following reasons: The introduction in 1923 of the present rates of pay for the S.A. Permanent Force was the result of the passing of the Defence Amendment Act of 1922, which was agreed to by all parties. These new and generally lower rates of pay were decided upon in 1922, after mature consideration and based on the conclusion that the State could not afford to maintain an army of the strength required at the rates of pay theretofore prevailing. (2) In several instances—especially in the case of married men—the new rates of pay operated beneficially and such men received larger gross emoluments under the daily rates of pay and allowances than they did under the old consolidated rates. The acceptance of the Commission’s recommendation would have necessitated the return of these men to the old and lower rates of pay and the discontent caused thereby would probably balance any increased content which the acceptance of the recommendation would confer upon other members of the force. (3) As the result of the introduction of the present daily rates of pay a large number of men who refused to accept the new conditions of service left the force. A considerable proportion of these would doubtless apply for re-instatement if the old rates of pay were re-introduced, on the grounds that they would not have left the service had they known there were any prospects of returning to the consolidated rates of pay, and these requests could not be entertained. In these circumstances the Government is unable to accept the Commission’s recommendation. The conclusion I have come to, with the greatest respect to the judgment of the Commission, is that if they had gone more deeply into the matter and the working out of it they would probably have come to the same conclusion as I have that to make that change now that the thing is done would probably raise as many anomalies and as much discontent as the original change made. In regard to the recommendation regarding rations, I am arranging to allow any man to draw his 2s. a day, if he is living in garrison, instead of the rations. At present the man living outside the garrison draws 2s. 7d. The man inside is supplied free with rations, which cost us a matter of 1s. 5d. He is rated for purposes of pension and income tax at 2s. per day for rations. But that is the nominal rate. We say you can either take the 2s. in money or the rations. The Commission’s recommendations in regard to politics in the Defence Force is the next item I wish to deal with. I am sorry the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is not here, because I understand from his recent speeches that he has been very much exercised at the introduction of politics into the Defence Force. I think members will conclude from a perusal of the Commissions report that polities have not been introduced into the Defence Force by this Government. I prefer not to reply to the hon. member for Standerton in his absence, but I hope to have an opportunity of correcting any impression that politics have been introduced into the Defence Force by this Government. The boot is very much on the other leg. I have very good grounds for thinking that it was a great misfortune that a Prime Minister of this country should have Been standing for a constituency in which is our main military station, and that in so standing he did not entirely hold aloof from any electioneering among members of the forces and from procuring electioneering. Well, sir, that is what we propose to do in that matter. I am sure it will go a big step forward towards producing contentment in the Force. A great deal of the discontent and unrest has been due to reorganization and cutting down. A man who goes into a career like that, and then finds the post he is aiming at is abolished, that will damp the spirit of any young man.

A kind of Venn case.

The member sitting next to him will tell him there is no similarity between the two. Those administering the services have a right to select the man for a post who is most suitable. A man should not have the post just because he is senior. All things being equal the senior should have the post, but if he is not suitable he cannot be appointed. With regard to the Defence Force the establishment tables which are decided upon, these do not appear in the Estimates now on the Table, because this Defence Force report came in too late for consideration before the Estimates were being printed. Supplementary Estimates will be laid on the Table. As long as we are in power, although we may add to the permanent force, it can be relied upon that the present establishments represent the irreducable minimum.

Time has expired.

I will sit down if I may be allowed two minutes to finish.

Any objection. (Cries of “No.”) Then the hon. member may continue.

I had a good deal more to say about this fizzled out attack. This is pro bono Natal, East London and other English-speaking places of the country. It was ably backed up by the so-called daily Press, the principal instrument of the members opposite.

Are you referring to “Die Burger.”

I am speaking of the English Press, but it does not worry us the least bit in the world. As I have said many times South Africa would not begin to make progress until a Government got in power in the teeth of the so-called English public Press, and disregards the screeds of a Press which belongs to our opponents, and which will do its best to divide the country into hostile camps, as the hon. member who spoke last said, because of presumed attacks on De Beers. The Government which gets in power in the teeth of the Press and relies upon serving the people of South Africa, and not on the Press, will keep in power a long time.

Mr. Speaker, we allowed the Minister courtesy to continue for a time because he was continuing on the Defence Force Report. The Minister is now riding his own hobby and others of us want to speak. It was as a matter of courtesy we allowed him to finish his remarks on the Defence Force Report.

The Minister was granted the indulgence of the House to proceed with his speech.

I shall not take long. I welcome omens. Precisely the same attack was made by hon. members opposite thirteen years ago on the then Government, and that Government lasted for thirteen years. When the Minister of Justice spoke the other day of our being in power for ten years I thought him optimistic. Now I think my hon. friend’s estimate is pessimistic. We welcome the attack, because an attack like this introduced by such a tremendous Press announcement which ends in a miserable fizzle like this has done, does not discredit us but utterly discredits hon. members opposite.

The Minister of Defence got up with a very great flourish and told us that he was going to pulverize the attack. Instead of doing that, however, he did not reply to a single one of our charges, but changed the subject completely to the Defence Force Commission. It reminds me of the theological student, who was asked to describe the characters of Elijah and Elisha, and he replied that he had never heard of either of them, so preferred to give a list of the Israelitish kings. I asked the Minister about the Bethlehem Conference. At that Conference General Conroy said he had “Considerable respect for the Minister of Defence, but the Minister did not understand the wishes of the people. He had respect for Colonel Creswell, but with the best will in the world the Minister could not do his duty. He (Gen. Conroy) had told the Minister that it was impossible to get any officers who had no politics.” Yet the Minister attacks us on the subject. Another prominent member of the Nationalist Party said “The Minister dared to state that in the Free State a commandant will not be allowed to take part in politics.” A prominent member of the Pact Party told the Minister at the Congress that they insisted on having politics in the Defence Force, and that the Minister did not know his job, and that the sooner he got out of it the better. As the Minister of Defence tried to draw a red herring across the trail and did not answer a single attack, we can afford to ignore him. The subject-matter before the House is a Bill asking for a very globular sum of money, about £11,000,000. Before; we give the Government this money we are entitled to take stock of the position, and to see what sort of Government we are getting for our money. We ought to make a survey of the Government’s promises and also of its performances. The principal achievement thus far has been to discourage and demoralize the civil service, the police, the Defence force, and the railway service. They have harried and terrorized these services, to such an extent that no man’s head is safe on his shoulders; no man knows how long he is going to remain in the service, and the pity of it is that the language question is being used as a pretext to introduce the spoils system. The Minister of the Interior last night did not deny that the spoils system was in full swing on the Nationalist side, but he said “You did it too” and his proof was two petty cases. I inferred from what he said that the members of the new Government have been occupied for the past two months in going through their predecessors’ files in order to find instances with which to attack us. The morality of that seems to me to be on a par with that of a man who will go through your private correspondence behind your back.

The hon. member must not impute anything wanting in morality on the part of Ministers.

I was not attacking his morality. I say that the morality of going through a predecessor’s files with a microscope in order to fossick out something against him is on a par with that of a man who goes through your private correspondence behind your back. I think it is an unhappy precedent. If Ministers can only find these two cases, quite minor cases, of the so-called spoils system during the fourteen years that the South African Party Government have been in power, I think we come out of it very well indeed. The pity of it is that the new Government are using the language question in order to further the spoils system. The language question in South Africa is first cousin to the race question, and should, therefore, be handled all the more carefully and tactfully. Under the South African Party Government bilingualism made enormous strides, for the simple reason that we treated the subject with justice, with tact and with diplomacy. We tried to ram neither language down anyone’s throat; we tried to evolve naturally and steadily and we were rapidly achieving that object. Under the system that we initiated and were bringing to successful fulfilment the average English-speaking civil servant and, more than that, the average English-speaking citizen, were making good progress towards our aim of a bilingual country. Under this new system the Dutch language is bound to suffer. To-day your English-speaking civil servant has got to learn Dutch under the sjambok, under the lash. No man is going to love a language if he has got to have it rammed down his throat. The peace of God had descended upon the language question under the S.A. Party Government. The language question was solving itself and now it has all broken out afresh. Hon. members need only read the newspapers to see that. Women are starting a campaign to boycott the shops unless the assistants speak Dutch. The language question is first cousin to the racial question and both need handling with a great deal of care. As I see it, it is the chief achievement of the Pact that they have so dealt with this question that all the old feeling has broken out afresh. For the rest, what has been the achievement of the Government? I suppose the reply will be this bloated Order Paper. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs told us what the programme of the Pact was to be. He said at Port Elizabeth that by the time Parliament opened there would be twenty to thirty Bills ready. He challenged the S.A.P. to show they had ever published a quarter of that number in one session. So now we are being governed by avoirdupois. He was quite right; we never did publish such a number. The Prime Minister accused us of obstruction. He is the chief obstructionist himself—with this overloaded Order Paper. We are becoming an over-governed country; the best governed country is the least governed country; the fewer the Bills the better the Government. The chief achievement of the Pact seems to be this piling on the Order Paper of all these Bills. Their standard of government is the number of Bills they have. I wonder if those old stalwarts of the Nationalist Party would be satisfied if they could see the type of Government they are getting, with each Cabinet Minister strutting about in jack-boots too big for him and rattling the sword of Damocles. I wonder if they do not feel in their heart of hearts regret for their hasty action, and do not realize that the Nationalist Party to-day is far from being the party they originally joined. And what of the Labour wing of the Government? In all other countries, however ill its theories may work out in practice, the Labour party has high motives, and it does try to protect the under-dog and improve the lot of the worker. But in this country the Labour party are the aristocrats, the “Upper Ten” who try to down the under-dog, the real worker, the coloured man and native. These are thrown down and kicked in the face by the Labour party. I am not talking about the sincere Labour man: I am talking about the leaders of the party in this House. The slogan of Labour elsewhere is “workers of the world, arise. You have only your chains to lose and the world to gain,” but here the Labour party want to fasten the shackles still closer upon the real worker. Apart from “jobs for pals” the next choice slogan of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is “What we have we hold”; in other words, “We are going to keep all the best jobs, and see that no one else has a look in.” These are the two wings of the party in power, both striving for autocracy. There is not a single Cabinet Minister, except the Minister of Finance, who is not taking wide autocratic powers. I see the hon. Minister of Defence has had the discourtesy to leave the House, in spite of the unwritten code of Parliament that when you have made a statement you should face the music. I am very sorry to note this tendency of the hon. Minister to lose his temper and his head and to be abrupt and discourteous; it is only another instance of the discourtesy of Ministers of which we have already complained. I do not think that this is fair treatment to mete out to the Opposition. I must remind the House that the Ministers are not flouting the members on this side of the House; they are flouting the dignity of half the people in South Africa. I think hon. members should remember that. When the Prime Minister gets up, as he did this afternoon, and threatened to gag us if we continue opposing his Bills he must remember he is not gagging a few members on this side of the House. He is infringing the right of free speech inherent in a free country, and the threat he made I throw in his teeth. He threatened to keep us till October. I will tell him that if it is a question of wearing down, we will keep him till December. We are not afraid of these threats, but I would warn him to stop them. They are childish and petulant. I see exactly four Nationalist members sitting on the opposite side of the House, and I do not know if this is the measure to their idea of the importance of the matter; but I hope the country will notice that the real machinery of Government is on this side of the House. If only to signify our disapproval of the conduct of the Opposition, I move—

In seconding the motion for the adjournment of the debate, I wish to give some reasons for so doing. This House is discussing an extremely important question, perhaps one of the most important the House has ever discussed and at the present moment there is one Minister representing the Government on the other side of the House. Before the hon. member came in there were only four members present on the Government benches. I wish to refer to the discourtesy of the Minister of Labour, who left the House after making an attack, without exercising the ordinary courtesy of a Minister after he makes a speech of waiting for a reasonable time to hear whether anyone is going to reply. I want to make it quite clear that the Government are not going to facilitate business by the gross discourtesy they are showing to the members, and it is for the purpose of drawing attention to that that I am glad the adjournment of the debate has been moved, and I hope it will be a warning to the Government, and that they will show that courtesy which a Government, more especially a Government with a large majority, should show to this side of the House; that courtesy which the House has a right to demand. The Minister of Defence now comes in after having shown the grossest discourtesy after making a speech.

Not at all.

The Minister is one of the old members of this House and he knows as well as I do what the courtesy is expected from an ordinary member much less than from a Minister, that if he makes a speech he should at least sit in the House for a reasonable time.

I did. Will you allow me to explain?

No. The hon. member knows what I mean. There are a certain number of members in this House who make a point when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) speaks to go out. Why do they go out and show discourtesy to him? It is owing to the distinguished services that the hon. member rendered during the late war, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House resent it. Whether we agree or disagree with the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) we at least, as loyal subjects, recognize the service he rendered. I shall have something to say about it later. The Minister of Defence has said that only innuendoes were thrown out. I hope to give reasons which actuated him in the dismissals he made from the Public Service. It is right that the hon. members on this side of the House, who are in a minority, should call attention to the gross discourtesy shown to us. We have refrained to see if it was only a coincidence. It is not. It has been a studied insult. When we are discussing questions of great importance hon. members may not agree with the views we hold, but I assure the hon. members and the Ministers that we hold very strong views on the questions discussed during the last two days.

Where is your leader?

My leader is attending a military meeting of gentlemen who have rendered distinguished services to South Africa and the Empire. I daresay hon. gentlemen do not wish him to be there, but they should at least recognize distinguished service.

Why don’t you divide?

They know they have a cast-iron majority. I ask permission not to include in my remarks the Minister of Finance because hon. members on this side always recognize the courtesy and gentlemanly attitude of the Minister of Finance. He has always stayed in the House after making a speech. I implore the Minister of Finance to use his influence and impress upon his colleagues and upon his leader the necessity of showing to this House the courtesy which it has the right to demand.

Hear, hear.

These guffaws only betoken an empty mind and have very little effect upon us. The hon. gentleman who made them has filled so many political roles in this country that we pay little attention to anything he says. I dare say the hon. member has been feeling uncomfortable during this debate.