laid upon the Table—

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

During the division which took place on Friday evening on the motion for the second reading of the Liquor Option Bill, I informed the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) that he was not entitled to record his vote. I was then under the impression that he had entered the chamber “after the question had been put with the doors locked,” but I have now ascertained that Mr. Anderson was actually present at that time, and was behind Mr. Speaker’s chair when the tellers were appointed. Every member present in the chamber when the question is put with the doors locked is obliged to vote in terms of Standing Order No. 124, and I have accordingly to ask the hon. member whether he wishes his vote to be recorded with the “ayes” or the “noes”.

I wish my vote recorded in the seat which I took on the opposite side— with the “ayes”.

The vote will be recorded accordingly.

I regret to inform the House that a catastrophe occurred to the Natal-Cape Limited train at Onderbroekspruit, 2½ miles north of Colenso, about 12.7 on Sunday morning last through the 100 ft. span bridge being washed away as the result of a cloudburst. The engine, a truck containing fruit, and a third-class coach entered the river, and I very much regret to have to state that engine driver van der Spuy, fireman Venter, and six natives disappeared, and it is considered that they have been drowned. I understand no European passengers have been injured. It would appear that a down-combined goods train arrived at Colenso at 11.50 p.m. on Saturday, 21st, and the Natal-Cape Limited left that station at 12.3 a.m. on the 22nd—13 minutes later. The former train had, however, been delayed in the section between Onderbroek River and Colenso owing to an engine failure, and the arrival and departure times mentioned do not therefore reflect the time the bridge had been previously crossed, which was actually about 9 p.m., but it would seem as if the failure of the goods train in the section between Harts Hill and Colenso had delayed the mail, as it is due to leave the latter station at 9.23 p.m. The assistant general manager, Durban, was, I believe, travelling by the mail train. Other senior engineering and operating officers left Durban for the scene of the catastrophe by special at 6 a.m. yesterday, and material is being hastened forward to ensure the line being got ready for the passenger trains with the least possible delay. It is hoped that a deviation will be ready to-night, although it was still raining when the last news from the scene of the accident was received. The passengers on certain trains en route from Durban to the north, and passengers travelling to Durban from the Cape, Transvaal, Northern Natal and Free State are being held at Ladysmith in the meantime. According to the latest information telegraphed the 100 ft. span girder, which was washed away, is lying 55 ft. downstream, and the miraculous escape of the European passengers on the train is due to the splendid action of driver van der Spuy, who reversed his engine and applied the automatic brake before going to his doom. This action is in accordance with the high tradition of bravery and devotion to duty established by the employees of the administration of which we are justly proud. The composite carriage was suspended 25 ft. over the top. The resident engineer and staff at Colenso are rendering valuable services. The dining car and train staff have worked splendidly in removing passengers to safety, and attending to their requirements. I am sorry to say that up to the present no bodies have been recovered. On behalf of the administration I wish to tender my sincere sympathy to the relatives of the deceased.

I do not know that I have much to add to what I previously stated, excepting that I notice nowadays that whenever the Opposition criticism gets too deadly the Government retreat in a body. I have noticed this for some time, and it culminated on Thursday night when the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and his followers retreated bag and baggage. I am not surprised that the hon. members across the way are getting gun-shy and demoralized, because I think there can be few instances in any Parliament where the Government has been so completely worsted in debate by the Opposition. Time after time they have been reduced to impotent silence and have had to take refuge not in argument, but in mere weight of numbers. Their Bills have been torn to tatters; their measures have been turned inside out, and in a few cases has there been any valid argument in answer to the very valid arguments of the Opposition. We need only instance the debates on the Diamond Control Bill, on the colour bar, on the Public Service Commission, and on the bilingual question. Blank silence has reigned on the other side. It is an extraordinary thing that this powerful Government should need to take refuge in silence or retreat when they are met with sound criticism. I remember about two years ago the hon. gentlemen across the way, when in Opposition, went on strike and walked out of the House. It was not a very dignified performance, but they were not at that time burdened with the responsibility of Government. But to-day the Government benches have to leave the Opposition to carry on the business of the House because they can no longer face our fire. Our fire has been causing havoc on the Government side. If that be not so, I should like to know why hon. members have taken to running away.

Your own newspapers do not report your speeches.

I do not think that is so. Up to the present the only retort we have had from the other side is that we are racialists. It is a very curious thing that on this side of the House we belong to a party drawn equally from all sections of the population, but the other side is drawn from only one section, and yet we are continually being accused of racialism while the other side claim that they are anti-racial. We have not levelled a single charge of racialism at the other side, but even the hon. Minister of Labour has descended to this petty artifice of charging us with racialism. I can understand that hon. members opposite are sensitive about racialism. It is the same kind of sensitiveness as that of a hangman when you mention a rope in his presence, and it shows what a competent Opposition we have proved ourselves to be. Wherever necessary we have supported and helped the Government, but when they have come forward with unsound measures we have criticized them and beaten them. I was told by an hon. member that hon. members opposite were not really running away; he said they were angry with me. I should take it as a great compliment if I, unaided, had been able to put to flight the whole force of the Government. But to say they are angry with me is a mere subterfuge. I have been in this House a good many years, and I have commented less on the personal failing of hon. members than anyone here. In regard to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), I admit I made a remark the other day which was not in accordance with Parliamentary decorum, but I made that remark under strong provocation. The hon. member called me a traitor.

Where did you find that, in Hansard?

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has very carefully taken it out of Hansard.

No, I did not. I did not look at Hansard.

The hon. member called me a traitor, and in return I called him a renegade.

You are not telling the truth now.

The hon. member called me a traitor.

That is not true.

Yes, the hon. member called me a traitor. I do not want to labour that point, I merely made the remark because hon. members opposite have accused us of continued discourtesy, and I wish to emphasize that it is hon. members opposite and hon. Ministers who are guilty of discourtesy. Within the last few days the hon. Minister of the Interior has made a gross insinuation against the hon. Leader of the Opposition; we have bad the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) telling us we were talking hog-wash; the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) told us we were talking rot and rubbish; the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) told us we were political hooligans, and so on. Ask the Minister of Justice anything, and he sneers at you; ask the Minister of Mines anything, and he snarls at you; ask the Minister of Agriculture anything, and he bellows at you. Hon. members opposite should realize that they cannot turn this House into a bear garden. I admit the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has not been a serious offender in this respect.

Well, you are, and you should be the last man to talk.

No, I have not been an offender. I have commented on the political activities of hon. members opposite, but if telling them the truth about their policy is to offend them personally, I am afraid they will be on the run all the time. I think the time has come when hon. members should pay more respect to the decorum and dignity of this House. Hon. Ministers, instead of being discourteous to us in person, are being discourteous to the people who sent us here—to a large section of the people of this country. We are determined to help the Government as much as possible.

Oh! Oh!

In the Diamond Bill, especially.

We promised to give this Government fair play, and they are getting it from us. Wherever they have introduced a sound measure it has received our support. I need only instance the air mail scheme, land settlement and the Zululand railway.

What about the Diamond Bill?

I have never seen a Bill so turned inside out as the Diamond Bill.

The hon. member must not discuss the Diamond Bill.

I hope that what I have said will have cleared the air, and that we shall, in future, be able to conduct these debates in a more amicable spirit, and once more in accordance with the traditions of this House.

The speech which was delivered by the hon. Minister of Defence on Thursday night had one great merit—It was possible to hear every word without straining one’s ears. Whether the Minister was wise in employing high explosives in his speech is a different question, because I understand that high explosives depend for their efficiency on the accuracy of their aim, and it cannot be claimed that accuracy is one of the fortes of the hon. Minister. I am sorry the Minister of Defence made it clear that whatever changes accession to office may have brought to him there were no changes in certain directions. He still appears to mistake noisy declamation for argument and vigorous thumping on the desk for incisiveness. The Minister told us that in all the criticisms from this side of the House against the actions of the Ministry in connection with appointments he could see nothing but an attempt to stir up racialism; in the extremely moderate speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) for instance, fortified by numerous quotations from the report of the Public Service Commission. Defective vision is a handicap to any man. The Minister went on to gibe at the English-speaking members on these benches, and he revived a taunt of the old Victorian days which has become meaningless that the English members on this side of the House had never thrown in their lot with the people of this country. I refer to this only because of the quarter from which it came. The Minister, throwing aside the modesty that is natural for him, has made a great claim, namely, that he has killed racialism. I have never heard anyone else make the claim for him. It reminded me of another great claim, that made by Bill Adams that he won the battle of Waterloo. I think there was about equal basis for both claims. I should like the House to look at the inconsistency of the Minister’s claim. He tells us that he has killed racialism, and in the same speech tells us that racialism is rampant on these benches. How this can be I do not know. Things that are dead don’t ramp, they smell. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) some days ago asked the hon. Minister to come down from the clouds, and he has come down with a bump. He went on to make what sounded like a plaintive charge, that the members of the Opposition always represented the doings of the Government in the worst possible light. I am glad to be able to agree with the Minister, because the light we shed on the doings of the Government is the searchlight of truthful criticism, and for many of their actions that is the worst possible light that can be thrown on them. The Minister finished up that portion of his speech by giving an assurance to the people of Natal, but why he singled out Natal I do not know, because if he thinks that only the people of Natal are concerned at the treatment of the Public Service Commission he is very much mistaken. However, the Minister gave this assurance in ringing tones; if it were not for his position as Minister I should say he was shouting at the top of his voice. He said the people will not receive any hard or unfair treatment from the present Government. Those are great words, and I hope the Minister meant them sincerely, but I fear he hardly realizes his importance in the matter, and he will find it hard to satisfy the people either of Natal or other parts of the Union so long as the declaration of the Minister of the Interior stands— that in the civil service Nationalists are to have preference. While there is Cabinet responsibility there is a difference in the way matters are treated by the various Ministers, each of whom has a different mentality. We know that from some of the Ministers we shall always get the perfect courtesy of the South African gentleman, and, perhaps, the special quality of the Minister of the Interior is that he has a conscience, though it may be misguided and wrong politically. In the reply that the Minister of the Interior made to the criticisms that have been urged against his appointments I think he did not appreciate the exact points of the attack. At any rate he made no reply to them. It has not been contended from this side of the House that the Executive did not have the power to give a final decision in these matters. It would be foolish if we did, for that will be tantamount to saying that Parliament is not supreme, for the Ministers are the mouthpieces of Parliament as representing the majority. The best of Governments, however, are apt to forget this sometimes. With regard to the appointment of the Secretary for the Interior I would not say that in every case in which a vacancy occurs the next man should be selected to fill the post. We had a tragic instance a few years ago of a man who was promoted from the second position to the first, who was incapable of performing the duties of the head of the department, and consequently had to leave the service, although he had been admirably adapted for the post which he filled before he was promoted. In the appointment of Secretary for the Interior there was no evidence that the Minister gave that grave and full consideration to the qualifications of other men which he should have done, and it would appear as if the Minister of the Interior had made up his mind from the beginning to appoint Mr. Pienaar. That is the gravamen of the charge that is brought from this side of the House—that the Minister must show cause for the action he has taken in appointing Mr. Pienaar. The Minister’s defence for the appointment was first an eulogy of Mr. Pienaar and then he gave us the tu quoque argument —but two wrongs do not make a right.

Do you admit the first wrong?

No. The Minister went back to 1913, but in that year the Public Service Commission was very different from what it is now. For one thing the Public Service Commission was new to this country in 1913. There was a conflict between the Treasury and the commission owing to the newness of conditions, and now, in his latest report, the Auditor-General expresses some doubt whether the Treasury is not shedding too much of its duties in favour of the Public Service Commission. The commission was gradually being evolved, so when the Graham Commission was appointed it had to consider the question of the control of the public service. The Minister has not given adequate reason for departing from the recommendation of the commission, and so we have to look elsewhere for the real reasons. We find them in a speech by the Minister which shows that he has a conscience and also a kink, and the kink is apt sometimes to be considerably stronger than the conscience. The Minister of the Interior, in a speech delivered the week before last, strongly condemned the spoils system. He said—

The Minister’s first sentiments were admirable, but later on in his speech we see a struggle between his conscience and the old Adam, which is in all of us. At the outset he laid down the most admirable sentiments, but how he can fit them in with what he afterwards said I do not know. He tried to square the circle, but he found that impossible, even by a man who knows all the mysteries of theology. I understand that the Minister, in reply to a remark by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), indicated his acceptance of the condition, “other things being equal.” I do not see, however, that that makes the thing much better. It still assumes that politics are to be taken into account, and other things being equal preference is to be given to a Nationalist. This is not a question of bilingualism, but of politics. What is the use of the Minister of Defence giving assurance to the people of this country? What is the use of his saying that he will see that no harshness will be inflicted upon them? While his colleague is saying to entrants to the public service, right at the beginning of their career, that they might go into the public service, but so long as we remain in power—and from what the hon. members say they may be in power for 20 years—no matter how efficient you may become, so long as there is a Nationalist capable of filling the position the Nationalist is to be appointed. That is the plain meaning of the declaration.

Of the intention as well as the meaning.

How can you allay the genuine uneasiness that exists as long as that statement remains? The assurance of the Minister, coming upon that statement, is nothing else but just idle words. I should like just to address a few words to the Minister of Finance on one point. The Minister told us that he expected to have us here to the end of July and asks for four months’ supply in a Bill which says that expenditure can only be met in the interim for services created last year. According to the Auditor-General’s report there is a difference of opinion between the Auditor-General and the Treasury. We ought to know what the attitude is that the Minister intends to take. On page 13 of the Auditor-General’s report the auditor comments that the rules provide that no services on which expenditure has not been incurred during the financial year or for which the Minister has statutory authority shall be deemed to be authorized under this Act. The Treasury has taken a different view. It claims that the word “service” means not the personal things forming the object of expenditure but the sub-division of Votes during the financial year. He goes on to say in the revenue part of the Appropriation Act that the Treasury, if their claim is conceded, can create fresh stock. The Minister of Finance, being a Constitutionalist, can see the importance of this. For my part, being an upholder of the privileges of Parliament against infringements by the executive, I hope he will remember his constitutional ideas. It would be to the point if the Minister will tell us which view he takes —whether he intends to follow the lead of the Treasury or the auditor.

In passing, may I say that, having gone through the Blue Book in an endeavour to find what the South African Party did on forming the commission, I find they appointed 240 party men and 15 Nationalists and Labour men. Now, sir, it is a long time since such a grand attack was heralded with such a blare of trumpets from the St. George’s Street Press in this House, but the attack on the Government on this question has signally failed. Nobody knows this better than the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). We remember what the hon. member had to do to collect his remnants of yokels to attack with pitchforks the machine guns of this side. He talked of ships and sealing-wax and cabbages and kings. He tried to get his people back after the blow delivered on the solar plexus by the Minister of the Interior. What is the cry in this debate? As far as I can see they say the Government should appoint bilingual officials wherever this is possible, and secondly, that the charter of the civil service is in danger. It is true that the charter of the civil service is in any danger? I say that it is not. There is nobody who would be more pleased than the members of the civil service, if the present service commission was scrapped. Nobody hates the Civil Service Commission more than the members of the civil service.

Who says so?

We found it out at the election. Continually these men came to us and said: If you get into power we hope you will do away with the Civil Service Commission. The civil service men have told me that they have gone to the commission and they looked upon the commissioners as a lot of snobs who would not deal fairly with them. In fact, the civil service believe that the Civil Service Commission were under the thumb of the late South African Party Government. They think that the commission did not give a fair deal to the younger men who had ability and did not give them a chance. Now these young men are getting a chance, and the civil service is going on its way rejoicing. I challenge any member on the Opposition side to get up and say that since this debate has taken place he has received a letter or telegram saying that the South African party are doing the right thing. “The Post and Telegraph Magazine,” which is a magazine which represents the men, definitely asks for the sacking of the commission. I am glad that the Minister of Justice in his speech some time ago said he would like to see the present Public Service Commission abolished. So would I. We want new blood on the Public Service Commission; business men who understand the spirit as well as the letter of the law. The spirit has not been carried out. The fact that the commission said that the post of Secretary for the Interior should be an unilingual one, in my opinion, only goes to show that they are quite unfit to regulate the service. The second point made by the Opposition is that bilingualism is being pressed too hard. I would say that had it not been for the South African Party Government’s policy for so many years, everybody in the civil service would be bilingual to-day. They have done a great deal to stir up strife between the Dutch and English. A complete answer to this debate comes from a South African party newspaper. My friends opposite do not know what is going on in South Africa, particularly the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), and the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who were born and bred in Cape Town, and whose horizon is covered by the mists of Table Mountain. Let me read to the House what a South African party newspaper is saying. I am quoting from the “Friend,” of Bloemfontein. The South African party absolutely control this paper to-day. This paper says—

I must draw the hon. member’s attention to Standing Order No. 62, which prevents hon. members from reacting “extracts from newspapers or other documents referring to debates in this House during the same session.”

I won’t read this any further, but this particular paper goes on to point out that the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) appointed men from outside the service to the sheep division, broke all the rules of the Public Service Commission, and it goes on to say that the difference between these two political parties to-day is that the South African party had the law and did not carry it out, while the Nationalist or Pact party has the law and, although it is unpopular, perhaps, is carrying it out. This paper goes further, and it says that if the English-speaking civil servants suffers at all, as he may suffer a little in having to learn Dutch at an old age, it is due to the members of the South African Party, who did not carry out the law and who allowed the law to be broken. That is the feeling of the public outside, and my friends opposite will find, when they fight Klerksdorp, that it is the feeling in the country. If this Government goes on as it is going on now, the whole of the country will be bilingual and nobody will suffer at all. I notice that the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) always goes out of the House when I speak nowadays. What I was going to say was that it is due to the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) is losing his hold on the remnant of his party. Just look at the small number of Dutch-speaking members from the Transvaal sitting behind him? We can see that the old South African Party is dead, in fact when you look at it you may say with Bright—

The South African party is doing an ill service to the civil service of South Africa by trying to stir up strife between employer and employee. It has been trying to make the civil service disloyal to the Government. I have a letter which goes to show that there is “something rotten in the state of Denmark.” I am sorry that the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is not in his place, because this letter is from a friend of his, or one of his correspondents, who is in the service. This man writes to the British Government as follows—

Is there any Englishman who has been got rid of out of the service since this Government came into power? That is what the public wants to know. My hon. friend got rid of a lot of Dutchmen when he was Minister of Agriculture. Can he give us the name of one Englishman who has been got rid of since this Government came into power? The letter states—

He is a civil servant, this man!—

Who was that written by?

By Mr. Harrison. The correspondent of the hon. member for Stander ton (Gen. Smuts), whom I am going to ask to lay on the Table the reply to Mr. Harrison’s other letter.

Who is he?

He was a member of the civil service, whom the Minister of Agriculture had to get rid of for writing this type of letter.

He was a temporary official.

It was written by a civil servant. I only quoted it to show that these unfortunate young men are being used by the front bench opposite. I won’t include the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), but I include the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who are endeavouring to set the country alight. They are using these unfortunate men to write these letters, hoping that they will be sent back to govern this country again. Of course, we know that won’t happen, but meantime, they are doing the country a lot of harm, and also these English civil servants. There is only one game to-day, and that is the old game that was played by the Unionist party for so many years. I come to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards). The former attacked the Government here and said: You are the people who have taken our police and made them what they are to-day. That was also said by the hon. member for Weenen.

I never referred to the police at all.

I withdraw that. He didn’t. It was the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards). He said he had been poisoned. Well, we are sorry, and sincerely hope it will not be long before he recovers. But he said it was due to the Nationalist party Government that the people who poisoned him had not been captured. He was poisoned two years ago, and this Government has been in office only eight months. That is the type of stuff which is sent to Natal and other English centres. I am sorry that a member like the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), who is an old South African, should try to make a division between English and Dutch. He was poisoned two years ago, and two years ago the South African party police tried to find out who did it, and failed. Now he blames the Minister of Justice and says: You have broken up the detective department and the police, and we cannot find out who poisoned me and my friend, who is still in hospital. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) made a vicious, caustic attack on the South African party three years ago about their police, and this is what he said—

It is no good denying it.

I deny having said that, and challenge the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to prove it.

It is very easy for the hon. member to challenge it, because he knows there was no Hansard at the time, and the “Cape Times” did not report it. I was sitting on the other side of the House, and he said this—

I never said that.

If the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) makes a quotation from a speech by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and the latter denies having used the words attributed to him, is the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) not bound by the rules of courtesy to accept the denial, unless he can quote the actual words?

The hon. member is bound to accept the statement of another hon. member.

What is the statement of the hon. member? I make three charges against him, firstly, that during 1923, sitting here behind me, on these benches, he got up and attacked the South African party for the way in which they handled the police in Natal, putting the Dutch in; secondly, he asked me to help him in this attack, and told me some of the Dutch police in Natal could not be taken into their houses.

Was that a private conversation?

It was in the House, here. The third charge that he attacked Col. Mentz and said he was turning the English officers out of the Defence Force, and putting people like Brink and other Dutchmen into: their places.

With reference to the charges made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), I say most deliberately that I have never once attacked the late Minister of Justice on the ground that he was appointing Dutch policemen in the police force. I emphatically deny that I ever attacked the late Minister of Justice for having appointed Dutchmen to the Police instead of Englishmen. I did state that I can refer to the newspaper cutting, which the Sergeant-at-Arms has in his office, that there was an increase of crime in Natal due to the fact that the police recently appointed had an insufficient knowledge of the natives, and the conditions under which they were working. With regard to the third charge, I am willing to have the whole of my speech read in this House and it will sufficiently disprove the charge. The statement that I accused Colonel Mentz of dismissing British officers and appointing Dutch ones, is an absolutely false one. I refuted that charge when it was made before and I claim to be one of the first British officials under Crown Colony Government in the Transvaal to appoint Republican officials who had lost their positions through the Anglo-Boer war. I do not remember having ever held any communication with the hon. member personally during the period mentioned by him. One of the rare occasions upon which I have spoken to him was to-day when he questioned me in regard to the recent debate about the police. I have never once gone into his bench to speak to him as stated by him to-day and I should be sorry to be considered intimate with him in any way. I was also accused of saying that I would not take a Dutch policeman into my house. I have never made such a statement and it is one I should consider most reprehensible for any one to make.

I have made three statements about the hon. member. The rules of this House are that if a man makes a statement about another member and is challenged by that other member, he must withdraw. I do so and in doing so I will remark that the hon. member knows what I mean when I say: “I do so.”

Order, order.

I said I do so.

The hon. member has withdrawn.

He withdrew in terms which amounted virtually to a reassertion of the charge and I ask you whether when he said “the hon. member knows what I mean,” if that is not a repetition of the charge?

This is a very important point on which I think every member of this House has a right to claim your ruling and protection. If an hon. member makes a statement in this House which you consider unparliamentary I ask if when you ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement, which you do not think he ought to have made, you allow him to do so with qualification? It is another way of saying “I withdraw the statement, but you are another.” I ask this because these things are taking place from day to day. Hon. members look to you, for the way in which you uphold the decorum and dignity of this House, to give them your protection.

I must point out that I have not called upon the hon. member for Bloemfontein North to withdraw the statement referred to. Had I done so it would have been necessary for him to explain or retract them and to offer apologies to the satisfaction of the House. But I wish to add that there seems to me to be a regrettable tendency for hon. members to use language in referring to other hon. members, which is of a contemptuous or derogatory nature. Since the point of order has been raised I must therefore ask hon. members to bear in mind what is fitting to the dignity of the House in its debates. It is very difficult indeed for Mr. Speaker to know always where to draw the line, but, if hon. members will keep the rules of debate in mind, it will tend to lighten Mr. Speaker’s delicate task of keeping the scales evenly balanced.

I take it that my withdrawing does not come under Standing Order No. 91 and that you have quoted Standing Order No. 91 for the benefit of hon. members opposite. In addition may I say that I hope the time taken over this interruption will be taken off my time because this is a way they have of delaying debate. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) the other night would not accept the word of the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Reitz) was the same. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) after the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) is the father of this House—the step-father you might say. He ought to be more careful. The hon. member is always throwing in my teeth that I have belonged to all the political parties of South Africa. I have not; I have belonged to two, to the Unionists party for one year and the Labour party for 13 years.

What about the old Free State Party?

That was the Unionist party. The only difference between the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and myself is that while he left the Unionist party and went to the South African party, I left the Unionist party and went up to the Labour party, but the hon. member is a nice gentleman to talk about being consistent. All his political life he has been inconsistent. When he arrived in South Africa he got in among the Dutch people and wheedled them round and joined the Bond. Then he became a Progressive under Rhodes; after becoming a Progressive, he became a Unionist. Then they changed their name and he became a Progressive again. They changed their name back again and again he became a Unionist. After that he became a non-constitutionalist. He followed that up by becoming a Progressive again and after that once more he became a Unionist. Then, as a Unionist, he was swallowed up by the South African party and now he is trying to swallow the South African party himself. That is the right hon. member’s political history.

The hon. member had to withdraw. It is no use discussing the matter further.

I never said that the Labour party were worms. I said that men who ran away from their principle—

Order.

The hon. member went on to make an attack on these benches and said the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs did not represent the English people of Natal. I asked the members for Natal whether they honestly believe they represent the English people of that province.

We don’t believe it; we know it.

Will the hon. member write to the “Natal Mercury” to-morrow and say, with the exception of Spargo, that any civil servant, policeman or magistrate in Natal has been attacked by this Government. Can they name a single white man in Natal who has been attacked by this Government? I don’t know whether hon. members read the Natal papers. They are full of such headlines as “Bilingualism rampant in Natal.” Members know this is not true. Indeed, the people of Natal know they are as safe, perhaps safer, than under the last Government; because if you take the census report you will find that since Gen. Botha came into office there are between 20,000 and 40,000 fewer English-speaking people in South Africa than there were before. They were driven out of this country in thousands, but they are now coming back and that leeway will be made up. Even the 1820 Settlers movement are trying to get people into this country, because they know that this Government will not drive them out. I challenge members opposite again to say that one English civil servant has been turned out because he is an Englishman or is unilingual, and they still sit and say nothing.

The hon. member appeals to a member for Natal to enlighten him. They don’t point to an individual driven out of the service. What they do—

Is that a point of order?

You won’t let us answer.

There is no hon. member who will get up and say that an English civil servant has been dismissed because he is English. That is the charge made in the Natal papers.

That has never been said.

In the course of this debate the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) attempted to throw ridicule and contempt upon certain hon. members representing Natal, and he brought to the House cuttings from newspapers and quoted from them to suit himself. All I can say is that, whatever the Natal members are guilty of, everyone who can read knows what it is. I think the hon. member would have been wise if he had examined some of his own acts during the recess before embarking on an enterprise such as this. As he has not done so, I should like to repair the omission. There is one act which the hon. member committed that, to my mind, was a reprehensible one and should cause him the loss of his seat. In his constituency lives a poor old widow with a large family. She recently lost her husband, who was a pensioner, and she is entitled to a gratuity. She, living in his constituency, very naturally applied to the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) to present the petition, but he refused to do so because the poor woman’s old husband was a political opponent; that was his only reason. I consider this conduct deplorable and despicable—that an hon. member should carry his politics beyond the grave. Needless to say, the poor widow’s petition has been presented by another hon. member. In the course of his speech the hon. member stated that he was very satisfied with what the hon. Minister of Railways said in regard to the artizans on the railway. I want to ask the hon. gentleman whether he is sincere in making that statement. The hon. member remains silent, and silence is consent. How can he square that statement with his knowledge that, in his own constituency, men who sought to be taken on as labourers have been turned down on account of language qualifications? He received a letter in the early part of this month, stating that the son of a man who had lived in Natal for 50 years had been refused a job as labourer on the lowest rung of the industrial ladder on account of not being able to speak Afrikaans. How can hon. members on the cross-benches say they are satisfied with the statement of the Minister of Railways, when here is a concrete case of a working man’s son being turned down on the language qualification?

The hon. member is not allowed to discuss railway matters on this Bill.

The hon. member has left the members of the South African party to ventilate the grievances of the artizan class. The Labour members blindly support the Government when this sort of thing is going on. In the last election they were very fond of quoting Abraham Lincoln to the late Government. I will quote the following by Abraham Lincoln to the present Government: “You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Here is a concrete case where labourers’ jobs are refused to Britishers in Natal, because they are not qualified in the Dutch language. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has quoted a letter from civil servants in regard to their feelings on the language question. I will quote a letter, a civil servant’s, that I have received. The letter says—

Who wrote that?

That is my business.

May we ask that the letter should be laid on the Table?

Does the hon. member opposite want to introduce a little more despotism into the civil service?

An hon. member asked whether the letter should be laid on the Table, but owing to a remark by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), we do not know whether you ordered it to be laid on the Table or not.

A private member is not allowed to insist on such a letter being placed on the Table.

I quoted from a letter in the same way as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) did. I do not see the Minister of Agriculture in his seat, but I wanted to ask him what he thinks of his sheep policy now, seing the losses that are being occasioned through compulsory dipping. The whole thing has been a farce; farmers with five months’ wool are losing the wool off their sheep. The Minister has done a very serious injury to sheep farmers. Why did the Minister exclude the Cape Province and his own district from compulsory dipping? I would not object to this provided he treated other districts similarly situated as his own in the same manner. Scab is spreading rapidly in Natal, especially in the native areas. We have 800,000 natives in Natal and Zululand, and not 5 per cent. of them can speak Dutch or English. The farmers speak to the natives in the native tongue. Yet the Minister of Agriculture is appointing inspectors to visit locations who speak no Zulu and can speak only Afrikaans. These inspectors have to go about with an interpreter, while scab is spreading in a very dangerous manner and farmers in the high veld look with apprehension at this state of affairs. The Minister will do well to consider the appointment of inspectors who can speak Zulu. We shall never check the spread of scab in Natal and Zululand unless this is done. At a later stage I shall have more to say about this and railway matters.

May I make a short personal explanation with regard to what the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has just said?

The hon. member is entitled to make any explanation arising out of what the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has said.

I have suffered considerably from misrepresentations made by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) before, and in connection with the matter to which he now refers, I may say that I have never been approached by “a poor widow” to present a petition to this House. I was, however, approached by a well-known solicitor in Maritzburg to present a petition on behalf of a magistrate’s widow, and I replied that the petition would be far better placed in the hands of some other hon. member.

I will read the following letter which was written by the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) to Mr. A. J. McGibbon, of Maritzburg. The letter is dated January 30th, 1925, and it reads—

I would like to make a few observations on certain matters referred to in the debate. It was said by the Leader of the Opposition, or by some other ex-minister of the South African party Government, that that Government never misused its position with regard to appointments to the public service, or the appointment of anyone to a public office, or with regard to the question of English and Dutch. I just want to give a few instances, and I know that the taunt will be levelled at me that I have been hunting the files. I will preface what I have to say by simply asserting that the files in which I found the documents were files which were necessarily drawn upon through the insistence of certain hon. members who wanted me to go into the subject-matters to which these files related. I therefore came across these papers which I am going to quote quite accidentally. I have, in the performance of my duties, as was the case with many other Ministers, naturally acquainted myself, when our attention was directed to any particular pressing matter, with the main contents of the file, in order to be acquainted with the previous history of the case. A lot was spoken during last session about miners’ phthisis. I refer to that, first. I came across the following—

The law of miners’ phthisis is this: That the chairman shall be a full-time officer and shall be appointed under certain conditions. Section 3, ii, of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, says—

Therefore the chairman, according to the express provision of the Act, must devote the whole of his time to the board. In spite of this, the Prime Minister over-rode this Act and directly interfered with a department which was not his own. Mineralogy answers as follows—

Then a letter comes on April 23rd, 1924, from E. F. C. Lane, secretary to the Prime Minister, to the head of the Mines Department, Mr. Smyth—

Mr. Smyth writes to the Secretary of the Prime Minister, marked “private and confidential”—

Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. member in order in reading out private and confidential documents to the House? It might be a good debating point to read them, but is it in the public interest he should do so, and is it in keeping with Parliamentary practice for this to be done? The other day the Minister of the Interior read for the House, with great effect, a private and confidential letter written to the head of a department. It was a matter which, I think, ought not to have been read in the House. Apart, altogether, from the effect of these letters upon the feeling of the House, or upon outside opinion, is it consistent with Parliamentary usage for Ministers to read private and confidential interdepartmental minutes and letters. The Minister said that it was marked “Private and Confidential.”

So it is marked.

It is equal to repeating a private conversation. The whole of our Parliamentary government and procedure will be paralyzed if private conversations and letters are to be made public. It is true private letters can be found in the files. If the Minister looks through my files in the Post and Telegraphs, he will find a mass of private letters.

They should not be there.

It is necessary they should be there for officials to thoroughly understand their work.

But not to be flaunted in public.

I am not concerned with the effect, one way or another, but I want to know if it is in order.

The letter is one addressed from H. Warington-Smyth, Secretary for Mines and Industries, to the secretary of the Prime Minister, “private and confidential,” and in the nature of the case it cannot be private. I suggest it is for the Minister to judge whether it is against public policy.

I do not think that I can prevent the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries from reading documents of this description. It is a matter in which the Minister must exercise his own discretion.

It is a question of good taste, I believe.

I hope this interruption won’t form part of my time. The letter proceeds to say—

This letter is signed “H. Warington Smyth, Secretary for Mines and Industries.” Then there is a note—

For the reasons given, I do not want to quote names. On April 28th, 1924, there was a wire to the right hon. F. S. Malan from the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as follows—

What the eventualities are the file does not record. On April 29th, 1924, there is a telegram from my predecessor to the right hon. the member for Standerton—

A telegram of May 2nd from the secretary to the Prime Minister to Mineralogy, Cape Town (Mines Department) reads—

On May 3rd, 1924, there is this telegram to the secretary of the Prime Minister from Mineralogy—

That is the sort of thing that went on. The law was simply over-ridden and, as I say, the Prime Minister did not hesitate for the purpose of his “eventualities,” whatever they may have been, to interfere with the department of a colleague in regard to a purely administrative matter, namely, the appointment of a chairman of the Phthisis Board and he appointed a man as acting chairman whom he warned in advance that he could not expect the permanency of that position.

Where was the law broken?

It has been pointed out where; I am not going to repeat it. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman was not in the House. It is a distinct contravention of the Act, which says that the chairman shall devote all his time to the duties of the board. At that time the right hon. gentleman was aware that there was nobody who could fulfil all those duties. I now come to another matter. This is the sort of correspondence which was received about purely party politics, not from individuals, but from municipalities during the regime of the right hon. gentleman. There is the following letter from the mayor of the Springs municipality. It refers to an advertisement in reference to giving out new and additional concession stores on the New State Areas and West Springs

That letter is signed “William McCulloch, Mayor.” As I have explained before, I had to go through these matters because I have been pressed from both sides of the House ever since last session in regard to the subject matter of these files. I find another letter in the same file dated May 16th. 1924, from Mr. J. P. Starke to the Right Hon. F. S. Malan—

On this is endorsed the following. I do not want to assert it for certain but I am informed and, I think, reliably informed that this endorsement in red ink is in the writing of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan)—

Well, pursuant to this appeal, what happened? The following notice appeared the day after, signed by J. P. du Toit, mining commissioner, and dated 26th May, 1924—

Well, if hon. members of the previous Government, after allowing this sort of correspondence to go on, come and assure me that they always dealt according to the law; that they were never influenced by party politics, I do not accept that assurance for a moment; and I go further and charge them with abusing the public servants and the public service for their own party ends. I want to give one more instance. You know that this matter of the Newcastle Iron and Steel Company has been pressed upon my attention with great insistence, and especially by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). and I do not take it amiss for a moment. I always like to meet the wishes of the hon. members on the other side as far as possible, but in that way I had to go through these files, and in doing so, in order to be fully informed of the past history of the matter, I came across certain letters. On February 12th, 1923, Mr. E. F. C. Lane, Secretary to the Prime Minister, wrote to the Secretary for Mines and Industries—

On February 26th, Mr. Lane writes—

On March 8th, 1923, Mr. Warington-Smyth writes to the secretary of the Newcastle Iron and Steel Works inter alia—

On March 9th, 1923, the Secretary for Mines writes to the Secretary to the Prime Minister—

Then a letter appears from Mr. Smyth, Secretary to the Department of Mines, to the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), ex-Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—

Inter alia, this appears—

Then on April 15th, 1924, there is a letter from the Board of Trade and Industries, which says—

Then, on 1st May, 1924, there is a letter from Mr. J. K. Eaton, who is very much interested in the Newcastle Iron and Steel Company, Ltd., to the right hon. member for Standerion (Gen. Smuts), as Prime Minister—

I am not reading every portion of the letter—

You will notice that the writer states that it is heard from Natal that Senator Greaves has received a wire from Capt. Lane, Secretary to the Prime Minister, that no advance will be made until after the elections. What transpires—

Quite right, too.

Is it quite right? Of course anything would be quite right that was done by hon. gentlemen opposite.

Your conduct is not quite right in this matter.

You ought to start a private detective agency.

I shall go on nevertheless. I won’t be guided by hon. gentlemen opposite as to what my conduct shall be. Then on May 8th, 1924, Mr. Lane writes—

I leave it to hon. members as to what the value of this statement is.—

There is not a word re waiting till after the elections there. Then on May 9th, 1924, Mr. E. F. C. Lane writes to Mr. Smyth (head of the Department of Mines and Industries)—

Just a moment before the same gentleman wrote that he had misled Senator Greaves unintentionally—

Then on the 9th of May there is a telegram from “Mineralogy, Cape Town,” that is the Mines Department, to “Mineralogy, Pretoria”—

I leave it to hon. members to judge of the value of that request for further information, and what the motive of asking for it was. Then—

Then comes a letter from Mr. Smyth, head of the department, to the secretary of the Prime Minister—

Now, I say, and although this gentleman is the head of my department and does excellent work, I say this was a scandalous abuse by the Ministry of the day of a public servant, and all for their miserable party ends. Then—

Well, I should be very much mistaken, in view of the whole trend of this correspondence, if I were to find that the right hon. member for Standerton was not kept fully au fait with what was going on and the contents of the correspondence. On the 22nd of May, 1924, Sir Thomas Watt writes to Mr. Smyth—

So I regret to say that my hon. friend (Sir Thos. Watt) became a particeps doli, shall I say, to this little game? At any rate, he certainly became a participant. I will not say in what. Then there is a telegram of the 29th of May, 1924, from Sir Thos. Watt to the Secretary of Mines—

The reply was—

Well, as I say, I was not qualifying as a detective when I came across these letters. These were matters I was kept particularly busy with when I came into office, and I came upon this correspondence accidentally. Goodness knows what would be revealed if we were deliberately to ransack the files with malice aforethought. Such things as this are subversive of clean politics and reveal what I cannot but stigmatize as contemptible party tactics.

I must admit that I have not felt my flesh creep as a result of the hon. Minister’s revelations. It is very easy for the hon. Minister to pick out some letters, read those letters and ascribe the motives of the writers concerned to political bias. I am unable to see that anything very dreadful occurred. The first point was that a permanent chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board ought to have been appointed. If I heard the Minister correctly, the matter came to a head on the 28th and 29th of April and the 3rd of May. At that time Parliament had been dissolved. Surely it was a very ordinary thing for any Minister to do to say that an appointment of that importance should be held over until after the election. I can imagine what hon. members would have said if the Government of the day, on the eve of going out of office, had filled up the appointment. They would have said: Here you are entrenching yourselves in the civil service with your own people, and all the rest of it. There is nothing in that. The second point was the terrible indictment that the Mayor of Springs Municipality had asked that some application should be deferred until after the election. The Minister could not prevent the Mayor from making that request very well as far as I can see.

No; but how did he respond to it? That is the point.

Apparently the Mayor stated this would cause a good deal of controversy if it was done before the election. It seems to me a perfectly ordinary step for the Mayor to take to ask for it to be done after the election. The same thing would have been said if the Government had taken action before the elections. Members opposite would have said: “What a scandal not to wait until the new Government comes in.” Then, in regard to the last thing of all—the question of the steel industry at Newcastle—I did not detect in what the Minister said any indication that the desire to postpone a decision as regards an advance to the company until after the elections was due to any political bias. On the face of it, it is difficult to see how a postponement was to benefit the Minister politically. I have had some experience of this sort of thing myself, and I have as much qualification to say whether a matter of this kind involves political considerations or not, as any hon. member. There may have been 150 reasons for the Minister wishing that the decisions should be deferred until after the elections. I know nothing whatever about the matter, except what the Minister has read, but it appears that the question to be decided was the giving or not of some subsidy. It also appeared that foreign industrialists were examining the property, and it may have been desirable to postpone a decision which might have had some lasting effect upon the working of the property. There may have been forty-two other possible explanations. I can see nothing which shows that the Government were influenced by corrupt or political motives.

You are pretty hopeless.

A statement of that kind shows the bitterness with which this debate has been conducted by hon. members opposite. We have heard a great deal from the hon. Minister of Labour who is absent. Possibly his absence may be due to his going North to attend a Labour Conference. I daresay he desires to quicken things up a bit and say what a fine fellow he is. The hon. Minister of Labour, however, is not the only Minister who has shown some violence and vehemence. We have had the Minister of the Interior using some strong language, and we have had trotted out all the old clap-traps about the influence of the financial magnates, and the capitalist press and so forth. Let us take the press first. This is one of the biggest clap-traps imaginable. Newspapers must belong to somebody, and they are primarily run for a profit as a rule. I saw in the paper that the shares of the “Cape Times” were standing at about £3. Well, that shows that the paper is a successful enterprize. I believe it is, because it appeals to the views of a large number of people, and if the people who started this paper as a business enterprize desire that the paper should reflect the views of a particular party, why should they not say so? Are they to sit there as dummies? Are they to stand by while the editor advances views entirely opposed to those which the majority of the proprietors have decided to advocate? I daresay the hon. Minister of the Interior can tell us something about it. I should like to know what would happen if the editor of the “Burger” began to advocate South African party views. The proprietors would say: “If you do not want to support our policy, we will get somebody else who will.” People talk as if the papers on this side had the monopoly, but there are plenty of others—the “Burger,” “Ons Vaderland,” the “Guardian” and others. They are all owned by somebody; they all represent capital, and they represent policy, as they are entitled to do. I can see nothing in the charge that matters are unfairly put because of the capitalist press which express the views of the members on this side of the House. That is the first clap-trap. The second is that the capitalistic interests are in sympathy with this side of the House, and exercise too much influence over the counsels of this party. I am not at all sure that the people who control the large financial interests have a great deal for which to thank the members of the South African party Government. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) could tell us of the taxation of the diamond industry. Everybody knows that the taxation of the gold mines has increased and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) could speak of the extra burden of the Miners Phthisis Tax, during the regime of the South African party. So I don’t think the financial interests could say they have been particularly sympathetically treated. But whatever treatment they received from the late Government, they would a good deal sooner see a South African party than a Pact Government in authority, because they know that in any controversial matters they are likely to get short shrift from the members on the other side. But the real point we ought to consider without acrimony is the charge brought against members on this side, by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in particular, that we are actuated by racial motives. That is a matter which we ought to face and discuss without acrimony, and I will endeavour not to give any cause for offence. I would have thought that hon. members on the other side would have been very careful to avoid giving cause for any complaint that their actions were actuated by racial motives, for it is useless to ignore what has taken place in the past. Hon. members opposite, or their sympathizers, took part in the regrettable events of 1914 and again in 1922. I think it was a great pity that any anything should be done to bring up these racial questions, for, taking it all in all, things were gradually settling down. Take the bilingual question: It was stated the other day that 73 per cent, of civil servants are bilingual. I think it would be a good thing to allow that process to continue. It is perfectly true that during the regime of my right hon. friend here, complaints were made about the management of some of the departments. During the recent general election I came across complaints about the Defence Department and its administration, but the majority of the complaints were, not that the English section had been favoured, but that undue favouritism had been shown to the Dutch. But, taking it all round, we were beginning to settle down, and things were going on quite well. The English people had absolute confidence in the leaders of the South African party, because they knew what their attitude had been during the events of 1914, during the Great War, and during the events of 1922. They knew they could depend on those leaders not to fail them, and that if it came to the point, they were not afraid to risk their lives in seeing that their word was kept. We were satisfied with that. English or Dutch-speaking members might have objected with regard to certain matters, but, broadly speaking, there was a spirit of give and take. Then came the general election. In view of these past events to which I will not refer more particularly, how is it possible that we should not narrowly scrutinize what hon. members opposite advocated and the promises they made at the election? We were certainly nervous as to what they would do after some of the violent speeches that had been made. When the result of the election was announced and when hon. members took their seats opposite we were not going to raise any trouble over those remarks, because we thought the responsibility of office would sober hon. members down. We made allowances for the excitement of the election and for the fact that they had been hungering for office for a great many years, and we were content to give them a chance. But what did we find when we came to the House? We found things it was impossible to disregard, things which were bound to cause uneasiness. We found people who had taken part in the rebellion of 1914 in this House, and we found one in particular an honoured guest in the precincts of the House. We found that participation in the events of 1914 and 1922 were considered to be good grounds for signs of ministerial favour. We have seen that a man who took a prominent part in the events of 1922 and who received a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was, in the first instance, nominated by his own unit of the Defence Force for a command, and we found the Minister of Defence—quite unnecessarily—confiming him in his appointment.

Why not?

These are very dangerous things to do. We have seen in some of the legislation which has been brought forward, but not yet passed, a complete want of regard for the difficulties of the British Government. We have seen a great many indications of that spirit. I do not want to magnify difficulties, and I am not going to ransack the files of my memory as the Minister has done the files of his office, but we do find a widespread idea—I hope it is a wrong one—that the people of this country are going to be shown that it does not pay to be British. It is just as well to use plain English. That feeling is there, and I hope hon. members opposite will recognize that feeling and will use some caution, not merely in their acts but in their speeches. We are not on this side of the House going to raise unnecessary difficulties. We know perfectly well that allowance must be made for people who are inexperienced in office, but it is not satisfactory to find that those Dutch-speaking members of our party, who take a strong line against reprehensible acts on the part of the present Government, are singled out for abuse by hon. members opposite. We resent that. We feel absolutely confident in the Dutch-speaking leaders of our party. If that policy goes on it is bound to cause trouble. What form that trouble will take, far be it from me to suggest, but if hat policy goes on and people are roused, there may be consequences which one does not care to contemplate. We on this side of the House have been charged with giving a racialistic tendancy to the debate, but that charge is not justified. Hon. members opposite, if they think of their record, surely should have been more careful, and if they have done these things of which we complain and made attacks on Dutch-speaking members of the party for sitting with us, it is they and not we who are responsible for the very regrettable tone this debate has taken. We were told the other day that charges of racialism were nonsense, because there is sitting in this House a large section of representatives of the British electorate in the Labour party, and that that shows that there is no possible form of racialism. The Minister of Labour referred very complacently the other night to his leadership of that party. I will admit that the Labour party up to the present has not done so badly; it has sacrificed a great many principles, but for some material advantage. They have the promise and expectation of some material advantage, but it must be remembered that all the Bills which have been presented to the House will not be placed on the Statute Book. If I might criticize the Nationalist section of the Pact I would say that I think they have gone unnecessarily far. I do not believe they wanted to go so far as they have done in the direction of socialism. I did not think that the Nationalist section would have gone nearly so far. The Minister of Labour went back into ancient history when referring to my hon. friend. If we go back a little we find that the hon. Minister for Labour and some of his friends have always been ready to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. They were used, and legitimately used, by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in 1906-07. Owing to the fact that when self-Government in the Transvaal was granted only a few years had elapsed since the war that divided this country, politics were inevitably on racial lines, and the hon. Minister for Labour and some of his friends at once split our vote and pulled the chestnuts out of the fire. They could have been depended upon to do it at any time; they have done it ever since. I remember the time when the hon. Minister for Labour actually got a capitalistic person like Sir Joseph Robinson out of a hole. The hon. Minister for Mines who went to London as a supporter of Gen. Botha may remember, and I remember Mr. Winston Churchill announcing the terms of the Transvaal Constitution, and in the course of it he referred to Chinese labour and white labour. He said they were certain that Chinese labour was unnecessary, and announced that he was authorized by Mr. Robinson to say that he was going to place one of his mines at the disposal of the Government for white labour and he had arranged for Mr. Creswell to manage it. Mr. Robinson got a baronetcy and Mr. Creswell —well, he didn’t get the mine. The hon. Minister for Labour was even then ready to get Sir Joseph Robinson out of a hole. He is a very good-natured fellow. The hon. members of the Nationalist Government need not have offered such good terms to the Labour party. Somebody will say: “Why raise these matters, without talking about the finances of the country? This is a financial Bill.” The hon. Minister for Finance sits there and has nothing to do. In the truest sense, these matters affect vitally the finances of the country. What have we got in the legislation? We have a challenge thrown down to the whole of the native population of the country, and we cannot treat 5,000,000 natives in that way. We have had suggestions that Wages Bills and so forth should be passed in a form bound largely to affect every employer of labour if the provisions are carried out logically. Hon. members of the Nationalist side sit there complacently thinking they are not going to be hurt. They sit there thinking this clause and that will not affect them, because it does not apply to people engaged in agriculture. The other day the railway receipts were admitted to be good. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) suggested some further reduction in the rates. “Oh, no,” said the hon. Minister for Railways and Harbours. “it is impossible to reduce the rates any further because we have a large expenditure on white labour. My hon. friends are going to pay more for all they buy and for all such things as farm utensils. They think it is not going to affect farmers; of course it is going to affect farmers; it will affect every industry. What is going to happen if these measures are passed and are carried out to a logical conclusion? They are going to put up the cost of living. If we are going to have high wages and protection of industries, we are going to have a higher cost of living. The Government, in one respect, showed their wisdom. Before they announced their programme and published these Bills, they got some money. It was a prudent step to take. If all these measures are carried into law, it will require very great confidence on the part of European investors to give their money on such good terms again. It will be more difficult to get money for the industries we hoped to promote. If hon. members are serious in these matters they will see the advisability of calming the spirit of uneasiness, nervousness, and unrest which exists in the country to-day. They will not make rash charges of racialism on that side of the House. They will drop all contention. If they do, there is no one on this side of the House but who will respond most cordially. If they do not, they will find, instead of the money and assistance we want to promote industries in the country, the spirit of nervousness will be abroad, and money and assistance will not be forthcoming. Hon. members opposite have a great chance. They have benefited by the economies of the late Government, noticeably by the Minister for Railways. They have not the unpleasant task of reducing staffs and the cutting down of expenditure; they are favoured by Providence with a good season, and more than all, and this is a matter no one can be responsible for, the trade of the world shows signs of improving, and they get the benefit. No one is going to begrudge them success in taking advantage of these things. We want them to drop this barren controversy. Do not put forward Bills that are provocative and do not make speeches that are provocative, let the Government get to work and do their best to promote the prosperity of this country.

The hon. member who has just spoken (Sir Drummond Chaplin) finished off on the usual lines to which we are accustomed by telling us that the Labour party is pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for the Nationalist party, and he expressed great sorrow for the Labour party that they should do this for the sake of benefits, not which they have received, but which they anticipate. He promptly went on to express his sympathy with the Nationalist party because they were led right along the lines of Socialistic legislation. I can only say that his sympathy both for the Labour party and the Nationalist party is absolutely wasted. In the course of his speech he tried to analyse the origins of racialism during the last few years in this country. As I followed his speech it appeared to me that he referred to the events of 1914 and of 1922 as some of the circumstances which have been brought about by, or are the result of, racialism in this country. He complained that men who had taken a prominent part in those events of 1914 and 1922 were being looked favourably upon to-day. If there is any circumstance which proves conclusively that the only claim that the South African party can have of not being racialists it is the action which they took in 1913, 1914 and 1922. In the events of those years they showed no racialism, for they did not consider whether the workers who were Being shot down or thrown out of employment were Dutch-speaking or English-speaking. The first portion of his speech is one in which the hon. member, I must say, has conferred a very great service upon the people of South Africa, provided it is given due publicity to by the Press. For the first time we have heard it frankly admitted in this House that those newspapers about which complaints have frequently been made are financed by certain people and the hon. member said: “Surely you do not expect that if a man pays the piper he shall not call the tune.” For my own part, I have always taken up this line that I do not agree with people who blame the Press for the attitude they take up and for their support of the South African party, but what I do complain of is that they do not come out frankly and say that they are South African party newspapers. They pose as a public Press, as a Press which gives both sides of the question, and that is our complaint against them. I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir Wm. Mackintosh) that a strong opposition is necessary and that the duty of the Opposition is to throw its searchlight of criticism upon the actions of the Government. But, unfortunately, we have not got that. The Opposition has not only no bite, but it has also very little bark. After the merciless exposure by the Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), realizing that it was not only the demolition of their case, but also an exposure of their political dishonesty, got up and tried to divert the attention of the House and the country from the issue of the moment and complained of the congestion of the Order Paper and the plethora of Bills. I agree with him about the congestion on the Order Paper, but if there is anybody who is to blame for the congestion it is the South African party, because, after all, it is they who have, since the beginning of the session, deliberately taken up the time of the House upon barren issues, upon issues which create strife, and have retarded the carrying into effect of the economic legislation that is before the country. The tens of thousands of people in this country, British and Dutch, who are starving, and the tens of thousands of people who are unemployed, are not concerned whether Mr. Venn should get a job or Mr. Pienaar should get a job. They are concerned whether this Parliament will get on with the job of doing something to improve the lot of the struggling masses. On the day after the discussion had been opened, on the Thursday, when the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) got up in order to try and revive the drooping spirits of the South African party, he started off with a confession of faith by telling us that his party had the fullest confidence in their leader. Perhaps from their point of view, it was necessary to make that confession of faith. His party had initiated three assaults on the Government, firstly, on the question of bilingualism, secondly, because an attack was made on De Beers and thirdly, the discussion to which we have just listened. I am sure very few members even of the South African party will not agree that these were not only futile assaults, but that they also constituted very bad tactics on the part of the right hon. gentleman as far as he and his party are concerned. Then the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) made another confession of faith. He said: “We are a united party.” There, again, I believe that that confession was very necessary, because I believe there are large numbers of people in the ranks of the South African party and some of them sitting in this House, who do not agree with the line of attack which has been initiated in this House by the South African party, and who would prefer that this House should definitely concentrate on the economic problems of this country instead of wasting the time of the House on the language question. There is one other aspect which it seems to me requires attention in connection with this discussion. If I have correctly followed the discussion introduced by the South African party, they cannot get away from their policy of exploitation. They have exploited the Civil Service Commission in order to make capital against the Government. I am sure the Public Service Commission can feel no gratitude to them for having dragged them into the arena of this House. There can be only two possible grounds to justify them in their action in this discussion. The first is the statement they have been making that they are against this forcing bilingualism on the country and the civil service. That has been amply replied to by the Minister of Interior and the Minister of Mines. It is perfectly true that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said there was very little in these things, but I venture to say that if the Government were to appoint a committee to investigate the files of the late South African party Government, we would have a blue book of considerable dimensions showing not only the attitude they took up in regard to bilingualism, but that right through they have been using their position for political purposes. I would not waste time appointing such a committee, as I believe we do not require any definite evidence on the point. In any case, a complete reply was given to them on the bilingual question in the case of Mr. Felling, where a gentleman was appointed contrary to the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, when the alleged ground of his appointment was bilingualism. It was given in the case of Mr. Sergeant when his appointment was made contrary to the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and I would refer hon. members to the reports of the Defence Commission of Enquiry. At the foot of page 1 and the top of page 2 they will find some indication as to the attitude of the late Government on this question. Evidence was given by Col. Baker before the commission and he said that in his opinion the promotion of Col. Brink to the rank of colonel and his appointment as Quarter-Master-General was unjust as he superseded officers who were his seniors in rank. “One of them Lt.-Col. F. G. Harvey had held for many years prior to the great war responsible positions in the Quarter-Master-General’s department, and during the operations in South-West Africa, 1924, was Assistant Quarter-Master-General and later in France and Flanders held a similar position on the staff of an Army Corps consisting of approximately 60,000 men. Col. Harvey is not bilingual. Possibly this was the reason he was not selected for the appointment.”—That is the decision of the commission and the evidence of Col. Baker showing clearly that so far the Defence Force was concerned the late Government did not pay regard to the question of seniority. In regard to the suggestion that bilingualism is being introduced into our service I would refer hon. members to the report of the Auditor-General in regard to the railways for 1923-24. Speaking of the language question he states that numerous instances have occurred in which officers have been promoted without complying with the requirements of the law, section 6 of Act No. 28, 1912. Here we have it definitely on record that in the railway service the Government was deliberately breaking the law, and then they come to us and say you have to respect the law. May I refer to two other items which to some extent indicate the general attitude which has been taken up by the South African party: I refer to one instance in the Auditor-General’s report of 1918-’19. It refers to an institution to which I understand the South African party has been particularly friendly, the Banking institution. In the report the fact is disclosed that the Auditor-General drew the attention of the then secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of Finance to the fact that the National Bank and the Standard Bank were breaking the law, regarding the issue of bank notes, and when the attention of the secretary for Finance was drawn to the matter, he stated it was not the intention of the Government to enforce that part of the law. When we go through records of the late Government, wherever we turn, we can point to cases where they have repeatedly disregarded the law. Surely it ill becomes them to come along now and complain that this Government is disregarding the law. There is a further point to which reference should be made. I refer to the attitude of the late Minister of the Interior in regard to the Immigration Law. In 1912 I believe a law was passed the provisions of section 4 sub-section 1 of which were intended to apply to the Asiatic population. We did not hear anything then about yellow Asia, for when the South African party Government, framed that particular section it wanted to hit the Asiatic population, but wanted to do it in a dishonest manner, therefore they said, we will not mention Asiatics at all for it would never do for people who talk about yellow Asia. But the assurance was wrung out of the then Minister of the Interior by the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that as far as that section was concerned it would never be applied except in the case of Asiatics. The member for Yeoville was the first to break that assurance. What happened in connection with this matter? Although public bodies begged the Government to carry out their pledge, we could not get them to do anything until the eve of the election. The announcement that that clause would no longer been forced against Europeans was made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) at the South African party nomination meeting. Hon. members opposite utilized their position in office for party purposes. The political career of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was littered with broken laws and pledges and with indemnity Acts and all one can do is to congratulate hon. members on that side of the House on their courageous and very callous consciences.

That portion of the debate which deals with the Public Service Commission has made a very painful impression throughout the country. A contented and capable public service is what every well organized State aims at. That was the aim of those who framed our constitution. We considered these objects had been achieved by the commission as it is now constituted. Three tried men who have proved their capacity and their impartiality, and who are trusted by the whole civil service and the public, constitute that commission. We find that these men—whose mouths are shut—are insulted by two Ministers of the Crown. The Minister of Justice has accused them of a want of self-respect; the Minister of the Interior made the imputation that they were the creatures of the Opposition. I do not know whether these two Ministers speak on behalf of the Cabinet, but as we have heard no repudiation by other Ministers, I take it we can conclude those are the views of the Cabinet on that question. I have not referred to the insult levelled at that very capable young South African, the Administrator of the Transvaal, because his position is different, and he has shown that he can look after himself; but these three gentlemen’s mouths are shut. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) came here this afternoon and professes to be the mouthpiece of the civil service. I think it is presumption on his part to profess to speak for the service, and suggest it is seething with discontent because of what these three gentlemen have done. Knowing the past record of those gentlemen and their laborious and responsible duties, I have felt it incumbent for some one to put the facts in their proper perspective. I now wish to make a request to the Prime Minister. I would like him to send an independent and reliable representative of the Government to America to see what has been the result of the working of prohibition there. On one hand we hear that prohibition is a failure; on the other, that it is a success. We want the facts. The sobriety of our country is of great moment to us. If we have the facts the people of this country can come to a decision as to whether the enforcement of prohibition would be of value to us. Coming back to the Public Service Commission, I remember the Minister of Justice took up the attitude that the commission should be abolished. He has not furnished us with any reasons, but I venture to suggest his reason was that which prompted the hon. member for Pretoria district (South) (Gen. Muller), at a public meeting he held, and when he had to tell numerous applicants to him for jobs that appointments could unhappily be made only by the commission. I suppose the commission is in the way of the Minister making appointments freely, and it is because the spoils system is hindered that we have heard this calumny of the commission.

Before coming to the subject that I want to introduce, there are two questions I should like to put to the Minister of Finance. The first is why there should have been three days’ delay in paying interest on the Union 4½ per cent. Loan. Usually it is paid on the due date, and this is the first occasion on which interest has been paid after the due date. I have also been asked to point out that there is a great shortage of half-crowns in circulation which is causing inconvenience to the banks in view of the withdrawal of the ten-shilling notes. I would ask the Minister whether he will see that more half-crowns are put into circulation. I find myself in some little difficulty in the absence of the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Agriculture, as I have something to say to both of them, and I do not like saying it in their absence. However, we cannot await their pleasure if they see fit to leave the House during the course of an important debate. The other evening we listened to a very long speech from the Minister of Defence and Labour. My memory then was carried back to 1912, when I listened from the gallery to a very similar speech from him, also in connection with the civil service. On that occasion he made the same old reckless statements, and he also blamed the members of the Opposition—the party now sitting on this side of the House—whom he accused of being the cause of all the racialism in the country. It was a very entertaining speech, for if you read the report it is very much like reading what he said the other evening. We got to know him, and one can be certain that when the Minister fails in argument he shouts “racialism.” He accuses us of keeping the racial fires burning. I would ask, however, whether he has forgotten one particularly fiery outburst, when he warned the Nationalists that he was tired of their attacks on the British, and he very solemnly told them that, much as he disliked the then Government, they, the Nationalists, must not expect him to vote against that Government in order to put them in power. The Minister of Defence on that occasion also found it necessary to defend the Government, but he did so with a very different purpose. He then excused them in very much the same terms as he excused the present Government, and said: “Just here and there possibly there was a tendency for billets to be given to our race more than another … the whole question was whether Government had given free rein to that in their conduct of the civil service. They must not forget the tremendous pressure that had been put on the Prime Minister.” I should like to know whether he is defending the present Government because there is tremendous pressure put on the Prime Minister. We know tremendous pressure had been put on the Minister of Defence and Labour and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs not so very long ago. At Bloemfontein, in fact, only in January last the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) pressed them very severely that they must not give “jobs” to anybody but “pals.” He blamed the Minister of Labour in regard to the appointment of the chief in his department which, he contended, should have been given to one of the “pals.” He even blamed the Minister for the appointment of General Lukin on the Defence Department Commission. Let me say that the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs stuck to his guns and after the conference, in an interview, said: “We have no reason to complain of the loyalty of the civil servants with whom we are brought in contact, and so long as that loyal co-operation continued we would not inquire into the political views of the staff. Efficiency must come before politics.” We all agree with that, but do his fellow Ministers agree with that? Do they, in their speeches in and outside the House, agree with those views; and, if they do, do they act in accordance with those views? There are already two voices in the Cabinet, and I am informed that the view taken outside is that there are at least three voices. I regret the absence of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, because I want to speak of a matter of great importance. The Minister of Agriculture interviews personally applicants for positions in the service. He asks them whether they can speak Dutch and what their home language is, and, when the home language is given as English, they receive a letter the next day to say that the Minister is not prepared to employ them. This is an extract from a letter: “I have to inform you that the Minister of Agriculture”— not the Public Service Commission—“is not prepared to approve of the appointment of your son.”

What was the job?

Entrance to the civil service.

Whose son was that?

Never you mind. I am not going to give the Government any opportunity of keeping that man out of the service. I am not going to encourage, or give an opportunity for victimization.

When the House adjourned I put to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs the question whether he had anything to say with regard to the action of the Minister of Agriculture in assuming the powers and functions of the Civil Service Commission by personally examining entrants to the service; by questioning them as to their ability to speak the Dutch language and by questioning them as to their home language, and also personally deciding whether or no they should be accepted into the service. I wish now to ask him whether he has anything to say with regard to the Minister of Defence making an accusation of racialism against us. Not only did the Minister of Defence accuse us of racialism, but he also told us that we alone were guilty of racialism. Has the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs forgotten what he said in September, 1923, in reference to speeches made at the Nationalists Congress at Pretoria by two members of the Government? It will be remembered that in consequence of those speeches the Labour party heather was set alight. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs then said: “He would have Mr. Roos and Mr. Grobler understand that they were doing General Smuts the best possible service by making such speeches. They must leave the racial issue alone, or the country would never progress.”

When was that?

The 15th September, 1923. Clearly, in his opinion, these Ministers were then guilty of racialism. Have they changed, or has the opinions of the Minister now that he is in the Pact Government changed? We have always known that the hon. the Minister for Defence and Labour has always been totally unable to control his tempestuous outbursts. We thought, however, that now that some responsibility had been cast upon that passionate protestant of political purity, and now that he had floated to prosperity, even though it be on a wave of shams, he would control himself, and not so far forget that he was a gentleman as again to drag into the discussion for the purpose of scoring a doubtful debating point a remark made by a member of this House, a remark which he subsequently, on finding he was wrong, like a man and a gentleman, withdrew and expressed his regret for. He also forgets that the withdrawal and expression of regret by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was accepted by the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister. If I followed in the footsteps of the Minister of Defence I would remind him of an incident in 1914 in connection with a burnt telegram, and I would remind him also that he, on finding he was wrong, had not the manliness to apologize, but asked the permission of this House to have counsel to represent him at an enquiry by a Select Committee. It remains for one who boasts of British fair play and of himself as being an English gentleman to violate the fundamental rules of fair play and decency. Let me remind him also that during the same discussion in 1921 he claimed that “The Labour party maintained that South Africa would not advance while wrangling over the dry bones of a dead controversy.” What a pity he is so totally unable to profit by his own preachings. I would remind the Minister of Defence, further, that in the same debate he said: “Get the Public Service Commission appointed, lay down rules for administration to the service, and the Minister will relieve himself of the responsibility for such wrangles as had taken place in the House during the last few days Let them go above party lines.” Was he sincere? Are these still his views? Does he still hold by the amendment which he seconded and supported: “This House is of opinion that the Government should without delay strengthen the Civil Service Commission appointed under section 141 of the S.A. Act.” That commission has been strengthened. Is he satisfied that the commission should have been strengthened, or does he agree with the views expressed by the hon. Minister for Justice? What is his position? I think we are entitled to know, and I think also that the country is entitled to know. The whole of his speech is well summed up in the words of the late Lord Randolf Churchill: “Great generosity of assertion, great thrift of argument; a turn to be offensive without the power to be severe; fury in the tempest and famine in the phrase.” We know him. Constituency after constituency has learned to know him, and they have all in turn rejected him. The hon. the Minister of the Interior also is not present. It is disconcerting to have to speak to Ministers who do not honour us with their presence. I want to remind him that a few weeks ago, in reply to a question put by me on registration, he said the procedure so far as the canvassing of persons whose names appear on the existing voters’ lists are concerned, is the same for non-Europeans as for Europeans. He laid on the Table his instructions for canvassers. I am not going into detail now. I will do that at a later stage when the Minister may be present. I want to say if this is the true position, why does he require different forms for Europeans to those for non-Europeans? Why does he permit the forms for Europeans to be filled in by any responsible person, and not necessarily by the voter himself, and requires non-Europeans to fill in the form themselves? Why does he have two different sections in his instructions? One general instruction for canvassers, supposed to be for non-Europeans as well as for Europeans, and the other instruction in canvassing for non-Europeans in the Cape and Natal provinces. For the European he permits every man now on the role to have his form filled in and signed by some responsible person in the house occupied by him. In the case of non-Europeans he requires that he shall fill in the form himself. These forms have to be witnessed, but not by the canvasser, who requires such person to go to the nearest police station. How does he reconcile this instruction with the reply he gave me the other day? Anyone who has studied this form will find that it is exceedingly difficult even for an educated European to fill in. How then can he expect the non-European to fill in the form, and how can he expect answers to questions which are contrary to the Act? I ask the Minister to say definitely what the position is and to say why, if these instructions are being carried out, he is acting contrary to law? If he is even at this late hour satisfied that he is acting contrary to the law, will he give instructions immediately to cease the attempt now made to keep every non-European in the Cape off the roll?

I don’t know whether it is really necessary, but I feel it is perhaps incumbent upon me to deal with some of the points relating to my department which have been raised. The devastatingly able speech we had from the Minister of the Interior inflicted much damage upon the Opposition that ever since it has been like some wounded animal dragging its weary limbs along, and the Opposition replies have been weak in the extreme. After the points that were made in the speeches and the correspondence which has been placed before the House by the Minister of Mines, everybody will agree that when your press and the leaders of the Opposition speaks of these revelations as trivial, well, all we can say is that if these things are trivial, surely all the acts of the past Government were trivial acts indeed. The documents referred to by the Minister of the Interior have been suppressed by the South African Party Press of Cape Town. I am certain that not one of the documents now referred to the Minister of Mines will be published by the “Cape Times” or the “Cape Argus” tomorrow. They cannot venture to print these documents, for fear that they will expose the hollow hypocrisy of the South African Party position to the whole country. I see that the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has been making another speech. It was not at a bazaar; it was to the Junior South African party dance. In to-day’s “Cape Argus” you will find that he said this: “He thought the language question had been settled once and for all when the South Africa Act laid down that no civil servant would be victimized for lack of knowledge of both languages.” I thought so, too. I thought that, by section 137 of the Act of Union, the question of language had been settled for all time in South Africa. I find I was mistaken, and I find I was mistaken owing to the speeches given in this House by hon. members opposite. The right hon. gentleman goes on to say that hundreds had been relieved of their posts in the civil service in consequence of the language qualification. I say that that statement of the right hon. gentleman is absolutely false. I say that not one single man has been relieved of his position in the public service owing to his having merely unilingual qualifications. I say the right hon. gentleman made this statement knowing that it was false when he made it.

Ask him who they are.

Statements of this nature are spread right throughout the country in order to cast discredit on the Government. I have had the honour done me of having the question of the police brought up again, and I will show hon. members what I have done in connection with the police force, and how my circular is being administered. A question was raised by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) as to the chance of unilingual men in Natal obtaining positions in the police force. Within the last few weeks I have issued an order with regard to ten unilingual men from Natal whose names were placed before me for appointment in the police, who had certain native language qualifications. Two of them knew no Dutch; six of them knew some slight Dutch, some were described as very weak, and the others as weak and two of the ten were weak in English. On account, however, of their being good men and on account of their knowledge of native language, these ten men have all been approved by me for appointments in the police and will at first function in Natal. I am only stating this to show how my department is being administered, and to show the House the bona fides of the position I recently took up in this House in regard to the police. During the last few days names have been placed before me of men reaching the retiring age, accompanied by reports that they knew no Dutch, but that they were highly efficient men. I have directed that these men should be retained in the service. In that way I intend to deal with the whole of the police position. I intend, as far as promotion, superannuation and entrance into the service are concerned, to be guided principally by efficiency, and where I have very efficient men, I am not going to allow the language disqualification to bar them.

Why didn’t you state that before?

I have stated over and over again that, by the terms of my circular, I am allowed in exceptional cases to do exactly what I have been doing here. All those cases of high efficiency are cases which I regard as exceptional circumstances as I stated before, and for all those cases I shall provide as I have always undertaken. I made it perfectly clear during the previous debate that that was my policy, and that it would continue to be my policy.

You have swallowed the circular.

I wish the members of the Opposition would swallow the circular. It would do them a world of good if they did. On Thursday morning last, after I thought with everybody here who heard the debate that the Opposition had been badly rattled by the Government in this House, we found on the placards of the “Cape Times” the words: “Smuts Indicts Ministers.” Now, if any man compared the remarks of the Minister of the Interior with the weak, wishy-washy tittle-tattle of the Leader of the Opposition, starting by a reference to the congested state of the Order Paper, it was scarcely the last speech which could be referred to as an indictment. The true indictment was preferred against the ex-Ministers of this country, the Ministers who have done the acts they have done which were so fully exposed by the Minister of the Interior. People talk about swallowing a circular. I have here another circular to the South African police dated June 1st, 1917, in which the Commissioner of Police states that it has become incumbent upon all members of the force to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with both the English and Dutch languages. “It must be clearly understood,” states the circular, “by all officers, non-commissioned officers and men that when promotions are being considered in future, a knowledge of both official languages will be considered an important factor and an essential qualification towards advancement in the force.” What do the words “essential qualification” mean? To the ordinary Englishman, and the Dutchman who knows a little English, they mean that, unless you have got that, you cannot get promotion without any exception. I ask, did any of those hon. members on the Opposition ever raise one single protest against this circular, and, if they did not raise any protest, was it because they knew that the Government of that day had no intention of carrying out their own circular? I now want to deal with the other points which have been raised. I will first deal with the question of messengers. Certain members of the Opposition spoke about messengers as being public servants. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will perhaps be surprised to learn that they are not public servants at all. They are men appointed to serve process and deal with the process of the courts, and the appointment of these men in terms of section 13 of Act 32 of 1917 rests entirely in the discretion of the Minister of Justice. It does not rest in the discretion of the Government. In Natal, which, in many respects, differs from the rest of the Union, we find that your deputy-sheriffs are also appointed by the Minister of Justice, but in other parts of the Union they are appointed by the High Sheriff. To digress, although that is the case in other parts of the Union, when a high sheriff dismisses a deputy-sheriff. I get all the blame in the South African party press, as happened in connection with the recent dismissal of the deputy-sheriff of Johannesburg. I was speaking in regard to the posts of messenger and deputy-sheriff. In Natal the Minister of Justice appoints and dismisses these. The messengers there, as in other parts of the country, are on one month’s notice, and I have yet to learn that a man who is appointed on one month’s notice is more permanent than a man who is appointed for a term of years. We now learn that such a position is permanent, and you must try to assure hon. members opposite that there is no injustice in dispensing with such a man’s services. Taking away from this question all verbiage and dealing with it on its merits, what is the position? He was appointed in the beginning of 1914, both messenger and deputy-sheriff. He has held that position for ten years. He was a trooper in the S.A.M.R., and he has lost his pension. For that we will shed a sympathetic tear. I can give you very easily an estimate of what were the fees earned by him. Messengers work for fees, not a salary. Hon. members opposite do not seem to understand that, because they say, I have appointed a man at a salary of so much. I know if you take Johannesburg (I am talking about Johannesburg Central) your messenger makes over £7,000 per year.

Not net profit.

I can prove it; because fortunately the messenger of Johannesburg has under the old Government paid fees over and above the fees which he was allowed to retain, viz., £1,440, into the Treasury. He would not be paying in his gross profits. He actually paid £6,300,000 into the Treasury, and therefore his net profits were over £7,500 per annum. The deputy-sheriff of Johannesburg, functioning for the whole Reef, made between £3,000 and £4,000 per annum. Compare that with Pretoria, when the messenger makes between £3,000 to £4,000 per year, and the deputy-sheriff something over a thousand pounds a year. If you take a line between those two cases you will find your deputy-sheriff of Natal would make at least £1,500 to £2,000 and your messenger in Durban would make £5,000 as a minimum. Surely no member from Natal will maintain that in Pretoria your messenger or deputy-sheriff is going to make anything like as much as in Durban? Durban is a larger centre, and, in addition, has a large litigious Asiatic population. I think you will find the correct amount for Durban lies between the two figures of Johannesburg and Pretoria, and therefore when we find that on the experiment of January and February with the present messenger there is a net amount of £440, you will find that this net amount is working out at some £5,000 a year. This amount I also come to as the minimum earned by the messenger in Durban. But that is not enough. You still want to know whether that messenger has been properly treated, and whether the present deputy-sheriff has been properly treated. The latter would make something like £1,500 a year. In regard to the appointment of Mr. Spargo as messenger, I not only consulted Mr. Reyburn as to his fitness, but other people who were able to speak as to his fitness for the post, and when I found he was fit he was appointed. I ask, is it unfair that this ex-trooper of the S.A.M.R.—although he has lost his pension rights—should now still earn £1,500 a year, and that the other should be also getting £1,500 a year, and that the Treasury in the latter case should be receiving the balance? I now come to the question of procedure. It has been said: Why did I not allow Mr. Sandys to apply for the post?

After promising you would.

The reason for that was that that letter was overlooked, because every one of the existing messengers whose office had been terminated had been considered by me when I was considering the messengers in these particular parts. I gave notice to nine men in the big centres of the country. In not one case was an application received for them to be appointed. I re-appointed six of these men without application. I terminated two appointments—one in Pretoria and one in Bloemfontein. That shows that I considered every one of those appointments.

How do you account for Mr. Sandys’ statement that he only earned £1,500?

I do not accept it for a single moment unless on the assumption that Durban is a place having half the litigation of Pretoria.

Did you make any inquiries as to what he was earning?

I have no official returns. How can I say what a man’s private fees are in Durban? I am asking you to compare the figures with the probabilities of the case, and I am quite certain the hon. member who has just spoken believes my figures are more reliable than Mr. Sandys’, especially where checked by the experience of the present messenger for January and February.

I think the figures are exaggerated. I believe the £1,500.

Then he has lost little. He could not expect the position of messenger and deputy-sheriff as well, as in all other places, except Natal, the two positions are separated. Natal must not claim to have preferential treatment by its messengers being deputy-sheriffs as well.

Why base your figures on the Transvaal, instead of the actual figures in Natal?

There are no actual figures before me. I have given you the reason why I consider my figures are correct. The other objection was: Why did I not avail myself of the circular which lays down the magistrate’s duties? Remember, that this circular lays down what the magistrate shall do if I ask him to exercise his functions. It does not override my powers under section 13 of the Act. I shall only avail myself of that circular, which does not bind me, when I choose. But the discretion, I repeat, rests with me and not with any member of the Opposition, or for that matter with any other member of this House. We then come to incidentals. I am told that I had something special to do with regard to the staff in this messenger business. The position is that the staff are appointed by the messenger. They are his staff, not mine. As far as deputy messengers are concerned they must be approved by the magistrates under the magistrate’s court Act and because I guard the interests of the treasury, it was necessary for me to have the staff placed before me for approval, and that approval as far as I am concerned has only taken this course, that I have considered the amounts in money paid to those parties. When I regard the amount as too high, it is reduced; when I regard it as too low, it is increased. This power of mine arises from contract. It does not matter to me whom the messenger appoints, if the messenger is satisfied that the men he appoints are good and sufficient as, in this contract. I have made provision for their indemnifying the Government against any losses of the Government’s share of the fees. When the names were submitted to me, I considered them. I did not consider whether they were men against whom there had been civil imprisonment orders, or whether they were poor men or rich men. All I was concerned with was whether the treasury was going to suffer by their being paid too much money. I regarded the £60 to be paid to Van Belkum as too much, and I challenged it. Hon. members opposite seem to think that I have no one in my department who has any knowledge or does any work, except myself. They seem to think that everybody in the Department of Justice, except myself, is a cipher. I can assure them that that is not so and that my department is fully informed about these things. I had an opportunity of comparing the amounts paid to different messengers’ staffs throughout the country. Generally the amount for a man in Van Belkum’s position was £30 to £35 a month. I regarded £60 as excessive. I challenged that, and suggested £35 would be enough, and would make Van Belkum’s position fall into line with the other similar positions in this country. Spargo replied, saying that owing to the special accountancy and office work to be done by Van Belkum that £35 was too little. He suggested £45, and we agreed to that. I cannot see anything extraordinary in that. I suppose hon. members opposite will be saying that what I did recently in Cape Town was wrong. Cape Town put up a deputy messenger to earn £9 a month. I told them they could pay the man £15 a month. Here, again, I shall be asked: How did you know he should be paid £15 and not £9; surely £9 is a more capitalistic figure than £15? All I can say is I thought £9 was inadequate, and I am sure the majority of hon. members will agree with me. I again say that the fact of the financial embarrassment of Van Belkum does not weigh with me one little bit. If you take your ordinary messenger officers throughout the country I suppose you will find that many of them have temporary financial embarrassments, and they are none the worse even for that reason.

Was he three times before the magistrate under civil arrest?

I have not the faintest idea, and that would not have weighed with me at all. As I say, he is not a member of my staff.

And a member of the Rent Board?

What has that to do with it? That is simply a childish remark. I have dealt with incidentals, and we will now go into the wild realms of fancy. We are told Spargo came to Pretoria to see me. Let me say I have never seen Spargo in my life and I have never seen Sandys. There was an insinuation by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) that Van Belkum was related to me in some way. As far as hon. members of other parts of the country are concerned, they knew perfectly well that Van Belkum is a Hollander name. Nobody would suggest that my name is a Hollander name. That shows how wild and whirling are these statements when it is said that a man of an entirely different race is my relative.

Connected by marriage?

No, not even related by marriage. I can deny that impeachment, too. I will say this, that I have spoken to Van Belkum casually because he lives at Springs on the Reef, and occasionally I have met him there.

Perhaps he is related to your cook?

The hon. member says perhaps he is related to my cook, or something of that sort, but I am afraid that even that I must deny. I now come to Mr. Nettleton. Here is a man, who has no wrong report at all, but of course, he has a tremendous thing to live down. He was and is a member of the Labour party. I admit that is a terrible thing to say against a man, and I will admit that if you are a member of the Labour party you are not entitled to make a living in this country. You should be harried from pillar to post, and if you are not very careful you may also be deported. May I say I think “the luck of the Labour party is in at the moment. It has been out for a good many years. Mr. Nettleton’s name was only dragged in because he was a member of the Labour party, who was once for a short time a member of this House and of the Pretoria Town Council, and also, I believe, of the Durban Town Council. Personally, I am very glad he was appointed, although I had nothing to do with his appointment. I should have expected one point to be mentioned by the Natal members, but not a single member has expressed his satisfaction that I had issued orders that the court messengers are not to employ one single Asiatic in their offices. I am going to Durban, and I am going to ask whether they agree with my attitude or with the attitude of their members. Durban is not the only place; Asiatics have also been dismissed on account of my instructions from the messenger’s staff in Maritzburg and other parts of Natal. I am very much afraid we shall hear the cry of “Yellow Asia” raised, and twaddle about “repercussions” and reperfiddelsticks, and other rubbish in various parts of the world. But the day of Asiatic deputy-messengers has ended. I suppose I must face the repercussions as well as I can. Let me say, further, in regard to the attitude of Natal, that I have found out that lady clerks and young clerks were taking out summonses in the club of the resident magistrate’s office, and when doing so, where compelled to rub shoulders with Asiatics and others sent by the big offices to take out their summonses. I am doing my best to deal with that, and if the matter cannot be remedied otherwise we shall take some power to make attorneys take out their own summonses, and thereby obtain jobs for young Europeans in Natal, which members of the Opposition would like them to be debarred from.

Who says so?

I say so, because the South African party papers in Natal printed most bitter articles against me on this point, and not a single South African party member lifted his voice in protest. We see the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and Weenen (Maj. Richards) bringing in their motions in regard to the Asiatic trouble, but when I do something in the matter to assist the European, not one of them will say a single word of praise. Even where in the ordinary course of my department’s duty, where a magistrate was retired at 55 because on account of his physical disabilities he could not be retained beyond that age, I find articles headed “Damnable shame,” and things like that, in the Natal papers.

Poor Natal.

Poor Natal, because they have such very bad members. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) talked about £1,500 as being too much for the Durban court messenger, but I think he was wrong, because in that amount is the portion of his fees which he is allowed to keep back and the balance he pays to the Government. It would be very difficult to lower the fees charged in the big centres and increase those charged in the smaller centres, and I am afraid we cannot do anything to meet that point. In this matter I was guided by the amount fixed by the past Government in Johannesburg. I come to another point. Members of the Opposition have raised no protest in regard to the appointment of Mr. Young as magistrate of Johannesburg.

We are quite satisfied.

I know hon. members are satisfied, but if his name had been van As, or some similar name, there would have been the same objections. It is a curious fact, which I have found accidentally, that of the appointments I have directly interested myself in, the great majority are English-speaking men with English names. Now in regard to Mr. Young, he has been a magistrate for a large number of years, and the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and others who have practised before him will tell you he is an extremely able magistrate. I could also produce a letter from Sir John Curlewis, Judge-President in the Transvaal, who says that all the judges who have knowledge of Mr. Young’s work appreciates the fact that he is one of the ablest magistrates in the country, and he adds: “The only thing that worries me is why withdraw such a very able man from sitting on the bench, because on account of his administrative work in Johannesburg we are not going to see him as much on the bench as we should like.” The fact is, of course, that Johannesburg is one of the highest positions in the magisterial service, and you must place your best men there and must withdraw them to a certain extent from the bench.

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

Go on.

May I move that the House grant an extention of time?

If there is no objection, the hon. Minister may continue.

The report of the Public Service Commission says this—

I want to test these two points—his seniority and his suitability for the post. Mr. Staten, eight years ago, became public service inspector. Mr. Young was his senior when he became public service inspector. Staten’s salary sprang up and he became artificially the senior of Mr. Young. The rule, as far as my department is concerned, is that when a man becomes a public service inspector, or takes a position of that sort, we do not, when he reverts to the magistracy, allow him to start at the notch which he attains by becoming public service inspector, owing to the enhanced salary. We do not allow that artificial seniority to count. But when they come back they are placed upon a notch with as high a salary as they would probably have attained if they had remained in the magistracy; in many cases; a lower notch than the one they had as public service inspectors, if we regard the salary aspect alone. Mr. Pienaar was an officer treated in this way, and Mr. Pienaar was appointed by the Minister of the Interior. To digress, I may say he was a valued servant in my department, and if not appointed by the Minister of the Interior he would, in course of time, have reclined in my department a position suitable to his merits, for he was regarded by us as one of our most able officers. He was a public service inspector, and when he reverted to the magistracy, he was placed in a lower niche to that which he would probably have been placed if he had remained a magistrate. When Mr. McCormick was appointed as magistrate in Pretoria a few years ago, he was treated in the same way. He obtained that position under exactly the same circumstances that I have given Mr. Young this position. Mr. Staten was also a runner-up, but the commission reported in favour of Mr. McCormick. Mr. Young is as able an official as Mr. McCormick. During the past eight years Mr. Young has been constantly employed as a magistrate in some of the most important magistracies in the Transvaal. I say, without fear of contradiction, that as far as the legal profession in the Transvaal is concerned, they place Mr. Young much higher, from a professional point of view, than they do Mr. Staten. I am not trying to cast any doubt on Mr. Staten’s efficiency, but there was only one choice, and the only possible choice was Mr. Young and not Mr. Staten. I am supported in this view by the judges, the advocates, and the attorneys of the Transvaal, and I am convinced by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). Johannesburg is extremely satisfied with the appointment. I did a little of the donkey work for Mr. Young by cutting out the tea hour in the magistrates’ courts on the Band, and making other reforms necessary, as Johannesburg’s magistrate’s court got into very slack ways indeed. I sent Mr. Neale from Pretoria, to re-organize the magistrate’s court in Johannesburg, so that some of the unpopular work could be done for Mr. Young before he assumed office. I think hon. members on the opposite side would be very well-advised not to attack this appointment. If I had the same choice, I would again appoint Mr. Young, who will prove that he is far and away the best man for that position. With regard to the Public Service Commission, I am not at all certain that hon. members opposite are going to be satisfied with the commission when its personnel changes next year. As far as the service to-day is concerned, your true work is not done by the commission, but by the public service inspectors, who report to the commission, which acts on these reports. A much better way of dealing with the position would be to appoint a committee of departmental heads, get them to weigh up the reports by the inspectors, and give their recommendation. You would have permanency then, and you would probably have South African party officials installed for a much longer period of time. I would like to have in addition to the Public Service Committee, a small committee of business men which would be able to tell us from time to time whether the public service is being conducted on sufficiently business lines. Your inspectors are civil servants, the chairman of the Public Service Commission is an ex-civil servant, and the two members of the commission are civil servants, and you Lave not one single man who is a business man who can tell you if the service is being run on business lines. When you are told that a department requires a large number of clerks, a Minister cannot tell whether that is really so or not, for things are looked at from a civil service and not a business point of view. If a case of misconduct is reported the Public Service Commission does not deal with it, but the matter is enquired into by a public service inspector.

Is that going to be a new Board?

What new board?

The committee of business men.

No.

You and the Prime Minister differ entirely about the Public Service Commission.

Very likely it is so, and the views of the Prime Minister are going to prevail, and I hope so far as this position is concerned that hon. members opposite are not going to attack us next year on the question of the personnel of the Public Service Commission or anything of that kind. We find that the English population in South Africa has had a new protector appointed it is quite true, a self-appointed protector—the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) I have never noticed that they required protection, and I doubt whether he has a sufficient delegation to show that he is authorized to protect them against us. At all events for whatever use it may be to them I want to congratulate them on their new protector, who will see that no injustice is done to the English population. We have again had the same class of argument being used against the Government, which has been so often used in the past, the same racial cry. Attacks are made when a person with a Dutch name is appointed to an official post, but when the person appointed has an English name, no attacks or slight attacks are made. No attacks were made when I mentioned the names of the persons it was proposed to appoint under the Government Attorney Bill—Messrs. Hoal, Durham, and Thackeray. But when Mr. Pienaar was appointed these attacks were made. It is the same old coincidence by which, under the past Government, only South African Party people obtained positions although the members of the Government did not know what the politics of these people were.

A wonderful intuition.

In spite of that wonderful intuition, I think I can assure the Opposition that when this Government comes to its end and ceases to function it is going to be considerably more popular with the English population than the past Government ever was.

We have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Minister of Justice, and it is much in the tone of the speeches delivered by the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Defence, which were really irrelevant to the subject which this side of the House has brought to the notice of the Government and the country. Yes, we have had a great deal of political pugilism in the way members on the opposite side have approached this question. I feel really pleased the hon. the Minister has been allowed to take his gruelling so gently. The hon. the Minister has been doing penance, but through the kindness of the Prime Minister he has been allowed to “boil his peas.” During the whole course of the hon. Minister’s statement he never once apologized for the disgraceful attack he has made in public on the public service of the country. We are not going to be prevented from discussing this question, and bringing it before the notice of the people of this country, because we are going to be accused by the Minister opposite of raising it for the purpose of the racial issue. They know, as well as I do, this question has never been raised from the racial point of view. It has been due to the speeches made by hon. members opposite and also to the manner in which the public services of the country, against the report of the Public Service Commission, which is the only body standing between the public service and the Government, has been treated on that side of the House. We have given a great deal of courtesy on this side towards the Minister. We were courteous enough to allow the hon. Minister to go on much longer than the time allowed by the rules. I think it is only fair they should allow us the right of expressing our opinions. I say this question has not been raised from a political point of view. I was a strong supporter in the National Convention, when the Public Services Act was brought before the country in 1912, and I was a strong supporter of the amendment to the Act in 1923, and the position I took up in the National Convention, and in 1912, was this: You can never know what Government will come into power, and it was the duty of Parliament to make provision and place a body in between the Government and the public service, so that there would be nothing in the nature of favouritism in the administration of the public services. I am sorry the Minister of the Interior is not here, because I would like to have him present in connection with the remarks I wish to address to him. We shall have to deal with the tornado of irrelevant eloquence he used. I should like to ask him how it was, with the report of the Public Service Commission before him, he sent for Mr. Pienaar, whom he did not know. Who brought this name to the notice of the Minister of the Interior? Was it possible it was any member of the House that brought this name to his notice? The Minister said he did not know him. When the Minister, in opposition to the suggestion of the Public Service Commission, sent for Mr. Pienaar, how was it he did not send for Col. Williams? I know Col. Williams from my ministerial position, and he is well known throughout the country, as one of the ablest administrative officers, thoroughly bilingual, we possess in the country. Why did he not send for him to discuss with him and find out his fitness? I leave the House and the country to judge. Now the hon. Minister of the Interior has committed what I say, and I say deliberately, is one of the most unpardonable acts ever committed in this House. The Minister of the Interior, supposed to be a Christian gentleman, dealing with a body of people who are officers of Parliament, and who have no opportunity of being here to defend themselves, attributed to them that choice they made was owing to communications they had with the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). A Minister who can make that charge in the House, and a Minister especially who has control of the public service of the country is unworthy to be a Minister in this or any other country. I say it with deliberation and with feeling. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister made the charge you called upon him to withdraw. The Minister did withdraw, but you evidently did not hear, Mr. Speaker, that he made the charge worse by saying that if you made him withdraw the direct charge he would add there were other “unnoble” influences at work, which meant that the Public Service Commission, appointed by Parliament to enquire into the public services of the country, was actuated by other influences than those which should influence those occupying such a position. I say it to the honour of the Prime Minister, he must have heard the remark, that he said the Minister of the Interior apologizes for the statement. The Minister of the Interior had not apologized. The Minister made his first statement still worse by repeating that if he could not say that, he would say they were subject to “unnoble” influence. I expected better things from the Minister of the Interior. I have differed for a long period of time from the Minister of the Interior, but I expected from him a high example in the House and in the country.

Why?

Why? I will tell you. Because I have read with considerable interest that extraordinarily noble and high-toned sermon the Minister of the Interior preached at Graaff-Reinet before he descended from the pulpit and took up the position of a journalist in the country. I do not know whether you have read it, Mr. Speaker, if not I would, with your permission submit it to your consideration. It is a document containing a voice like that that “breathed o’er Eden.” You can imagine the effect this made on me after keeping it all these years. You will see I have marked with considerable approval many of the splendid sentiments issuing from the lips of the hon. gentleman before he forsook the pulpit for the editorial chair. This was his text, and I want to leave the House and the country to judge if he has acted up to it ever since. It was from the Epistle from St. Paul to the Corinthians, Chapter 10, verse 31. I am sorry the Minister is not here. He has fallen away very much from grace. After reading to him what he himself said in 1915, I may be instrumental in being a means to his conversion—

I know it almost by heart.

On a point of order, I think that in no Parliament on the face of the earth—

What is the point of order?

The point of order is, do you allow religion to be criticized and laughed and mocked at, as the hon. member is doing?

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has not been mocking at religion as far as I can make out.

I am reading for the information of the Minister of the Interior and for the information of hon. members opposite the magnificent sentiments which he gave utterance to in 1915. The Minister of the Interior, when he entered journalism in this country, said he was entering the journalistic field so that he could introduce the spirit of St. Paul into public journalism. I ask you, Mr. Speaker,—perhaps it is hardly fair to ask you, but through you I would like to ask hon. members in this House—if “Die Burger” has introduced the spirit of St. Paul into the public life of this country? Has the attitude expressed in that sermon been the attitude of the Minister in introducing the spirit of St. Paul into the editorship of “Die Burger”? I could not help thinking that so far as the Minister was concerned the only spirit of St. Paul that I saw in his actions was the spirit of St. Paul before his conversion. And, as the Minister stated in his remarks to which I have referred, that he was taking a leap in the dark, I should hazard the statement that he was in the condition that St. Paul once was in, but St. Paul was struck blind, and on regaining his sight he adopted a new attitude and a new life. The only thing I could think about the Minister of the Interior is that he was blind then and he has remained blind since so far as doing justice to the public service of this country is concerned. The Prime Minister, in the course of his address, asked the question, are we pushing the Public Service Commission?

Surely not.

I have taken down the Prime Minister’s words.

Will you give me the words I used?

“Are we pushing the Public Service Commission”?

I did not speak English.

He said “shoving aside.”

Did you say “shoving aside the Public Service Commission”?

That is quite a different thing from saying “are we pushing the Public Service Commission”?

I will take it then that you said “are we shoving aside the Public Service Commission”? Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that he said “I have nothing but the highest respect for the Public Service Commission”? Does the Minister of Justice hold the same views as the Prime Minister?

That does not concern me, does it?

I was once surprised last year when I asked the Prime Minister if he would enunciate the native policy of the Government, and he threw up his hands and said “The Government have no native policy, because they have not discussed it.” Now I learn that in a matter of such great importance as the Public Service Commission it does not matter to him what the view of the Minister of Justice and other members of the Government are.

Hear, hear, it doesn’t matter a bit.

May I then ask the Prime Minister who controls the Cabinet?

Who controls the Opposition?

The Opposition is controlled by the sound principles that they have laid down in their programme which they are acting up to under the able leadership of my right hon. friend sitting beside me (General Smuts), and, whether we be right or whether we wrong and whether hon. members opposite agree with me or not, we do at least speak with one voice. When the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister he did not say one thing on an important question and another of his Ministers say an entirely different thing. We certainly never had a confession from the right hon. gentleman when he was Prime Minister that matters of this sort did not affect him, and that it did not interest him what all the members of his Government thought.

Perhaps he was too much bluffed by you.

The Prime Minister is responsible for every one of these appointments. It is his Cabinet. The Minister of Justice has gone about the country, and other Ministers have done the same outside and in this House, and they have deliberately tried to terrorize the Public Service Commission. The Minister of Justice has deliberately tried to make the Public Service Commission refrain from doing their duty.

Order! I do not think the hon. member is entitled to make that statement.

I withdraw that, sir. Am I not entitled to say that the character of the attack of the Minister of Justice in public on more than one occasion upon the Public Service Commission would have the tendency, if they were human, and be inclined to terrorize them in the proper performance of their duty? That I think will bring me within the limits of Parliamentary expression.

It also means nothing.

It meant a great deal in the minds of the hon. gentlemen because the hon. gentleman did with regard to the public servants what I consider a great injustice. What happened afterwards? When terrorism had no effect, then wheedling was tried. The Minister of the Interior when he could not have his way—I am glad he has come back, I was pointing out to my hon. friend how he had departed from that spirit of St. Paul to which he referred in that admirable sermon which he delivered in Graaff-Reinet in 1915, when he descended from the pulpit, and I was saying that if the hon. gentleman had been here I might have been able, not by words of mine but by written words of his own in 1915, to bring him back to the true faith, and I am not going to repeat that over to him. What I was going to say is that the Minister of Justice has by his actions had a tendency to cause the Public Service Commission to feel very unsafe in any attitude they adopted. The Minister of the Interior objected to the Public Service Commission making a double recommendation. The Prime Minister made an objection to the Public Service Commission making a second recommendation, but if there was any objection to a second recommendation why did the Minister of the Interior write to the Public Service Commission saying they would confer a personal favour by recommending Mr. Pienaar for the appointment? But then the Public Service Commission acted as they ought to do by the law in doing what they considered their duty. Then the Minister adopted a different attitude. He was then led away to a certain extent by the Minister of Justice, and he made the most unwarranted and most un justifiable attack on the Public Service Commission in this House.

Quite right.

If that is the way in which the Minister responsible for the public service of this country should protect his officials then I say “God help you.” That shows you how bitter the feeling is with regard to appointments that have taken place in this country. During the course of the remarks of the Minister of Defence, whom I am sorry is not here, he said there was no single case we could bring forward not alone in connection with the Public Service Commission, where injustice had been done, and that it was only a matter of innuendo. I make this statement deliberately, that with regard to other appointments, men have been appointed simply and solely on account of the attitude they adopted during the late rebellion. Would you like me to give you cases, I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not here. I can give him a case: that of Mr. J. A. Froneman, appointed sheep inspector in 1908. He was also a qualified sheep and wool classer. He served sixteen years good service, had a clean record; the senior inspectors and everybody connected with him spoke in his favour. But he had committed a grave offence. He had unfortunately fought with the Government troops in the rebellion, and served with the South African Brigade for two-and-a-half years in France.

Was that why he was appointed?

That was why he was dismissed. He was dismissed without any reasons. I know the reason.

The age limit.

And there was a Mr. Lindeque, the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) would know who was appointed in his place after fourteen days’ instruction. Then there was a Mr. J. H. van Royen, of Maritzburg, who was appointed in 1907. He was appointed by the Free State Government in those days and in 1910 was offered an inspectorship but did not take it. In 1911 he was again offered an inspectorship as he was considered such a good man. He has an unblemished record and is under the age limit. He also served with the Government troops during the rebellion, and has been summarily dismissed without a word of reason or explanation of any sort. The files in the Agricultural Department will enable the Minister to look up and see if what I say is not correct. The only information he got was that the Minister had determined to dispense with his services. Would you like to know why? I am sorry that hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. B. Wessels) is not here. The man was dismissed in order to appoint a Mr. Wessels who had been dismissed in 1914 for having gone into rebellion. I can only draw my own conclusions. I think the country will draw its conclusion from this and I say unhesitatingly that this is a serious thing that there seems to be no hope in this country for people who have served the State and who did their duty in putting down the late rebellion so long as Ministers opposite set others in their places irrespective of how they did their duty and they are got rid of for that purpose alone.

Out with the flag.

This has got nothing to do with “Out with the Flag.” These are loyal Dutch citizens. They are not English people, but as an hon. member said this afternoon, they are more penalized by some of the extremists who sit on the opposite side of the House because they have done their duty, than if they had been Englishmen, and it ill becomes hon. gentlemen opposite to speak as they do when you bring these things to the notice of the country because it is only when you do that and make it public that you will put any check whatsoever on the action of the Government with their majority behind them. I have heard of the case of another inspector, Mr. Campher, he was appointed in 1914 and was dismissed on the 31st October, 1924. No single charge has ever been brought against him and were I to repeat what I know has occurred in a private letter to a gentleman of influence in this country who was appealed to in connection with this man’s case, in which he said he knew the Minister of Agriculture was a patriot and would not have anybody in his service who had anything to do with the rebellion of 1914, it would astonish this House. I say it is our duty to bring these things to the notice of the House and the country. Already it has done a good deal of good. The Minister of Justice has gone much further tonight than he went the other day.

Not one step further.

He went very much further. Has the Minister forgotten, I think it was when he was replying to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), referring to the promises of the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Justice to review the terms of the circular, the Minister shook his head and said he would do nothing of the sort.

I say it again.

That was the time the peas were hard. The Prime Minister in this has shown that he is supreme in the Cabinet.

He always has been.

The hon. gentleman has jumped the traces several times but I am glad on this occasion the Prime Minister held him in check. The circular says that a knowledge of the two official languages is essential and that officers will not be promoted unless they are sufficiently bilingual and no exception will be made except on the Minister’s authority.

You are reading it wrong again. You are leaving out “Except in some cases.”

Does the hon. Minister want to explain again?

I wish I had explained it in Irish. Perhaps you would have understood it then.

The hon. Minister does not know what circular he is talking about. He has issued so many he does not know what this is. He issues a circular to appeal to the left wing of his Party, and then he has to modify it to suit the other wing. If this debate has had no other effect than to modify this circular—

I am not going to modify it.

Is the Minister going to carry out this circular as I have it here.

I am going to carry out that circular as I explained it the last time.

The Minister is getting uneasy. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” I want to know for my own information and for the information of the country what does the Minister intend to do? It is useless telling this House that there is no feeling of unrest in the service.

Hear, hear.

Hon. members say “hear, hear.” I say unhesitatingly that there is a great deal of unrest in the service. When hon. members say we are bringing this forward for racial purposes, I refer them to what was said by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) this afternoon. He pointed out that on these benches we have representatives of both the Dutch and English speaking people. Outside the Labour Party, there is not a single representative of the English people on that side. You can well imagine if the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had not joined the Government, if they had preserved that freedom which the cleverer section of the Labour Party thought they ought to preserve, they would have talked as loudly as I do on these questions. What did the Minister of Defence say in this House on July 10th, 1920? He asked whether it was going to ensure good will if Mr. C. W. Malan got up and made an impassioned row because an official had written to him in English, a language which he understood. He went on to ask if there were ill-conditioned people writing letters in Dutch as a sort of “smelling out” would they get the peace that they so desired? I am sorry the Minister of Defence is not present so that I could read to him what he said in July, 1920. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not here because I would like to refer to an appointment which has taken place in his Department. I know nothing about Dr. Geldenhuys’ capability and I am saying nothing about him, but it does seem to me a peculiar thing that a recently appointed official should be used to make for the first time the announcement as to who was to be the successor to the present Administrator of the Cape.

Why do not you read “De Burger”?

Yes, the first official announcement was made by Dr. Geldenhuys, an official who is going through the country in the discharge of his duties This appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys is one of the worst instances of these appointments. Mr. Lamont is one of the ablest men in the Department. Not only do I say that, but that is the view that will be expressed in every farmers’ association throughout the country and by every farmer who has had the opportunity of meeting Mr. Lamont and hearing him discuss economic problems.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I only wish to deal with the Lamont case.

With the indulgence of the House the hon. member may continue.

There are two men in the Agricultural Department who have devoted their attention for a considerable time to agricultural economics. One is Mr. Lamont and the other Mr. Parrish, who is attached to the school at Cedara and has done admirable work in connection with the costing of mealies. When the Agricultural Department had decided on the necessity of establishing a division of economics and marketing and the secretary of the Department made enquiries, with no other consideration than efficiency, as to who should be placed at the head of it, Mr. Lamont was chosen as pre-eminently fitted for that post.

By whom?

By the Secretary for Agriculture with my approval and after full discussion of the matter with him.

But that was by you; not the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Lamont was sent to the United States with letters from me and the Agricultural Department in Washington were extremely kind and courteous and gave Mr. Lamont every assistance and the free run of their Department.

How long was he there?

Six months. May I say that when I was talking recently to Sir Horace Plunkett, he said, “Of all the young men who have struck me as having great knowledge it is Mr. Lamont, whom I saw when I went out to Elsenburg”; and he is a fairly good authority.

Was he properly primed?

Mr. Lamont was then sent to the Continent to Mr. Spilhaus and studied European marketing. When Mr. Spilhaus returned to this country last February or March, having announced his intention of resigning his appointment at the end of the year, he saw the then Prime Minister and myself. He said, “I have looked round to see whom I can recommend as a successor, and of all the people I have met, after the two months’ experience I have had of Mr. Lamont, I consider he is extraordinarily able and would make an admirable Trade Commissioner.” The Public Service Commission has approved of the establishment of a department of economics and marketing and had approved of the appointment of Mr. Lamont.

Did you suggest the name to them?

Only the Head of the Agricultural Department makes the official proposal in writing which is submitted to the Public Service Commission for investigation as to the candidate’s qualifications. It is his duty to do so. Mr. Spilhaus made this suggestion and Mr. Lamont came and saw me. I said, “I do not want to stand in your way. You are principal of Elsenburg and have your wife and children. It would be a great sacrifice, especially as you have devoted a great portion of your life to economics, if you became Trade Commissioner.” The Prime Minister offered him the post of Trade Commissioner. I said to Mr. Lamont, “This is an appointment for three or five years. If you can arrange with the Treasury that they will give you an emolument which will justify your breaking up your home I would not stand in your way.” Mr. Lamont saw me shortly afterwards, and asked whether I should be annoyed if he did not accept the post. I said, “I should be very glad, because I think you are cut out for this other work.” The new Government came in last August. The Agricultural Union met in Bloemfontein and Mr. Lamont was sent to discuss agricultural economics and the formation of this new division. An article extraordinary appeared in the “Landbouweeksblad” which I believe was edited by Dr. Geldenhuys, pointing out the importance of this appointment, and that only a man with special qualifications should be appointed to it. The appointment has been given to Dr. Geldenhuys. Now I believe a gross injustice has been done, not only to Mr. Lamont, but also to the public service of this country. Mr. Lamont, as principal of Elsenburg, would have been made head of this Division, and the famous Dr. Thornton, of Grootfontein, was made head of the Division of Animal and Field Husbandry. A vacancy would have been created at Elsenburg and there would have been a number of other promotions in the Agricultural Department. The service feel this very much—that a gross injustice has been done; I do not know why. The Minister of Agriculture could never have committed a more unworthy action than by refusing to give this appointment to a man with the special qualifications and capacity of Mr. Lamont and giving it to a man who has only had a university training and the post of editor of an agricultural newspaper for a year or two. Mr. Lamont was born in this country, has devoted his whole life to it, is thoroughly bilingual and had the highest support and qualifications for the purpose and he is turned down in order to bring in a stranger. Dr. Geldenhuys was brought in not on the scale the Commission recommended— £850 to £950—but on the scale £900 to £1,100. Does that not engender feeling in the public service?

Qualifications?

Nobody was better qualified than Mr. Lamont. This man’s career has been checked, and the careers of other people have been checked, while outsiders are brought into the service at a commencing salary of £900. The Minister told us that the late Government did not advertise vacant positions. Two important appointments have recently been made in the Agricultural Department, but the Minister’s excuse for not advertising those positions was that the funds for these appointments appeared on the Estimates last year and therefore it was not necessary to advertise. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture has done a great injustice to Mr. Lamont, to the Agricultural Department, and to the public service. When these things are going on from day to day surely it behoves us to do all we possibly can to make other Ministers recant, as the Minister of Justice against his will has been made to recant the attitude he has taken up. It is only by bringing these things forward that you are going to prevent jobbery of this sort taking place. We are told that Natal is satisfied. Is Natal satisfied by the circular which departed from the 1923 Act which gives public servants the right until 1928 to qualify in both official languages? Is Natal satisfied when a typist in the Agricultural Department, where practically all the technical work must be carried out in the English language, served 12 months’ probation and had her papers sent to Pretoria for signature, when the Minister of Agriculture ruined her career by saying that because she was not bilingual he would not give her until 1928 in which to qualify in the Dutch language? These are gross injustices which a certain section of the people are feeling very much indeed, and I would appeal to the Prime Minister to take his Cabinet in hand, and to carry out the promise he made at Bloemfontein that he would see that equal justice was done to all sections of the population in South Africa.

In connection with the apology tendered by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) I wish to state that had he withdrawn what he said the other afternoon I would not have said anything more on the subject; but when he got up and made his apology and withdrawal in the spirit with which he made it I can only leave the position where it was. An hon. member speaking this afternoon about the members of these benches said that the Labour party had always been made use of by the party on this side of the House. When they tried to lessen the grip of the magnates on the country they were used by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts. Was the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) not sincere when he formed the alliance with the Labour party? He was not honest if he used the Labour party as the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) stated.

It was before your time.

It was not before my time. We then looked upon the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the Prime Minister (Gen. Botha) as sincere men. Now we have had from the lips of one of his own party that he holds the opinion that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is prepared to use political jugglery and to use this section of the party for his own political purpose. Listening to this debate takes one’s mind back to the late Transvaal Parliament previous to the Union when we had debates on the Chinese Labour question. If members will go back to the old Transvaal Hansard and read what took place in the House of Assembly in the Transvaal they will read that the Progressive party levelled charges against Gen. Botha and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). They said that this particular party was actuated by racialism and was discharging all the Englishmen in the country and filling the positions with Dutchmen, not only giving the Dutchmen the jobs but were using public money to subsidize their supporters. All sorts of charges were levelled against Gen. Botha and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) when they were fighting the big interests in the country. After they changed over and became supporters of the big financial interest we found that the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) became dumb. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) said we were not touching the subject before the House. Can he tell us where he touched the subject before the House? He simply continued the speeches which have been made by hon. members of those benches simply for the purpose of consolidating that party and stirring up the racial feelings of the people of South Africa. I make the charge in all sincerity, judging the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) by his past record and remembering the placards posted all over the country appealing to the British sentiment to vote against the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and Gen. Botha and the issuing of placards calling on the British to vote British and against the Dutchman. Even in the recent elections we found certain members of the old Unionist party going round where they could, appealing to the people to vote against men because they were Dutchmen. The member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is not content to let matters die. The greatest asset the South African party has got, as was rightly said by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) the other day, is this racial question, and they don’t want to let it die. As soon as hon. members on this side of the House attempt to undo any mistakes they have made in the past, what is the reception they get? They are met with sneers and jeers and are told that in 1902 they said so and so, and how did they reconcile that with their change of opinion to-day? The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort cannot deny that they have exploited the British sentiment of South Africa, that they have issued these placards to vote British and have played upon the racial feelings of the British community in order to keep their party in power. If hon. members on that side of the House are fighting in the interests of the policemen in this country or in the interest of the Public Service of this country, no one knows better than the hon. gentlemen over there who have been making speeches in this House that they are not doing any good for the police force or the service. They know that, in order to take the most effective action, they should get together a non-party deputation of this House, men representing every party in this House, to wait upon the Cabinet, so that these things which they complain of are not done or are withdrawn. The hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort do not yet appear to have realized that they are not running this country any longer. They cannot realize for one moment that they are out of office and that there are other people running the country, and that these other people must be given a show. If we want a contented public service in this country, are we going to get it, apart from any other question, if every appointment is going to be dragged on to the floor of this House? Municipalities will tell you it is the worst thing to continually drag the appointments up before the Council; therefore they settle all these things in Committee. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) quoted a sermon by the Minister of the Interior and said he was trying to bring members back to the spirit of St. Paul. It puts me in mind of a little criticism that was offered on a rank hypocrite who used to go into the church as a local preacher. The gentleman giving his opinion of this particular local preacher said, “If the devil himself were to walk into the church with horns and tail and cloven hoof, with fire and brimstone streaming from his mouth and nostrils, and take his place in the pulpit, one could at least say he admired him for his honesty. But this man would come in disguised as a parson and start to quote Scripture in that disguise and one could only have towards him feelings of the greatest contempt.” The hon. member is the last man in this house who should raise his voice and appeal to the members to observe the spirit of Christianity. The spirit of Christianity so far as he and his Government is concerned has been in grinding down men, women and children, and using bombs against them. He said there was only one voice in the last Cabinet—his master’s voice. I am given to understand that even in the critical days of 1922, when we moved for a non-Party movement to settle the affair and we were met by a rebuff: I am informed that in the S.A.P. caucus they raised the question, and the Prime Minister said, “You need not discuss that question: I have decided what to do.” That was one voice in the Cabinet. Thank God we have gone a little way towards democracy and have two or three voices in this Cabinet! The hon. member for Fort Beaufort stands up and says, “We are not bringing up racialism” and then proceeds to say that a sheep inspector was dismissed, and he does not take anything else into consideration. He says he was dismissed because he served during the rebellion, and went to the front during the war. He is not attempting to play on the patriotic feelings of the people. Oh, no! He takes up this attitude that because a man has gone to the front or served during the rebellion he has a guarantee of a Government job for ever.

He has first-class testimonials.

No; the patriotism of the hon. gentleman and his associates has been in monuments for dead heroes and stones for living dependants—monuments to the dead and a lot of flag-wagging and talk about the Empire and the men who bled for the Empire. And his was the Government that reduced the pensions paid to the men and the widows and orphans. As far as the Minister of Justice is concerned, when he first spoke in connection with this police circular he distinctly stated that he would administer the circular in a broad spirit, and the hon. members opposite would not believe him. They sit quiet while they hear all sorts of filthy speeches coming from that side of the House and never protest. But when they hear something from this side that they do not like, they are very thin-skinned, and begin to talk about the dignity of Parliament and behaving like gentlemen and so on. There is another little text they should take to heart, that about “casting the beam out of their own eyes.” The Minister of Justice made a statement the other day, and if hon. members had taken that statement in the spirit in which it was given and had accepted the word of the Minister and then if any case of injustice had arisen later had brought it forward, I would have had more respect for them. One of the most disheartening things is chat the moment anybody on this side attempts to play the game we get a little bombast such as that we got from the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to-night. He tells us “We have made the Minister do this. We have made him recant,” and so on. I hope we have heard the last of all this racial business, because, as I have said, you cannot stir up one section of the Dutch community against one section of the British community, but you will stir up the whole of one race against another. When you attempt to stir up racial feeling for party purposes you are doing a great disservice to this country. You are playing a very dangerous game indeed, and our children will probably live to reap the whirlwind hon. members opposite have sown.

I want to reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) who said that members of the Public Service were against the Public Service Commission. That might be so in some places, but the general feeling is that the Commission stands between members of the service and any injustice there might be in making appointments. There is a feeling among the unmarried members of the service against the Commission, for recommending that they should not get the same local allowance as the married members. When the Public Service Bill was before the House in 1923, hon. members on the Government benches thought it of such great importance that three of the present Ministers served on the Select Committee. They felt when we come to deal with the pre-Union officers that their positions should be protected. Their feeling was that we should ultimately aim to get a bilingual service, but it was felt that these officers who had joined the service prior to Union should not suffer any disability through want of any language qualifications. So it was decided in section 100 of Act 27 of 1923 that members of the civil service should not sacrifice their rights as laid down in section 144 of the South Africa Act. That Act provided that all those officers who were in the service in 1909 would retain their existing and accruing rights. Through the action taken by the Government in regard to Mr. Lamont and Mr. Venn a slur has been cast upon their qualifications and in effect they are barred from further promotion. They were turned down by the Government after recommendation by the Public Service Commission. I should like the Minister of Finance when he replies to let this House and the public know what is the position of these unilingual officers in regard to any special appointments which may come about. Most of the cases have been dealt with, but I want to put this before the House that when the House unanimously agreed to the Act of 1923 the Public Service were protected, and they now feel that their rights are being frittered away by the action of the Ministers.

I regret that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is using the same arguments that he put forward in 1922 and also in 1923 in his endeavour to put British against Dutch. In 1923 Col. Mentz (the late Minister of Defence) said—

It is time the House took steps to prevent people stirring up racial passion. The hon. member for Illovo in this debate has used the same speech that he made use of in 1922 and 1923.

Quote my words and prove it.

The time is late, but these are the Hansard reports and the hon. member can read them.

Quote my speech, not the Minister’s.

Unfortunately the Hansard which then existed—the “Cape Times”—only states that Mr. Marwick criticized the Government’s policy, and stated that the Minister gave the reply I have quoted. In 1922 the hon. member was on the Government benches, and he was then stirring up racial passion, and he still continues to do so. It is time there should be some plain speaking on this matter. In this vast country there is room for everyone, whether Dutch or English. There is another matter which I wish to refer to. Has the Government considered the principle of not raising money through the Customs, but using the Customs only to protect the products produced by people living on a higher civilization? In other words, when the State raises money through the Customs it does not do so judiciously from all concerned, but generally penalizes the working man, as, owing to his large family and smaller salary, he has to spend a large proportion of his wages on the necessaries of life on importation through the Customs than people with much bigger incomes. Consequently the working man pays much more in customs duty than he ought to do. The Government should consider in fixing customs duties the fact that in many countries goods are manufactured by labour which receives much smaller pay than that given for labour employed in the manufacture of similar articles in this country. I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to eleven pairs of boots sold in a store in Cape Town, one pair of boots was manufactured in China, Japan, India, Italy, Austria, Germany, Britain and South Africa. Now for instance if the pair of boots cost 6s. in China, 6s. 4d. in Japan, 7s. 5d. in Italy, 8s. 3d. in Austria, 10s. in England and 11s. 6d. in this country, we should tax the boots from China equal to what it would cost to produce them in this country, that is 4s. I don’t want a tax on commodities, I want a tax to safeguard the economic conditions of people living in this country. We find England building cotton mills in India because there are greater profits. I see by blue books, that twenty-seven millions of capital was withdrawn from English industries and invested in Austria and Germany. I realize, as this country develops, importers will purchase in the cheapest market to the destruction of their own people in this country unless the Government steps in and puts a tax on commodities equal to the difference in the standard of living so that we can live on a higher standard. Remember that in history other nations have destroyed themselves by following the same principles as the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) advocates. I want this Government to take a proper and sound policy of safeguards in our economic policy.

I do not propose to detain the House long because this debate has been pretty well worn threadbare. I am sorry to see the hon. the Minister of Justice is not in his seat, because I wanted to put one or two questions to him arising out of his speech this evening. I wanted to ask whether a circular issued in 1921 laying down the procedure in the appointment of messengers of the court is still in force, and, if so, why did he not comply with the provisions of that circular in the appointment of Mr. Spargo as messenger to the court in Durban. The circular which I maintain the hon. Minister ignored reads as follows—

That provision of the circular was not complied with. A further provision is—

That provision of the circular was not complied with. The third provision is that the magistrate shall schedule the applications and forward them to the Secretary for Justice with his recommendation. It would appear from the Minister’s own admission that he made this appointment of Mr. Spargo without the recommendation of the magistrate, without the vacancy being posted on the door and applications invited, and without having before him the particulars which are specified in the second provision of the circular. I am very sorry that the Minister of Justice is not here to explain why he took upon himself to ignore the provisions of that circular which is in force at the present time. I must say his explanation as to why he took upon himself to appoint Mr. Spargo is one which, I think, is not regarded as satisfactory on this side of the House. Then again it would seem that he entirely ignored the claims of Mr. Sandys, who was at that time performing the duties of messenger of the court, notwithstanding that he was specially asked by Mr. Sandys to give him an opportunity of applying for this appointment. I would like to refer to what has been said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) regarding the Natal civil service in relation to this bilingual question. The hon. member professes to know all about Natal and all about the feeling of the civil service in Natal in regard to this question. I would ask him where he gets his knowledge of Natal from, and whether he has ever been in Natal. Let me say that I am in a position to know that the Natal civil service is to-day seething with discontent arising out of the report of the Public Service Commission and out of the debate on this question in this House, and the speeches delivered in this House by hon. members on that side, and particularly the speech of the Minister of the Interior. I think I may safely say that the speech which has been delivered by the Minister of Justice this evening will also cause consternation in the Natal civil service. The Natal civil servants have not the same facilities for learning Dutch like the members of the service in other provinces. At the time of Union Natal was practically entirely a unilingual province whereas the other provinces were all bilingual, and Natal is very much behind-hand in regard to knowledge of the two languages as compared with the other provinces. The provisions of the Act of 1923, if they are rigidly enforced, will mean that in 1928 the civil service will be closed to the people of Natal as an avenue of employment. There can be no question about that. There may be a percentage who are bilingual; but that percentage will be very small and it will simply mean that so far as Natal is concerned, the civil service will be closed to her as an avenue of employment, I take full responsibility for saying here that the provisions of this 1923 Act, which are to have effect in 1928, are going to be a source of considerable trouble and agitation when the time comes For closing the service to people who are unilingual. What has caused so much uneasiness in Natal at present is that apparently it is the intention of this Government to anticipate the provisions of that Act to this extent, that they will bar applicants for entry to the service who are not bilingual at the present time. That seems to be borne out by the treatment meted out to an officer who was in temporary employment in the service and who was recommended for permanent employment by the Department, but whose appointment the Minister refused to confirm on the ground that the officer was not bilingual. That is only one of several cases which have been brought to our notice, of persons who have been turned down because of their inability at the present time to speak the two languages, and others who have been refused promotion on the sole ground that they are not at the present time bilingual. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has stated, this is causing considerable uneasiness in Natal. I speak as a Natal representative and I know what I am talking about. I do hope that this apparent policy of the present Government in regard to this bilingual question will be revised and that the Natal civil service, at any rate, will not be victimized as some of those who were recommended by the Public Service Commission were victimized by the Cabinet subsequently.

Before you put the question, may I just reply shortly to one or two questions put by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has asked me the reason why the interest in connection with one of our Union loans was paid three days late. I have no information on the point, but I will ascertain from Pretoria what the position is. He also referred to a supposed shortage of half-crowns. This is the first time I have heard that this difficulty has arisen. The position is that the banks requisition for silver from the Mint, and as far as I know the banks’ requisitions have always been met. I have no information that there is a shortage of any particular coin. Then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has raised the question of the powers of the Treasury to spend money under the terms of the Appropriation Act. He has referred to certain criticisms contained in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General in regard to the action the Treasury took last year, that is before the present Government took office. As the hon. members know, the difficulty has arisen in connection with the interpretation to be put on the words “new service.” Of course under the Appropriation Act this Bill which I now propose the House should pass gives the Treasury no power to spend money on new services. But a difficulty has arisen as to the exact meaning of the term “new service.” The Controller and Auditor-General seeks to put a very narrow interpretation on those words. If his interpretation has to be taken the Government would not have the right to appoint an additional messenger, temporary clerk or policeman. Obviously that could not be the intention of Parliament, and I do not think it was the intention. If that interpretation is to be accepted, of course the service would suffer until the Government has the right to make those appointments. But the Treasury does in fact put a narrow interpretation on those words. I think the only sensible and proper course is that the Treasury must have the right to determine what is a new service. Unless that is so, difficulties will ensue, and in every case we should have to ask for a Governor-General’s warrant which in small matters would entail a lot of departmental work, and I do not think the House would consider that necessary in every case. The hon. member knows I would be the last person to ask that Parliamentary control should be interfered with in any way, and we will do our best to see that our interpretation of what is a new service shall not be very wide. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) has raised the question of the right mode of taxation, whether we should avail ourselves of going in for more customs taxation or other methods. I do not think this is the time to discuss the relative merits of methods of taxation, and I think the hon. member must await my Budget statement for an announcement as to the Government’s fiscal policy. I hope the second reading of this Bill will be agreed to.