I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

Mr. SNOW seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

This motion will, I hope, receive the support of hon. members on all sides of the House; I also hope that it will be accepted and that very serious attention will be given to the matter, as a most important principle is involved. After the fifth report of the Graham Commission came into the hands of the late Government, certain salary scales were adopted, but later on, owing to financial stress, lower salary scales were adopted, the date upon which these reduced scales took effect being March 28, 1923. These learners were in the service before that date as learners, but their final appointment was not given them until on or after March 28, 1923. They contend, however, that they joined the service at the date they physically entered it, which was prior to March 28, 1923, and they therefore urge that they ought to come under the higher salary scale. Very keen interest is taken in this matter by the service as a whole, which considers that the learners have made out a good case for consideration. It must not be forgotten that the fifth report of the Public Service Enquiry Commission laid down certain scales, but they were intended for normal times only. After the war the abnormal conditions were met by local allowances which were given to the service owing to the increased cost of living. After the announcement by the Government that it was going to reduce salaries by 10 per cent., a Conference met in Cape Town in May, 1923, and made certain recommendations. While the service representatives did not admit that the Government had the right to reduce salaries, they indicated, how, if reductions had to be brought about, this could most equitably be done. The question of the learners was left over for decision by the Government, and a general rule was passed that the revised scale applied to persons already provisionally appointed and new entrants to the service and officers promoted on and after March 28, 1923. The decision of the late Government went against the learners who were regarded as new entrants, they having been regarded as appointed on or after March 28, 1923. The Minister may say that a decision having been given that finally closed the matter. I say “No,” because after all the decision is only a departmental one as to date of entry. Really it was the state of our finances that determined the answer given to these men, and that is wrong in principle. Unfortunately, at that time, depression prevailed throughout the country, but certain things have happened since which have altered the whole situation. The decision has been given that for other purposes these learners entered the service before March 28, 1923, thus showing that it was recognized that they joined the service when they started their careers as learners, e.g.. the incremental date is the date of provisional appointment, and in this respect the learners are regarded as having entered the service before, and not after, the fixed date. Then it has been decided that their pensionable service dates from their earlier provisional appointment which was prior to March 28. 1923. The Public Service Act of 1912 defines an officer as a person who is employed in the public service and is paid by salary or wages. These learners comply with that definition. There is another respect in which they have been regarded as being officers of the public service prior to March 28, 1923, and that is in regard to the language qualifications of the Public Service Act of 1923. That Act contained a retrospective clause stating that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 15 should also apply to officers who entered the public service after July 31, 1912, and who were appointed to clerical posts in the administrative and clerical division between that date and the commencement of that Act. It has been decided by the public service commission that officers in the similar position to the learners entered the service before July 31, 1912, and not after, and are not subject to the new language clause. The decision was that they were in the service. Here are three important aspects in which it has been decided by the competent authority that men in the position of learners are in the service, viz., for the purposes of increment and pension and for the purpose of language qualification, as from the date of their provisional appointments. It is unjust to say that for only one purpose, that of not drawing the salary to which they claim they are entitled, they are to be regarded as not being in the service because their permanent appointment came after the fixed date. These young men came from the colleges and schools and joined the service when it was publicly made known that they would be encouraged in the service, that there were chances of promotion and the salary scales were put forward. These men say that if they had known that after two years’ service they were going to start at £120 and after 14 years’ service they were only going to receive £360 they would probably never have joined the service at all. Surely, when you induce people to enter the service by telling them that certain things would happen you should not treat that as a scrap of paper. They were induced to join the service and ought to get the higher salary. What they have been fighting for is a manageable salary, a salary they can marry on at 26. Many of them joined the service at the age of 19, but there is not a great inducement now to come and join the service. If the scale they approve had been kept in operation they might have had something to look forward to, but they have not under the new scale. I would like to refer briefly to the difference in the various scales. In the clerical division the scale for the third grade began at £160, then by increments of £30 to £190 and then by increments of £15 to £235. The proposed scale put before the Government at the conference began at £140 and went only to £200. The second grade commenced at £270 rising to £400, and the proposed scale was £220, rising to £360. The first grade began at £425, rising by £25 increments to £500 and the proposed new scale began at £370 and ended at £450. It was a very substantial reduction, as you see. The scale for the general body assistants in the Post and Telegraph Department was £140 rising to £400, etc. The new scale instead of £140 begins at £120 and rises by £10 increments to £140 and then by £15 increments to £200 and then by £20 increments to £360. I hope this motion will be accepted by the House and that the Minister will give earnest consideration to the matter. It seems to me that a case has been made out for a fair and equitable interpretation of these men’s demands. A large number of men are involved which I was told numbered about a hundred, but after conversation with the Minister it appears that the number may be nearer 200. If an injustice has been done it should be put right. Although the Minister may say it is an inheritance from the late Government, they must do justice whether they have inherited it or not. The matter should be gone into afresh and can be dealt with in the next session of Parliament. I move the motion standing in my name.

I second the motion. I will not go into details about these cases, but I would like to say it is one of the cases where an undertaking made by one Government should be honoured by its successor. There is no question these men entered the postal and telegraph services on the understanding that certain benefits would accrue, and without going into further details I would like to say the motion has my strong support. It is right that these men should be given the consideration they expected on joining the service and if it had not been for the anticipation of their treatment many of them would not have joined the service. I commend it strongly to the Minister’s attention and hope that these men will have their cases met very justly as they desire.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the member who has moved this motion, and after the able manner in which he had stated the case for the learners, I do not propose to go into any further details, but I think it advisable that any member of the House in sympathy with the motion would say so publicly. I do not consider that the financial aspect of the case should be the sole consideration in deciding on this matter. It is a case of where justice should be done, even if it costs a certain sum of money. These young men were brought into the service or a certain understanding and that understanding should be an honourable understanding, because they were parties to a contract and the other side have not carried out their part of the contract. It is from the Government side that justice should be done to these men. For that reason I support the motion.

I am thankful to hear that in any case one hon. member is found on the other side of the House who is prepared to rectify the mistakes made by the previous Government, and I hope that the attitude of the hon. member will also be an encouragement to the hon. Minister to try in this respect to do justice and to put the matter in order so that these 200 lads will be satisfied as soon as possible, for the simple reason that if we want to get as much as possible out of the public service we should do everything we can to make them satisfied as soon as possible. The hon. mover has made the matter clear. Apparently, as regards the section about bilingualism, the lads were met by the previous Governments, and, as regards pensions, they were also given what they had a right to. But now that two-thirds of the cup has been filled I hope that the hon. Minister who as is known also looks after the interests of the officials will fill up the other one-third of the cup and thereby bring about contentment in the service.

The Minister, I hope, will have no difficulty in accepting this motion, which simply commits him to considering the advisability of taking certain action. The hon. the mover has made out a definite and strong case, supported by facts which he has pointed out, and I hope these arguments will commend themselves to the approval of the House. It is a bad beginning if young men entering the Government service feel, whether rightly or wrongly, that a breach of faith has been committed with them. Above all, we want our public service to be contented and that contentment cannot follow if men enter the service suffering under a sense of grievance. I think the Minister will agree with me that the great thing to be aimed at is high efficiency, and high efficiency is not to be expected if members of the public service feel that they are labouring under a grievance. I am sure that nothing is more important to a country than that its communications, postal or otherwise, should be very efficient, and in first-class hands. We want to draw to our postal service a very high type of young man. I would suggest to the Minister that he would be well-advised if he accepted this motion now. It commits him only to consider the advisability of doing certain things. Later on, when his Estimates come up for discussion, we shall be able to talk more freely and in greater detail to each other, perhaps, on these particular matters.

I wish to add my few words to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), and I hope the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting the motion as it stands here. I do not know that any good purpose can be served by going into the history of past actions, but, whatever the circumstances may have been which actuated the late Government in coming to a decision, we are in this present position that we feel that our decision must be actuated by justice and justice only, and when we know that a number of men have entered the service of their country on certain conditions, I think that we, as responsible for the maintenance of the State, must keep faith with them. There is no doubt that they were induced to a certain extent to enter the service by the scales of pay as outlined in the fifth report of the public Service Commission, and when they were induced to enter the service of the State on these conditions, then we must not be guilty of a breach of faith towards these men. The circumstances have been outlined by the introducer of the motion, and there are very few facts remaining to be added to what he has said, but what is clear to us is that the action taken by the late Government seems to have been very artificial in the first instance, artificial in that the men were actually in the service and they were regarded as not being in the service. The action of the department or the Government seems to have been curiously contradictory. In the one instance these men were stated not to have entered the service before the end of March, 1923, and in the other instance decisions were come to, as put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), that men were actually regarded as having been in the service at that time. So we are in the unenviable position to-day that if we want to be consistent with the action of the late Government we must practice the same procedure of being absolutely inconsistent, and I think, for the honour of the House and that of the present Government, who wish to do justice to all, we can only urge upon the present Minister that he should reconsider the position in regard to these men.

I wish to associate myself with this motion for the reason that it would be an act of justice. I do not know where the question of Government comes in which has been referred to by a previous speaker, but I have not the slightest fear that, if the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs goes into the question, he cannot fail to see that these persons were actually in the service of the Government. I think the Minister should take into consideration the fact that these men were actually in the service when these new regulations were put into force, and I submit that in all fairness if a person joins the service on an expectation of reaching a certain position on a certain grade of pay, that grade of pay should continue at the same rate as when that person entered the service, and he should not be affected by any alterations. I do not wish to delay the House, but after what has been stated I do not think there is much that can be added, but this we can say that if these men feel that they have not received the consideration to which they are entitled they will continue in the service feeling that they were taken in under circumstances which were not adhered to. I do not ask the Minister to give this motion his favourable consideration, but I do ask him to give it his just consideration, and I do feel that if he gives the motion his just consideration, after the arguments which have been placed before this House, this scale of pay must be applied to every person who entered the service in anticipation of being paid according to that scale.

I only wish to say a few words to support the motion. It is impossible to go into the matter after the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). It is very clear to me that those learners who entered the service before March 1923 have not been treated fairly. They were promised that they would get a certain scale of salary but thereafter the promise was not kept and I think that it was unfair to treat them so and therefore I support the motion. The lads expect that they shall be entitled to the same scale of salary as was recommended in the fifth report of the Public Service Commission. This is very fair and, therefore, I hope that the Minister will meet the people.

I associate myself with the motion by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and I hope the Minister will accept that motion. Practically the whole of the ground has been covered by the hon. member. The young men in question were actually recruited and entered into a written agreement starting at a salary of £140 per annum, which, notwithstanding the agreement, was subsequently reduced by the sum of £20. I think the undertaking given by the late Government should be honoured by the present Government.

What undertaking?

I also wish to say a few words in support of the motion. The young lads who entered the service of the postal department were not treated fairly. Their scale of salary was reduced and in order to have a contented staff, and thereby satisfactory service, it is necessary to put the matter right.

I think we should not delay this debate any further; but I feel bound to contradict the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), who has been trying to lead this House to believe that the late Government had given the increase and that this Government had withdrawn that increase, instead it was a legacy left by the late Government. We are now appealing to the present Government to keep the original agreement that was made with the men.

I associate myself with the motion. There is no doubt these lads were given to understand that their commencing salary would be £140. When the agreement into which they entered was broken, we can understand what a disappointment it must have been to them. You could not do anything worse to the public service of this country than to take away the spirit of good faith which should exist between employers and employed. These young men are undoubtedly labouring under a grievance that the employers have not kept faith with them. I can testify to eight young men in my constituency, who were engaged on the understanding that they would get a commencing salary of £140, only to find that it was only £120. We should try and avoid any friction. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has put it so clearly that there remains little for us to say, except to express the hope that the Government will remedy this mistake of the previous Government at once.

What mistake?

I am told that some of these young men had actually gone so far as to appropriate moneys of the administration. That can be explained. If they feel they have been wronged, you cannot blame them for trying to get even. I am also given to understand that some of the lads have gone to Australia, because they feel they cannot get justice in this country. We must imbue our young men with the feeling of loyalty to service, and the sanctity of contract. I hope the Government will see its way clear to accept this motion.

When the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) brought this motion forward, I do not think he intended that we should squabble about it, or try to make political capital out of it. I gather from his speech that the main thing he wanted was justice for these men. Why should we be always looking for votes? This money is due to these men, and we would nicely and sweetly ask the Minister, please to take it into consideration and see that justice is done. I do not want votes out of it, and I am sure that a good many of my friends on this side, and perhaps on the other side as well, do not want votes out of it either. What we want is justice.

I have seldom seen the House in such a state of unity. All sides seam to be in perfect agreement regarding this matter. Such being the case, I hope the Government will take into consideration the advisability of applying the recommendations as desired. I should also like to draw the attention of the Minister to a similar case, a matter in connection with the railway. On November 23rd, 1923, new scales of pay were introduced by the railway administration. All new entrants into the railway service after the 23rd November, 1923, were to be paid about 10 per cent. less than those who were then employed. We have the position to-day that young apprentices coming out of their apprenticeship are being put on the scale which it was understood was only to be applied to new entrants into the service, and it is difficult to understand that. There is also the anomaly that you have a fully skilled man in some instances working for less than what a semi-skilled man is getting on the railways. For instance, the pay of an artizan, prior to November, 1923, was £1 a day; to-day it is 18s., and the apprentices who are coming out of their apprenticeship now are being put on the 18s. rate and working alongside their fellow-workmen who are doing exactly the same work but who are being paid £1 a day, whereas we have certain semi-skilled men on the railway getting 18s. 3d. a day. I hope, therefore, when the Government is taking into consideration the putting right of this matter of the postal and telegraph servants, and in view of the entire agreement that seems to have been reached in the House on that point, the Government will also take into consideration the position of the apprentices on the railway who have completed or are completing their term of apprenticeship.

It is necessary for me to support this motion and I do it for two principal reasons. The first is that the postal service is one that gives general satisfaction. The second is that it is a department that pays and therefore I consider it is necessary that we should meet them, remove an injustice and grant relief.

There are 171 of those particular learners in the Post Office and if the request were conceded it would cost £13,000 a year. If I could view this merely as a postal matter the problem would be much simpler than it is, but the principle applies equally to all men and boys who were in the service before the 28th March, 1923. It applies equally to the railway apprentices referred to by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). The railway apprentices came into the service under certain conditions with the prospect of getting certain rates of pay at the end of their period of learnership, just exactly in the same way as learners in the postal service. But in 1922 the Government then in power laid down a definite policy which was given effect to as from 28th March, 1923, and had there been so much agreement in Parliament then as there is to-day against what the Government did as from the date mentioned, those members who are now protesting and who sit on the other side of the House might have succeeded in preventing their Government doing something which to-day is regarded and even then must have been regarded as an act of injustice.

You are not going to reverse it?

What is the history of it? In 1922, the late government decided to reduce salaries in the public and railway services by ten per cent. and there was a controversy among themselves as to whether it should be a reduction not only in the case of entrants into the service, but also in the case of those in the service and they decided that they would not go so far as that. The Government then decided that the ten per cent. reduction should take effect as from the 28th March, 1923, and should not only apply to new entrants but also to every appointment and every promotion after that date. In the Public Works Department, we have learners in the architects’ and drawing offices who came into the service long before that date, but who were only appointed after that date and they are on the revised scale. The magisterial branch was hit as hard as anybody; in fact, one magistrate took the Government to court. He got his appointment in the early part of 1923. He was informed officially that he was promoted to a certain magistracy, which meant promotion to a higher grade, but he did not assume office until 1st April, 1923. He said: As I was informed that I had got my appointment beforehand and didn’t take office until 1st April, I claim to come on the old scale; but the court decided against him. The Government decided against him on the advice of the Law Advisers. It was held that he got his appointment as from the date he assumed office and not the date he was appointed. These learners that the hon. member refers to were given provisional appointments. At the end of 1922, many of them were entitled to their appointments, having qualified by the necessary service and examination, but in view of the late Government’s decision, the Public Service Commission said to these learners: We will give you provisional appointments on the scale, £120. That was the scale they had in mind and had been definitely given effect to, and they did this with one purpose only, namely that when the new scales came into force they would be applied to all those who were provisionally appointed beforehand and all those whose appointments were pending or held over, and hundreds of appointments were either held over or made provisional. These boys are one section only in the postal service. Since I took office I have had representations from first and second grade clerks, postmasters and other classes in connection with the same thing. This Government could not possibly concede the request and grant what these learners want without conceding the same principle to all others in a similar position in all departments of the Government service. It is not a postal question, but a policy definitely decided upon by the late Government and the time to protest was when we in the Opposition did protest If hon. members opposite had protested then, I do not think this harm would have been done. I agree with other speakers, that it is unfair, whether in the case of a learner in the Postal Department, a learner draughtsman in the Public Works Department, or an apprentice in the railway, that this policy should have affected all those in the service and who were expecting promotion on the terms that existed when they entered the service. But there is this to be said, that although they signed these agreements as learners, they also signed agreeing to a clause, which said that these conditions are subject to alteration if the Government so decide. While it is true it was laid down that there was a scale for the time being, it was also put quite clearly before them at the same time that this scale was subject to any alteration which the Government at any time might deem fit to make. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) refers to what appears to be an anomaly, and what to me was an anomaly, until I discussed the matter with the Public Service Commission some time ago, and that is for incremental purposes the date is taken not of appointment, but a previous date. For pension purposes also the date is not taken from that of appointment, but the date of provisional appointment or even earlier. The same thing applies in the case of language qualifications. When I queried the commission on this point they were quite definite, and said this was something which the Government could do within the law which would to a certain extent mitigate some of the effects of the 10 per cent. reduction. As the commission put it to me, these people are utilizing something which was done on the staffs’ behalf to mitigate the hardships of the reduction by using that as a lever and saying, “It is unjust if you don’t do something else.” The matter in 1923 was one of finance. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Mr. Burton are not here, but if they were I have no doubt they could enlighten the House on this question. They were determined by hook or by crook—whether it was fair, or just, or unjust—to reduce the cost of administration by reducing salaries. Their original intention was to cut down the salaries of those in the service by 10 per cent., but after consultation with those in the service, and after a good deal of deliberation, they decided not to reduce the pay of those already in the service, but to bring the revised scale into force in respect of new appointments, but all who were on the verge of getting their appointments were held over or provisionally appointed in order that this lower salary scale might be brought into effect as quickly as possible. Might I remind the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) of several conferences of temporary clerks held for the purpose of getting them placed on the permanent staff. Eventually they succeeded, but all these temporary clerks were appointed on the revised scale, although they had been in the service for many years. Again, women typists and shorthand-writers came in under the revised scale, and so also did third-grade clerks, who were in the same position as these learners. Hundreds and thousands of people have been affected in this way. The learners came in on a probationary period of twelve months or two years, and during that time the fifth report scale existed, but when they were appointed the new scale had come into force. Most of our troubles are not due to anything we have done, but to an accumulation of anomalies and injustices which the Government have inherited, and which we are now called upon to put right. If hon. members opposite are prepared to put another penny on the income-tax the matter may be put right. In the case of the Post Office learners, the cost alone would be £13,000. While I admit that we should not look at these things from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, if you concede this, then, in all fairness, all these temporary clerks, railway apprentices, magistrates, postmasters and hundreds of others ought to have equal treatment, if you are going to be fair all round. It is purely a matter of finance. The hon. member for East London (the Rev. Mr. Rider) asked me to consider the question, and I have done so, but we cannot re-govern the country or put the clock back to 1920, and put all these things right as if they had not existed. I will accept the motion, but under the circumstances I do not think there is much hone of its being given effect to. A glaring case of injustice which I tried hard to put right, but could not, has just occurred to me. Two girls applied at the Public Works office at Port Elizabeth for positions as clerks. They were told on March 23rd 1923, that their applications were accepted, and that they were to start work. They went to commence their duties on March 27th or 28th—the day before the new scale came into operation—but that day happened to be a holiday, and the department said, “It is no use starting work now, come back on Monday.” They went back on Monday and they were brought in under the new salary scale, although they were appointed before March 28th. I thought this very unfair, and I argued it out with the Public Service Commission. I will accept the motion, but after the explanation I have given there is not much hope of these men getting it without giving it to others who are similarly situated.

I do not know whether the hon. Minister knows what he has done. After his speech the matter cannot be left there. The hon. Minister says an injustice is being done. Speaking in his seat as a Minister, he has admitted that the measure of economy the late Government took was an injustice, and has told these civil servants, for whom the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) speaks, that they are labouring under an injustice in the opinion of the present Government. The House will see that we cannot leave the matter there. It is impossible, surely. That admission on the part of the Government of this country raises an entirely new issue, different entirely from the one raised by the hon. member for Hanover Street. The position of the late Government was simple. Two years ago we were face to face with a state of affairs which forced us to action. It was not a case of justice or injustice, it was a case of hard facts. The financial state of the country was such that any Government responsible for the financial administration of the country was bound to take action and cut its coat according to its cloth. We came forward with a measure of economy which, I won’t say the civil service approved of, but once the general lines had been laid down by the Government, the spokesman of the service, did in detail approve of it. We laid down in principle that there had to be a 10 per cent. reduction, and we called together the responsible officials of the service, and they said that on the assumption that there must be a 10 per cent. reduction they approved of the decision. We acted in the interests of the country under necessity, and the action was submitted to Parliament and was sanctioned by Parliament.

Why didn’t you exempt these people?

He has placed the Government in a very difficult position. We, as the Parliament, as the Government of this country, should hold up our heads. We cannot say to our civil servants, “You are suffering from a real injustice,” we cannot say that without taking further steps to remedy that injustice. That is the position the hon. Minister has placed us in. We acted under necessity two years ago, we had no option, and we put this measure of economy through Parliament. That state of affairs has passed away. We do not complain of hard times any more. We hear of abounding prosperity and rosy prospects for the future, and in these circumstances the hon. Minister will see the position of the present Government is entirely different from the position which was faced by us. The Government could have taken up this position and could have said, “Here is a measure which was taken two years ago and we are not going to re-open it. We don’t admit it is unjust or unfair. We are not going to argue the question again. It was done, and we are going to abide by it.” That would be a logical attitude, and there would be no reason to argue it, and whatever odium there was would have rested on the late Government. The hon. Minister has gone further and has perpetuated the position, and has said that what was done was a grave injustice; he laboured the point. If it is the official opinion of the Government of the country that injustice has been done to these men, not only in the postal service but in the railway service and other departments, if it is the deliberate opinion of the Government, then the matter cannot rest there. It was under a compelling necessity that we acted two years ago. If there is injustice there is an opportunity to-day to remedy that injustice, and if the opinion expressed by the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs represents the Government, then I say the matter cannot be allowed to rest there. They should go further and remedy the injustice. The public servants are entitled to look to the House for a remedy of this injustice.

I consider this a remarkable House. The one day we are all out for retrenchment and the next hon. members all want to spend money. We have had more than one instance of this. A few days ago we talked about pensions. Everybody agreed that the pension list with us is terribly heavy and presses very heavily on the taxpayer, but yet everyone wants to see a pension granted in the case he knows about. We have all received telegrams about the matter now before the House. I also received a telegram and I think that many hon. members were stampeded to-day without knowing what the effect would be. My experience is that if one once opens a door it is very difficult to shut it again. Here today a certain class of people come and if we have any money left for charity we should certainly all be in favour of granting some of it to these people but the point is that if the door is open the people in the other departments with the same rights may also apply. I have experience in this direction gained as a member on the Pensions Select Committee. You go and grant an application and then there come, I do not know how many others, who quote that instance. As regards the present instance I think that the pay is not bad. There are thousands of our young people who would be only too glad to receive the salary of £120. I think if such a salary were offered to our young people that the post would be over applied for 20 times. We said from the beginning that we had to make provision for unemployment. Here we have to do with young people who get a decent salary while there are thousands of unemployed walking the streets. Is it not our duty first to provide for them? Will anyone get up here in the House and say that the scale of payment to our officials is too low? Can we then just proceed and let the taxpayer pay for every application that is made? There are of course people who will be against me for voting against the motion but I say that it is a case of unreasonable payment. We talk every day of the great debt that we have and the heavy burdens on the taxpayers. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is now commencing to pay off our capital debt, but if we go on and vote for the expenditure of more money it will not do. We must be careful, and there are many matters which should first be put right by the State before we can indulge in things of this sort.

I remember when the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs came to Dundee in the course of the last election, he addressed a meeting of the public, when many civil servants and railwaymen were present, and in very resounding phrases he promised them justice if the then Government were turned out of office. He dwelt with great eloquence upon the wickedness of the Government in reducing salaries, and otherwise depressing the position of the wage-earners of the country, and told them “Let us have a change of Government, and we will put all these things right.” Now he is in office, he finds that he is responsible and he accepts this motion in a very guarded way, but he cannot help playing to the gallery all the same, he cannot forget his demagogue days, and, instead of dealing with this matter in the way a Minister usually does, he gets up in this House and tells the public servants that they have been suffering under gross injustice for two or three years. I think, with the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), that the Government are placed in a very awkward position in the light of that speech. They will be bombarded from all sides, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will be quoted by public servants and railwaymen as having proclaimed in Parliament that they are all suffering under a sense of injustice. If that really is the case, then the injustice ought to be removed. Of course, when he was indulging in electioneering, he never told anybody that the Government of the day had not the money to pay the salaries which they previously paid, that they were obliged to economize, and that, however much we might have liked to have kept things going on the old scale, it was a matter of impossibility because the money was not in the till, and if the day comes when this country is again faced with severe financial depression, and the Minister is in the position which we were in, he will find that he will have to do the very same thing—he will have to cut his coat according to his cloth. I am very sorry indeed that the Minister has given rein to his imagination in this way, because it places the Government and places Parliament in a very awkward position.

I was at first almost inclined to support this motion. Superficially looked at it seems as if an injustice has been done to certain people, but, on the other hand, I want to warn hon. members that no portion of the people are better off than the officials. We pay them well, and they have the guarantee of a pension when they leave the service. I know the position of the countryside and the insecurity that these people have, and I shall be the last man to vote for this motion. Members were in the commencement under a misunderstanding, and it is a pity that the Minister did not sooner make it clear how much money was involved.

I had not intended to take part in this debate this afternoon, because, in view of the numerous telegrams which have been going about, I knew there would be quite sufficient representatives to put the case of the public servants before the Rouse, but, after the astonishing speech of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, I do not think anybody in the House ought to keep quiet without expressing his view on the extraordinary doctrines the Minister has laid down, and the extraordinary position he has taken up. Here we had a simple motion put down on the paper, to all appearances an entirely non-party motion, and it would have been most regrettable if it had appeared to be a party motion, because questions of this kind ought to be kept quite distinct and apart from party, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) was the first sinner, because he made a great point about this being a damnosa hereditas from the late Government, a thing which, in the interests of the public service, he might very well have left out. He was followed by other speakers on the opposite side of the House, who also spoke about this as being a wrong done by the late Government. Whether the Minister fell into the trap or not I do not know, but there is no bait which he takes so easily as one which enables him to have a shot at this side of the House as the members of the late Government, when in power. Has the House ever heard of a Minister giving himself so completely away as the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has done? After declaring, while in opposition, that in a question of this kind £ s. d. should not be taken into consideration, he justifies taking up that very attitude of taking the question of £ s. d. into consideration, when he is faced with the question of dealing with what he himself admits to be an injustice. That is a most extraordinary position for a Minister to take up. I took his words down. He said that when they came into power, they found an accumulation of a number of troubles and injustices committed by the late Government. What that has to do with this question goodness only knows, but the Minister could not resist, in his inexperience as a Minister, having a shot at the late Government. This is bound to be a boomerang. He said that the late Government was determined, by hook or by crook, by fair or unfair means, by just or unjust means, to bring about a reduction of 10 per cent., and having arrived at a compromise which would not reduce existing salaries, but would reduce the scale for those who were to come in, they created a gross injustice. He said most definitely that the position, as it stands now, is a position of gross injustice, and that is the position after a compromise was arrived at with the public service, and the Minister knows it. The most unhappy man in the House for the last quarter of an hour has been the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He says we brought this about, but he says he cannot take this motion because it is going to cost £13,000 for this particular grade alone, and there will also be the cost involved by applying this principle to other grades. Is that the impression which he wishes the public to get of the Parliament of this country, that where there is what the Minister claims to be an admitted injustice, where there is the means to remedy that injustice, the Minister won’t take his courage in his hands and set to work to remedy that injustice?

We cannot re-govern the country for the last five years.

Fortunately not, and heaven knows what a legacy you are going to leave to the next Government when they come to govern the country. But I am dealing with the present position, and the policy now announced by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as being the policy of the present Government. In what I cannot help calling a most unmanly way the Minister shelters himself behind the alleged fact that this was the decision of the late Government. What is the Government doing with a majority of 29 and a surplus of I don’t know how many thousands of pounds? If they have not the power to remedy what they allege as a grave injustice, then the only alternative is that they approve of the policy of the late Government and are not going to depart from it. I do not care on which horn of the dilemma the Minister choses to impale his own Government, but I object to the dignity and the prestige of this House being imperilled, and I raise my voice in protest against the petty attempt to make a party score both on the part of the mover and of the Minister—who ought to be above it—in such a way as to lower the dignity, reputation and honour of this House in the eyes of the country. Of course the Minister is in a difficult position. He is one of those unhappy people who have a large number of promises to redeem, promises made when they either did not take the trouble to learn what the true facts were or when they knew better. But they now have to redeem them. I remember the way in which the Minister and others used to make the welkin ring with all this kind of thing. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has this afternoon had to admit that, one of his former chief grounds of attack has no foundation in fact, and that is the allegation that these people had their contract broken by the late Government. He had to admit that there was no such breach of contract at all. The question still remains, however, of what is the justice or injustice of the claim, and there can be two sides to that. The Minister said on the one hand that this was a real injustice, then he runs away from it. On what grounds? On the alleged grounds that it was the decision of the late Government, which could not be altered. He said in that humorous interjection of his—

It is not a question of re-governing the country; it is a question of redressing a wrong, if you believe it to be a wrong and if you have the power to do it and the means to do it. In these circumstances the position of the Minister and the Ministry is unpardonable.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says that the Minister has said that an injustice was done and he appealed to the Minister to undo the injustice. I agree with the Minister that an injustice was done but this is not the only case of injustice which was done by the previous Government. Many unjust deeds have been done. Does the hon. member approve of the money being paid out to those who have been treated unfairly in the pensions department? Will he be willing to pay compensation to all who suffered injustice under the former Government? The hon. member has not suggested where we should find the money. He says that conditions are again rosy. But there are many accumulated deficits which must be worked off and the people cannot bear the taxation. We are looking out for a reduction of taxation. I shall vote against putting right all the injustices of the past. We look to the Government to be economical and to save so that we can hereafter reduce the taxes. I agree with the hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg) that the officials are the most fortunate portion of the community. I do not see how we can spend more money. We cannot just vote in favour upon each telegram. We must first investigate what the position is.

I am not one of those who at the same time blow hot and cold about the same matter and who one day are in favour of economy and the following day of extravagance. I advocate drastic retrenchment because it is the only way of bringing our country back to normality in financial matters. I am very sorry for the people mentioned in the motion but if we tell those people that there are thousands and thousands of people in the, land who would thank the Almighty to be given their places and receive their cheque every month then they will understand the position better. Day after day people come to us, people who wanted to sacrifice their lives for the country, and we have to tell them that there is no money for them. We should, in the first place, provide for the people who require help most. As long as I have the honour of sitting in this House I will raise my voice against wasting public money. I will with the greatest of happiness vote against the motion.

The discussion this afternoon has been extremely interesting from more than one aspect. I have listened to the case made out by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and could not help being impressed by the justice and apparent equity of the case of the people for whom he was pleading. The note of dissention brought into the debate was brought into it by the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). Now these gentlemen have the unfortunate knack—at least it has not been altogether unfortunate up to the present—of still continuing a similar process to that which they employed before they got a majority at the last election. They cannot resist the temptation of using what appears to them to be a possible political tactic. It is singular that this is the second time the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) has done the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs a similar disservice. During the present session, when everyone on this side was commending the Minister’s action in connection with the air service, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) had to drag in the question of dropping bombs at Kuruman. Similarly to-day, when it was possible for us to deal straightforwardly with the question, he has widened the extent of the discussion by bringing in the matter of the Pietermaritzburg servants on the railways. Now I know from past experience of the Minister, that before he came to his exalted position he was a past-master at this game of taking political advantage of a situation as it arose. Those who have had to contend against him remember how he made the rafters ring on the question of the pay of the returned soldiers. What an injustice the Government were then imposing on the people who had fought the battles of the country! Not only so, but he has probably told the civil servants how badly the previous Government treated them. And then, when we come to-day—the first time in the history of this new Government when the case is presented to them—they say an injustice was imposed on you by the late Government and we cannot see our way to remedy it, because it is going to cost too much money. Has any person ever heard a responsible Minister make a statement of that description? If the Minister had done bare justice to the late administration and stated that in a time of stress and difficulty they had been compelled to curtail these emoluments, and we now “cannot start to govern again,” as he puts it; “we cannot raise these moneys to put things right,” not a word could have been said. But he cannot resist the temptation to score a political advantage over the people on this side; hence the whole of this discussion. Could there have been a more indiscreet statement made by any Minister than to tell a section of the community—

And he tells them in the same breath—

Can the Minister possibly have foreseen what the result of his words would be? Let me appeal to the Minister. What is going to be the feeling in Natal of all those civil servants who claim to have come under the circular of 1910 and were turned down by a Select Committee of this House consisting not merely of the Government but all sections of this House? What is going to be the feeling of these men when they are told that because it is too expensive they are not going to have any redress?

Which men?

The men who came in under the 1910 circular of the executive council of Natal. They petitioned Parliament, and the late Government and the pensions committee turned down their applications on the score of expense. There people will begin to marvel and to ask: “What is the Labour party going to do to satisfy us on the pledges they have given over and over again: ‘You put us into power and we will redress your grievances’”? It is one of the ironies of fate that the hon. gentleman now sits opposite and holds this particular portfolio and that he should be the first member of the new administration to tell all these people, the moment he has a chance to remedy their grievance, that—

If you cannot start governing all over again, why were you returned in place of the Government that has gone out? It takes a long time for these things to come home to roost. The Minister has a great deal to answer for in connection with the agitation he worked up on the returned soldiers question in other parts of this country; an agitation which he must have known was taking a considerably unfair advantage of the people who were governing the country at that time on a question which was agitating public feeling at that time. He did not hesitate to fix the responsibility on the Government of the day, not on the score that they could not afford to give the returned soldiers more money, but that the Government were administering an injustice to these men, and he is doing to same to-day. He must know, in the position he holds, that any wrong that may have been done, or apparent wrong, was the outcome of the circumstances that this country was labouring under at that period, and for him to say that it was a wrong thing that was done, places the responsibility on him and his Government to put the injustice right when they have opportunity so to do If he does not carry that responsibility, he should have hesitated before making that speech, and placing the full responsibility on the exigencies of circumstances. That a particular member like a Minister should be careful to explain that what was done was done through the exigencies of circumstances, and that his particular Government could not alter it, I can quite understand; but he deliberately makes the statement that it was an injustice, and that statement carries as a natural corollary the necessity for putting that injustice right.

I am sorry the hon. member who has just spoken has gone out of his way to make a party question of this matter. That kind of thing is not going to do the post office learners any good. In making this attack the hon. member does not give credit to the Minister for the work he has done. Since his appointment as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, he has done an enormous amount for the men in the post office, and as one representing a constituency in which there is a large post office vote, I can say that never have postal servants been so satisfied as they are to-day, because they know they have a Minister who is sympathetic to them and the same remark applies to this Government under whom an extra 9,000 men have been employed on the railways. If the hon. members on the other side think the Government on this side can put everything right which they have put wrong, in a few days, they are mistaken. It is impossible to do it. We cannot put things right in a week, although we may have said certain things in the election, it is absolutely impossible to clear up all the mess left by the South African party. There are certain things which they did which can never be put right, and that is the reason why the people turned the South African Party down. This is a question of expense and it cannot be put right. What a cry there would be from the other side if everything was put right, because it would cost the country something like £500,000 per annum. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) would stump the country, and the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) would say “Look how the Government is wasting money.”

You promised all these things.

Well, I admit it. We promised many things we cannot carry out, but the South African Party can carry out none of the things they promised. I have been sorry to see the civil servants brought on to the floor of this House and made a political question of. The South African party is trying to make the civil servants discontented. That is not the correct thing to do, for the civil service should be kept right out of party politics. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) who is shivering in his seat, and has a few postal clerks among his constituents, makes this motion an excuse for an attack on the Minister. The members of the South African party are responsible for the position in which civil servants of all grades find themselves to-day. The members of the S.A.P. promised certain things but turned them down, and now they blame the present Government because it cannot carry them out. I hope the civil service will not be used as a football of party politics. The civil servants do not trust hon. members opposite because they knew that if they get into power they will treat them worse than they are being treated now. We had some hope for the hon. member for Durban (Central); after all he is a decent member of the South African party, but he also has gone over to play what is a dirty party game.

The hon. member must not ascribe “a dirty game” to hon. members on the opposite side. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) must withdraw what he said.

I am quite prepared to withdraw that.

It is characteristic of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that he should make statements and then have to withdraw them. He is a past-master in throwing dust in the eyes of his constituents, but the little game will not go down here. They are keeping their seats by this method and by using the slogan—

The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs admits that the civil servants are suffering from an injustice, but says the Government are unable to rectify the matter. But the circumstances are changed to-day from what they were in 1923 when depression existed, for money is now flowing into the Treasury. Are the Labour party going to jettison another principle? They have already thrown overboard the Women’s Franchise. If the post and telegraph servants are content, as Mr. Barlow says, where is the need for this motion? If the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs cannot “deliver the goods” in this respect he ought not to sit on the Treasury benches,

It is very much to be deplored that the debate has taken this turn. The matter could have been dealt with quite dispassionately.

Don’t go for the Minister too much.

I think the time has arrived to bring the debate back to the line from which it should not have departed. I do not know a great deal about the different consequences which will be involved if the request is acceded to, but I have been asked by the postal men in my constituency to support this motion. It is rather unfortunate that possible consequences to any other public servants were introduced in this debate, for it would have been better to allow the Government to deal step by step with the matter. It does not matter how these difficulties originated—the task which the Government is faced with primarily is that of setting them right. It has always been asserted by members of the Labour party that the Government is in a better position to introduce model conditions of employment because it is a noncompetitive employer. That might be taken into consideration by the Minister when he deals with this question, and also the fact that there is no danger of his being jeopardized by doing the right thing as a private employer might be. There is another aspect of the case, and that is that these people who became learners did so on the distinct understanding that their services would be rewarded on a certain scale. I don’t think there has been any falling away of the Government’s financial resources, which justifies its going back on any expectations held out at that time. This motion has my own hearty support, and I hope the Government will not treat it with any lack of sympathy, but will deal with it on its merits and deal with it on the principle of whether it is right or wrong, and if they conclude that it is right they will act on it as justice must compel.

I confess my disappointment with the Minister’s statement in reply to the motion. I should have thought that here, at least, the post office officials would have found a friend at court, and their grievance would have received the justice it merits. On the one hand, we find the Minister declaring that this is a case of glaring injustice, and in the next breath saying he cannot possibly remedy the injustice. It seems he is depressed with the reception which his gymnastic effort has met with in the House. You can scarcely declare that these are cases of glaring injustice, and then with the power at hand to repair the injustice neglect the means of redress and yet maintain that you are on the side of justice. That is the illogical position of the Minister. He would have us believe that the late Government were the guilty party. He is the successor in office of the Government which was declared to be the wicked party who robbed the people, but surely now that he is the possessor of the booty he should put these people right. We have had the usual kind of statement from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who, in his customary manner, has left the House after making a speech. He said the civil servants did not trust the South African party. He seems to have forgotten recently that he said the civil servants did not trust the Public Service Commission. The Service Associations, after seeing his statement, passed a resolution giving the hon. member the lie direct, and said there was no foundation for any such statement. I venture to say that his statement that the civil servants have no confidence in the South African party is just about worthy of a similar amount of credence or doubt. I am glad to see he is in a repentant frame of mind, and confesses that he cannot carry out his election promises. A little while ago he passed a very bright joke off in this House as his own, which we discovered was made by John Bright years ago. The Minister now has an opportunity of redressing the grievance which he has declared to be a glaring injustice. He is never tired of trumpeting, whenever he speaks to the public, the good deeds of the Pact. He has recently issued a great manifesto to the people of Durban of what the Government is prepared to do for them and has done for them. If he would redeem the one promise of doing justice to these civil servants and give them this small measure of redress, we shall not only welcome it and support it, but we shall have a higher opinion of his consistency. The Minister has adopted a wholly inconsequent attitude in declaring this to be an injustice, and at the same moment literally turning up the whites of his eyes and saying he is unable to do anything to redress it.

This motion was brought forward by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) and not by any member on this side. We cannot, therefore, be accused of bringing it forward for political purposes. When he addressed the House I was fully convinced, as he was, that the Minister would unreservedly accept the motion. Not alone will he be disappointed, but the servants of the Post Office will be very much more disappointed than he is. I have been in communication with the post office officials in my own constituency, and I said to them—

But I find they are as bad, if not worse than the present Government. This Government says—

Some of the hon. members on the other side said—

Naturally the hon. Minister for Posts and Telegraphs expressed his sympathy with them, but sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef. The handy man of the Government, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) was not in the House, but he dashed in and had a conversation with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who tried to make him acquainted with what was going on, and he went to his seat and made a speech without knowing exactly what he was talking about. He deplored that we had dragged politics into the question, and referred to the loss of strength this party had sustained this morning. Well, the other side are always welcome to a renegade Englishman, because he will never make a good Nationalist.

What is the hon. member referring to?

I said a renegade Britisher will never make even a good Nationalist.

Is the hon. member referring to a member of the other House.

Yes, I am.

Then the hon. member must withdraw his remarks.

Then I will withdraw it, although he is not a member yet, sir. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs’ indifference to these matters whilst in office, is a matter of the greatest contrast to his forcible denunciations when not in office.

When I look at the face of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs I feel very sorry for him, and the reason why I am so sorry is that during the last two months I have had much to do with him and he has always met me. That is why I am sorry that he is in this position. The hon. members for Albert (Mr. Steytler) and Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) have spoken much about retrenchment. I am also much in favour of retrenchment, but when you see that an injustice is done, then I am in favour of the injustice being remedied. The hon. Minister has said that the injustice was done by the previous Government. If that is so, then the only thing he can do is to put the matter right. I hope he will still rise and say that he accepts the motion. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has spoken about a certain election. Well, if the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) wants to go into another place by the same tactics he is welcome to it. I only got up because I feel sorry for the hon. Minister. I hope he will still accept the motion.

I must express my utmost surprise at the new code of political morality that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has introduced into this House. Not long ago we had a homily on political honesty read us by the Minister of the Interior. After the tactics indulged in by the Minister of the Interior, this morning comes this new statement of political ethics from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I am not going to delay the House, but I would remind the Minister of the message to humanity which he recently sent out. He said that the Labour party has a message to humanity from the cradle to the grave, that Labour principles contain the essential elements of righteousness, truth and justice, that they were contagious, and that the infection was rapidly spreading. We can only hope that this infection won’t spread. There is contagion in the air, apparently, because the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, since he has been associated with the Nationalist party, seems to have been infected with this new code of political morality. We have had the case of women’s suffrage and various other principles which the Labour party stood very staunchly for when it was a question of talk, but when they had to deliver the goods, all we get is “jobs for pals.” One principle after another has gone, the poor man is being more heavily taxed, the people’s food is being taxed, women’s suffrage has gone by the board, and now we have the Minister in the most brazen and barefaced manner telling this House that, although the thing is unjust, he is not going to remedy it. I hope the country will take notice of this new system of political ethics and judge the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Pact Government accordingly.

I did not think of taking part in this debate, but after the speech of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs accusing the old Government of treating the postal employees unfairly, I shall not remain silent. I feel sorry for the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior, and the other Ministers if they get up here and honestly acknowledge that the old Government had acted unjustly, hut that the country could not afford it, then I could not do otherwise but support them in not carrying out this proposal. But as other speakers have said, they have the money to rectify the injustice, if the Government thinks that the old Government treated the officials unjustly, and so they ought to tackle the matter and put it right. It is one of the chief things that we heard in the recent elections from one end of the country to the other. We were told: Your Government does not treat the officials well. I knew that things would take this course. When one gets responsibility, then the position sometimes becomes a little difficult, and I can understand that the Government to-day finds the position a little difficult. One of the Ministers comes here and says that injustice has been done to officials and that he cannot rectify it. Why not? It is wonderful how the whole spirit has changed in the House. When the hon. member for Gape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) got up I thought that everyone would support him. I also almost supported him because I received a telegram from postal officials in my constituency. I thought that I would support it if the Minister thought that the people had been treated unfairly. One’s sins always finds you out. This is one of the chickens of the Nationalist party coming home to roost.

That is why you are sitting there.

That is why you are responsible, and I regret are too weak to bear the burden, although you are in a better financial position to carry it out than we were. I myself am in an awkward position. I admit it, but I am waiting for the other Ministers to say that the old Government Could not do otherwise, and that they acted in the interests of the country to keep down the salaries a bit. I agree with the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) that the officials are treated well. But this is not the only grievance that the postal employees have. Some of them have complained to me that they have a claim to promotion and that they are kept back. I shall be glad if the Minister will enquire into this and if he will treat the officials fairly. I shall not now say how I will vote, because I first want to hear what the other Ministers say. If they say that the old Government acted unfairly, then they must rectify the injustice, and then I will vote for the motion.

I have been very much gratified at the testimony to the work of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the affairs of his department, and I hope he will not forfeit his influence by the attitude he is taking as to the grievance referred to in the motion by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). Having made the admission he has made, his duty is clear, to accept the motion and let who will take care of the consequences.

I said I would accept the motion.

I intended supporting the motion and I am going to do so, but I must say that I regret very much that the hon. mover in defending the interests of South African civil servants should resort to the practice he has of late employed, of attacking the other side. There was no reason for him to do so.

Can you mention a single word in which I made such an attack?

What I am surprised at and what the hon. member must have been disappointed with is the statement made by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The Minister said a great injustice had been done, not only to this branch but to the civil service generally, but it has been done, he said, by the previous Government and now we are not going to remedy it. If anything has strengthened my intention to vote for this motion it has been this statement by the Minister. He said that a grave injustice has been done; and if that is the case let it be referred to the Government. We remember him when he was in a lower corner of this House and also on the platforms preaching against injustice; and yet here he says this has been a glaring injustice but it will cost £13,000 to put it right and he can hold out no hope that it can be put right. The Minister has been eulogised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) for the great services which he has done. No doubt he may have done good service, but he has also failed a good deal. The Minister has succeeded in advertising himself successfully, but he failed most signally over the Ocean Mail contract. I am only mentioning these matters just to let him know that all do not think he has succeeded in everything he has undertaken. He proved over the Ocean Mail contract that he could not negotiate and that he does not know when he is getting value.

It is a good job for the country and the farmers that we did fail, I think.

That remains to be seen: I am not going to accept the Minister’s word for that. He gave his word to the civil servants and other wage earners that he would redress their grievances, and yet here he says a grave injustice has been done; we have the means to remedy it but we do not wish to spend £13,000. Can they take his word? I am not going to take his word that his failure has been for the benefit of the farmers. I have pleasure in supporting the motion.

I must say that what struck me was the moderation with which the hon. member for Hanover Street put his case. Right through his speech, although he had an exceedingly strong case, he put it with very great moderation and with some measure of modesty. I cannot understand how anyone could discover even a vague attack on the South African party in the speech of the hon. member; perhaps an attack may have come from other directions, but certainly not from Hanover Street in this case. The Minister has certainly admitted that an injustice has been done, but I think the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has misinterpreted the attitude of the Minister to this particular matter. The question of putting right the particular injustice which is involved in this motion would be a comparatively simple matter. I do not think the Minister would hesitate for a moment if it was a question of a mere £13,000; but if I understand the Minister aright, the question involved indirectly as a result of this motion would be a good deal more than £13,000. I venture to say that if the injustices which have been perpetrated by the South African party from time to time were put right it would mean millions, and perhaps we would be occupied session after session in dragging up these injustices and endeavouring to put them right. Why should the Minister not tackle this one question? I would venture to urge upon the Minister that he should accept the motion, and if possible at the earliest opportunity recommend to this House—and I believe the House would accept it—the rectifying of this particular injustice. I do resent, however, this misinterpretation of the Minister’s remark with regard to his alleged refusal to put right this matter. That was not the position. I understood the Minister to say that his attitude was, it would mean such an enormous sum at the moment that he found it difficult to undertake the work. I urge upon him to tackle this question, and I believe he will have the support of the House.

The hon. and reverend member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) has made a very gallant effort on behalf of the Minister, but one hardly expected it to come from that quarter. I should have expected him to say, “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” He seems to think that we should let justice be done if it does not cost more than £13,000. I think the Minister made his position quite clear. I could have understood him if he had said it was a matter for argument as to whether men on probation were really in the service or not, and that these learners were not actually in the service and therefore would not come under that count. But the attitude of the Minister seemed to me to be unworthy of him. I do not know what accepting a motion by the Government means. I have always understood that if a Minister got up and accepted a motion it meant that he approved of it and was certainly prepared to give full and favourable consideration to acting upon it. But the Minister to-day wishes to acquire merit from the service by accepting the motion, but at the same time making it quite clear that he does not intend to act upon it, because it would cost too much. It seems to me that that is considerably worse than refusing to accept the motion and is not a straightforward way of dealing with the matter. It would be quite within the province of the Minister to say that he would not accept it, but for him to say that he would accept it but had not the slightest intention of acting on it, is to trifle with this House.

I suppose that in these days we should be surprised at nothing. I must certainly express surprise at the attitude of the leader of the Labour party. I think he is the leader of the Labour party at present. What surprises me is that to-day the Labour party should claim that the cost of anything should be considered. I seem to remember members of the Labour party shouting from these benches—

According to the Minister a wrong has been done, and yet he grumbles about spending £13,000 to put it right.

On a point of explanation I said that in respect of this particular section it would cost £13,000. I distinctly said that pounds, shillings and pence should not decide, but that it would be unfair to treat this particular section in this way when all departments were affected, and the thing would have to be reviewed in the broadest light and not narrowed down to this section.

The motion is quite clear, and I put it to the Minister. If it is a matter of only £13,000 why not right this wrong? What is the meaning of all this shouting we heard from that side of the House when you’re in a position to right a wrong at a cost of £13,000 and you don’t do it? All the utterances of the Minister in the past are of no value if that is the conclusion he comes to in this matter.

What about the railway apprentices?

We are not discussing them; we are discussing a definite motion, and I think the Minister should learn to confine his remarks to the motion. Then we would not have these political red-herrings drawn across the trail, and we would know the views of the Minister if not the views of the Cabinet. We do not know to-day what the Minister really means. He says he is prepared to accept the motion but is not prepared to act on it.

I did not say that. I said it would be considered.

I think there are too many points of explanation coming from the other side. We do not really know from day to day what the policy of the Government or the individual members of the Cabinet is. In regard to the post office I cannot be accused of speaking—as we, on this side, are sometimes accused of speaking—for the purpose of vote-catching, because the only post office we had in my district has been taken from us. Being quite independent of the post office vote I can with every confidence support the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). From the weak-kneed expressions of the Minister I would not have recognized that he ever sat in this corner of the House. His set of platitudes were quite incomprehensible. I think we ought to know definitely whether the Minister is going to accept the motion if it is carried by this House, and I hope it is going to be carried and accepted. We feel that if an injustice has been done, it should be righted soon. Surely the Minister will not admit he has not got the courage, and that he is allowing the time of the House to be wasted and saying “I agree in theory. I object to the S.A.P. in the past doing what I am doing now, but now I am in office I find it is the only thing they could have done.” We feel that the goods which are to be delivered have been paid for in advance, in error. A demand has been made upon the Minister, the goods have been delivered by placing the Minister where he is, and what is he going to give in return—a useless cheque.

The hon. member who has just sat down complained that he did not know where the Minister stands in this matter, but what the country wants to know is where the South African party stands in this matter. I have been trying to find out whether they admit that an injustice has been done, in which case they are entirely to blame, or whether they deny that an injustice has been done, and that for party purposes they are attacking the Government. It will be interesting to know how they can square their consciences, if they have any, and their statements in the House for the last twelve months, when they have told us that the great crime of the present Government is that it is spending too much money. If the statements of the Opposition about these grievances, and the necessity for righting them, are really honest and sincere, then obviously if they are repenting of the mistake they made in the past, they should follow the example another gentleman set them this morning in another place. But really, their appeal on behalf of the civil servants is not so sincere as their words will seem to indicate. I rather sympathize with the civil servants, on having the support to-day of the very people who committed that injustice, and who have waited until another Government is in power before they said “Our hearts are bleeding for these poor innocents.” We, on the Labour benches, sincerely hope that the Government will remedy this grievance. The Minister of Finance is naturally very cautious about spending money—a caution which is applauded by the Opposition—and obviously the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has to get the money before he can rectify the matter. But there should be no hesitation in spending public money in righting an injustice. The Government would be well advised to carry out the pledges that it made during the election, not only in respect of positive legislation, but also in undoing the evils of the South African party Government, however difficult and expensive and slow the process may be. I hope the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will make a beginning.

The hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) said he was amazed at the moderation with which the mover introduced his proposal. I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), and it seemed to me that he made out a complete case for these new entrants into the postal service. Unfortunately I was out of the House for about an hour, but I imagined the motion would have been accepted by the Minister. On my return, however. I was amazed at finding the position the Minister had taken up in the matter. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) helped that side very materially this morning in obtaining a great moral victory.

I am afraid the hon. member is irrelevant now.

I was pointing out the reason why I thought the Government would accept the motion from the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street), as he had helped them, and it was only natural that out of gratitude they should also help him. I was perfectly certain that the victory they obtained this morning would be a cause of great gratification to the hon. member for Roodepoort and to the Minister of the Interior. I am sure the country will appreciate the pass to which politics have come in this country, and appreciate the results of this morning’s proceedings. I was astonished the Minister had not accepted this motion. You have a body of young men, and we are losing sight of this point, a body of young fellows who have entered the service, and are we going to have these boys starting life disgruntled? Is it not much better, even from the point of £ s. d., that they should enter the service with a feeling that they have been treated justly from the very beginning? I urge the Government to reconsider the position entirely and accept the resolution of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). I am certain he has looked into the case thoroughly and has recognized the injustice, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs also recognizes the injustice, so whoever committed the injustice, let us put it right. I hope after this long debate we shall hear from the Minister or from the Prime Minister that he will see the Government not only accepts the motion but will carry its terms into effect.

This has, at any rate, been the most interesting debate to which I think I have yet listened, and what interested me so much was the unanimity in ideas, in feeling, and in expression; the unanimity in shortness, in preciseness, of every one that got up to express his feelings in the matter. The greatest unanimity prevailed; it was actually as if everybody depended on one and the same string. Someone pulled it and then all the marionettes at once jumped into line. Well, I must say that I admire the discipline in the ranks of the Opposition, a discipline which has prevailed right into the heart and understanding of the Opposition. But now I should like just to show what the matter is actually about. I just want that discussion should not remain confined to us, who are initiated into the secrets of the matter, but that the people outside also, who later will have to judge upon our actions in their interests, should be able to see how we have protected the interests of the people and how we stand with regard to matters. Now the Opposition, the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), drew up a year or so ago, when he sat here on the Government benches, the scale of salaries which according to his own opinion was much too high, and he then went and lowered the scale, as he says in consequence of, and in, certain circumstances. Now I want to tell hon. members opposite that the scale will again be increased, without giving us an opportunity of even considering the matter. Inter alia, it must be increased, even if it is only limited to a certain class of persons, namely, those appointed in the post office. The hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has clearly said here this afternoon, and shown that the matter cannot be confined to the postal department only, but that it would also have to be applied with equal justice to the other departments of the public service. And what do the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and his friends behind him ask now? The hon. member for Standerton knows just as well as I that a fairly large sum is involved. I think that it will amount to not less than £200.000. But the hon. member for Standerton and hon. members opposite, the same gentlemen who lowered that scale of salaries, come here this afternoon and want us to comply with this motion immediately, knowing what the results will be—because I presume that he is aware thereof—without taking account whether it will cost £100,000 or £200.000 or what not—because he says you say that an injustice has been done, and therefore you must rectify it.

The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs called it an injustice.

I am coming to that. The hon. member for Standerton gave the lead, and immediately everybody was unanimous. It doesn’t matter what it costs, the Government must immediately agree to pay this afternoon without consideration. These are the gentlemen who have been sitting here for days wanting to inform the country what great protagonists of economy they are in these latter days. Hardly have they been chased out by the people on account of their extravagance, or they go and sit on the other side and begin by painting all sorts of little pictures and telling us “retrench, retrench,” and again this afternoon, with the hon. member for Standerton in the van they say you must pay the money coute que coute. Now I just want to ask a question of the hon. member for Standerton. He has said here that the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said that the previous Government had done an injustice, but he remarked that was not so, we did no injustice; but if you say so, then you must go and pay the money. Did the hon. member for Standerton not say so?

Yes, that is the position.

Yes, that is the position, that according to the hon. member for Standerton no injustice was done. Is it not so?

Yes.

Exactly. The hon. member for Standerton said that no injustice was done but because the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said that an injustice was done, so reasons the hon. member for Standerton, we must go and waste the money of the country even if it amounted to £200,000 or £300,000, and if necessary, even more. Now I want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition again if he believes that an injustice was done. The hon. member for Standerton remains quiet. This is the position. Not one of the hon. friends opposite has the courage to say that an injustice was done.

That is what your Minister said.

That is precisely what I want to bring out, and over those words this great fuss is now put up, and there sit the great protagonists of economy and say that it does not matter if it costs £200,000 or £300,000 but that it must be paid. Hon. members opposite know quite well that it is all a game of bluff, but for that they are ready to spend £200,000 or more of the public money as long as they can make party capital. That is what hon. members opposite do knowingly or unknowingly. They have for years been occupied in that way in catching votes that they forget that there are also public interests to be thought of and the whole thing behind this display is the intention of obtaining party advantage. I admit that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is doing it unwittingly. But if he cannot catch any votes thereby then certainly other members opposite can. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Major G. B. van Zyl) has said that there is no longer a post office in his constituency and that he, therefore, cannot be out to catch the votes of the postal people. But possibly people live in his constituency who are connected with the post office and moreover he may, perhaps, be winning votes for his friends there. No, hon. members must not think that they can hoodwink the people with this stratagem.

Do you agree with what the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has said?

With what?

That an injustice was committed?

No, I will say why in a moment. Because I have always differed from the hon. Leader of the Opposition about justice and it is no injustice as far as this matter is concerned. I just want to remind the House of the instance when the Bewaarplaatsen were given to the mining houses for nothing. Then the hon. member for Standerton said that it would not be right if they did not get it for nothing. Then he gave the Bewaarplaatsen to the mining houses for nothing on the ground of jus and spes. And now I just want to say this to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that with reference to mines and other things, it has always been the case. If anyone hopes to be in paradise tomorrow and he is, in the meantime, prevented from getting there, then it is surely not right I was never much in love with that doctrine of justice. Now, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has said here this afternoon that at that time hon. members opposite went and took a resolution and immediately passed it into law to prohibit officials who were not yet officials, the learners, etc., who were not yet on the fixed establishment, but who were shortly after appointed from getting that higher salary which you prevented future officials from enjoying. This is what he said, and he added that it was an injustice that was done to the officials. Now it seems to me that it is of no consequence what name anything is called by so long as one says what the thing is. The hon. Minister, in what he said, did nothing more than what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) did a few years ago, when he said to the mining houses that it would be an injustice if the Bewaarplaatsen were not given to them gratis. I then differed from him. Perhaps I differ here again from my colleague, but I say that I must first know the facts. Now, what the hon. Minister has stated here this afternoon may be hard on some, but I do not consider it an injustice. As I have just mentioned, it may be hard for someone to get to the gates of paradise and then to find that the door is shut, but I do not call it unjust.

But the Minister said that it was unjust.

The Minister also said what he meant by injustice, and I say that the discussion this afternoon has been an unjustified waste of the time of the House. We must, I think, answer the question whether it is unjust, yes or no. If we come to the conclusion that it is no injustice, then I ask how hon. members opposite can plead for an expenditure of £200,000 or £300,000.

I do not know, but the Minister said it.

Then the hon. gentleman is just where I am but he has not the right to say that we, without any enquiry, must go and comply with the request which is made in the motion. And when I hear the hon. member for Rondebosch talk in this way then I ask what about his hon. friends opposite.

The hon. Minister said that it was unjust.

He said that he had made enquiry but he also said what he found out. He showed the baby to the hon. members opposite and said “this I call injustice.” The hon. member for Rondebosch cannot get away from it. The only point remaining is whether the naming of the baby was correct. There we have the right of differing from each other and I have the right of differing on this point. But we have not the right on that account to make all this fuss if we by injustice understand something else than he. I have listened to the hon. members opposite one after the other and allowed the matter to go on silently because it was so clear to me that they had all fallen into the trap. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has I believe remained out of it and it is very fortunate for him but it was really amusing to see how me lead was given by the hon. member for Standerton not to bother whether it cost £200,000 or £300,000 or more but to pay the amount. Naturally when we are called to account later by the people then they will not say that they supported us. Oh no, the whole matter this afternoon was bluff, and I think that we have heard enough of it. I entirely agree with the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that we are ready to accept the motion but I say this, and this has always been my point of view, that I will not make payments of public money to anyone because he honed to get something. And where that is the case I am afraid that we cannot give assistance It is of course possible that there are cases of another kind but as to the matter under discussion today I just wish to say this that I believe that the hon. minister did the best tiling in saving at once that we were prepared to investigate the matter and that if we found that something ought to be done, injustice or no injustice, that we would then be prepared to do something. But as I have said we shall not allow ourselves to be rushed by the other side to do what they want. I say that the Opposition is engaged in a very dangerous game. They have so often played dangerous games and so often spent and wasted the money of the people that I am not too much astonished that they want to do it again to-day.

We have listened to many extraordinary speeches from the hon. member opposite, but I do not think we have ever listened to a more extraordinary one than the one he has just given us. I am rather sorry for the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I am afraid this modern Samson has fallen into the hands of the Philistines and that they have cut his hair. The Prime Minister cannot have been here during the whole course of the debate. It is not a case of whether the late Government did right or wrong.

Isn’t it?

It is a case where the responsible Minister has informed the House that ever since he entered his department he has been investigating this and other matters closely, and he, as the responsible Minister, has come to the conclusion, to use his own words, that—

I never said that.

The Minister went on to explain that he had taken every opportunity to investigate these cases. He explained that the position in which they found themselves was entirely due to the attitude of the Government that had preceded them. He is a responsible Minister, and as a responsible Minister he told the House that he believed a gross injustice had been done. That statement goes forward from a responsible Minister of the Government to the public service of the Union.

Done by whom?

I am not discussing the question by whom. The gentlemen on the Treasury benches are responsible for the Government, and they have an opportunity with the majority behind them to right an injustice, thus fulfilling the Various promises they made on the hustings and “delivering the goods,” which has been a favourite phrase of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He says this means a matter of £13,000, which is a large item for the Government to face. He goes on to say that injustices have also taken place in regard to railwaymen and many other public servants. If that is the view of my hon. friend he should see that the necessary legislation is introduced to redress every injustice, and the Treasury should supply the necessary funds.

Will you support it?

I am not sitting on the Treasury benches. When the responsible Minister who belongs to a very large section of the Pact Government, who, I presume, has got the support of all his friends on the cross benches, says this, he now has an opportunity of using the influence he has in the Cabinet in having this redressed. The Prime Minister has told us that he does not agree with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. That is a very unfortunate thing. Knowing the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as I do, and the strong views he holds on this question and the various promises he has made, if the Prime Minister should stand in the way of the goods being delivered, I take it that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will see that he is delivered from the Prime Minister by adopting the only course which he constitutionally can adopt, and thus show his independence. It is useless for the Prime Minister or anybody else to try and bring the House back to what the late Government did. Statements are made in the House and the country for political purposes, and it is about time they should be brought home to the gentlemen opposite, who are so free in the use of these expressions. During the elections we heard of the gross injustices done by the last Government and of how unfairly they treated the public service. As a responsible Minister, there is no honourable course open to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs but to see that the Cabinet removes that gross injustice or to remove himself rather than be responsible for what he considers is an iniquitous position.

It won’t wash; it will not go down.

I have listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). He wants us to rectify all the injustice of the past. I ask him it he has never yet in his political career met injustice which he acknowledged as injustice and could not rectify? There are many such things in the country. There are, e.g., the officials of the South African Republic, who were kicked out by his friends without any compensation. He has acknowledged that it was wrong, but he cannot remedy it. There is another thing. The property of Germans was destroyed, will he not acknowledge that that was unjust, and must we now go and pay compensation to those people? The Minister has said that no injustice was done in his opinion. I do not wish to judge the matter, because I have not gone into it. This, however, does not mean that he is going to put the matter right.

You promised it.

No, such a promise was not given. It is often said that we made promises, but I should like them to mention specific instances of what promises were made. No one knows better than the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that injustice has been done in the country which cannot be remedied. It is in vain that he now wishes to make out that he is pleading for the interests of the postal employees.

I don’t think hon. members on the other side are performing a useful service when they seize upon every motion introduced on private members’ day, to make a little party capital out of it. Every time they get a motion that they can turn into a party question, irrespective of their opinion, the hon. members on that side immediately proceed to make a stick out of it with which to try and beat the Government. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is not thankful for much of what has fallen from the lips of members on that side. They have not advanced the cause of the civil service in South Africa by what has been said. They have not told the House whether they are prepared, in rectifying this injustice, to favour increased taxation to make up for the financial requirements necessary to redress the injustices they were responsible for. Their minds have but a single thought, they have two hearts that beat as one, on any question on which they can combine to beat the Government. When one contrasts the attitude of hon. members on the opposite side of the House, when the South African party Government took away the cost of living allowance, with the attitude which they are now taking, one cannot come to the conclusion that they are sincere. Can they tell us of any occasion when they stood up and opposed their own Government and the policy of the Minister of Railways, who was discharging thousands of men from the railways of this country? They come here and they set about Causing dissension on this side of the House and try to use us as tools for their own party purposes. We are not going to be used as tools of the Opposition. We have had our lesson. We have suffered for years under the Government of which hon. members opposite formed part, and as far as I am concerned, I will endure a great lot from the Government which is at present in power rather than return to the slough of despond that we were in under the late Government. I am in favour of rectifying this position, if at all possible, but I take up this attitude, that I do not expect the present Government to take over the country in the mess they found it in after the efforts of hon. members opposite, and in two or three months, or even in two or three years, to be able to bring the country out of the mire and put it on a sound footing and do everything that is necessary at once. The Government have to have a chance, and they are doing all they possibly can. What has been our experience of hon. members opposite in the past? Their advice to the Labourites here and the Labourites outside in the country has been, “Be sane men, be reasonable men, do not expect everything at once, do not go too fast; you are always asking for the moon. If you would only be reasonable, if you would only be content to have a slice of bread at a time, instead of trying to grab the whole loaf at once, you would get on ever so much better.” Let us contrast their present attitude with the attitude they adopted on the Wage Bill, when they appealed to the members on the Labour benches to adopt a reasonable attitude and to remember that the industries of the country cannot pay too high a wage, and they appealed to the Labour members to be reasonable and moderate and sane in their demands. Contrast this with the attitude of hon. members opposite to-day. Their hearts are now bleeding for the “bottom dog.” If hon. members over there are honest and sincere in their fight to raise the standard of living of the working classes, then I will give them credit for sincerity in the attitude they have adopted this afternoon, and not before.

Give us an instance of the sweating.

Will the hon. member give a £—

The hon. member is wandering far from the point under discussion.

In connection with this particular motion, every member of this House knows that there is no better friend of the working class in South Africa, of the bottom dog, than the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

Let us vote.

We know as far as the Minister is concerned everything that can possibly be done will be done for the lower-paid workers. Hon. members over there know as well as I do that you cannot expect any Government to do impossibilities. They have done their best and they are going to do a great deal more for the people of this country in the future than they have been able to do in the past. I, for one, am not going to rock the boat. Some of the members over there said there was no answer to the resolution, except to carry it out, and yet a little while ago they were telling us we must not have any fresh taxation, we must not do this and that, we are too extravagant, and the Government must study economy. Hon. members to-day ask if it is merely to be a question of £ s. d. or must we consider the human element? I only wish that argument permeated many of the questions before this House. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) said that if the Minister disagreed with the Prime Minister there was only one course, which, as a man of honour, he could adopt, if he could not force his view on the Prime Minister, and that was to resign from the Cabinet. If we go for lessons in honour to that side of the House we shall be serving under a very bad teacher indeed. Hon. members know perfectly well that Ministers are bound to differ on various questions, and if I may say so, the right hon. member was talking a lot of twaddle when he made that statement. I would like to ask members of the Opposition how much it would take to rectify the injustices which have been committed during the last fifteen years in South Africa by that Government? How many thousands of pounds? In conclusion, I want to say that I am prepared to accept the assurance of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on this question, because I believe he is a better friend to the people concerned than the hon. members on that side of the House, and I am prepared to leave the matter in his hands, to do the best he can in the interests of the civil servants. If this Government had started increasing wages and had put on taxes in order to pay for them, and had reduced the hours to eight a day all over the country, no one would have shouted louder than hon. members opposite. I feel that this matter, owing to the fact that it has been made a party matter, cannot be allowed to remain at this stage. I know there are many members who, under the circumstances, wish to speak on this question. If this debate had not taken the party turn which it has taken, it would have been through hours ago, and the responsibility for the delay rests on the members on the other side who make it a party question. In view of the fact that many members of the House wish to speak on the question, I move that the debate now stand adjourned.

seconded.

I hope the hon. member will not press that motion. It is private members’ day, and me motion has been fully debated. The Prime Minister said the Government accepted the motion. What is the object, therefore, of moving the adjournment? It will simply shelve the matter. This is a motion concerning a definite body of men who have a definite grievance and I appeal to hon. members to let the House come to a vote at once. I am willing to waive my right of reply.

Mr. WATERSTON withdrew his motion.

Original motion put and agreed to.