I move on behalf of the Minister of Finance—

This Bill is brought up as a result of the adoption by the House of the second report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The amount disallowed by the Controller and Auditor-General is £130,695 17s. 1d., of which £124,933 19s. 1d. is on the vote for “Pensions.” The deficit of this vote is due to the retirement of a larger number of officials than was provided for in the estimates of expenditure 1923-’24; to large payments for the commutation of pensions and to an underestimate of the sum required as contributions to the various pension funds as a result of the passing of the 1923 Pensions Act. The shortage on the vote was not discovered in time to ask Parliament for further additional supply. The deficits on the other votes do not call for any special comment. I may say that the different items have been before the Select Committee on Public Accounts and are recommended by that committee for payment.

Agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.

The railway and harbour servants are, I understand, looking on the provisions of this amending Bill as the first real attempt on the part of the Government to “deliver the goods,” and friends of railwaymen in the House, it is not at all likely, will do anything to retard the speedy passage of this measure through the Assembly. Every big business concern has found it to be a paying proposition to deal generously with its employees, and in Henry Ford’s “Life and Work” this has been proved right up to the hilt. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has already pointed out how thoroughly this Bill entrenches the rights of railwaymen, but he doubted, to use his own words, whether the turning of the railway and harbour men into a privileged class would make for sound business administration. If any member takes the trouble to read the report of the General Manager of Railways for the last financial year he will find that it discloses a striking indication of very steady progress towards prosperity. No fewer than six records have been broken during the last financial year on the railways—the biggest surplus of earnings over gross expenditure, the most passengers carried in any one year (4,500,000 above last year), the largest train mileage, the greatest goods revenue, the greatest goods tonnage, and the greatest tonnage of cargo shipped from the Union ports. I think the railway and harbour servants deserve well of this Government, and anything likely to promote harmony between the administration and its servants is surely a step in the right direction. The chorus of approval in favour of this measure has been such that one is diffident in even submitting a mild criticism of certain clauses. In Clause 3 the railwaymen will appreciate the security which this clause gives them in so far as their emoluments are concerned. Clause 4 reads—no person shall be appointed to the service unless he has resided for not less than three years in South Africa. I quite agree that we should look after our own. I agree with the slogan of South Africa and South Africans first, but I would like to point out to the Minister and to the House that there is a possibility of this clause creating hardship in certain circumstances. Let me give an instance. A man and his wife recently came from Scotland to settle in Natal with their five sons. They are the type of emigrant desired in this country. Three of the boys speedily obtained employment in different capacities, but it was found difficult to place a youth of seventeen and another of nineteen. The father decided to make railwaymen of them. He approached the local authorities with this object. I may as well read the reply received from the local stationmaster at Pietermaritzburg—

This was somewhat unfortunate, because these two lads were the stuff that railway men are made of. There is a proviso to this clause which provides for the employment of certain men in higher grades, but I hope this proviso will also be exercised in special cases such as I have just mentioned. Clause 6 states that no certificate of permanent employment shall be issued to any servant who has had less than two years’ continuous employment, and where such certificate is withheld after the period of two years, a servant shall on application be entitled to be given the reasons therefor in writing. This particular matter has been responsible for much discontent in the past. One of the witnesses giving evidence before the Select Committee to which the 1923 Bill was referred, put the attitude of the men very clearly when he stated—

Another witness stated, in evidence before the Select Committee of 1923, that in the Pretoria blacksmiths’ shop, 45 per cent. of the men are not on the permanent staff. Some of them have had over six years’ continuous service, and, therefore, they feel they ought to go on the permanent staff. I think this will be a means of removing a great amount of discontent on the railway, for if a man is not now allowed to go on the permanent staff, he will, at all events, know the reasons therefor. I trust the administration will also take into consideration the position of the men on construction works. Some of these, I understand, have been for twenty-five years connected with the railway service, and many of them have had continuous service since Union; but whenever they have made application to get on to the permanent staff, during the last five years, they have been told that the matter is receiving attention. I take it that under this clause a real reason will be given to the men employed on construction work as to why they are not admitted to the permanent staff. With regard to language qualifications, clause 8, some misunderstanding has been caused in connection with this matter in Natal, and this is largely due to the fact that soon after the present Government came into power a questionnaire was circulated, asking each railway employee if he could speak and write Dutch, and how long He had been in the service. This had a very disquieting effect on railway servants in Natal. I understand that this particular circular was subsequently with drawn, but the harm had already been done. The Minister of Railways has now made it perfectly clear that the language qualifications were only to be demanded of those who came into direct contact with the public. But it says in one of the clauses that no person, after the expiration of five years from the commencement of this Act, will be admitted to a clerical post in the service unless he has passed in both official languages at a prescribed examination. This will show those who desire to take up the railway as a profession, exactly where they stand. In so far as those already in the service are concerned, I submit to the Minister that it would be quite a good idea were he to establish classes in Natal, whereby the railway workers could acquire a knowledge of Afrikaans. If it is the desire of the Minister—and I take it is his desire, judging by what he said on the second reading of this Bill—that every railway servant should have a working knowledge of both official languages, I suggest he should do everything possible to assist in the direction desired. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) takes exception to any employee appearing personally before the Railway Board, but on the Day of Judgment he will also have to appear personally, and many railway men are of opinion that he will have a lot to answer for, grand old man though he may be. I thoroughly agree that a man should be accompanied at an inquiry by a trades union official. It is men like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who are responsible for the appointment of full-time organizing secretaries in the trade union movement, to take part in negotiations with employers, and to tell many employers the home truths that the men themselves could not afford to say. I also agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) that the men should in certain circumstances have the right to engage legal assistance. In looking through the report of the Select Committee of 1923 I find that much evidence was taken on this point, and one witness said—

The present Minister of Railways was a member of the Select Committee of 1923, and he asked one witness, a Mr. Lancaster—

The reply was—

Surely, under such circumstances, it would be advisable to allow legal assistance. I wish to congratulate the Minister on withdrawing Clause 23 from the Bill, for it has always been a most objectionable clause. We are endeavouring to bring about conditions of employment on the railway and elsewhere, which will, we hope, make strikes unknown. Men never go on strike because they want to, but because they are obliged to. Every avenue likely to lead to a settlement of an industrial dispute is always explored before the men decide to go out on strike.

How about sympathetic strikes?

There are circumstances when I agree even with a sympathetic strike, because an injury to one worker is an injury to every worker. The provisions of the Bill go a long way towards the prevention of strikes in the future.

Even a sympathetic strike?

Yes. Clause 26 has it that if a dispute cannot be amicably settled, there is machinery for the appointment of a commission of impartial persons to investigate the causes of the dispute and to make recommendations in reference thereto. Not less than one-fifth the total number of each grade of the service affected have to sign a petition for the appointment of such a commission. And then the Governor-General may, in his discretion, appoint a commission. If one-fifth of the men think it necessary to have a commission, it should not, I consider, be left to the discretion of the Governor-General or anyone else to consent to the appointment. The request should be granted. There is a very wide power given to the administration in clause 32. It would be foolish for one to object to the administration having power to make regulations, but the men say that the number of regulations are confusing. It is impossible to know what new regulations there are until they have been contravened in some respect or other. I hope the Minister will see in future that employees get the staff circular. Sub-clause 2 of the same clause says that different regulations may be made to suit the various requirements of the different classes of employment in the service. Quite so, but they should not be made too often. Altogether this Bill is a vast improvement on anything we have previously had in the way of railway legislation. It will promote greater harmony between the administration and the staff, and I cordially support the measure.

I want to point out a weakness in this Bill although on the whole it is a good one. There is a paragraph dealing with appeals which says that appeals shall be made to the general manager and then from him to the railway board and that their decision shall be final. I want the words—

deleted. A charge may be brought against a man and the case may not be properly presented. The railway board in considering that appeal will be guided largely by the reports of officers who have enquired into it and the matter would go no further if the man were dismissed. I want the courts of the country opened to every employee in the service. If it is laid down in any law that a certain procedure is final, the courts will not interfere in any way. There are cases the Minister knows about. There was a case in East London where the officers enquired into a serious charge against a conductor. The man took the case to court, with the result that the magistrate passed severe strictures on the officers who were supposed to have conducted this enquiry. There was another case of a hysterical woman who complained that a steward had been molesting her by banging at the door and it was found after enquiry that the train steward was not at the time on that part of the train, hut that the train, on entering certain points, had lurched, and another passenger passing along the corridor had bumped against the door. The matter was at once investigated by the chief steward and the facts ascertained from several passengers who witnessed the occurrence. Had there been no one about, and had the chief steward taken the lady’s version, the young steward would have been in a difficult position, and there is no doubt whatever that the railway board would be greatly influenced in its decision by the report of the chief steward. After the railway board has given a decision the courts of the land should be open to the employee, and at the committee stage I shall take the liberty of moving that.

I have kept in close touch with railway men in my constituency and I have realized how absolutely necessary this important measure has become. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on giving the railway men a service Bill which is going to do much in assisting to make the service a more contented one. A contented service, in spite of anything to the contrary the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) may say, means an efficient service and efficiency is economy. If that argument is correct then this measure will do more towards reducing rates, which seems to he the only object of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), than all his wage reductions and retrenchments.

Wait and see.

We are content to wait and see, and I think that next year we shall be able to convince him of the correctness of following this policy. I would ask hon. members to consider one other point. They have asked for this Bill to go to a Select Committee. Speaking for the railway men this course would not meet their desire. The railway men want this Bill as soon as possible and the administration want it. I appeal to hon. members, therefore, not to press that point. Coming to the Bill itself I think section 4 (3) which deals with South African qualifications of railway employees is a sound one. There is no doubt that what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) says is true. There are cases of hardship and will be under this section. But hard cases make bad law. We have all had the experience as to the difficulty of getting work on the railways for Dutch and English speaking South Africans. It is not that we wish to refuse oversea lads an opportunity of getting work, but we realize that our own South Africans have that right first and are entitled to expect that they shall be treated preferentially. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) made mention that there are certain qualifications necessary which you cannot find in South Africans and mentioned the example of railway stewards and waiters. I cannot accept that statement. I, myself, in the last two months have been trying to get employment for a South African waiter with the highest qualifications, and who can speak three languages. He is a most efficient man in his work, and I have been trying to get him work in that department, but I have failed. We have had the experience, and we know of cases of men who have come to the country and in about three months have been able to get work as stewards on the railway, and men such as the one I have referred to go without work.

Why should they leave that one out?

I don’t know, unless there is a feeling of sympathy towards a man who comes to the country and finds himself stranded. The fact is that every member in this House has had that experience of trying to get South Africans work on the railway and has found that they have constantly been turned down. Coming to the more important clauses in the Bill, 5 and 6, which deal with temporary servants getting permanent positions on the railways, I think that is a question which more than almost any other in the railway service caused discontent, and I think these two sections will perhaps give as much satisfaction to railway employees as almost any section of the Bill. As I read the sections, the position now seems to be this, that within two years an employee can be permanently appointed if he satisfies the general manager as to the desirability of his appointment, and at the end of five years he has an inherent right to that appointment, subject to certain qualifications. I do not think the position could be placed more fairly than that, at any rate at the present moment, and I feel that the men, at all events those with whom I have come in contact, will be perfectly satisfied with those provisions in the Bill. Under the heading of discipline and appeals we come to section 18. I wish to touch shortly on the question of allowing railwaymen legal assistance and to join with those hon. members who have impressed on the Minister the desirability of allowing the men legal assistance and to ask the Minister to seriously re-consider that point. It must not be forgotten that the railwayman, if he loses his job, is thrown on to the streets, he has become more or less specialised in his work, and he has the greatest difficulty in finding work after that. If the Bill is scrutinized it will be seen that in cases of serious misconduct the most grave consequences can follow and the most serious of them is, of course, dismissal of the employee. After all, that penalty means that the employee loses his whole chance of a livelihood. I do submit in cases at any rate of serious misconduct the Minister ought to grant that privilege to the employees on the railway. I do not say that in cases under section 17 (1), minor misconduct, where an employee can be reprimanded or cautioned or fined, it would be necessary to give him the right of seeking legal assistance, but I do say that in cases under 17 (b), serious misconduct, that privilege ought to be granted. Personally, I think the railwaymen would be satisfied if the privilege were curtailed and granted to them only in cases of serious misconduct. I do not wish to touch upon the Bill to any further extent. Most of the different sections have been dealt with and it would be merely repeating what has already been said and repeating the praise that has been given to this measure. But I do feel that this measure will come as a considerable relief to those members who represent railway constituencies, in helping them to solve many of the difficulties which in the past they have been unable to solve, while at the same time giving to the employees that which every man is entitled to, a greater measure of security in his job. As far as the men themselves are concerned, the Bill will give them a greater measure of security than they have ever had before, and, after all, security in one’s job is the greatest thing one can aim at. For that reason I congratulate the Minister upon this Bill.

When Parliament is not in session there can be few members who travel by train more frequently than I do, and perhaps I may be allowed to make a few observations which arise from the considerable knowledge I have gained of the conditions under which the railwaymen are employed. With regard to Clause 9 of this Bill, there is considerable dissatisfaction on the part of a great many of the older servants by reason of the fact that promotion which, under the staff regulations is nominally based on efficiency, has been to some extent influenced by favouritism, as seniority is disregarded. This has given an opening for the promotion of people who stand well with the headquarters staff and whose services, perhaps, come into the limelight to a greater extent than the man who is in a remote corner of the province, and who continues his services without the opportunity of bringing himself before the headquarters establishment. It is felt undoubtedly that a considerable amount of favouritism has crept in in connection with promotions. The suggestion has been made that instead of laying down the rule that promotion should be governed by efficiency, that seniority should also be considered. There are cases where stationmasters of 25 years’ standing have been passed over on several occasions, simply because they have had no particular hold with the head office, and their claims to promotion have been overlooked. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration, and, if possible, introduce some modification of the principle so as to take into account the length of a man’s service in addition to the very necessary principle of efficiency. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) referred to the application of the language clause to Natal railwaymen. The operation of the bilingual barrier is a matter felt very acutely in that province. For the first time in the history of railway legislation we propose in this Act to lay it down that nobody shall enter the railway service unless he is qualified in both languages. I do not demur at equality of opportunity, equality of freedom in both languages, but I wish to lay before the Minister in a temperate manner, the difficulties under which the railwaymen labour at the present moment. One of the most prominent clauses of the Act of Union lays down that the railways shall be conducted on business principles. The clause which lays down equality of the two languages says that both the English and Dutch languages shall be the official languages of the Union, and shall be treated as being on an equal basis and enjoying equal freedom, rights and privileges. The position is that five years after the coming into operation of this Bill you require that the first essential is bilingual qualification on the part of a man who wishes to enter the railway service. His business capacity, his particular qualification as a railwayman, his experience in dealing with the public, his particular fitness for the many-sided duties that fall to his lot, are subordinated and made subservient to this one qualification of being bilingual. That is going to operate very harshly in Natal, where there is no opportunity of acquiring colloquial knowledge and experience of the Dutch language.

Why don’t they learn it?

The hon. member says why don’t they learn it. I should like to place him in similar circumstances, where he is able to learn, say, for one hour a day or less, from a teacher who is, himself, perhaps, not qualified to teach the language. The difficulty in getting qualified teachers has been a real one in Natal up to the present. The position in regard to the learning of Dutch in Natal is that with the exception of an infinitesimal number of schools, the children are taught Dutch as a subject very much under the same conditions as the French language is taught in an English school. There is no opportunity of learning it properly, and no opportunity of colloquial practice. The result is that when these children leave school, and apply for employment in the railway department, they will be immediately met with the difficulty that they are not qualified in Dutch, and they will be debarred from entering the principal State service of the province, which in the past has been open to them; and the main principle of which is, that it shall be run on business lines. That seems to me to be going a great length in the direction of doing the antithesis of what we should do if we desire to carry the people of this country along with us. If the great majority of people in any province are to have their children debarred from entering that service, I say with due deliberation, that you will provoke, not harmony and goodwill, but a feeling of resentment and hardship on the part of a very large section of the community. Before the Minister goes to this length, he should be able to point out to us that the railways of Natal in regard to business principles are lagging behind the rest of the Union. The reverse is the case. I make no apology for what I say in regard to Natal, although some hon. members on the other side seem to think that we should speak with blushing and confusion of countenance when we plead for our province. Natal pays her 20s. in the £, and she intends to make her voice heard in this House, as she is entitled to do. I do not say this in any aggressive tone, but merely in vindicating my right to deal with this question, though I wish to do so in a temperate manner. The position is this, in regard to mineral and goods traffic, more than 50 per cent. of the revenue of the Union comes from Natal. Natal constitutes 7 per cent. of the area of the whole of the Union, and in railway mileage has only 10 per cent, of the railway mileage of the Union. Yet, out of £19,838,000 earned in respect of railway and goods traffic for the Union, Natal contributes £9,973,000. There are 15,000 miles of railway, of which there are 1,400 in Natal. The harbour work shows a similar disparity entirely in favour of Natal. 4,410,000 tons are handled by the harbour at Durban, 1,354,000 at Cape Town, 499,000 tons at Port Elizabeth, and 421,000 at East London. I wish to point out that the Minister himself is rather prone to take an extreme view of this language question. Those of us who have sat in this House since 1920, will feel I am doing him no injustice in making that remark. In 1921 the Minister asked a question with regard to unilingual appointments, and he was replied to by the late Minister of Railways.

What about the unilingual Dutchman?

I will deal with that in a moment. He was told that there were 3,027 who understood English only, half of whom had been appointed in Natal. To most of us who know the position in Natal, that would have seemed a reasonable proportion. The Minister, so far from accepting that as reasonable, took the earliest opportunity of showing what his attitude really was. That question was asked in June, 1921, and in July, 1921, we find the Minister protesting against the way in which the Dutch language was treated, and saying in connection with bilingualism on the railways that too many appointments were made in the railways of people who knew only one of the official languages. The unilingual Dutch-speaking numbered only 216; so we can only assume he was referring to the appointments of the 3,000 men, one half of whom had been appointed in Natal. I do not propose to comment on the Minister’s attitude on this question, but I do remember how intensely he seemed to feel these things, and how he lost no opportunity of referring to them and bringing them to be discussed on the floor of this House. I should prefer to quote the opinion of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and the opinion of the Minister of Defence given at that time on account of the attitude of the Minister of Railways towards these questions. The Minister of Defence asked “whether it was going to insure goodwill if Mr. C. W. Malan got up and made an impassioned row because an official had written to him in English, a language which he understood. He did not say it was the hon. member, but if there were ill-conditioned people writing to officials in Dutch as a sort of ‘smelling-out,’ would they get the peace and goodwill they desired?” That was a comment by the Minister of Defence in July, 1920, as a result of the attitude of the Minister of Railways in those days. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs went almost to the same length. After listening to the hon. members for Humansdorp and Calvinia, he said: “He found it exceedingly difficult to understand the mentality of hon. members on the Nationalist side. For hours and hours they dragged this racial and language question on to the floor of this House. The less they had of this racial talk the better it would be for all parties.” I think up to now I have been studiously moderate on this question. I have not spoken a word to which an hon. member could take exception. Now we come to the position of the Minister’s attitude in introducing the present Bill. He introduces, for the first time, a prohibition against the appointment to the service, after a certain date, unless the entrant is qualified in both languages. I should be the last to demur to that if opportunities existed in our schools, and outside of them, which would admit of children in Natal learning the language and using the faculties they have for qualifying themselves in the same manner as children in other parts of the Union. Natal has never been a bilingual country, unlike the Free State, the Transvaal and the Cape. Before 1916 Dutch was not taught in the schools, not even in the private schools. I do not bring these circumstances forward as a complete reason why this restriction should not be introduced; but I do wish to indicate the difficulty and hardship which the Natal candidate for the service is going to labour under if this provision is strictly applied. The Minister in introducing this Bill said nothing as to the tests that were going to be applied. Under the Cape Consolidated Education Ordinance it is clearly laid down that for teachers there shall be equal tests in both languages; that is equality of tests in English and Dutch. There is nothing in the form of the present Bill which would give any such safeguard to those entrants who are to be faced with this prohibition in five years’ time, and there is no doubt that the clerical man in the railway, who has had to submit himself for examination hitherto—the English-speaking man—has found it very difficult indeed to pass the examination to which he is being subjected. I have a letter from a young railwayman who is by no means a dullard, as he has passed, with honours, in subjects at the Durban technical college, which is attaining to university standards. He says he has been on four different occasions endeavouring to pass the examination which has been set by the railway administration in the Dutch language, and on the last occasion he obtained only 68 marks out of 200. He has paid tuition fees, and has been obliged to travel at his own expense from his post, in his own time, at late hours at night; has travelled to the nearest town to endeavour to learn the language, and by every means in his power has sought to qualify himself and render himself able to pass this examination, but he is now up against the barrier; is in the position of having to suffer a reduction of pay, and has had to come to a standstill, owing to his failure to pass the examination. He points out that the education standard of the railwaymen hitherto in Natal has been the ordinary sixth standard of the schools in Natal; but he points out, with justice, that the examination he has been called upon to pass in Afrikaans is far ahead of that standard. He submitted the paper to persons qualified to judge, and they state that the examination approaches the matriculation standard, and that it would be difficult for anybody excepting a matriculation candidate to pass the examination. The Minister the other evening said there was no objection to these language clauses in the railway, even in “gallant” Natal, and I was one of those who demurred to what I considered was a flippant reference to the province I represent, and, the Minister said he intended it as a compliment. In other words, I suppose we may take it is a “soft” answer. But I am tempted to say it was a “soft” answer in more ways than one. It would take a good deal of imagination to believe that the Minister really meant it seriously. I am inclined to think that the interjection of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels), that the Minister should have said “loyal” as well as “gallant” was perhaps the more accurate disclosure of his attitude towards this question. So far from the view being correct, that there is no objection even on the part of Natal towards these language clauses, there is the strongest objection on the part of the younger railwaymen. A young railwayman writing to me, emphasizes that objection, and says he believes that if the rules would permit, a very largely signed petition would emanate from the railway service in Natal asking for further consideration in regard to this matter. You have for the first time the application of the principle that on a certain date the barrier to the unilingual man shall be a barrier in respect of salary and not in respect of grade. A railwayman recently writing to the “Salstaff Bulletin,” stated that whereas hitherto it was possible for a railwayman to continue for nine years without being brought up against the barrier, he would now be limited to five years in which to qualify as a bilingual officer. That is going to bear very harshly on the younger officials in Natal, who have made themselves efficient as railwaymen and who are carrying the brunt of the railway service on their backs. The effect is going to be very largely to cut off from the railway service the supply of men who have proved the very best material in the past, namely, the sons of railwaymen themselves. I have a man in my mind who is to-day one of the most promising, efficient and able railwaymen in the whole of the province. If the rule is to be laid down that no one may enter the service unless he is qualified bilingually, the men who have hitherto grown up in the atmosphere of railway discipline and punctuality will be completely cut off, so far as Natal is concerned, from the railway service. The railwayman I spoke of was able, at the age of nine , to work a telegraph instrument, at eleven he was able to make out his father’s returns, and at twenty he was a stationmaster, and to-day he is one of the most able stationmasters we have. It seems to me that if business principles are to be the first consideration in the equipment of the railway staff, we must give consideration to these factors, and must realize that in regard to Natal more time must be afforded for this bilingual qualification. Many of us have been disillusioned in regard to the time which it would take for the unilingual Englishman to qualify as a bilingual official. Can it be wondered at when we find that the medium through which instruction has had to be taken has been a matter of considerable doubt and uncertainty until within the last fortnight? We all welcome the introduction of Afrikaans as a recognized medium under the Act of Union, and there was not a single member of this House who raised any note of demurrence or objection when the Bill was introduced. The evidence of the Select Committee which dealt with that matter shows very clearly that the necessity for introducing Afrikaans was dictated by the fact that the Dutch-speaking people, rather than face the Nederlands medium, were resorting to English. The evidence of Dr. Viljoen (Superintendent-General of Education for the Cape Province) shows that very clearly, and surely that is a good reason why the Dutch-speaking members should be prepared to give further consideration to the English-speaking official who, when he has learnt Dutch has not an opportunity of practising it. In reply to the hon. member for Winburg (dr. van der Merwe) Dr. Viljoen stated that if Afrikaans had not been introduced he thought English would have become the general South African language, and Afrikaans would have been considered good enough for the kitchen. If that difficulty exists in relation to the Dutch-speaking students, it must be held to exist to a still greater extent in regard to the unfortunate unilingual Englishman, who has not only the disadvantage of having inefficient teachers, but also has no opportunity of either learning or practising the language in the routine of his work. I do plead on behalf of the railwaymen of Natal a more generous recognition of the difficulties under which they are labouring. You have a body of men who are to-day the most efficient railwaymen on the whole of the establishment, and yet owing to the accident that they are serving in a province where they have no opportunity of making themselves proficient in this language, they are to be subjected to an injustice which they have not deserved. The Minister is going altogether too far in interpreting the language clause of the Act of Union in the form in which he has transposed it into this Bill. The measure, in most of its provisions, is a generous recognition of the railwaymen’s position, and I don’t doubt that railwaymen throughout South Africa will welcome most of the provisions of the Bill. But I do say, without fear of contradiction, that the unilingual Englishman in Natal will feel that he is not being treated with the consideration he deserves, and that this Bill is a form of tightening the screw in a manner which is not justified.

You are trying to sow discontent.

I disavow any such intention. I am speaking entirely with a view to prevailing upon the Minister to give more consideration, and not to cause discontent but to remove it where I know it undoubtedly exists. I am not speaking only of the English-speaking man or the man of English origin. In my own constituency there are a considerable number of South African Germans who are railwaymen, and who find it difficult under the present conditions to qualify in Afrikaans, although their home language makes them more apt students of the Dutch language than the English. I know one young man who went regularly from Pine-town to Durban to a teacher in an endeavour to become proficient in Dutch. When he went for the examination he completely failed and he felt that it was an unfair provision because he did his best to master the language, being put to considerable expense in the process. This man took his examination papers to the local teacher and asked his opinion on the paper in relation to the standard they had been called upon to pass in English, and the opinion was that the paper in Afrikaans or Nederlands was a more difficult one than they had been asked to pass in English. The very difficulty experienced in endeavouring to learn the language is a circumstance that gives rise to a feeling of injustice, because these railwaymen were originally admitted into the service on a sixth standard basis, and yet were called upon to pass in the Dutch language in a much higher standard. If you realize the conditions under which these men work you will find that their very duties bring home to them that they are penalized for a qualification which in the ordinary 8 or 12 hours’ working day they are never called upon to bring into use. They are much more required to have a knowledge of the language of the people who preponderate as passengers on the railway. The native people are at a greater disadvantage because of their inability to read or write, certainly much more so than is the case with either of the European sections, who are well educated and able to take care of themselves. There has been no reluctance on the part of railway officials to avail themselves of their opportunities. They have gone long distances to qualify themselves and have found it impossible up to now to attain to the standard laid down, a standard too high for the necessities and needs of their daily occupation. If the Minister were prepared to engage the services of an instructor to travel round the provinces to give instruction to the men desirous of becoming bilingual, and for which they would be willing to pay a moderate sum, there would be some earnest of the desire on the part of the Minister to assist these men where hitherto there has been no such evidence. It has recently been brought to the attention of the Minister of Education that the classes in Afrikaans and Dutch at Pietermaritzburg have been discontinued, but no remedy was suggested by the Minister, and the public servants who were willing to learn at those classes have now to make their own arrangements.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I did not intend taking part in this debate but after what the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has said about the so-called injustice which is being done to Natal I feel that I must say a few words. I wish to say to him that the farmers in my district also very often get no opportunity of talking English just as little as people in Natal get of talking Dutch. Then he said that the railways should be run on business principles, but I just want to ask him how it would go with a business where the business man cannot talk the language of those who buy goods from him? Such a business will naturally fail. He will be the first to complain if the man with whom he wishes to do business cannot talk his language. I think that now after having given twelve to fourteen years time to become bilingual we should no longer adduce those arguments. The officials unfortunately never made a commencement with learning the second language, because they did not wish to learn it. Now five years longer is given and I cannot see how they can still be dissatisfied. It looks almost as if Natal was not included in the Union. The hon. member for Illovo is engaged in inciting the officials. They would submit to this provision if he did not make that kind of speech. If there are farmers in my district who only speak Dutch then my advice to them is that they must also learn English, and every Dutch-speaking child must be told that it should also learn English, and every English-speaking child should also learn Dutch. An end must now come to the unsatisfactory state of affairs. We must not now say: it will be time enough in five or ten years to be bilingual. The other day it happened that I asked where one obtained tickets. The official indicated some place outside the station. I noticed that he was referring me to the place where one gets tickets for the races. Such conditions must now stop.

This measure has been accepted by the railway employees as an indication of the honest intentions of the Government. There is, however, one point which has not been brought out in the discussion on the Bill and I do not know whether the Minister has purposely tried to keep it out of the discussion. I refer to the differentiation in the various branches of the service. I am sorry to see that the Minister has not taken the bull by the horns and eliminated this pernicious principle. If you take this measure to-day you see a careful distinction made between an employee and an officer, and in clause 11 you find a distinct differentiation between officer and employee with regard to conditions. I do not know whether the Minister proposes to deal with this question of differentiation, or where, unless it is the regulations at the end of the Bill. There is no provision made in the regulations at all, they are not even mentioned there unless it is under the omnibus clause, number 1. This pernicious system of differentiation has been one sore point in the railway service. There has been differentiation between the running staff and the daily paid men, and to show how this point acts against the latter employees, take the case of where an engine driver with 20 years’ service had a son who was taken on as a clerk and after one year’s service the differentiation was that the clerk on the fixed staff received one month’s leave in the year and the engine driver who was at laborious work and long hours found himself only entitled to 14 days. Right through you have this sort of kid glove drawing-room distinction made between the employees in the railway. That engine driver, when he takes his annual leave at the end of the year, is, under the regulations, entitled to take out a second-class ticket to any part of the Union, while his son, who is working as a clerk, is allowed to travel first-class to any part of the Union. I think the Minister would be well-advised if he left out this differentiation, and made the railway employees one class of individuals. I know the Minister is in a very difficult position, because he has to deal with a long-standing state of affairs. I hope that, if there is any opportunity of the Committee stage, the Minister will see that this line is definitely dealt with in the Bill. Take, for instance, the case of a station-master and a night-foreman who does his work. You will find that the stationmaster has a complete staff there during the day to assist him in his work, but the foreman who has to do his work at night, without the assistance of anybody else, is on the daily paid staff, and is not entitled to the same privileges as the station-master. This line of demarcation is not only injudicious, but it is bad and it leads to a good deal of friction. Take another point, the clerical assistants have the privilege of participating in public holidays, for which they get full pay, while the daily-paid men are not entitled to have any of these holidays at all. It is this kind of thing which is causing a good deal of friction. The Minister, I know, intends as far as possible, to remove friction from the railway service, and I hope even at this stage he will, if possible, remove that line of friction which is taking place in the service to-day. I particularly wish to draw his attention to the fact that there seems to be no provision in this Bill to deal with the whole question of holidays, and I think it would be well if the Minister looked into that point.

There are one or two points I would like to accentuate. The first is this question of double trial. I recognize the difficulty, possibly, of the administration, and they are right, maybe, to claim what they are claiming, but, judging by past experience in connection with these matters, there have been very few cases where an opportunity of double trial has presented itself, and I would ask whether it is worth while, in the circumstances, for the administration to cause dissatisfaction by continuing this system. In all probability a man has been tried before a court on a major charge and the other charge that is preferred against him is of a minor character, and I do submit, with some experience of some of these cases in the past, that you cannot draw the line of demarcation in anything like a manner that is bound to act equitably. Four or five cases of double trial have, in years gone by, been debated in this House. Let us take the case of an employee who goes through all the anxiety of a trial before the court, and is subsequently acquitted. A very minor matter is then brought up against him, and we all know that human nature is largely imbued with the idea: “Well, we want to get rid of this fellow.” Another charge, as I say, is put up against him, and I do submit and I am sure those in responsible authority also feel, that the double charge trial is dangerous in the extreme for the men. When a man is put on this second trial, no consideration is given for the former case whatever. This point is one which, I contend, should be very carefully considered, and one which in committee, I hope to take further action on. I suppose it is generally admitted that in so far as the campetency of management of our railways is concerned, the general manager occupies a very high position indeed, but there is one question which, I think, calls for some attention regarding strikes. With all due deference to the experience of the railway department, I submit that their action in the past has not been a proper one. I want to go back a few years. It is said that Napoleon said that every soldier carried a marshal’s baton in his knapsack, and I make bold to say that every leader in a strike who gets dismissed carries a seat in Parliament owing to his dismissal. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) should keep the general manager’s photograph in his room, and every time he goes to bed he ought to salute it and say That is the man who made me.” His dismissal put him where he is to-day. He would have been working in the Salt River workshops, but you made a hero of him.

He is better off now.

I have no doubt that he is very much better off, seeing that he associates with my hon. friend opposite. But is that a proper way of getting better off. I know of a large employer of labour in the ship-building industry, who made it a principle that no man who took an active part in a strike should be dismissed. He said he had a better method—he always made such a man a foreman. I remember a number of years ago there were two men who took part in an agitation in Port Elizabeth. Sir Edgar Walton, the late member for Port Elizabeth (South-west), and I prevailed upon the men not to strike. Why should those men have been dismissed, for there was no strike? If every agitator were sent to prison, there would be very few men left in Parliament. I would suggest to the Minister and to the general manager of railways, who is getting old now, that it would be a magnanimous action to reinstate every man who had been dismissed. It would not only be a magnanimous act, but it would be a just act. I do ask that the Minister will take this into consideration. A question was asked by the member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) in regard to the boatmen employed on lighters. There are no boatmen in my constituency, so that I cannot be accused of vote-catching The Minister must know something about these men. Surely it will be possible to make some arrangement so as to give them the benefit of the superannuation fund. Otherwise their position is that at 60, after having brought their families up respectably, they are turned adrift without a penny in their pockets. Having reached the age limit they find that there is no further use for their services. Surely they are worthy of some consideration from the country which has had their services for so long a period. I congratulate the Government upon the advance made so far as this Bill is concerned. In regard to what has been said about differentiation of passes, surely some means could be devised by the general manager or other experienced men of altering the present system of passes. A large number of our young men on the railways follow their fathers into the same service. The position now is that very often a son, who is a clerk, travels first-class, and his father, because he drives an engine, travels second. Surely, there must be some way in which we can avoid separating members of a family. I again thank the Minister for the efforts he has made in this Bill.

The discussion upon the motion for second reading has, I think, clearly established that there is fairly general agreement on the terms of the Bill, and that I was right in saying in the first instance that the Bill was more or less an agreed Bill with all members from all sides of the House, and that the provisions of the Bill, having been thoroughly threshed out in Select Committee in 1923, more or less represented the feeling of the House on these different points. Many points have been raised during the discussion, which I think ought to be discussed in committee of the whole House. I do not propose dealing with all the smaller points raised, but there are certain outstanding features which have been discussed to which I wish to refer. The first, and perhaps the most important point raised, is the position of the Superannuation Bill and the measure introduced by the Government dealing with increased benefits. I hope to be able to publish a Bill in the “Gazette” and introduce it in this House during the course of this week. Hon. members will realize that in the case of a measure of that kind it is far better to submit the Bill to the different staff organizations and to have the opinion of the superannuation committee—who, I am glad to say, have given it their approval—than to rush the Bill into the House and then to have a lot of discussion and difficulties. I fully agree with hon. members that the Superannuation Bill is most important and should be put through this session. Many of the points that have been raised really have reference to the Superannuation Bill, and should be reserved for discussion when that Bill is brought in the House. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked me a question in regard to the Widows Pension Bill. I am not dealing with that subject this session, but I hope next session to deal with what is certainly a very important matter, and to which the staff are looking forward. Another point which has been dealt with by hon. members on all sides of the House, and which is undoubtedly of great importance, is the question of the legal representation of a man who may be in difficulty on charges of misconduct, or other charges. It seems to me that hon. members who have pressed this point have not fully studied the Bill, because if they do so they will see that clause 19 deals with the whole position, which is now on quite a different basis to what it was when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) introduced his Bill. The principle is here laid down that when a man is charged for any misconduct, he has the right of calling to his assistance a fellow servant. But this Bill goes much further than that. If the offence is one of a serious nature involving a fine of over £5, dismissal, reduction in rank or emoluments, or both, or enforced resignation, the administration will pay the wages of this fellow servant, while he is appearing. It seems to me that that goes very far in meeting the wishes of hon. members, because the position now is that the man in difficulty can choose his own fellow servant, who may be at a different depot or a different station, and ask him to assist in his defence.

Why not let him have anyone he likes?

I shall deal with the question of legal assistance. But there is the further point that the court which is trying this man is a court constituted in the manner laid down in the Act, namely, the judges are one servant who is nominated by the administration, but the other is a man of the same class as the servant who is accused. It seems to me that that fact disposes of the argument that your court may be prejudiced. It is not a court of ordinary officers. The man, when he comes to the appeal board, has already been found guilty by his superior officer, and it is on appeal from that decision that he appears before the appeal board, and it seems to me that we sufficiently protect the interests of the servant. But suppose we grant this right that legal representatives may be appointed—let me say to the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr, Alexander) that nothing was further from my mind than to cast any stigma on the legal profession by excluding them. But if you do that, you would naturally have to bring in the legal adviser of the administration, as you must be just to your servant who lays the charge, and to those who are sitting on the board. I have grave doubts as to whether legal assistance will be of more value to the servant than his fellow servant. In the service you generally find one or more men who are more or less acquainted with the regulations, and they are asked, on different occasions, to appear for a servant.

A sea lawyer.

I think it would be wrong, both for the man and for the administration, if we allowed this right of legal representation. It would mean turning the appeal board into an ordinary court, and where would you end? There would be a waste of time. With all due respect to the legal profession, I say a lot of time would be spent, when in many cases the case can be disposed of without any difficulty.

A member of the public service has the right of legal representation.

Yes, but in the railway service you have a business concern, and you must deal with the case quickly. You cannot have the case hanging over the head of the man and the department, and we should be able to dispose of these cases as they arise. We take steps in the Bill to deal with cases of ordinary misconduct, and to have no record against the servant. They can be disposed of by a reprimand or a small fine, and the man can resume his work. We do not want to hamper the work of the administration. I want to stress this point. When a man is accused of any serious offence, and is brought before the courts, he has a perfect right to call in an attorney or an advocate. That is, on a charge of thieving, say, in the magistrate’s court, or in the Supreme Court, he has this right. But when you deal with disciplinary cases in the department itself, we say we give the man the right to call in a fellow servant, or an officer of a staff or trades union, like the Salstaff, the Nurahs or the Engineering Union, or any other body, who have the right to designate their particular officer, secretary or organizer, to appear and take all the necessary steps. It seems to me that these officials of staff unions are far better able to defend their fellow servants in difficulty; because they know the regulations, and can deal with these charges more satisfactorily than any other person can do.

Won’t you reconsider the question of the board being the final court?

I could not possibly accept that the board should not be the final court, because if you did that you would get no finality. Just imagine, in a private business concern, if you were to introduce all these regulations. It is true we are a State concern; but there are limits, and it seems to me, that the decision of the Railway Board should be final, because it is only in the case of a dispute between the two members of the Appeal Board that you would carry the matter further. If the regulations are contravened, any servant may still go to the courts, and will still have his remedy. The request that we should bring in the courts to decide any disciplinary case is really going too far and cannot be accepted. The decision of the appeal board, if unanimous, is final, and if they are not unanimous, the decision of the Railway Board is final, and that will exclude the courts. I may say that I appreciate the right of hon. members to raise this question, but the men have accepted these provisions. The conciliation board have accepted this, and the staff organizations have declared themselves satisfied with the terms as they stand.

Two heads are better than one.

Parliament is the supreme authority, and if Parliament decides to include this, we must be satisfied. In regard to temporary servants, and the question of granting gratuities, I cannot agree, because your temporary servant is liberally dealt with under Clause 3 or 4. But may I point out to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) that the position of the temporary men in Clause 6 is now clearly defined, and your temporary man is now in the position that, after two years, he is entitled to ask for a certificate of permanent employment, and if that is not given to him, Section 6 lays down what steps have to be taken, and in five years, in any case, he must be put on the permanent staff. The anomaly of men being in the service, in a temporary capacity, for ten or eleven years, will disappear under Clause 6 of the present Bill. If hon. members will study Section 6, I think they will agree that the position of the temporary servant is now satisfactorily dealt with, and that there should be no question of giving a gratuity to a temporary servant when his services are dispensed with during the period of his temporary service. The casual employees include the boatmen at Port Elizabeth, for we cannot possibly class them as permanent employees, even although they may be guaranteed ten days’ service. Their position however is receiving the attention of the conciliation board. I have not had the report yet, but I understand the whole position has been dealt with, and I will go closely into the matter and see how far it will be possible to meet their wishes. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has raised the question of the accumulation of leave, but he is under a misapprehension, for when an employee dies his widow is entitled to receive six months’ salary in consideration of his accumulated leave. It has been stated that the apprentices’ examination is too difficult. The department, however, is really not guilty, for it is the technical officer of the education department who is responsible, as he frames the papers. I agree that some of the papers have been too difficult, and we have taken steps to bring the matter to the notice of the technical officer. The position is now changed. The principle was laid down, I think, last year, that in future only 50 per cent. of the apprentices will be selected from the successful candidates in the departmental examinations, and the remainder will be appointed from the lad labourers, so that the latter, if they are strong physically and intelligent, and are able to satisfy the mechanical engineers, that they will make good workers, will get their opportunity. It seems to me that you must have a standard, and our technical schools have the right to say that at least half the apprentices should have passed through their school. In the case of a blacksmith, you don’t want much education, but in regard to electricians and any other technical callings you require boys who have passed through the technical school and have a fairly high educational standard. I think that deals more or less with all the more important points raised, and leaves me with one question which I regret has been raised in the form it has this afternoon—the language question. I think that after 15 years of Union even hon. members from Natal might have been satisfied, and I am hoping that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has been speaking for himself—I know he was not speaking for the railwaymen of Natal, and I hope he was not speaking for other hon. members from Natal. At this stage, after the Act of 1923, when all sections of the House under the leadership of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) came to an honourable compromise which we all hoped would dispose of this language question in regard to the public service, the hon. member now re-opens the question. May I ask him whether he ever thought it necessary to consult the views of the hon. member for Yeoville or the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) or his party? Why re-open this question day by day and year by year? I agree with the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), who said that in this matter we only stand for a principle which the English-speaking people have accepted, but I make bold to say that a very large number of English-speaking people have also accepted the principle of this being a bilingual country. The hon. member refers to the rights of the Natal railwaymen. I appreciate their rights, but has he ever thought of the rights of the public who own the railways? I wish he could be in my office for a week and see the complaints I get on this subject. I have tried to deal sympathetically with the matter and realize the position of our Natal friends. The hon. member referred to a certain question I put in 1920, and he said I felt keenly about the subject. I still feel keenly about this, but I hope he will feel just as keenly as I do that the time has come when we should no longer ask whether a man is English or Dutch, but as a member of the public he has a right to be served in his own language. As I said when moving the second reading of the Bill, if a railway official is not able to reply to a man who puts a question either in Dutch or English in the same language, you will find that both English and Dutch will respect that official if he in a respectful manner indicates his inability to reply in the language of his questioner. But I am afraid speeches such as those of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), although made in temperate tones, express sentiments directly contrary to the spirit of the Act of Union, and the sooner our friends from Natal realize that we must do justice to both sections of the people, the better for the people of the Union, the people of Natal included. The information I have from Natal is that our railway servants there appreciate the position and that they are doing their level best to be able to address the public in both languages.

Only four persons passed the last examination.

I admit that is unfortunate, but the hon. member must not forget that the Act of 1912 clearly laid down the principle of a compulsory knowledge of both languages. He now wishes it to appear that this Government is responsible for introducing the principle.

I pleaded for time.

Is this not rather late in the day to ask for further time? In 1912 the Railway Service Act laid down the principle of a compulsory knowledge of both languages in five years in the clerical staff, or the members of that staff would not proceed in grade. The difference was then made as regards grade and now the point is made as regards salary, but a compulsory knowledge of both languages on the part of the clerical staff was laid down in 1912. All the Government is doing in the present Bill is this—we are saying that instead of the bar applying at the grade, it will now apply at the salary, and we say that within five years of the passing of the Bill no public servant will be admitted unless he is bilingual, that is merely bringing the railway service into line with the general service.

How about the difficulties in regard to Afrikaans and Dutch?

I have repeated the saving clause in clause 8. If any servant can satisfy the administration that he has not been able to pick up the second language owing to being stationed in places where he had no facilities for learning it, then he is protected.

Nominally, but not in practice.

It is not fair to myself or to my predecessor to say that. Ninety-five per cent. were allowed to proceed, and it cost the State £46,000 in authorized expenditure. It is not fair to let it be spread over Natal that under this Bill the Government are forcing the second language down the throats of the people of Natal. We are asking the railway servants in Natal to respect the Act of Union, and the sooner it is respected by hon. members like the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) the better it will be for both sections. I am making no difference between the Dutch who do nor speak English and the English who do not speak Dutch. They will both be treated the same. The hon. member makes a lot of the difficulty of the English-speaking boys not being able to speak Dutch. Does he know he is casting a reflection on the intelligence of the English-speaking boys; I don’t think Dutch-speaking boys are more intelligent than English-speaking boys. You can go to any country school in the Cape Province and find Dutch-speaking boys without the opportunity of speaking English, picking up English and speaking it afterwards. Does he mean to say that the English-speaking boys of Natal, if they set their minds to it, will not be able to learn Afrikaans?

They never hear it.

Well, Dutch-speaking boys all over the country who don’t hear English pick it up. I do not agree to the reflection on the English-speaking boys in Natal. We want a better spirit on the part of hon. members sitting over there, who ought to set a better tone and say to Natal, we are living in the spirit and in the purpose of the Act of Union.

Ninety-seven per cent. of the children in Natal are learning Afrikaans.

I agree; but it contradicts the speech of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). What is the difficulty of the hon. member for Illovo? Because under this Bill I am giving them five years, it is surely fair notice? Is it the three per cent. the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) refers to?

Only four per cent. passed the examination.

Then if it is not the principle, but a question of examination, I am prepared to meet him. I am prepared to apply the public service test with regard to the language test to the railway service, but I warn him it will not be welcomed by the railwaymen, because the test for the railwaymen is a very simple test—equal to about standard VII. There is no question of it being a test for matriculation. I challenge him to give me the name of a responsible teacher who will say the test in Afrikaans is equal to the matriculation; it is absurd. I don’t want to minimize the difficulty of the railway servants in Natal, and I can give him the assurance that I will apply the law sympathetically. Let us get rid of the idea that when we are asking the English-speaking boy to learn Afrikaans, that we are asking him to do something we ought not to ask him to do. Get rid of that spirit. This kind of speech will not help the people of Natal to realize that Afrikaans is a second official language, and that it has come to stay. The Dutch do realize that English has come to stay, let the people in Natal realize that Afrikaans has come to stay. Then I venture to say that in five years you will not hear the language question again. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was not doing the English people a service in raising this matter this afternoon. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) has raised the question in a different spirit, and one I appreciate, because I realize the difficulty our English-speaking boys have in picking up the language when they have not the opportunity of speaking it. But his asking me to appoint an instructor is not going to be enough. What can one or even ten instructors do with the thousands of railway employees? You cannot pick up a language in a day. All the instructors could do in Natal would be to influence the railway staffs in the necessity for learning the second language. More than that they could not do. There are other means, there are correspondence schools, and practically at all the stations you have local schools where the teachers would be prepared to give a little extra time to assist them to take up the second language, but there must be a will to take it up. There is a will on the part of the railway servants as a whole, and it seems to me that the application of this Bill when it becomes law is not going to penalize any of our servants. He has raised the case of a lady who has come to the country with five sons, and two were unable to get into the railway service. That is so. Does he not agree that before work and employment is given to those boys who have come here to make their home—and we welcome them—does he not agree that it is not right for me or for any other Minister to give employment to those boys whilst I have applications from thousands of South Africans who have not got employment? I agree that once we have served our own boys, we should not raise any bar against the boys who have come to this country. The Bill makes provision for that. The Minister gets the power to take them into the service even if not resident for three years, but I shall only apply that power after the boys in South Africa have had the opportunity. All South Africans have the right to come into the service before we take boys who come from overseas. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) has raised the question of double trial. I have tried and the railway service has tried to deal with this point, and I am sorry the compromise come to does not satisfy him or the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). After hearing the position from the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) he will see that the Bill clearly indicates where the dividing line has to be drawn. I do not think that there is any other question which I have not dealt with. As I say, there may be smaller questions which I have not dealt with here, but which might be threshed out when we are in committee, and I trust that with these few remarks the House will now take the second reading of this Bill.

Before the question is put, may I ask the Minister for a reply to my request that provision be made for servants, on the eve of being retired, to be retained in the service until the Superannuation Bill has been passed, so that they can be given the benefits of that measure.

I am afraid the hon. member is out of order. I put the question that this Bill be now lead a second time.

Agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on Wednesday.

I move—

I do so with a twofold object. The first is that I may have a full opportunity of developing the points I wish to make, and the second is I wish to give this House an opportunity of expressing its disapproval of the attitude and conduct of the Minister in regard to certain matters with which I propose to deal. The Minister of the Interior is in charge of all arrangements in this country appertaining to elections. In his control is vested the conduct of every kind of election in South Africa. We have the right to expect of the Minister that he will set an example to the whole of this country as to how an election should be conducted, and what principles should be followed. We have as much right to be surprised if the Minister lends himself to conduct in regard to an election that is not correct or justified, as we would be if, for instance, the Minister of Justice were found picking a pocket. It is only a month or two ago that we listened to an extremely interesting and most edifying speech from the Minister of the Interior in introducing the second reading of a Bill to promote the cause of purity in regard to election conduct. It was said that the existing law did not itself sufficiently promote the cause of electional purity, and it was therefore necessary to tighten up the existing machinery so as to promote the cause which was declared to be paramount in the eyes of the Minister—the cause of political purity. The Minister said in his speech that he was concerned with public morality and public confidence in elections, and he then went on to say that the third portion of the Bill—

His object was to put an end to this state of affairs, and in another portion of his speech he said—

The hon. member cannot discuss a Bill

I am not discussing the actual Bill itself at all.

The hon. member is now referring to a former debate.

I can use these words as applying generally to the spirit of the Minister’s attitude. The Minister said finally that as a result of this provision there would be a marked and general improvement in the whole tone of our elections, and in the standard of our public life, and there would be much satisfaction on the part of the general public at the protection they would enjoy against being duped and exploited by those who were supposed to inform and guide them. We listened to this speech with much edification. I may say that I enjoyed listening to the Minister. I said to myself “Here at last is a ‘sea-green incorruptible’”. We may expect under the wise guidance of the Minister, that impurity will disappear from our public life; election dodges will be put an end to; it will be no longer possible to buy a candidate’s vote, and no longer possible to induce people to vote in a certain way by holding out monetary or other considerations, and the new era will be established.” Our attitude on these benches was one of cordial support to the Minister in that wish and endeavour. What has happened? Within a month of making that memorable speech the Minister was called upon himself, as an elector, to take part in an election contest. What happened? I do not know how the Minister cast his vote; I have a doubt as to how that vote was cast; and I am really moving his reduction in order to give the Minister a full opportunity of taking us into his confidence and telling us how he cast that vote. Let us summarize for the benefit of the Minister, and for the benefit of this House, the position as it existed at that election. There was one candidate, we will call him Mr. X, who was to have been the nominee of my friend’s political associates—the Pact—and when it came to counting the heads it was found that Mr. X could only get

Call him Mr. A.

No, I will call him X as X is an unknown quantity. Mr. X could only get 50 out of the 102 votes in the electoral college, and it was found that the nominee of the S.A.P. could get 51 votes, so that on a straight election there would be a majority of one for the S.A.P. candidate.

He did not get it.

The hon. member is quite right, he did not get it; but why? Because the very person who had addressed this House on political purity in public life, cast his vote for a man who, two days before, had, as a professed member of the S. A. party, attended that party’s caucus and helped to choose the party’s nominee. The Minister treats this in the spirit of levity. Let me ask the Minister what is the difference between paying a man £5 for his vote and sending him to gaol and sending a man to the Senate under the conditions to which we are referring?

Ananias is not dead.

Indeed he is not,

Order, order!

Is it wrong to penalize a man, in a House of Assembly election, who attempts to influence a vote by bolding out pecuniary or other considerations and yet suggest there is nothing wrong in approaching a candidate and saying, if you will cast your vote in one way and not the other, we will give you the nomination and put you in the exalted position of a senator? Does the Minister expect us, in the future, to treat, with seriousness, any protestations of his on questions of this sort so long as he and his party are under the imputation of being flagrant offenders against the principle which he has enunciated, The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. H. Louw) has interrupted me. He is a merchant, I understand. He will remember that three or four years ago we placed on the statute book a Bill to prevent corruption in commercial life, and we there made it an offence for anyone in commerce to take a bribe or a secret commission; and we made it equally an offence for the person who took it, as well as for the person who gave it. I say this deliberately, that both the person who takes a bribe in regard to elections and the person who gives that bribe are equally guilty in a moral sense, and that principle is enshrined in the Bill which the Minister has brought in; because he there makes it a criminal offence to pay a candidate to withdraw or to pay a candidate to stand as a “dud” candidate; so there is no reason for the complacency and levity of hon. members opposite. Then those who made the suggestion are equally guilty, in a moral sense, with anyone—if there was anyone—who adopted that suggestion.

Your premises are wrong.

Well, if my premises are wrong, it means that the Minister of the Interior, when told of this arrangement, told that he had to vote—

The Minister’s vote does not come into this. He voted personally.

His conduct does.

The Minister’s conduct can only be attacked by a motion.

I shall endeavour to keep within your ruling, but we have lost all confidence in the Minister of the Interior. That confidence was raised to a very important degree by the speech he made, but that has been reduced to nil by the attitude the Minister has taken up. I want to ask the Minister, I put it to him as a man: Does he condone what took place in regard to that election, and does he think it will promote public morality and a good spirit in this country if the Government in power, or any other party, can go to an individual on the other side and say, “If you will give your vote for us we will give you the nomination.” Does he think it is going to lead to a better public spirit in this country, a better tone in public life, or a better and higher personnel in this House? And when he is replying, will be tell us why it is to be made a criminal offence to purchase or sell a vote in the House of Assembly election, but not an equally criminal thing in elections for the other place? We were told that the hon. gentleman who was the successful candidate at the election to which I am alluding, underwent a process of conversion comparable only to that of St. Paul. We know that St. Paul saw a great white light, and that he then underwent an immediate process of conversion. The Minister is more conversant with the facts about St. Paul than I am.

I think it should be Judas Iscariot.

The rules of the House will not allow me to allude to Judas Iscariot as freely as I should like to have done. St. Paul’s conversion has not been equalled for 1900 years, until about a fortnight ago, when the hon. gentleman who, on Friday night, was so good and loyal a member of the South African party that he actually went to their caucus and helped to choose a candidate for election to another place, during the process of 24 hours, underwent a complete conversion to the Nationalist party. I said “complete,” but I withdraw that. The process was incomplete in so far that his conversion only went this length. He was not so completely converted to the Nationalist party that he was prepared to vote for any Nationalist candidate, but only for the Nationalist candidate if he was that Nationalist candidate. It was a remarkably sudden process of conversion, and, speaking with all seriousness, I say that any hon. gentleman who sits in the place of the present Minister and could lend himself, by his vote and by his general attitude, to a transaction of that sort—

The hon. member must not attack the Minister’s vote.

The trouble is that the Minister appears in two capacities—one as the Minister of the Interior, who supervises all election matters, and the other as the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Malan). As I cannot attack him, I say that if he will take the hon. member for Calvinia into his study and ask him what he meant by lending himself to a transaction so shady and disreputable, we will be glad to know the result of the conversation. I can only assume that the great majority of the members of the Nationalist party did vote for an hon. gentleman who, two days before, wore the South African party colours. We have listened to lectures in this House from hon. members on the cross-benches and from the Ministerial benches, on the necessity of curbing two great powers which they say make their influences felt in elections. One is the money power, and the other is the power of the press.

The hon. member is now getting on to the electoral law.

I am dealing with this election. In regard to the purity of the elections, both of the powers to which I have alluded must be watched. But there is a third power in regard to elections which also requires to be watched, and that is the Government of the day. You have to see that the Government is not, by dispensing political patronage, influencing the result of any election. I envy the complacency, but I do not envy the moral sense, of hon. members who can see anything to rejoice at in the transaction to which I have alluded. One Nationalist member was reported to have said—

I agree with that hon. gentleman. If it is true that no Nationalist member could be found to do what was done in this case, it is a matter of legitimate pride to them; just as much as it is a source of shame to us that any member of our party could be found ready to do it. Leaving party questions on one side, incidents of this sort are bound to have the very gravest effect on our public life. I have seen the effect of it already in a letter written by a professor at the theological seminary at Stellenbosch glorying in and justifying what every decent man must see is one of the most discreditable episodes which has ever blotted South African life. I tremble for the future of the youth of this country if it has to be instructed by a gentleman whose views are those of the reverend gentleman who wrote that letter. Anybody who can stand up on the platform or write to the press and justify what took place in regard to that incident has a lack of moral sense which would lead me not to put my son under his tuition. If hon. members opposite laugh, then the laugh may be turned against them one day, but God help the political future of South Africa if that is to be taken as a criterion of what is pure and right in regard to elections. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here this afternoon, because I have sufficient confidence in him to believe that he personally would denounce tactics of this sort, and that if he were aware of what took place on the occasion I refer to he would have discountenanced it by all the means in his power. If this is the sort of example to be held up to our political sons, then the very gravest detriment will be done to the future of South Africa, and the man responsible more than all, in my eyes, is the Minister of the Interior himself. I see it is proposed to hold a public dinner at a certain town to celebrate the alleged victory. If the people of Kokstad show so little sense of decency and morality as to celebrate one of the most indecent acts ever committed in this country, by a dinner, then so much the worse for the people of Kokstad, and they will brand themselves as political toadies of the first water.

It is amusing to hear what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has just said. It makes one think that his party has now reached the stage where he, himself, can do nothing more but only try to see their sins of the past on our side. They pushed themselves in the past into a morass of dark political deeds. I will only just remind him of striking examples thereof. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will be in a better position to enlighten him thereanent. During the recent election something happened in the then constituency of the hon. member for Standerton, i.e., Pretoria West, which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has forgotten. A person was put up as a candidate, clearly with the intention of dividing the votes of the opposite party and documentary proof was given that he was bribed

Ons Vaderland bribed him.

I fear that Ons Vaderland has never yet had money for that. There are documents to prove that the man was bought and the hon. member for Standerton will be able to give the hon. member for Bezuidenhout more enlightenment. Hon. members opposite should be the last to bring a charge of political immorality against this side. There is no comparison possible between the two cases before the House. I can quite imagine that some hon. members opposite are indignant about the occurrence at Pretoria. It is natural that they are disappointed at the choice of Senator, because the person is one of those who had to keep their party in existence. The only support on which they relied suddenly disappears from under them. But the comparison which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan)—judging by his interruption—wishes to draw is not in point because, in the case of the Senator’s election, there can be no question here of political immorality because I know that he himself will never take the responsibility for the incident at Pretoria West. I advise hon. members opposite to touch upon these matters as little as possible because all they will achieve thereby is that their political offences of the past fifteen years will come to light.

How much was the cheque?

Botes spoke of £75. I do not believe the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Louw) paid it. That person even went so far as to libel the staff officer of Pretoria.

Why is he not in gaol?

Well, at the time the Government was in power who brought the man to that. Their ingratitude did not, however, go so far as to put the man in gaol as well.

Your newspaper apologized.

No, that is entirely wrong. That man who was used by the hon. member’s party in Pretoria West—and I can well imagine that he is ashamed about it—went so far in order to get more money as to state in writing that the staff officer of. Pretoria had also given money to him. He was so low that he dragged the honour of the staff officer in the mud to get more money from the S.A.P. I hope this will convince him, because I do not wish to insult the hon. member’s electors so far as to say that their representative cannot understand what is being said here. The fact is, however, that the man whom they used is much worse than they thought. This cry of corruption should come last of all from the side of the party of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Hundreds of cases could be mentioned, some of them from blue books, where officers and non-commissioned officers were used for political purposes for the benefit of the Minister in power. Is not that political corruption? Let me say in conclusion, that the S.A.P. makes me think of an impotent old man who is compelled by his own sins to complete powerlessness and idleness. Hon. members should not go on with that sort of thing because they will get themselves into difficulty by bringing things to light which the people do not yet know, and when they do know, they will still further be disgusted with the S.A.P.

On the last occasion we were discussing this vote the Minister said I was wrong in stating that we had asked for an interview and that it had been refused. I want to give him dates to refresh his memory. It was on Saturday, the 21st February, when we saw the registration officer. We asked him for an interview on Monday, the 23rd February. We placed before him the following points, (1) new claim form asks for details of two years’ residence, whereas the Act stipulates for 12 months’ residence in the Cape Province, (2) voters who have been on the register for years object to being asked how old they are, and the date of their birth (3) discrimination between European and coloured. (4) that item No. 9 on the claim form R.V.9 is incorrect. His reply was that he could not give us an interview, and we then put it to him that such an interview had never been refused before. He then said he must first consult with his chief, and afterwards he informed us he could not grant the interview on matters on which he was carrying out instructions. I wish to put it to the Minister that with this evidence before him now he will accept my word that we did ask for an interview with the department, and the department refused to give us the interview. I ask him again, is he prepared to appoint a commission to go into the whole matter? The instructions given to canvassers I referred to on the last occasion at great length. I want to put it to the Minister that, besides those written instructions, verbal instructions were given to the canvassers.

By whom?

By your department; I do not know who else could give them. Verbal instruction were given to the canvassers, and one instruction particularly impressed upon them was that Asiatics, coloured and native voters, if not at their residence when the canvassers called, should be told that they must go to the nearest police station. I put it to the Minister that that was a portion of the verbal instructions given to the canvassers. It is very strange that, if no such instructions were given, the canvassers in the Cape Peninsula acted as if those instructions had been given. The written instructions given show that there is a very clear distinction made between Europeans and coloured people, but I go further, and say that it is clear that verbal instructions also must have been given. The result of this is that in the Cape Peninsula there are over 6,000 voters left off the roll.

As a result of this?

Certainly as a result of the way this canvass has been done. I want to give the Minister particulars of coloured people who were left off the roll, I won’t say deliberately, but certainly with very great care. There was a man residing at Warwick Street, Claremont, who received a letter that he had been left off the roll for the reason that he had left this area. That man has been living at the same address for three years. Then there is another man living in Stegman Road, Claremont, who received a similar notice, although he has been living at the same address since 1915, and is still there. There is one Matthew Murphy, of Warwick Street, Claremont, who received a similar letter, although he has been living at the same address for the last four years. There is also the case of a man living in Vineyard Road, Claremont, who received this notice about having left the area, although he has been living at the same address for the last 14 years.

Are they still living at the same address?

I have mentioned during the last few minutes that they are living at the address where they received these letters. There is another case of a man who was living in Main Road, Claremont, who received a similar letter about having left the area. He is now living in Dreyer Street Claremont. He has changed his address, but the canvasser two months ago took particulars on the form, and still his name has been left off. A. Swain, of Claremont, also was informed that he was left off the roll as he had “left the area.” He is now living at Cambridge Street, Claremont; a form was filled in six weeks ago by the canvasser, but he is left off the roll. The same with Atkins. It is very clear that these men who are acting as canvassers for the Government are either unworthy of the position they are holding or they are carrying out instructions. These reports can only be substantiated or refuted if we have a commission to inquire into the matter. Let the Minister give us an opportunity to have these canvassers before us and we will show that as far as coloured and Asiatics are concerned these canvassers were told that they must put as much difficulty in the way of their registering as possible. I think the position is such—more particularly as we are over 6,000 short and mostly coloured people—that the Minister must in fairness to these people allow an inquiry to be held as to why this sort of irregularity has taken place in the Cape Peninsula.

I want to say a few words in support of what my hon. friend has said, but before doing so I should rather like to express my surprise that the Minister has not got up at once to answer the very grave charges that have been made.

I am surprised. I did not expect that from you.

The charge is that the Minister has been guilty of bribery.

Order. The hon. member must withdraw that at once.

Well—

At once.

All right, I withdraw that particular charge in that form. Can I put it that a consideration has been given to a man for voting in a certain way?

Rubbish!

Why don’t you go to the court?

I should have thought that in a grave charge of this kind the Minister would have jumped up at once to refute it. Whatever the Minister may say, there is no doubt this episode has brought discredit on the politicians of this country.

Hide your tears.

Crocodile tears.

I say, and I say advisedly, that it has brought discredit on the men who take an active part in the politics of this country. The man in the street does not understand it, but that is the position. The Minister should get up and reply at the earliest possible moment. In regard to registration in Cape Town, as the result of the efforts of the officials of the Minister something like 6,000 have been left off in the Cape area in nine election districts. The general opinion in Cape Town is that it is the result of the action of the Minister. That is the position. You have put up a separate application form which the coloured people have to fill in. There are many white people who could not fill this in. Here is one of the questions—

What coloured man is going to understand that? With questions like that you will strike off a tremendous lot.

Can’t he say where he resides?

They are not all so well educated as my hon. friend. Other questions are—

All I can say is that the general opinion outside is that there has been a distinct intention on the part of the Government to keep off the coloured people and the natives.

It is well founded, too.

Who is creating the impression?

They have got it themselves. Hon. members on the cross-benches just do one thing, they play up to the Government; whatever the Government does is right. All the members on the cross-benches are there to do is to play “mbongo” to the Government, especially the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). But I think he will find it difficult in regard to this matter.

He didn’t “mbongo” the last Government. He has got a good Government.

I should have thought it an unpleasant task, but they seem to like it. I am disposed to agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), that men have been left off who have been on for years. Here is the case of a white man, curiously enough, who has been in business at 74, Loop Street, since 1904, and who also resided at Weltevreden Street, who has been left off. Then there are men in the Newlands area, still at the same address, who have been left off. All I can say is that, if it is not done intentionally, the work is done by very inefficient men. At any rate, 6,000 men have been left off in the Cape Peninsula.

Are they all coloured?

The majority are coloured

They all happen to be Nationalists.

We do not ask whether they are Nationalist or South African party; but men who have been on for years. The Minister ought to get more efficient men if that is the result of their work. Neither the population of the city nor of the Peninsula has gone down.

So many were left off at the last registration that we lost one seat in the Cape Peninsula.

I hope the Minister will have some explanation to give. It is a serious thing for the Cape Peninsula.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will remember that I was entrusted in 1909 with the preparation of the voters’ roll for Cape Town, which then consisted of four constituencies and experience showed that it was a difficult thing to satisfy all parties and that it was impossible to get all the voters on the roll.

Especially if one does not wish to.

There is no question of not wishing. Every year there are names which have to be removed from the roll. I know that hon. members opposite will not listen to reason. Their object is to arouse in a certain section of the population the impression that the Nationalist party wish to remove coloured people from the roll. The fact is that they feel that the eyes of the coloured people are gradually opening, and that they will no longer follow the South African party like tame sheep. That is why I wish to say these few words, and I am certain of it that the coloured people also will not allow themselves to be deceived this time. Hon. members opposite wish to try to make the coloured people think that the Nationalist party is hostile to them.

Is that not true then?

The coloured people are now beginning to view things correctly. But the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) sits there to-day because his party has succeeded in the past in creating the impression among the coloured people that the Nationalist party was hostile towards them. But I say that it is impossible for a registering officer (especially in large towns which consist of different constituencies) to see to it that all men who are entitled are put on the roll. Certain co-operation is expected from the voters, and sufficient interest in the affairs of the country to see to it that they are put on the roll. In 1909 I found that in Cape Town there were thousands of names which appeared on the roll and should not have done so. Why? Thousands of names ought not to have been there, because the people had gone away or were dead. No one sends in the names of such persons to the registering officer, with the consequence that the names remain on the voters’ roll. Now the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says that 6,000 names have been left off the roll of the Cape Peninsula. It is not so. It proves that a large number of people are dead or gone away to other constituencies and so are not registered again. But we know why hon. members opposite want so badly to see a large number of names on the list. They want to retain the one seat in the Cape Peninsula to which they have no right under the system of representation in proportion to the number of voters, and if the names read out by the hon. member for Cane Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) are all which the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) can find of persons who are still there and that are not on the list, then it shows that the roll has been prepared with very great care.

Why should we not then appoint a commission of enquiry.

Hon. members must understand that we must also expect from the electors a measure of intelligent interest. Everybody cannot be compelled to have their name on the roll. Then the “mbongo” noise of the hon. members opposite in connection with the election which recently took place. I really expected better from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) who was so angry. There was a small strain of sadness in what he said. Hon. members opposite are jealous, childishly jealous, because there are people who will not play with them any longer, but play with other people, therefore they are jealous. They call out: He plays with other little children and not with me. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) reproaches the hon. members on the cross-benches that they approve of the actions of this Government. Yes, they do so because the Government does good things, and because the Government is trying to put things right which were neglected by the former Government. I only hope that the hon. Minister of the Interior will not worry much about the complaints. The registration in Cape Town was always difficult, and if persons do rot themselves take an intelligent interest in it, then it is impossible to get everyone on the roll.

I would like to say a word or two about what has been said by my hon. friends, because I have had precisely the same experience in my own constituency. It is obvious that the number of people who have come into the constituency in the last year or two has largely increased, but, nevertheless, there are 279 people less on the roll than before. I have come off better than others, because in the Salt River district there are 1,470 less on the roll, and indications point to the fact that it is largely coloured people and natives who are left off, because in Gardens, where there are not many coloured people, the decrease is only 28. The instructions given to the canvassers have largely to do with this result, because they have been to the effect that a coloured person cannot fill up his form properly, and it cannot be accepted unless he fills it up in the presence of the canvasser. A large number of coloured people are out at work all day, and it would be expecting too much for canvassers to go round in the evening. As they are not allowed to leave the form at the House, these people do not get a chance of voting unless they make an individual effort to do it. Owing to the instructions given, coloured people and natives who are entitled to be put on the roll do not get the same facilities as Europeans, and this is the cause of the trouble. It is strange that there should be a decrease of 5,600 people, considering the rate we know people have been pouring into the peninsula for the last two or three years. I think the Minister should enquire into the matter.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the House adjourned we were considering what might be the reasons which underlie the rather extraordinary state of affairs which has been disclosed in the Cape Peninsula, in particular in that, instead of having an addition of 3,000 voters at least to our roll in the Cape Peninsula, we have had a deficiency of 6,000. I wish to suggest to the committee that an examination of the instructions which the Minister has issued to canvassers shows that in framing them the Minister has violated the law. I would like to invite the Minister’s attention to the grounds upon which I suggest that violations have occurred of the regulations under the Act of 1918 by which he was bound. The duty of the registering officer is to divide voters into two classes—those who are on an existing roll and those who claim to come on the roll. In the one case the voter who is on the roll must have his name left there unless the registering officer has some reason for eliminating it, such as is laid down in the law. In the second case, where an applicant desires to come on the roll, he must satisfy the registering officer according to the statute that his name should be there. The existing regulations which govern this matter are contained in Government Notice 1675 of 1918, and according to that notice it is the duty of the registering officer not only to deal with those persons who may be resident in a division but also those persons who, in that particular division, are entitled to be on the roll by virtue of their salary qualification. The point I propose to make is this, that the Minister has issued certain extra-statutory instructions to canvassers under which it seems that he has acted as if his new electoral law were in force, and he has registered only those persons who may be resident in particular districts. I have in my hand a document issued by the Minister on the 14th of January, 1925, described as “Instructions to canvassers,” and this has been issued by him, although he had before him this Government notice to which I have referred, and which lays down in the most explicit manner what is the duty of each registering officer. These instructions to canvassers, which I shall come to presently, make it clear that in the canvass of each particular district a canvasser has to confine himself only to those persons who may be resident in that district (section 4 of the instructions). In this province the right of persons to be registered depends not only upon residence, but also upon a salary qualification, and the duty of the registering officer in a case like that is shown in regulation 56 and other regulations issued under the Government notice of 1918. I want to show the substantial difference in the procedure which has been adopted from what is laid down in the statutory provisions which the Minister was bound to follow. The registering officer or his deputy was, first of all, bound to prepare what is described here as a field book, and in that field book he was bound to set out the names of all persons on the roll, whether they were there by virtue of a salary qualification or by virtue of a residential qualification. In place of following that rule, canvassers have been handed, not a field book, but a set of forms dealing only with those persons who might be resident in a particular district, and they have been instructed to enquire whether those persons are there and are still entitled to be on the register. In the very detailed instructions that are given to these canvassers they are expressly limited in their enquiries to ascertain what persons are so resident. According to the law—I am quoting regulation 61—it is the duty of each canvasser to ascertain not only the persons who may be resident there, but persons who may be in or upon any house or building or farm, if it is a rural area, in that particular district, and in ascertaining the information necessary for the extension of the roll by the inclusion of new names, regulation 62 requires that the canvasser shall ascertain the name of every adult male person residing at or in occupation of a house or other building, and it calls upon the registering officer or canvasser when he visits each property to state, not what these instructions say, but it requires him to intimate when he calls at each particular place in that district that he is desirous of ascertaining the names of all persons entitled to vote at elections of members of the House of Assembly and provincial council. Under these departmental instructions he is instructed to enquire from the head of the household the name of every White male person over 21 years of age who may be residing in such house. There is a further regulation dealing with persons who may be employed in mines, factories or workshops. The registering officer under the law is bound to enquire from the employer or proprietor for information as to the names of the employees, he has to ask for their pay sheets and, if possible, to ascertain what persons are entitled to be registered there by virtue of their salary qualifications. I ask the Minister this question, have his canvassers, in proceeding district by district throughout the Cape Peninsula, made any attempt to register voters on their salary qualifications by ascertaining from their employers who might be employed by them? I do not know whether the Minister considers the matter worth listening to.

I am listening.

I thank you. I would like to ask him in particular whether his canvassers had been instructed on the lines of regulation 68.

I remember before the last election a very large number of people found their names were not on the roll. I know of one man who had lived in the same house for 23 years at Durban, and whose name was not on the roll. That could not be put down to the machinations of the Minister of the Interior I can assure hon. members on that side of the House that there are many cases we know of in the past, where men who have not left their house have been put down as having left. None of this is due to scheming or plotting on the part of the Government or officials, but to a large extent it is due to faulty organization. Anything that can be done to tighten up the organization should be done. Before we adjourned this afternoon we had some moralizing on the part of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

That was a Serio-comic turn.

It was a case of quick conversion, and its suddenness made hon. members question the reality of it. The hon. member said that for 1,900 years there had been no such case as the one to which he referred. The hon. member’s history is a little patchy, he has missed out one or two conversions. I wonder if the hon. member remembers Walter Holmes, who was a member of the Labour party in the Transvaal Provincial Council during the time the Labour party had a majority of one. Mr. Holmes in a night was suddenly converted, and voted for the South African party. Another miraculous conversion was that of a gentleman called Mr. Harry Miller, also a Labour provincial councillor. To-day he is the right-hand man of the hon. member for Standerton (Gem Smuts), and he is the man who was responsible for putting the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) in his seat at Bloemfontein. If a man can be converted as a Labour man with such celerity, why should not members of the other party be converted?

Quite a good defence.

I had the story of Mr. Isaac Purcell related to me 10 minutes ago. Mr. Purcell was a Labour member of this House and he was going to stand at the 1921 election as a Labour man, and for all the Labour party knew he was a Labour man. He received the Labour party’s nomination for that election. Another gentleman called Frank of the South African party was standing. He had a requisition signed by a number of voters. He took it to the South African party office and was told it had to be done at the public meeting. He went to that meeting of South African party supporters and was unanimously nominated. The day before nomination day he was invited by Mr. Purcell to withdraw. Pressure was brought to bear upon him by the South African party to withdraw; he refused and was duly nominated. The same morning he was brought by Mr. Purcell to the Royal Hotel and was interviewed by members of the South African party executive, including the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and Sir David Graaff. He was then told that in view of the fact that an agreement had been arrived at whereby Mr. Purcell, after being nominated, was subsequently going to join the South African party, that he must withdraw. Mr. Frank duly withdrew.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) levelled what must be looked upon as a very serious charge against the Minister of the Interior, to any honest man at any rate. Apparently political honesty has fallen to a very low ebb, to judge by the levity, across the way. A very serious charge has been laid at the door of the Minister, and it is surprising to note that no reply has been forthcoming from him or from any of his supporters.

Not worth it.

No one will consider the statements by hon. members of the cross benches as constituting replies. I should think the Minister, having listened to them, must say: “Save me from my friends.” Their defence is that certain obscure individuals have been prepared to accept bribes to change their party or their names, and their argument is that whatever the political obliquity of the Minister may be, it is no worse than that of the gentlemen mentioned. That seems to be the sum total of the defence, and it is a very serious matter to have a Minister of the Crown reduced to that pass. We are discussing the electoral system of this country. We have it on record that the standard of political morality in this country, and a beacon for the future, is that the purity of elections must be maintained, and holding out monetary reward to induce a candidate to come forward must be made illegal.

The hon, member is referring to a former debate.

Not specifically. I am referring to a standard of political probity which I am prepared to conform to.

It is a tedious repetition.

It may be tedious to the hon. member, but I am laying down a standard of probity which this side of the House is prepared to conform to, and has always conformed to. Then the speech goes on

The hon. member must not refer to a former debate. He must put it in another way.

Then may I say that the standard of probity should be the making illegal of anything of the type of the recent incident. Hot-foot on this statement of political honesty laid down by the Minister—and I charge him with being an accessory before and after the fact—in bringing about the most discreditable incident in the political history of this country. The conduct and the action of the Minister amounted to something more than giving a vote in, this particular election.

The hon. member must not refer to his vote.

I am referring to something infinitely move serious. The Minister was the main instrument in securing that corrupt election.

Order. The hon. member must withdraw the words “corrupt” election.

May I substitute dis creditable?

The hon. member must withdraw his words.

I withdraw them. The Minister was the main instrument in procuring that discreditable incident. Will the Minister deny that he stuck to the candidate closer than a brother, and that he was closeted with him for four hours He never let him out of his sight. Will he deny it?

I deny it, yes.

That you were seen with the candidate? I saw the Minister myself sticking to him closer than a brother.

You said he was with him for four hours.

I asked him if he would deny it.

You made a statement.

Don’t get so excited.

I repeat that the Minister who gave us these high-sounding sentiments about political morality is the man that brought about the most discreditable incident in our political history.

Where is it discreditable

I am surprised that the hon. Minister needs to be told. If his political obliquity is such that he cannot see the discredit of a member of his party on the Friday, attending the caucus and then being bribed by £500—

Order. The hon. member must withdraw.

I withdraw “bribe.”

The hon. member must express his regret.

I express my regret—my parliamentary regret.

No, the hon. member must withdraw that.

I will withdraw, but I would like to point out

Order. The hon. member must not trifle with the chair.

No, sir. The Minister of Defence asks me what was discreditable in this conduct, and I would like to point out to him that the conduct in that particular case is specifically declared a corrupt practice in our Electoral Act of 1918. Is it not discreditable to attend a party caucus, which is a confidential meeting on one day, and to be induced two days afterwards, by £500 a year, to do what the candidate did? If the Minister of Defence does not see the obliquity of that conduct, I am sorry for the code of political morality on the other side.

Why was he not prosecuted?

If the Nationalist party will provide us with the information in their possession, we will prosecute. The evidence before the country to-day is sufficient to indict the whole of the Pact Government with lack of political morality. We must remember that the hon. gentleman is not only member for Calvinia; not only a Minister of the Crown; but he is also leader of the Cape Nationalist party, and the Cape Nationalist party, combined with the Cape Labour members, are responsible for this incredibly discreditable and unpleasant incident.

Not guilty

I am glad to hear the hon. member disclaim responsibility. It shows that he, at any rate, has some shreds of political conscience left. There are many instances in the history of philology in which individual names have gone down to posterity in connection with certain actions. Botes was a Nationalist. He threw himself open to all commerce.

What about Purcell?

He did nothing in any way approaching what the Minister has done.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

We have had, this afternoon, a great deal of talk about political conversions. But I notice there is also another type of conversion, the eleventh hour conversion, to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) calls “political morality” or a “higher standard of probity.” After the information supplied by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), it is clear that we can congratulate hon. members on the other side on having been converted, at the eleventh hour, to a new standard of political morality. We have the extraordinary spectacle this afternoon of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) trying to give utterance to his disappointment with the action of a certain gentleman, by making an attack on him, under cover of an attack on the Minister of the Interior. I am very glad, under the circumstances, that you allowed the hon. member to continue, for I am doubtful whether he was in order in making an attack on the Minister, for the Minister took part in the election as the hon. member for Calvinia and not as the Minister of the Interior. In the second place, if he raises this matter under the vote for the Interior, then he has to show that there was something wrong with the election himself. I hope the Minister won’t regard the attack too seriously, because, after all, if a man, under cover of Parliamentary privilege, launches an attack of this sort against one who is not present, and who cannot defend himself, I think his attack does not merit any serious reply or attention. Hon. gentlemen on the other side are feeling very sore about this sheep that has wandered from the fold, and may I suggest that they had better get over it” as soon as possible, because there are more to follow! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) tried to gloat over the dinner which is being given to the man, at Kokstad. I know the town, which is entirely a South African party centre, and it says very much for the gentleman in question, who is being attacked here, that his fellow South African party members are prepared to give him a banquet.

That is incorrect.

The hon. member is probably not aware of the proposed banquet, as the “Cape Times” has not published the report. These are the hon. gentlemen who say that the South African party press is always scrupulously fair. The hon. member for Umbilo has referred to certain conversions that have taken place in which the other side has not played a very savoury part, and the only answer has come from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), who says that by that we do not deny the guilt of the gentleman in question. May I remind him of the old proverb that “People in glasshouses should not throw stones”? But I have a worse case. The hon. member for Umbilo referred to cases of individual conversions. I have a case of a whole party. We have the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) meeting on a certain evening, and shortly after the entire South African party, lock, stock and barrel

The hon. gentleman is wandering rather far afield. Under what heading is he speaking now?

I am speaking of conversions, and I am pointing out a wholesale conversion of a party, and the reward was three seats in the Cabinet. Having regard to the political history of the party, as a party, it ill becomes him, or any other, to refer to conversions of that sort. In regard to the voters list, it is extraordinary how, time after time, we have had hon. members on the other side always seeking for improper methods, whatever this Government tries to do. It reminds one of the old Dutch proverb—

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) referred to the new application form. May I ask if he has ever studied the old form? If he is fair minded he will admit that the new form is far simpler. It is on the plain question and answer system and is easily understood by most men. The words bona-fide to which he referred are, perhaps, somewhat beyond the average uneducated man—but that is not a serious objection.

Where do you find “occupation” in the Act.

Your old form required it. According to the new rule—and a very salutary rule it is—the man has to be able to write these essential words before he is put on the list. In my constituency we have had regular schools of these people who had to be taught in batches to write their names and addresses, and the people who have been taken off the list to-day are the people who never were entitled to be enrolled. Unfortunately, the coloured man has been mentioned, with the idea of trying to influence the coloured man against this side of the House.

Tell us something about Bullhoek?

You can bring that up under the Native Affairs Vote. The less you say about Bullhoek the better. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) could have saved the situation at Bullhoek if he had wanted to. As regards the other mistakes that have been made, these have happened again and again in my own constituency under the old regime. Unless your administration is perfect, people are liable to be omitted from the roll.

Three hon. members from the opposite benches have replied to the remarks I made this afternoon and not one of these three has made the slightest attempt to justify the action of the Minister of the Interior or his party in regard to the recent senatorial election. All they could do was to raise the cry of “you’re another.” The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) referred to certain obscure individuals and alleged that there had been sudden conversion in their case. The hon. member for Beaufort West Mr. E. H. Louw) in his remarks was so poverty stricken that all he could do was to refer to the open amalgamation of the South African Party and the Unionist Party. And the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Te Water) could do no more than allude to an incident in regard to which his newspaper had to publish a public apology and retraction.

Oh no.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) may well say that the Minister is justified in saying “save me from my friends.” Does the hon. member not see that our complaint is that the head of a political party, which is introducing a Bill to promote political purity, is himself the chief offender in regard to the very first election which has taken place since making his speech in moving the second reading of the Electoral Bill. I make the definite charge agains the Minister that although he has a distinct duty to promote electoral purity he is the first to break the law.

The hon. member must withdraw the statements that the Minister has broken the law, and also with regard to the question of purity.

I may charge the Minister with breaking the law if I can substantiate it. Our electoral law makes it a criminal offence to give money or other valuable consideration to a man in exchange for his vote. If a man on Friday is a South African party man, and on Monday is elected to an office carrying with it the salary of £500, we are justified in calling on the Minister to explain under what circumstances that individual was induced to give his vote entirely foreign to his party loyalty and previous political opinions. Until the Minister does this I charge him with having been a party to corrupt practice.

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

He stands charged with being a party to the violation of the electoral law.

Who charges him?

I do. I don’t take shelter under Parliamentary privilege. What I said this afternoon I said in public in the presence of reporters in the United Party Club at Johannesburg. I am prepared to waive my Parliamentary privilege and to face Mr. Tod in regard to the charges I made. In regard to this particular vote we know who bought the vote, who sold it, and the price paid for it. Our party would welcome any action on the part of that gentleman, and the opportunity of getting the Minister in the witness box to answer questions which he seems determined not to answer in this House.

If you prosecute you can get him there.

Let the Minister speak for himself. He may think that he can laugh at this charge, but I regard it as a very serious reflection on the conduct of all who took part in it.

One must laugh when you hear the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He comes forward to accuse us of committing such a great offence and then it came out that it was a Sap who had turned Nationalist. How can we help it? If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes we shall also welcome him and put him in the Senate because we do not want him here. The hon. Minister could not help it. He came over openly and he said that his reason was that the South African party do not give sufficient attention to farmers’ interests. That is a strong reason, I think, and I must still more believe him when I learn that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) sent a telegram during the election: “Do not vote for Tod.” As the hon. member for Standerton does not trust him then I trust him. The Minister knows nothing about it. They must stop making such a fuss when a Sap changes over because all that sit on this side are converted Saps. They fall off like leaves of oaks. They must not be so upset at it. It will get on their nerves. They must stop wasting the time of the House with such things. Then mention has also been made of the voters’ roll. Does he not know that we have had difficulties all these years of getting people on the rolls? I came myself to Cape Town at a cost of £25 to get six people on the roll. It is useless blaming the Minister. Surely hon. members don’t wish people who cannot write their names and addresses to be put on the voters’ roll? When names are left off then objections can be made and the names can be put on the roll. Why do they now come and suggest that 6,000 names have been taken off the roll? They are probably dead. The hon. member probably wants them to vote as has happened in the past. No, we now want a good roll so that dead people will no longer be able to vote.

I had not intended taking part in this debate, but after the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. H. Louw) has told us that he knows Kokstad so well that he knows the feelings of the South African party there, and practically tells us that the “Cape Times” has not even done justice to the feelings up there, then I feel I must correct that statement on behalf of the honour of my party in Griqualand. I have received a lot of letters on the subject, but I don’t want to read them all, as I might possibly bore the House. Certain telegrams were sent 10 the gentleman we are referring to as Mr. X, but many were sent under a misapprehension. The chairman of the Kokstad Agricultural Society telegraphed Mr. X as follows—

That wire speaks for itself. Here is a letter from the chairman of the South African party, who has just returned from Matatiele, who writes—

Order.

It is a quotation from a letter.

The hon. member must withdraw.

I will withdraw the word “damn.” but I cannot assume responsibility for the very mild epithet used by my correspondent in describing Mr. X’s conduct. The letter proceeds—

I have a good many letters from other centres in East Griqualand, but I will not weary the House with them. If I read any more like the one I have just laid down I may be called to order again. I say from personal knowledge that on the Friday in question, if the gentleman whom we are discussing could not get the South African party nomination, he was prepared that same afternoon to take the nomination of the other party. He was determined to get there at any cost. Let me put it to you. Mr. Chairman. We have heard a letter quoted which appeared in the “Cape Times,” and the explanation was to the effect that a certain gentleman for the last month felt his conscience was not quite easy in belonging to the South African party. If the man was honest in his convictions I don’t blame him for joining another party, but if he was honest would he not have gone and said, “I am prepared to join your party and to support your nomination in this election”; but not “I am prepared to join your party if I am the nominee, and certain 30 pieces of silver are paid to me.” I don’t want to argue the point, but I believe in honesty so far as politics are concerned, I believe the members opposite are an honourable lot of gentlemen, and I think they are as ashamed as we are of what has happened; I wish them joy of their bargain.

I think all this discussion about Mr. Tod

The hon. member must not use the name of another member of another House.

I will call him Mr. X. All this is irrelevant. In committee we are allowed to discuss matters of policy, and rule 104 is to the effect that when a Minister’s salary is specifically and bona fide challenged on a question of policy, and amendments are proposed, the movers of such amendments are allowed to speak for 40 minutes. I submit there are no bona fides about this.

The Chair will say whether it is in order or not.

I submit it is irrelevant.

No. The hon. member must withdraw the word “irrelevant” and leave it for the Chair to decide.

I will withdraw it. Some hon. members opposite seem to blame the Minister for the fact that the numbers of the registered voters in the Cape Peninsula are less than they were on the occasion of the last registration. In 1909 I made up the voters’ roll for four constituencies in Cape Town, and found that there were on the old roll the names of thousands of people who were dead and gone. You had thousands of people in Cape Town on the roll who were dead. The number of people who voted at the last election are given in the Gazette (Election Statistics) for June 27th, 1924, and from this the number in Cape Town (Central) was given as 4,698 people on the roll, of which 3,215 voted, or 68 per cent. In Gardens there were 4,613 on the roll, of whom 3,488 voted, or 75 per cent. Hanover Street 65 per cent., Harbour 69 per cent., Liesbeek 69 per cent., Newlands 69 per cent., Salt River 61 per cent., and South Peninsula 65 per cent., voted. These are urban constituencies where voters live within two miles of the nearest polling station, and the South African party had hundreds of canvassers and motor-ears to take them to the poll. If these voters had been there they would have been fetched to the poll. This proves conclusively there were thousands of people at the last election on the rolls in the Peninsula who were non-existent. What happens in the country? Take Albert. Out of 3.509 voters on the roll, 2,979 voted, which is equal to 85 per cent., Ceres 80 per cent., Bechuanaland 84 per cent., Calvinia 72 per cent., and Riversdale 94 per cent., which shows your registers as regards rural constituencies have been pure. They have been better than the registers in the urban constituencies. If these people were in Cape Town in June, 1924, why did they not go to the poll? To my mind these figures prove that the Cape Town registers are unduly swollen. I will refer back to the unfortunate matter of the sudden conversion of a certain gentleman, and I congratulate the South African party on having so much virtue on their side. Virtue itself is its best reward. Those of us who have read the Book know what happened to those people who considered themselves to be so very virtuous. Well, let their own virtue be their reward.

The ignorance of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) is colossal. If he knew anything about elections except in Ceres he would know that within three months of a register being formed there are certainly in the towns 40 per cent. of removals. Government members are very anxious to get away from the true facts of the case we put forward. The case is that instructions issued by the Minister are not legal. They are such that the canvassers cannot possibly comply with the Act. This charge we have made and not a single member on that side has attempted to answer the charge. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) mentioned the case of Mr. Isaac Purcell. All in the House at the time will remember that Before the end of the session, when Mr. Purcell was still sitting with the Labour group, he made a speech in which he complained that owing to the attitude of the Labour party on the colour question he could no longer remain a member of that party and stated definitely that he was leaving it. That was before the election was thought of. He left the party before the end of that session. Members on that side accuse us of being sore on account of the latest conversion. I am very proud to lose a member such as that. I am not worrying. But the Government supporters seem to be very proud of the latest apostle to Nationalism. Do they not remember another apostle who found himself in a minority of one? We have made accusations which are serious and the Minister has not deigned to get up and give us a reply. It is time now he gave us an explanation and if he is not prepared to give a reply I trust members on this side of the House will not let the matter rest until we have forced him to be courteous and give a reply. It is his duty to do so.

I think it is my duty to contradict the statements made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl:) and Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) with regard to the registration of voters. It is recorded in the newspapers—unfortunately we had not any Hansard at that time—that when the last registration took place I rose and protested against the registration not being carried out efficiently, using practically the same words. Also, I think, it was the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) who stated that they, as a party organization, had put over 3,000 voters on the roll for the Cape Peninsula at the last registration. I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has spent thousands of pounds on the registration of voters in the Cape Peninsula. If that was the case under their own Government, then I think there is a certain excuse to be made for this Government. I have never known a proper registration of voters taken in the Cape Peninsula. If is usual for the canvassers to visit only the residences and workshops during the hours of 9 a. m. to 5 p.m. It is impossible therefore to properly compile a roll. How can the Opposition put up their hands aghast at this Government when those hon. members have had to make contributions to their own party to do their own registration when they had control of the government of the country. Party organizations must be stopped from using funds to put on the voters’ roll those who are of their own way of thinking. Let us all work with unity in compelling the Government to do its own work by its own officials.

We are glad the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has vindicated the character of the citizens of Kokstad. We saw in the newspapers that telegrams of congratulation had been sent, and we thought at the time they had been transmitted under a misapprehension of the true facts and we are glad to see now that it was so. That famous banquet at Kokstad will be like the Egyptian banquet of old, where there was a corpse at the table. The corpse at this banquet will be the corpse of a certain gentleman’s character. But this attack is not upon that gentleman who is to be banquetted at Kokstad, because he is not worth the waste of powder and shot. The real culprit and offender that we are attacking is the Minister of the Interior. The other man was a mere puppet in this piece, but the Minister of the Interior is. I will not say the villain of the plot, but the deus ex machina of the conspiracy. We are attacking the Minister and not the other gentleman. During the time they were together they stuck as close as glue and the result we know. In “Varoity Fair,” Becky Sharpe said anyone could be honest on £5,000 a year, but it seems to me some people can be dishonest on £500 a year. If it is any consolation to the Minister of the Interior, I may tell him that by associating himself with this discreditable election, he has identified himself with a new word in the English dictionary. We have “Gilbertian,” “Shavian.” we have “boveott” and not a few others, and, in future, the particular line of action taken in this case under discussion will be denoted by the addition of a new word in the English dictionary, and that word will be “Tod-ism.” The Minister will have, may I say, the dubious, the “Todish” consolation of having had a share in placing that word in the English vocabulary.

I would like to say one or two words on this debate, because never in this House have I heard so much spleen and so much venom expended on one matter as I have heard in connection with this particular subject. May I suggest to hon. members opposite that if they want to attack this particular individual Mr. X—

We are attacking the Minister.

The hon. member cannot deceive himself or this House by saying that they are attacking the Minister, when we know full well that they are attacking this Mr. X. May I suggest that it would be much more honest and much more fair if hon. members opposite, or the members of their own party were to say what they had to say in the “other place” in the presence of this man when he is there, so that he could defend himself and take part in the debate, without attacking him behind his back as they are doing now? Was the Minister of the Interior responsible for the conduct of that election?

Is he not of an age when he can speak for himself?

I was not at all surprised at the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) getting up and taking part in this debate. He is a very loyal and very keen supporter of the S.A.P., one of the leading members of that party. Only last year the hon. member, in common with the rest of us, had to contest his election. He stood as the official candidate of the S.A.P. He had a terrific fight against an opponent and he just managed to win; if I remember rightly he had a majority of 180 out of an electorate of 3,600. Who was it that he was fighting? The same man, Mr. Tod. He was fighting the very man whom to-day he vilifies. The hon. Mr. X was the hon. member’s opponent in that election campaign.

As what? S.A.P.?

Oh, no. The late Prime Minister, on the night before the election, sent a frantic telegram to the electors of Griqualand, appealing to them to vote for the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), in order not to let this very man in who was his opponent: Mr. Tod. What claim, I ask in view of their action have they got on Mr. Tod’s loyalty and support when the late Prime Minister and his party did their very best to keep him from winning the seat last year? It is very interesting.

Is this a lesson in ethics?

Will the hon. member keep quiet? There is some excuse for the hon. member, because, like his colleague, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), he is an Irishman, and finds it very difficult to keep quiet and control himself.

Dear me. I manage to do it very well.

I did not interrupt the hon. members over there, but I excuse the hon. member (Mr. O’Brien) because of his Irish temperament. It is very interesting to hear the telegram which was read out from the Agricultural Society in that district. I am rather glad that the hon. member intervened in the debate, because, if that telegram means anything, it means that the Kokstad Agricultural Society is a political organization.

Not at all.

On the strength of that telegram the Kokstad Agricultural Society has shown itself to be a political organization, willing and ready and anxious to congratulate one of the South African party on getting into the Senate, but when it found that he did not get in as a South African party man the society said they were sorry and that they thought he was a South African party man. It is just as well that the House and the country should know that the Kokstad Agricultural Society, which no doubt comes to the Government for loans, and for assistance in many ways, is really a political organization, according to the chairman’s telegram. Why is it that, as soon as I start to speak, everybody else wants to speak at the same time?

You are coming to the point now, are you?

The hon. member is chipping in again. He will never come to the point. The Minister of the Interior has nothing whatever to be ashamed of.

Question.

He was entitled to exercise his vote at that election as the hon. member for Calvinia, just as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col D. Reitz) was entitled to exercise his vote. The policy of the South African party was such that he no longer felt justified in remaining in their camp, and like many more in that party he found, rather late in the day, I admit, that it is the party of broken promises, the party which played the people of South Africa false, and he left it.

You delivered the goods.

I have listened to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on many occasions but I have never seen him display such complete lack of conviction as on this occasion, especially in the latter part when he was dealing with the sudden conversion of the hon. Mr. X. He will admit that he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek, because when a member goes to his party caucus on Friday and is elected to the opposite party on Monday it is an insult to our intelligence and to that of the public to ask us to believe that merely the seal has then been put on a long-continued process of conversion. Let me ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs if that had happened to a member of his party would be believe in the genuineness of that member’s conversion? Does he think we are children, that the public are children? Surely he should be above that sort of talk, above such an insult to our intelligence. Does be realize that in that speech he betrayed in every word his own conviction that this is a most discreditable incident, that he has absolutely given away the Minister whom he rose to defend? That hon. gentleman is apparently so conscience-stricken by his own part in this affair that he dare not rise in this House, but he must get a colleague to get up and say what he lacks the moral courage to say himself. I am going to ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs a plain question, and I have sufficient confidence in his sense of fairplay to stake a great deal on his answer. This is the question. Does he, with the knowledge he has of the circumstances of this election, justify that action, and does he say it is an action which redounds to the credit of the party responsible for it? I await the Minister’s answer.

You can go on waiting.

Yes, I thought so. The Minister refuses to answer; “his silence be-wrayeth him.” The Minister feels, and hon. members opposite feel, that there is singularly little credit to be taken by any one who took part in this transaction. We are justified, not on party grounds, in raising a protest against this state of affairs. An hon. member said that sort of thing will happen again. I tremble for the future of this country if our politics are to be conducted on these lines. I should tremble to think that this particular incident is liable to be repeated by any political party in this country. I do not wish to vent any spleen against the gentleman in question, who I do not even know by sight, but I say with conviction that things of this sort do not make for a better state of political affairs in South Africa and do not redound to the credit of any particular party. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs asked why not make this attack on the gentleman elected to the Senate. I have no doubt that attack will be made. Members of the Senate who belong to this party showed their feeling of the gentleman’s conduct and the way he was elected by walking out when he was sworn in. Here we have his co-partner in crime—

Order. The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member must express regret for using the word “crime.”

I express regret; I went too far; I admit it. We have here one of the principal persons concerned in bringing about that regrettable incident before us in this House, and we are entitled to demand his explanation of that particular incident. Until he gives it he will continue to hear about it. The Minister of the Interior may wave his hands—we are entitled, when a person refuses to plead, to assume his guilt.

That is not the law.

That is the law of public opinion. We have been shown from the logic of facts that an inference unfavourable to the Minister must be drawn unless he takes us into his confidence. We can only draw the inference that he dare not face this House and tell us what his share in that particular transaction was. That is the inference we shall continue to draw. It is particularly unfortunate that this should occur in the case of the very member of this House above all others who is entrusted with the purity of elections and is trying to pilot through this House a Bill calculated to promote greater purity. When he is definitely and specifically attacked he remains mum. There is no power in this House which will compel him to reply to the charges made against him.

What is the charge?

I have formulated it several times, but I will do it again. My charge against the Minister is this—that he was a party with an hon. gentleman recently elected to another place to the buying of that hon. gentleman’s vote.

Order. The hon. member must withdraw that.

Then I cannot formulate the charge. Yes, I withdraw that. I will put it this way—

Will you make that charge outside against the Minister?

I will make it against Senator Tod.

Will you make that charge outside this House against the Minister?

Order. The hon. member may proceed.

I will try and express the charge in language more appropriate to the atmosphere of this House. My charge against the Minister is that, being the head of the Nationalist party in the Cape Province, being the Minister of the Interior, and entrusted with the purity of elections, he has, together with other members of his party, been a party to a transaction whereby a member of this party was persuaded to vote against his party in order to secure his election to the Senate.

Nonsense.

The hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs tells us that he was expecting me, as a good South African party man, to speak on this matter. Well, let me say that I am pleased that I have not disappointed the Minister. As one who lives in the native territories, I have a little knowledge of native custom, and when a native chief sits in council he has a man called his “sibongo” behind him who calls his praises and agrees with what he says. The Minister for the Interior must appreciate the support his “sibongo” gives him. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs may shake his head, but I may tell him he is performing the duty very well indeed I want to correct one or two statements made by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. In the first place, when the election was fought in East Griqualand, Mr. Tod stood as an unofficial South African party candidate.

Independent.

No, unofficial South African party. I was very severely taken to task during the election for suggesting that he was an Independent South African party candidate. So far as this precious telegram was concerned, it is perfectly true that one was sent, as one was sent to almost every constituency in the country. There is a South African party organization in Griqualand East, and I was the official nominee of the party. The late Prime Minister did not sand a wire asking them to support me (Gilson) as against Tod, but sent a wire to the electors urging them to support the official candidate, and the organization of the party, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, as a member of the Labour party, would have been one of the first to adopt that course, and would have stated that the official candidate should receive the support of every member of the party, as in fact was done in his own town of Durban, when Kemp stood for the Point as unofficial Labour candidate.

What about Tembuland?

There is no registered branch of the party in Tembuland. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made the suggestion that after this telegram—which appealed to the loyalty of the hon. Mr. Tod, as well as to any other member of the party in that constituency—Mr. Tod then owed no allegiance to the South African party, and yet Mr. Tod was allowed by the electors to be returned unopposed as the South African party member for the provincial council, and that for probably the safest South African party seat in South Africa, does the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs think that if there had been any question of that hon. gentleman not being a South African party supporter—shall I call him hon. gentleman—he would have been allowed to take that seat as he did?

You could not defeat him.

Very well, I beat him once, which makes the Minister’s interjection fall rather flat. The hon. member will see at the election which will come off very shortly, to fill a vacancy in the provincial council, what the opinion of East Griqualand is in this matter, and he will see that the South African party nominee—the official candidate—will get in by a very large majority. I am open to make a small bet, but I suppose I must not make a bet in this House. I make the suggestion, to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, however, that the party which has secured the most valuable support of the hon. Mr. X will not dare to oppose the South African party candidate in East Griqualand at that election. I suggest that the nominee of the South African party will go in unopposed. I do not intend to pursue this debate further, as I simply got up to make plain the position of the South African party in my constituency to refute the impression which has been created, or which it has been attempted to create, that that party is delighted at Mr. X’s election as a Nationalist senator.

I do not get up for the purpose of defending the Minister’s action, as it is absolutely unnecessary for me or anybody else to do so. I am so pleased that the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is giving me his ear.

A red Herring, I suppose.

No, I am going to read something with reference to the telegrams referred to by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I take it he knows the paper called the “Kokstad Advertiser.”

Yes.

I think I am perfectly right in saying that it is not run by a Nationalist.

It is run by a Bolshevik.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Griqualand sits in this House and allows a prominent paper to be run there by a Bolshevik in a S.A.P. constituency. I am told that this paper does not support the National party, but supports the S.A.P., and has even supported the hon. member for Griqualand sitting in this House.

It is supporting Tod at present.

That is the crime of that paper. Until it did that it was a good old S.A.P. paper. On May 15, three days after the election took place, the “Kokstad Advertiser” refers to Senator Tod’s “well-merited honour for the East Griqualand M.P.C.”

Give us your own private opinion.

The paper states—

That was three days after the election. The paper goes on—

So you see, it was quite clear they knew the facts. The paper goes on to say—

This was after they knew all the circumstances and that this gentleman had been nominated by the Nationalists.

Will you tell us your private opinion?

No. For the simple reason that it is not necessary on a silly charge like this to give an opinion. I hope the Minister will not condescend to give an opinion. The article goes on—

Were they financial demands?

The article concludes—

Who said that?

They want him to make him an administrator.

I want to ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) not to be silly. That is all I wanted to place before the House, and I am not going to take part in the discussion. I don’t know that this article has been repudiated, nor whether the telegrams had been repudiated in the press, and we understand that a public banquet is going to be given to this gentleman.

Does that justify the transaction?

East Griqualand is satisfied, and the only people dissatisfied are the S.A.P. politicians in this House.

I rise because I am more than surprised at the support which the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) has given to the charges that have been levelled by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). When the question was put to the hon. member for Somerset he, realizing his position in this House, and recognizing the higher position which within a short period he is going to adorn, when the question was put to him whether he approved of an action of a character we have been discussing, he was sufficiently guarded not to say that he did approve. A greater condemnation than the action of the hon. member opposite cannot be conceived, for he was afraid to say whether he approved of an action of that character. My hon. friend is not going to wriggle out of the position. There has been no more serious charge of a dishonourable transaction than the one we have been discussing this evening, and no greater condemnation of that transaction than the refusal of the hon. member for Somerset to give a simple answer to an honest question. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has been so used to political contortions that he feels it a duty to support any contortion of a character we have been discussing this evening.

Really!

My hon. friend feels a little sore, because I Rave been given to understand that even hon. gentlemen on the cross-benches would not have taken the action they did and voted as they did, were it not for the fact that they had first given a pledge to vote for whatever candidate that the united party brought forward. They were surprised to find that the hon. members opposite had got them into a trap.

Why worry about us?

I am only trying to make excuses for members on the cross-benches for the dexterous manner in which hon. members opposite had tricked them into that position. Any stranger coming into this House and hearing the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, would have imagined that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) had moved a reduction of his vote. This is the first time that a definite charge is made against a Minister, and a reduction of his vote is moved that instead of defending himself a colleague does it.

He did not defend me—he attacked you.

Perhaps he thinks the Minister of the Interior has no defence.

It is an extra ordinary thing if the Government desires the business of the House to go on expeditiously, that charges of a serious character like that made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)

What is the charge?

I thought that after his holiday the extraordinary irritability which characterized the Minister of Defence a couple of weeks ago would have disappeared. All the dancing of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will not prevent the House demanding an answer from the responsible Minister to the charge made against him. Charges have been definitely made, and I cannot make them more clearly or definitely than have been made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He has put them in the most temperate language possible and gave the Minister a chance to get up and reply, but he has sat there and handed to the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) a cutting from the “Kokstad Advertizer”—

You are wrong there.

—which he thinks is a complete justification of his conduct. He will not facilitate the passing of this vote if he treats this House with such incivility. It is treating the House with incivility if he does not get up and reply to the charge. Until he does he will not have an expeditious dealing with his vote by members of this side.

I hope my hon. friend will not respond to the invitation of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I presume that, seeing this discussion has been allowed to proceed, that it is in order, but I don’t know what right a member has to be impugned for a vote given in a joint meeting of members of Parliament and provincial council to elect a member of the Senate. My hon. friend in that joint assembly had a right to vote as he pleased without being responsible to this House or this committee. For the last two hours we have been listening to a letting-off of steam by the disappointed party opposite and the giving vent to an intense spleen at a member having dared to leave their party. We have had cases of sudden conversion quoted in this House. The earliest was that of St. Paul, and he had to undergo the same thing. In those days those he left were so angry that he had to be lowered outside the walls of Damascus in a basket. Now we have with regard to this Senate election an after-math, the ventilation of mere spleen on the other side, of pure anger, and I think the committee would be consulting the dignity of this Parliament by dropping this matter. They cannot impugn any member on a vote.

The Minister’s vote was not impugned.

Then there is no need to go on talking about it. In any case he was not acting as the Minister of the Interior.

Why cannot he reply?

I hope he will not reply. The members opposite can go on talking all night, but I hope he will not give the House satisfaction regarding what he does in his capacity as an elector in the election for the Senate. We are quite prepared to allow your party to clothe themselves in those white garments of rigid scrupulous political morality of which they have been such profound exemplars for the last 15 years. I think the ease of Mr. Isaac Purcell was not quite in the same school of the rigid morality they have represented this evening.

He left the party.

He did not leave the party. He was sitting on our benches in 1920.

You told him to, didn’t you?

I told him he could go if he liked, but he didn’t do so. If you had spoken of the hon. Senator a few weeks ago you would have said the same thing. You seem to be sorry he was a member of the party.

We are.

Then we are all pleased he left your party, so now we can pass this vote if we are all satisfied.

I want to revert to the charges against the Minister under the electoral law. I say one of the reasons which may account for the discrepancy in the number of votes taken from the roll in the Cape Peninsula and which may apply elsewhere throughout the provinces is the incorrect basis on which canvassers have been instructed.

There is no discrepancy; I will explain later.

At the framing of the last electoral Bill, according to information I have received, there were three thousand names less than on the previous roll, a fact which was commented upon at the time. The Minister by his instructions to his canvassers has broken the law. I ask him to deal with that, because he will agree some answer must be given to an allegation that there has been a clear departure from the law. The Minister, according to the regulations, if he was doing his duty, should have instructed canvassers to proceed throughout the districts of the province to place on the list the names of all people on the existing roll except those the canvasser could establish were dead or otherwise unable to vote. Secondly, these canvassers in making up the new roll were bound to insert not only the names of those who might be resident in the districts in which they were appointed, but also of those who enjoyed in that district the salary qualification. If that be the law, what the Minister has done may be an explanation of the very large deficiency which has occurred? I have in my hand here his “Instructions to Canvassers.” He expressly departs from the basis laid down by the law and instructs his canvassers first of all to commence their rounds with a list of those persons who are on the voters’ roll and who are qualified by residence only. It was the duty of the canvasser to announce at every house or place of business at which he called that he desired to register those persons who were entitled by law to be on the roll. He was to make no distinction, he could draw no distinction. Under the regulation issued by the Minister he proceeds to their residences and then he ascertains from the head of the household “the name of every white male person of the age of 21 years and upwards who is actually residing in such house or other building.” The law requires him to ask under the old regulations the name of every person of the age of 21 and upwards who possesses the necessary qualification by virtue of residence or of the fact of possessing a salary in excess of £50 per annum. By whose authority was that departure from the regulations authorized? The law is very specific that the questions must be put to the head of the household. The first question is this—

Then follow other questions along the same lines. The canvasser, under the departmental instructions, is required to ascertain from the head of the household the name of every white male person of 21 years and upwards who is actually residing in such house or other building, or who, although residing therein, is temporarily absent therefrom. Throughout the whole of these regulations, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, runs this single and primary qualification, that the canvasser has to register those persons only who may be resident there. That being the instruction, that being so clearly contrary to the law, is it not possible that throughout this province all those persons who are really upon the roll to-day by virtue of their salary qualification and who have not come within this canvass based on residence only, have been left off because of this faulty basis sanctioned by the department, and, of course, theoretically, by the Minister? This afternoon, when this point was raised, he suggested that the remedy might be to go to court. It is impossible for a voter to obtain a general declaration from courts of law that the law has been violated. Has the Minister seen that his canvassers, in accordance with rule 64 of the regulations, have been to every place of business, factory or workshop, and inquired from employers of labour, whether there are persons entitled by the salary qualification to be registered, and seen that such persons are on the roll; or has he allowed his canvassers to ask whether they are entitled by residential qualification only to be on the roll?

It is rather unfortunate if this House is to be detained for hours every time the South African party loses one of its stalwarts, because one can foresee nothing but a series of such happenings, as, undoubtedly, there is disintegration in their ranks. I advise them to stand by what their leader said the other day. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, and leader of the South African party said—

If they are a party of gentlemen, let them show themselves gentlemen by being perfectly dignified when one of their number leaves their ranks to go to the other side.

I am sorry we cannot return the compliment.

Their party grew by the attractions they were able to offer, but it is getting less and less. A great deal of fuss is being made on the other side about the registration of voters in Cape Town. It just shows the point to which politics have got in the country. First of all, if you register the native here, he can get drink The liquor interests are interested in his being able to get drink so are naturally seeing that the largest possible number of native voters are put on the roll. Then you also have the unfortunate circumstance on top of that that the South African party wants the votes, so we have an unfortunate combination. Of course, the South African party as “a party of gentlemen” could not, for a moment, be suspected of putting up money for such a purpose, but their agents are extremely active. I really rose to give an explanation which I think I am entitled to make both for myself and the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) so that it can be down in Hansard as a correct record. The statement was made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the hon. member for Pretoria (North) had to apologize for a certain election incident in Pretoria, and the impression has been created that that incident has had to be apologized for and explained away. On public platforms the leader of the Opposition has stated that an apology had to be made and the whole thing retracted. That incident is known as the Botes intrusion. Mr. Botes stood in the last election for Pretoria (West). He himself made the statement in writing, and there is no question about its accuracy that he was approached to stand as a Nationalist, and money found for him by the S.A.P. or those interested in splitting the Pact vote. Another name connected with it was Mr. Browning, who stated he had been chairman of the election committee of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) then contesting the Pretoria (West) seat. Mr. Browning stated that, owing to this action, which he considered dirty politics, he had resigned from the chairmanship of that election committee. There was another, Col. Weber, who stated in this letter also that he had a knowledge of what had taken place. The apology made by the hon. member for Pretoria (North) was to Col. Breytenbach only, who was mentioned as having conveyed the money. That apology was not for the political action in Pretoria (West), but that a particular name should have been contained in the letter which he published as being the one who conveyed the money. That could not be proved. After the letters referred to in this House of the hon. member for Standerton written to officers of the Defence Force thanking them for their political services when he was Prime Minister, we need say nothing more about Col. Breytenbach, or any other member of the Defence Force, in regard to political action. It is to be hoped so far as political life is concerned, we will have it cleaner in future, and that under the new Electoral Act some things will not be possible which were practicable formerly, such, for instance, as dual voting. In my election forty-seven “doubles” were rung in on me from Roberts Heights, the military headquarters near Pretoria—a very unpleasant experience. Now that our friends on the other side are so virtuous, I trust they will clear all elections of the reproach that has attached to them in the past from their actions.

I was surprised to hear no less than two Labour members, and the future Administrator, say that the Minister of the Interior was not going to condescend to reply to the charge we were making against him, and we were asked: What is the charge? I should have thought, after the lucid statement from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), that they would have saved us the unpleasantness of reiterating the charge. However, I will reformulate the charge. We charge the Minister of the Interior with having been the chief instrument—the accessory before and after the fact—in bringing about the most discreditable incident in the political history of South Africa. That is the charge. I cannot put it more plainly.

What has that to do with the vote?

We are discussing not the vote but your conduct. Can any Minister afford to sit there and say he will not condescend to answer that charge?

Yes.

It is not a charge that has been lightly made, and if the Minister can afford to brush aside public opinion it is a sad commentary on the public morality of the Pact. I remember that the Minister made a speech at Malmesbury, in which he said—

We know that the Minister of the Interior, as pontifically as God’s butler, laid down the law of political morality and purity, and now he actually tells us that he is not going to condescend to reply to the most serious charge that has ever been made against any Minister in this country so far as I know. The Minister puffs and blows, but I repeat my statement. The Minister is at the bar not only of this House but of public opinion. Ministerial laughter.) This is not a matter we feel inclined to treat with levity, and I am very sorry to see some hon. members opposite treat the matter jocularly. I feel that in their heart of hearts they look upon scabs and blacklegs in the same way as we do. If there ever was a scabby case it is the one we are dealing with to-night. The Labour and Nationalist members have been upright enough to express their opinion outside the House, and they all said they would not dirty their hands with a business like this. That is the true opinion held by members across the way. I wonder if they would have done what Mr. X did? Not one of them approved of what the Minister of the Interior did in their heart of hearts. Sooner or later we shall have to amend the electoral laws of this country. I only hope when the electoral law comes before the House it will be entrusted to other hands than the Lon. Minister of the Interior. I hope they will be entrusted to a Minister who holds a different view on political integrity than does the Minister of the Interior.

The hon. member who sat down is wasting the time of this House. He ought to go along to the African Theatres Trust and apply for a situation as a comedian and he would make a fortune.

Tell us what you think about Mr. Tod.

I will not oblige the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) by making an explanation of my opinion of Mr. Tod. Members on that side are wasting their time in airing their grievances about a member of the South African party. Here we have a vote of £178,569. Have any of the members on that side expressed their opinion on any item of it? Have they attempted in any shape or form to attack the policy of the Government? Have they put forward any constructive ideas to improve the policy of the Government? Not once have they attacked the policy of the Minister who is in charge of this vote. The whole of the discussion by members of that side of the House is, I think, out of order. It should have been made on vote 21, “mental hospitals and institutions for feeble-minded.” The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is supposed to represent a constituency largely comprised of miners, and the working classes of the Witwatersrand, yet he is standing in the way of legislation that is for their good. The hon. member is betraying his constituents. The jackass laughs frequently, but the laugh will be on the other side of the face when he meets his constituents. We have in the hon. member’s constituency sweated workers, men suffering from miners’ phthisis, we have a Miners’ Phthisis Bill waiting to pass this House, and a Wage Bill, and instead of discussing the vote and dealing with the items, we are wasting the time of the country washing the dirty linen of the South African party. They have said themselves it is dirty linen. They can say one thing about the Labour party. When the South African party have succeeded in converting a member of the South African Labour party we have dealt with the matter inside our own party and have not come here to squeal about it. The whole call of the people of South Africa is for some progressive and constructive legislation that will assist the community in this country to a better life than they have to-day, and the hon. members opposite know as well as I do that they are doing all they can to blockade and impede the work of the Government, and then they will come along later on and say that the Government have done nothing, they have passed no legislation, while hon. members opposite have done their best to assist them to pass these measures. Hon. members opposite inside this House are doing all they possibly can to impede every bit of useful legislation that is on the Order Paper, and I would ask hon. members on both sides of the House to realize that, as far as this discussion is concerned, it can serve no useful purpose.

I would just like now to reply to several points in connection with the registration of voters raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and other hon. members on that side of the House. The hon. Member for Cape Town (Harbour) has reverted in his speech to an accusation which he brought, not against me personally, but against the department, on a former occasion, viz., that a request was made by him or some other people belonging to his party for an interview in connection with registration matters, and that that request was refused. He has given this afternoon his version of the whole matter to the committee. I have made inquiries and I can just give him the facts as far as I have ascertained them. Before I do that, let me say that the hon. gentleman knows that as a rule I personally never refuse to meet deputations who want to see me. The hon. gentleman has been a member of several deputations and he knows by experience, and I can tell him that it is a general rule with me never to refuse requests of that kind, but, as I say, the accusation is not against me personally nor, as I understood the hon. member this afternoon, was the accusation against the permanent head of the department, but his grievance is against a subordinate official. Now this is the note I received on this particular matter from the electoral officer concerned. It reads—

The hon. gentleman will admit that the attitude of this subordinate official was quite correct. I then saw Mr. Kincaid, of the headquarters, and handed him the list of questions, and on his suggestion Mr. Thompson was informed that I could not discuss such matters, and that as the head of my department, that is the Secretary of the Interior, was in Cape Town, he should communicate with him. I telephoned to Mr. Thompson the same morning, and his typist took the message. I heard no more about the matter. The position is this, that requests were made to a subordinate official, and that official, after referring him to some higher official, told the representative of that deputation that he could not meet him because he was acting under instructions, and he referred him to the head of the department, who was in Cape Town. So when I stated that the head of the department did not receive such a request, I was quite correct. Possibly it was a misunderstanding, but the hon. gentleman will believe that it was nothing intentional on our part. The hon. gentleman has stated further that verbal instructions were given to canvassers in connection with registration in the Cape Peninsula, that non-Europeans, if they wanted to get on the register, had to go for registration to the police station. I have enquired into that matter, and I find that no instructions, verbal or otherwise, were given by the head of the department. On the contrary, our written instructions are very clear and definite, and those instructions are that the canvasser has, if need be, to call at the residence of the voter or possible voter twice. If he does not find the person at home the first time, he has to go a second time. As far as I can judge, the only thing that has happened is this, that after having been at a particular house for a second time, and finding no one at home, the canvasser possibly left a message that according to instructions he could only call twice, and if that person wished to be on the roll, the best way was for him to apply in person at certain places. That was not placing any obstacle in the way of voters or possible voters, but was helping them to register. That, as far as I can ascertain, is all that has happened. The hon. gentleman further quoted, this afternoon, certain particular cases where the canvassers have acted wrongly. These cases all amount to this, that in regard to the voter, so and so, on the existing voters’ list, an intimation has been sent that his name has been left off, because he has changed his place of residence. That is the complaint, and the hon. gentleman says it transpired, in those particular cases which he named, that the voter was still actually living at the same residence where he lived at the former registration. I have not gone into these cases, and am quite willing to accept the word of the hon. gentleman, and to accept his version of that particular case as correct, but cases of this kind have occurred at every registration that there has been in the country, and I daresay that from all three political parties the same accusations can be made and cases, I should say, by the hundreds, can be quoted as having occurred both now and on former occasions. As a matter of fact, I can inform the hon. gentleman that complaints of this nature, that canvassers have not faithfully done their duty, have been received by me, not only from his party, but also from the Nationalist and Labour parties. Just to quote one particular case. It has been represented to me that the canvassers in the constituency of Kimberley did not carry out my very definite instructions that they should visit the houses of everyone on the existing voters’ roll, and visit the residence of every person who is a possible claimant. They did that in Kimberley as far as the European and coloured population is concerned, but did not visit the compounds. They left the work of the compounds actually to be done by the overseers in the compounds That is a complaint brought to my notice, and that complaint is justified, and as far as I can remember, the inmates of those compounds, so far as they were registered, have always voted for the South African party, so that if any injustice has been done, it has been an injustice to this side of the House. I simply quote this to show that complaints of this nature come not only from one party but all parties, and as these complaints are brought forward now, they have been brought forward with more or less justice on former occasions. But the point is that canvassers are not infallible, and they do make mistakes. But then this registration, so far as the canvassers and registering officer are concerned, is not final. Every person who thinks that an injustice has been done to him has his remedy. There are the objection courts, and they can go there and get that injustice redressed. A very definite charge has been brought against the canvassers by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He says that judging by the facts these canvassers are incompetent. When this Government assumed office the registering officers had actually been appointed by the previous Government for a period of two years. All the registering officers appointed by the late Government except one had done the work of this registration. If hon. members opposite criticize the registering officers they are criticizing the administration of their own Government. The canvassers are not appointed by me or the Secretary of the Interior, but by the registering officers, who, with one single exception, have been appointed by the previous Government. I have done what the previous Government has not done—that is, I issued instructions to all registering officers that as far as the appointment of canvassers are concerned they should, as far as possible, consult the representatives of all the political parties in the constituencies concerned. In a very large number of cases that has actually been done. That shows that at least we have tried to be impartial. We now come to the Cape Town provisional list. The comparison which has been made between the results of this registration with the existing list is not a fair one. The only fair comparison is to compare the present provisional list with the provisional list of the former registration or, at a later stage, to compare the list with the existing list. Let us take the provisional list for the Cape Peninsula as they are known now and compare them with the provisional list of two years ago. In Cape Town (Central) the names on the provisional list are only eleven less than two years ago; Cape Town (Gardens), 235 more; Harbour, 86 more; and Liesbeek, 903 less than two years ago, but this is accounted for by the fact that a very large number of voters there are natives who work in Cape Town only temporarily, and a very large number of them have left. On the Newlands list there are 498 names more than two years ago; Rondebosch, 258 more and Salt River 111 less. Take the South Peninsula. The provisional list this year has 297 names more than the provisional list two years ago. Looking at these figures the whole bottom is knocked out of the case of the hon. gentleman. The comparison between the provisional list now and the existing voters’ list is not fair. You must compare provisional lists with provisional lists or the newly completed voters’ list with the last voters’ list. I may in addition make a general remark. Conditions generally have changed very much since the last registration, and for that reason one may expect the number of voters would be reduced. Wages have come down, and for that reason quite a number of wage-earners who had been registered under the wage qualification two years ago perhaps are not qualified now. We must take account of these changes as far as general conditions are concerned. There is just this other point. The point of the alleged discrimination between Europeans and non-Europeans. I don’t think that a case has been made out at all, that I acted against the law in issuing these instru ctions. On a former occasion I have quoted the provisions of the law. I will do so again, because I think the law is very clear and definite. Clause 4 says—

So you see the obligation is on him to inquire whether the person is qualified—

Clause 5 is more clear and definite still—

Business interrupted by the Deputy-Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.