I move—

Unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture is still in bed.

Mr. VERMOOTEN seconded.

I wish to protest against this procedure of the Government. Of course, I can quite well understand the difficulty in which the Government is placed, owing to the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, whose illness we regret, but surely it was possible to arrange the Order Paper differently. We were in exactly the same difficulty yesterday when, owing to the absence of the Minister, these three Orders had to stand over, and the whole Order Paper was thrown out of gear to the great inconvenience of members and of the Committee. I wish to protest most strongly against the procedure. Surely it was possible for the Minister of Justice to have foreseen that this situation would arise again to-day, and that we would have exactly the same situation as we had yesterday. Now we are in the position that having seen the Order Paper we thought these three Bills would come on to-day. I protest most strongly against the treatment to which the House is subjected. The Order Paper all through the session has been drawn up in such a slovenly way that members have never known where they were. I protest.

I may say the Order Paper was arranged in this way for to-day because the Minister of Agriculture’s doctor had told him yesterday he would be able to come to-day. Had it not been for the sudden change in the weather he would have been able to come, and he expected to do so, but at 2 o’clock his doctor prevented him from coming. The doctor has ordered the Minister away from Cape Town as soon as possible, and as soon as he can manage to get his work through he will be forced to go northwards. Therefore, it is entirely unpreventable. We expected these three Orders would be read to-day, and it is entirely a question of the illness of the Minister of Agriculture that makes this necessary. As a matter of fact, it is our intention, on the doctor’s advice, to endeavour to get the Minister to work off these matters to-morrow so that he can go northwards at the earliest opportunity.

Motion put and agreed to.

I have, on the order paper, notice of an amendment to this clause, which has been brought forward in consequence of the reply of the Minister the other day, to the effect that, in his view, the bilingual examination, which is at present required to be passed by officials, is not higher than standard VII. I wish to take the Minister at his own avowal, and asked whether he will now allow the standard to be recognized in this section as sufficient to qualify officials under this clause. The reply of the Minister yesterday, to the question by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), shows that out of nearly 600 candidates, less than 100 passed the qualifying examination. That would seem to bear out my contention urged at the second reading that the examination is unnecessarily severe, and that there is a real difficulty, on the part of those railway servants who are seeking to qualify under this clause. In respect to Natal, I am assured that the figures show that only 4 per cent. of the candidates were able to pass the examination, so that the difficulty that is shared in common with the officials in other parts of the Union is more acute in Natal, where opportunities of learning the language are few and far between. I hope the Minister will show a spirit of sweet reasonableness in this matter, by agreeing to the amendments I have put on the order paper, some of which are consequential, referring to the whole of this section 8, and the aim of which is to recognize standard VII. as the qualifying examination under this section. I move—

I rise to support the amendments of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and at the same time wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the extraordinary system followed in the marking of examination papers, as disclosed by his answer to my question yesterday. It is certainly a very remarkable thing that these young men are being failed for a shortage of not more than 1¾ marks. When one remembers that these men have been studying this second language, and spending money in private tuition to make themselves acquainted with the subject, only in the end to be turned down by an examiner because of such a small shortage in marks, it is indeed extraordinary. I have had a good deal to do with examinations in the past, and this is the first time I have known of examiners going into decimal points. Generally, when a candidate gets within a measurable distance of the number of marks required to pass, his marks are raised all through the paper to enable him to pass; the object of an examination is not to plough the candidate, but to test his general knowledge; but it looks as though the system followed in Natal is the very opposite, and that a candidate has his marks reduced to prevent his passing. I say that in view of the very few candidates who are managing to struggle through this examination. We have, in Natal, young railway clerks who have gone up for the examination no less than three times, and they get less marks on each successive occasion, their last examination being more unprofitable than the first. I do, indeed, feel that this is a thing that should be enquired into, because, I am told, these examination papers, after the examination, have been examined by the Dutch masters who have taught these young men, and they have expressed the opinion that, from their examination of the answers given by these young candidates, they are quite unable to arrive at any reason why they have been failed. I hope this matter will be carefully enquired into. It seems most extraordinary that the whole future of these young men should be jeopardized for the sake of 1¾ marks. If any discretion is to be shown, it should certainly be exercised in the interests of the candidates and not always against them.

In supporting the motion I wish to say that I am sure the mover has no intention of going back on the principle laid down here, that after a man has entered the railway service he shall not get promotion within the next five years beyond the stage which he has then reached unless he is qualified in both official languages. I think that is a good provision. We must have a bilingual public service in this country, and I am not one who would advocate going back on the compromise we arrived at some years ago. But it is a well known fact in Natal that many English-speaking youths in the railway at present, and who are honestly doing their best to learn the other official language, are under a much greater handicap than in other parts of the Union. It is very difficult to get proper teachers, and they have not the same facility of picking up the language, by means of conversation, as railway servants in other parts of the Union. If the Minister will accept these amendments it will simply mean that in future, whether the candidate is English-speaking or Dutch-speaking, he will be asked to pass an examination which is equivalent to the seventh standard examination in that language in the schools. I think it is quite reasonable. The candidate will obtain a good practical knowledge of the other language if he passes this examination. I would like to say to the committee that there are in Natal quite a large number of hard-working, efficient, English-speaking railway men, who are anxious to acquire the other language, and so far they have felt that their efforts are nullified by the stiffness of the examination. If these amendments could be accepted the interests of the railway servants will be protected, and a large number of public servants will have the opportunity of qualifying in the other official language.

I would also like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). It is quite easy for all sections of the English people to learn Afrikaans when they have facilities for talking it, but these facilities do not exist in Natal, and it is very difficult to learn a language from books only. In the lower portions of Natal not once in twelve months does a man come in contact with the Dutch language. I have been 46 years in Natal and have been all over the province, but I have never yet been asked to speak Dutch. The Natal railway system is the most intensely worked in the Union, and we have the finest type of railwaymen in the whole of the Union, and but for them the railway could not be worked. Before the opening of the new deviation more trains were worked over the single section of railway between Pinetown and Bellair than over any other single line in the world. Since Union, whenever the other provinces have been in railway difficulties they have had to send to Natal for the railwaymen there to take them out of it.

The members who have spoken so far on this matter represent up-country constituencies, but I would like to put in a word on behalf of the towns. If the men up-country have little opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Dutch language colloquially, the men in the towns in Natal have even less. It is not because the men in the towns do not want to learn Dutch or have any objection to the language whatever, but it is because of the want of opportunity to become acquainted with the language. It is said that the examinations are more severe than they really need be for the purposes of the department, and if such is the case it ought to be remedied. I sincerely hope the Minister will see his way to make the concession asked for by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick).

When I was in Durban a few weeks ago I found there was distinct dissatisfaction amongst the clerical staff with reference to the Dutch examination, and it was stated that there was something wrong either with the examination or with the examiners. The railwaymen would prefer that an independent examination should be instituted and that the officials of the railway should be in no way concerned in it. I have heard that English-speaking men who are not called upon to learn Dutch are doing so voluntarily. Pre-Union servants are doing so, and they are beginning to realize that it is their duty as citizens of a bilingual country to be acquainted with both the official languages. But I would appeal to the Minister not to blight this tender growth, and if he will promise that he will use the powers he has to give special consideration to the men they will be satisfied. The clause should be amended so that the men who entered the railway service prior to 1911 should be dealt with as they are to-day, but under the Bill men who joined the daily paid staff in 1912 and since then have been promoted to the clerical staff cannot be admitted to a clerical post unless they know both languages.

There is another aspect of the question which might be taken into consideration, and that is the giving of facilities to young men to enable them to acquire Dutch. These young fellows are trying to learn the language at their own expense, and many a career is baulked because of the want of facilities for learning Dutch. In Natal you have the most efficient and the most dissatisfied men in the railway service. I wonder what the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has to say about this. He comes here with a look of smug prosperity and has nothing to say in this respect. There is another point I would like to ask the Minister. In regard to these examination papers, is the name of the candidate disclosed on the paper? It should not be. It should be a number. I hope the Minister will answer that in his reply.

The names of the candidates are not disclosed on the paper. Let me deal with the present position, because hon. members seem to have forgotten we passed the Act of 1912 and that section 6 of that Act deals with this very point. They now raise the question of bilingualism in the railway service, as if it were the first time any Government has dealt with the subject. It was fully dealt with in 1912. From the arguments that have been deducted it is made to appear that the Government are making the railway servants use a second language as if it were something new. Our railway servants have been well aware that section 6 of the Railway Act still stood. The position is that section 6 of the 1912 Act, the Railway Service Act deals with the whole question, and let me explain that the only difference made in this Bill which I propose now, is that I am bringing the practice in the railway service into line with the public service, namely, that the five years will be applied to the salary of the man and not to the grade. You may get a man, who, just before reaching the five years, receives promotion from one grade to another. Under the existing law he was entitled to proceed with his annual increments until he reached the top of the grade into which he is promoted. The five years’ bar will apply only to his salary under this Bill. It seems to me the Government cannot possibly adopt the suggestion that we should depart from that. We must bring the railway service into line. A point is made that we should insert standard VII in the examination. I have already said there is no intention on the part of the administration to increase the standards, and after the debate which has taken place on a previous occasion, and again to-day, a good case has been made out for investigation as to these examinations. A statement was made that a responsible education authority had said we applied a test equal to the matriculation test. I don’t agree. But in view of what has been said it will be only right than an investigation be made, and I propose asking the educational authorities to revise these papers and to set papers which will conform to standard VII. test. I cannot accept this amendment, because, if I did, it would be contrary to the spirit of compromise adopted in 1923, and adopted under the Public Service Bill.

In what way contrary?

Because the Act of 1923 lays down—section 15—that the standard is the one prescribed and I follow the same wording in this Bill. The standard we are going to prescribe is standard VII.

Will you embody it in the Act?

No. Because it is purely a matter for the administration. When I have made this statement on behalf of the administration and on behalf of the Government, members ought to be satisfied that is the position we are taking up. We cannot say under the Bill that the prescribed standard is standard VII. Standard VII. may disappear. You have four systems of education and, anyhow, what is your Standard VII.

It is more determinate than that prescribed in the examination.

I agree, but surely something must be left to the administration, and to the good sense of the administration. If you refer to the latter part of the Bill you will see that we take power to make regulations on a variety of subjects. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment to put in the Bill that standard VII. is to be the prescribed test. I may add that the regulations are laid upon the Table from time to time. The second amendment deals with the same position, namely, the question of further extension. That is already met with in the proviso, the proviso adopted in 1912, namely, that the Minister has power under special circumstances to grant leave to servants to proceed in the ordinary way, where they have no facility to learn the second language. I shall apply the law sympathetically, and if a bona fide case is brought to my notice where a servant has not the facility to acquire a second language, I shall deal sympathetically with it, and not apply the five years’ bar. Unless I am satisfied that the servant is making every possible effort to qualify, I shall apply the proviso. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has referred to a candidate who has failed with a few marks. That is certainly an absurd thing, and I am looking into it to see if we cannot pass those boys who have only failed by one per cent. or one and a quarter per cent. That is a matter of administration. If any railway servant can bring his case to my notice and show that he has made an effort to qualify in the second language and fails for reasons over which he has no control—take a man in Durban or on the siding where they never hear Dutch—if he brings a case of this kind to my notice, I will deal with it sympathetically. These things are covered in the Bill. The third amendment seems the most impossible of all. He wants to refer matters of this sort to a conciliation board which has not been constituted to deal with matters of policy. They are there in purely an advisory capacity and I cannot adopt the amendment that this question should be referred to the conciliation board. He wants to make their decision final. That is absolutely impossible, and the House would be going too far if they agree to it. I trust the House will be satisfied that the Bill as drafted is the Bill of 1912. If they don’t agree, read the clause in the existing Act of 1912 and satisfy themselves that the only extension of the 1912 Act is that the bar applies to salary and not to grade. Those are the only differences from the existing Act, salary instead of grade, and a final bar after five years from the passing of this Act. Surely no hon. member will argue that this is an injustice to the boys of Natal or any other part of the country. They have had notice since 1912, and now they have another five years. They are told that if they want to enter the service they will have to qualify, and if, as the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) said, 97 per cent. of the boys in Natal were learning Dutch, where does the injustice come in? As regards the question of examinations, I am prepared to submit that matter to the educational authorities and ask them to submit tests which will conform to standard VII.

I think that in substance there is no difference of opinion. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) asks that standard VII should be put into the Act as the standard for this examination. The Minister says that he agrees that standard VII should be the standard, but he does not like to put it into the Act. So that it narrows down to this, that in substance—not on the matter of form, but on the matter of substance—we are in agreement. What the Minister is prepared to give the hon. member for Illovo and my hon. friends on this side of the House are agreeable to accept, the only difference being whether it should be in the Act. I would ask my hon. friends on this side of the House when there is substantial agreement on the merits not to insist on having this put into the Act. The Minister has given us two undertakings, which bind not only him, but bind the Railway Administration. That is firstly, that the standard will be standard VII for this examination, and, secondly, that where there are cases of acknowledged hardship he will meet those cases fairly. I think those two assurances should satisfy hon. members on this side of the House. It is not possible for the Minister to depart from the undertaking he has given here. I say this, because the argument has been raised that this is the individual assurance of the Minister and may be departed from to-morrow by another Minister. The assurance which the Minister has given here has to be embodied in the regulations which will be laid on the Table of the House. Those regulations cannot be modified without again being laid on the Table. Under those circumstances I think we should rest content with the assurance that the Minister has given. There is this further difficulty which one may point out, that if we are to fix a standard here, that for the public service is a different and much higher standard. The standard for entrance into and promotion in the public service is the matriculation, which is very much higher than standard VII. The Minister has made a fair attempt to meet the difficulty which exists in the railway service, and under those circumstances I would counsel my hon. friends to accept the assurance which he has given and which is to be embodied in a formal regulation. I have this feeling about the general question, that it is not in the interests of the country that we should discuss this language question too much in the House. We have arrived at compromises, and as long as the Government is carrying out faithfully both in the spirit and the letter those compromises, I do not think we should be for ever raising this issue, which is not in the interests of the country and which disturbs the good relations and good feeling that exists outside amongst the people. We are not really serving the good cause by over-labouring this point, but at the same time I have very much sympathy with the difficulty which the people of Natal feel. The people in the other provinces have ample opportunities to pick up the second language, but in Natal it is far more difficult, and I hope the Minister will bear that in mind and try to ease the position in Natal as much as possible. I understand that 93 per cent. of the scholars are learning Dutch in the schools in Natal, and I would suggest to the Minister that where a child has passed at school the seventh standard in Dutch he should not afterwards be obliged to sit again for another examination for the railway service. If the Minister is satisfied that a child in his curriculum has passed either in Dutch or English the required standard and has got a certificate to that effect from the Education Department, the Railway Department should be satisfied with that and should not subject this poor devil to another examination when he enters the railway service.

That is so under the Bill now.

If that is going to be the practice, and the passing of this standard in the school years will be adopted under this Act, I would appeal to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) to accept the assurance of the Minister and not insist upon the embodiment of this understanding in the Act itself.

May I just express my appreciation of the remarks of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)? It is seldom that the hon. member has spoken where, in my opinion, he has given such satisfaction as during the last few minutes in putting the case as he has put it so ably and so well on this language question. The hon. member is quite right when he says that the less we have of this language question on the floor of the House the better it will be for the promotion of harmony between the two races in South Africa. Compromises have been made, and there is no doubt about it that, as the right hon. gentleman says, the intention of the Government is to meet the difficult position in which large numbers of the people of Natal find themselves in this connection in the best and broadest possible way. It is a pleasure to me to know that the railway servants in Natal are doing their best to make themselves bilingual and doing their best to qualify in the other language, but, as has been said, the difficulties there are greater than they are in the other provinces. The Minister, however, has given us an assurance, not only publicly but also privately, that cases of hardship will be met in the most liberal way, and the administration now intends to give effect to the very thing which the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is moving to be inserted in the Bill, but, owing to drafting difficulties and the previous legislation on the statute book, it is difficult to embody these matters in the Act itself. I am pleased that the hon. member for Standerton has put the position so fairly, so ably and so well, and I hope my colleagues from Natal will accept that position. Let us once for all take this question out of the party arena, let us take this question out of the turmoil of debate in this House, let time settle it, and the desire on the part of the Natal servants and by the administration on the other side to do all they can to meet them.

I should like to explain the point of view of many of the railwaymen of 1912. I am not doing this in any acrimonious who have experienced the operation of the Act spirit, and I wish to assure the Minister that what I want to say about this matter arises from a sincere conviction that it is not desirable that the feeling of dissatisfaction resulting from this clause should be perpetuated. The Minister has spoken of the wish to give exemption from the clause to people who have no opportunity of learning the language. I know of innumerable young men who are situated in outlying stations, where it is absolutely impossible for them to learn the language and no exemption is granted them under present conditions. Under the previous Government no exemption was granted to these men, largely because of the pressure which was brought to bear politically in regard to the language matter by the then Opposition. I am simply pleading the case of the man who is not a politician and who suffers between the hammer and the anvil of the Government and the Opposition. The Minister upbraided me the other day for having introduced this matter in a spirit contrary to the Act of Union. The Government organ went further and said the Minister had let me off too lightly. On the contrary the clause of the Act of Union, in regard to the language question, which is very well known, entirely supports my view. The phraseology reads—

If within a measurable period, within two years of Union, you had at the time of Union said you were going to bring in a clause requiring a man to become bilingual in the short period of five years, I venture to say you would not have had Union, as you would have promoted the greatest dissatisfaction among public servants, leaving out of consideration the railway servants. At the time of the Union reference to the public service was recognized as applying to civil servants, while the railways were on a different footing, required to be run on business principles. Railwaymen have always looked upon themselves as being in a position in which bilingualism was a matter superimposed upon their other duties. I have been told by the Minister that this is a compromise, but even if it is a compromise that was come to by a Select Committee in 1923 outside the Act of Union, it is not as the laws of the Medes and Persians. Surely it would be the essence of wisdom on the part of the Minister to say: “I can see the point that these examinations may conceivably be too high. I wish to give these men an earnest of good faith in the matter, and to say that these examinations at no time shall be higher than standard VII.” That is all I have been asking for, and it seems to me a reasonable request. The fear of every railwayman is that as time goes on the standard of examination, instead of being lowered will be raised, that the time will arrive when this particular clause will be exploited, so that it will be impossible for anyone to get into the service who is not a thorough linguist in both languages. That seems to me the reverse of what is intended. I bear in mind what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said, but I do not think he knows sufficiently the bitterness caused among men who are brought to a standstill, not through inefficiency or inability to do their duty to the railways—on the contrary, the men who are employed in Natal are contributing more than their share towards the revenue and tonnage on the railway system. Now this is a matter which most intimately affects not only the officials in the service, but the children in the schools, and why I have asked this standard should be recognized is on this account. A boy leaves school after passing standard VII. His mind is impressionable. Within two years, without any, practice in the other language, he loses his recollection of it, and to all intents and purposes he goes back to where he was before he learned the language. It is an acquired language, and it is difficult for him to remember it in such a manner as to be able to pass an examination after the lapse of any long period without practice. I do plead with the Minister to realize that these are real and cogent reasons why he should meet us in this matter. As my leader pointed out, there is no difference between us, except the unwillingness of the Minister to embody this in the regulations. His doing so would give a large measure of satisfaction to people to-day who are haunted by the fear that this language question is going to be exploited to their disadvantage, and that the time will arrive when their children will be legislated out of the State service. The matter has been made very clear in the bulletin of the Salaried Staff Magazine, where an official has written, pointing out that the lot of the man without facilities for acquiring the language is going to be made more difficult still. My wish in suggesting that where the extension of time was not granted he should have the right of appeal to the Conciliation Board, was to give that man the benefit of the fellow-feeling of his fellow employees on the Conciliation Board, who would surely be in the best position to realize whether the man was putting up a reasonable claim, or whether it was a spurious claim.

I agree with what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said, but I think the Minister might give an assurance that he will put Standard VII. in the regulations. I recognize that he cannot put it in the Bill, but if he will give an assurance to put it in the regulations, I think that will satisfy my hon. friends on this side:

May I just say how cordially I agree with the hon. member for Standerton (Gen Smuts), and may I point out to him that the point he raised with regard to the examination is met in Clause 8 (1). I give the same undertaking in regard to Standard VII there, as regards other servants who may come in afterwards. As regards putting it in the regulations, I am quite prepared to do that, because then it is not in the Act, but can be dealt with by the House, from time to time, if the regulations are changed. I do not want to reply to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), but to ask him to bear this in mind. He stressed the point that the railways are a business concern. I want to stress that too, and to state that officials serving the public of South Africa ought now to realize that they must be bilingual in order to serve the public properly.

They have realized it to their cost.

No. I think I am speaking on behalf of a very large proportion of railway servants when I say that is not so, but that they do realize, as good South Africans serving the State, that they must serve both sections of the people in their own language.

The Minister is twisting my words as he did on a previous occasion.

You said “to their cost,” but the information I have is that they welcome this. It is true that some of them see difficulties. I have realized that from the beginning; but they realize it is necessary. The hon. member referred to the “Salstaffs Magazine.” It is true there was one article raising this difficulty, but did the hon. member notice another article of the same bulletin, pointing out that the time had now come when there should be an end.

I admit that.

So that there are two sides to the question even among railway servants. I am not looking at it from that point of view. While I have every sympathy with railway servants who are not in a position to pick up the language, I submit that we are a State undertaking and, as such, must serve the users of the railway, both sections, even in Natal. In Natal you have a large number of Dutch-speaking people, and there are also the people who come down from the Free State and the Transvaal.

They are well provided for.

I accept that; but they are not well provided for if they travel on the train and desire to speak their mother tongue and are not replied to in that tongue.

I think the transportation staff are largely bilingual.

I hope that is so, but, unfortunately, from the number of complaints, it does not appear to be the case. We have in the House representatives from all parts of the country. If hon. members on this side were to take part in the debate and tell this House how many complaints are made from time to time by Dutch-speaking people travelling on the railways, it would possibly shock the hon. member. I quite agree with the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Do not let us raise this language question every year. I thought the matter was dealt with in 1923, and that a reasonable compromise had been come to. I hope, after the appeal by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), that the hon. member will withdraw his amendments. I think the compromise set out here is reasonable, and I commend it to the Committee.

I also think that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and those who are supporting him, ought to be content with what the Minister has stated in so far as this matter is concerned. It would be far better to accept this than, perhaps, have something more severe. Seeing that the Minister is so insistent that railwaymen in Natal, and elsewhere, must be bilingual, will he not take into consideration the question of assisting the men in Natal? On the second reading I brought up the matter of the establishment of classes for that purpose. If the Minister will consider that, I shall be very glad. In connection with the electrification scheme in Natal, classes were instituted in order that drivers could acquire a knowledge of the electric engines. In my opinion the same thing should be done in Natal in this connection. I somewhat doubt whether the Minister actually realizes or understands the position in Natal. There is really very little opportunity there to acquire a knowledge of the Dutch language; because that language is not used to any great extent. I think the hon. members from Natal will bear out here. The railwaymen and others are anxious to acquire a knowledge of Afrikaans, realizing that this is a bilingual country, and I submit that they should be assisted to do so in the manner I have suggested.

†Mr. MARWICK. Do I understand that the Minister is willing to embody the certificate of standard VII in the regulations?

That is the assurance he has given us.

Then there is just one other point of very great moment to the railwaymen in Natal, and that is the case of the younger men who have been endeavouring to pass this examination, but who, from time to time, have been moved from one place to another. Sufficient recognition is not given, in such cases, to the fact that very often the man is removed entirely out of reach of teaching facilities, and the barrier is maintained in his case, although he is no longer within reach of bilingual instruction. I hope the Minister, in connection with his promise to investigate the matter in certain aspects, will take into consideration cases of that sort. If I can have that assurance, I shall feel constrained to withdraw the amendments I have proposed.

I have already indicated, on a previous occasion, that it is quite impossible for the department to set up schools all over Natal to teach the railway servants Dutch. What I have said I repeat. I will give every consideration to individual cases, where these are brought to the notice of the management and administration. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) suggested the appointment of instructors, but that is quite impracticable. You cannot teach a railway servant a language when he has only his evenings free by instructors running around the country. Other methods will have to be devised, and I am quite prepared to investigate the matter and see how we can assist railway servants to learn Dutch. I am also prepared to deal sympathetically with these cases.

I think the appointment of instructors a very excellent suggestion. Why cannot the department have teachers at Durban. Pietermaritzburg and Ladysmith and also one or two travelling instructors? How otherwise can a young fellow on a branch line in Natal learn Dutch when he does not hear the language spoken from one year’s end to the other? I would not hesitate to have even half a dozen instructors, for to my mind this is the only practicable method. If my hon. friend is so anxious for these people to learn Dutch he should not spare any effort in that direction.

I have listened attentively to the discussion this afternoon, but I cannot understand why Natal wants separate regulations. If teachers are to be appointed in Natal to teach the Dutch language then it will also be necessary in the Transvaal to appoint teachers to teach people English there. As I read the section—it applies to all the three provinces—it is very fair. Under the Bill the fullest rights are given to the people. The Act has already given them six years, and now they get a further five years to learn Dutch. It seems to me that hon. members want only children of railwaymen to be appointed on the railway. But the children of the rest of the public must also have an opportunity to get on to the railway, and given a chance to learn the second language. I hope the amendment will not be adopted.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

There is considerable feeling that where promotion is based upon proficiency there is a loophole for promotion by favouritism, and my amendments are designed to correct that tendency to some extent.

I am sorry I cannot possibly accept the amendment. The question of promotion is one which clearly rests with the management, and how can the hon. member possibly suggest that the conciliation board, which is purely an advisory body, should hear appeals in regard to promotion. If any servant thinks any favouritism has been exercised, then he should appeal to the Railway Board, but we cannot possibly take the power of promotion from the management. I do not know whether the hon. member has any particular case in mind. The general principle laid down in clause 9 is sound, that is, that efficiency should be the first consideration. All things being equal as regards efficiency, then seniority should count, but efficiency should be the deciding factor, and there is no better qualified to decide that than the management itself.

The amendments were put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

In sub-section 4, page 12, dealing with inefficiency arising out of an accident, I ask the Minister what is the position of a man who meets with an accident? He is not reduced regarding emoluments, but what is the position with regard to permanent employment? A man at Pretoria lost an eye, and he applied to be placed on the permanent staff, but his request was refused. How does it affect his pension and superannuation rights?

Provided he is able to pass the medical examination these will stand.

Can he be placed on the permanent staff?

Not if he fails in the medical tests.

This man was a temporary man.

He will be dealt with under another clause. Clause 10 deals with men in permanent employment.

Then inefficiency does not come in here?

This clause only deals with permanent men.

Clause put and agreed to.

On clause 11,

What is the meaning of subsection (c) in this clause—

He retains the rights he has as an old Natal servant. No rights are taken away under Act 27 of 1897 of Natal.

Does this only come up to 1910?

Yes; and in addition he shall receive a refund of any contributions he may have paid to the said funds. He gets that in addition to the rights guaranteed him under the old Natal Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

On clause 18,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

There is one important point connected with the right of a servant to be assisted by a friend at an appeal to the board in person. The position is that you are barring this servant from the ordinary courts. Therefore I suggest that it is essential that a servant should have the right, in all cases of dismissal, that in the final appeal to the board he should have the assistance of his friend. Under this clause (19) you give the servant the right to have assistance of a fellow-servant or trade union official, and it states—

I should like the Minister to omit these last words—

The point is this that the railway servant has a right of appeal right up to the Railway Board, but under clause 19 you take away the right to be accompanied by a friend or by a union official at the final appeal. I would like the Minister to concede that point, because during all the previous stages the railway servant is given the right to be accompanied by a union official or a friend, but at this final stage, where the question of his dismissal may be involved, I think it is of the utmost importance that he should have the very best possible assistance. If the Minister would concede that point I think it would be very much appreciated by the staff.

I regret that I cannot do that, and I will explain to the hon. member why. The prisoner’s friend, or staff official who appears on behalf of the servant who is accused of misconduct, is really only available from the point of view of referring to regulations, informing the servant who is charged what his rights are in regard to the regulations, assisting the accused by cross-examining witnesses on any evidence given against him. When you come to the Railway Board in the form of an appeal board, what the board deals with is the record. The record sets out fully all the evidence which has been taken, and the whole position is gone over again by the board in the same way that an appeal court deals with an appeal from a provincial court; so that I cannot see that the prisoner’s friend can be of any real assistance at the Railway Board, because there it is a question of dealing with the facts, and I do not think there can be any man more capable of dealing with the facts than the accused himself. As regards the trial, I quite agree that we should give this man all the assistance possible, so that he may get out all the facts which may be favourable to him, but it seems to me that no good service can be done by allowing the prisoner’s friend to appear at the Railway Board.

I agree with my hon. friend in regard to that, and I hope he will stand firm on this point, but why he should give way in allowing the man to appeal personally at the appeal board, I cannot understand. If you are going to allow the man to come up there, he will make certain statements, of course, but how about the rebutting evidence? Are you going to bring the evidence on the other side before the Railway Board, because then you are going to have a complete fresh trial of the case? You cannot hear one side of the story without hearing the other. I think my hon. friend has gone too far in a previous clause, and I certainly do not think it is necessary to allow the man to come up personally before the appeal board.

I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to concede this point. I do not think the administration would have any serious objection to it. The appellant may be a most incompetent person to look after his own interests, and it is essential that he should have this union official or friend to accompany him at the final appeal, just as this right is given at the previous stages of his case. Members of the Railway Board may ask him some very important questions, and it is only right that he should have advice, as his replies may decide his future career as a railwayman. The Minister under this Bill takes away the right of the railway servant to go to the courts of the land for redress, unless he can prove some irregularity. That being the case, I ask the Minister to concede this point and give the railway servant a right to be accompanied by his friend right up to the final stages of the appeal.

I agree with what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said, that the appeal before the Railway Board will not be a mere review, as it is said to be in the previous section, if the man himself is allowed to appear. It will really be in the nature of a fresh hearing. The Minister will notice that clause 18 says that the Railways and Harbours Board shall deal with the case on the basis of a review of the previous proceedings. In that case all they can have before them is the record of the previous proceedings. I would like to press upon the Minister the view that the railway servant ought to be allowed to be represented not merely by a fellow servant, or by a union official, but in any way he likes. I think it is most important in a case of this kind, where a man’s whole career may be at stake, that he should be allowed, if he wants legal assistance, to have legal assistance. There is no fear of railway servants going and employing lawyers on every possible occasion, because I know from experience that lawyers do not work for nothing. They will only employ legal assistance in cases where the position is very serious and where a decision against them may be a very serious matter for them. For that reason I do think the Minister ought to give to the railway servant who is up on a charge of a breach of the disciplinary regulations, exactly the same privilege as a public servant has. When a public servant is charged with a breach of the regulations, or with misconduct, he has the right to be represented in any way he likes when the enquiry is held. Section 21 of the Act gives the public servant the right to be present at the enquiry and to be represented in any way he likes. I would suggest to the Minister that the same privilege ought to be given to the railwaymen. The Minister has just said that it is most important that the railway servant should be represented at the trial, and at the appeal before the Railway Board. There, I think the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) is selecting the wrong occasion. It is when he is being tried that he wants to be represented legally by someone who can cross-examine the witnesses and who can put his defence in the best possible way, not when he is appearing before the appeal board. I think it is very important that assistance should be given, and I move—

That would give exactly the same privilege as public servants have.

I must say I do not agree with my hon. friend at all. In the first place, what is the enquiry? It is an enquiry conducted by an officer of the department who is certainly not a lawyer, but who surely does know the regulations. Then the second one is simply a man of the same grade as the delinquent himself. He may be an engine-driver or a porter. These two constitute the tribunal. They are not lawyers, but they know the working of the railways and they know the regulations.

What about court-martials? They are not lawyers.

I do not know anything about court-martials, but I do know something about this. This is simply an enquiry by men who know exactly what the circumstances of railway working are, and I, for my part, would not have gone as far as the Minister has gone. The idea when I was in office was that a man charged should simply be able to get another man in the service to come to his assistance. The two men who form the appeal board, and who are railway servants themselves, can arrive at the facts of the case much better than if the proceedings were over-ridden with lawyers and all the rest of it. I hope the Minister will not give way in regard to this. He has gone too far already in my opinion in allowing the assistance by officials of staff associations and trades union officials. You have to consider that there is a staff of something over 40,000 Europeans alone. I say quite advisedly that the system in the past was administered without any injustice.

The member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says these men are not lawyers. The same thing applies to court-martials. The point is this, why should railwaymen be put in a different position to an ordinary policeman? A policeman has the right to be represented by an attorney, and in fact every member of the service, except a railwayman, is allowed to be represented. Why single out the railwaymen? Because there are 92,000 of them? I have no desire to give lawyers more work. I think this would be a much better House if we had fewer lawyers, who have too much to say in the affairs of South Africa. You cannot keep them out, they come in every-where, and they will get in the railways as well, but I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan): let a man choose whom he likes. If he wants to take a trade union leader, let him do so; if a friend, let him do so; and if he wants assistance from an attorney or barrister, why should he not have the right to engage him? You are refusing him the right which you are giving to the policeman, the soldier, and every other public servant. It is no argument to say that the court contains a man of the same grade as the man accused. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration. There is a feeling in the railway to-day over a man not being allowed to get legal assistance. A policeman may get legal assistance, but a porter, or I will put it better still, a policeman standing inside a railway station is not allowed the same privilege as the policeman standing outside. Why discriminate? One can have legal assistance because he is in Adderley Street, and the other cannot have it because he is on the Adderley Street railway platform.

May I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I think many of us will feel happy if we can, after the passing of this Bill, think that no great injustice is again going to be done to the railwaymen. We admit that the railway servants must be kept under strict discipline in order to fulfil their duties, because they have the safety of the public, the lives of the people, in their hands. But that is no reason why a railway servant on being accused of serious misconduct should not have the right to have assistance at such a trial. It seems to me such a small matter and I don’t think that much time will be lost by it. As a citizen of the country I should regret that a man who is accused of anything shall not have the right to obtain the usual assistance. The ordinary citizen can be assisted by lawyers, but the railwaymen cannot. Those of us who have experience in the law courts know that injustice sometimes occurs because the people concerned do not employ someone competent in cross-examination. An official is perhaps accused as the result of a misunderstanding. There is no one to help him by cross-examination and he is fined or dismissed the service. If he had someone of experience in cross-examination who could sift out the truth then it could have been proved that he was innocent. I think that the Minister will find that it will not cause much difficulty. I will support the amendment.

Clause 19 is quite in conformity with the times we are living in, but not with the times the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) used to live in. This measure is going to bring about, within the railway service, more contentment than anything that has ever been done.

I doubt it.

One of the first things a railwayman does when he gets into trouble, and an enquiry is in prospect, is to consult a trade union official or an official of a staff association for advice. I have had them in my office, and I am satisfied that it is much better that the man should have an official with him, right up to the railway board, who knows the facts and the regulations, and can present the case in a proper manner to the enquiry board in the first instance, and, if necessary, to the railway board. I want to ask the Minister to agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow).

I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). The concession that has already been made is a very considerable one, but, having gone so far, I do not see why the Minister should object to the amendment proposed. When a man is tried for an offence, as his livelihood is in jeopardy, he should have the right to decide who shall help him in his endeavour to save himself from dismissal, and although I would be the last one to suggest that legal assistance would be the best in all circumstances, I think it should be left to the man to decide, so that in the unfortunate event of a decision being given against him, he would not be able to blame himself, or the administration, for refusing him the best possible advice, in his opinion. I do not see how it could hurt the administration in any way. I am sure they are anxious to get the clearest facts and to do justice, and I think it is a hardship to the men to limit them to a certain type of representative. I would also like to support what has been stated by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). It is quite true that the probabilities of a matter going to the railway board are not very great; but the same might be said in regard to the ordinary courts of the land. It might equally well be argued that because a person has had counsel in the magistrate’s court, that, when the matter comes to the highest court, it is not necessary for him to have counsel. In the presence of the railway board, a man will be nervous and at a disadvantage in putting his case. The fact that the members of the Railway Board are not lawyers strengthens the argument that a man should have some assistance to place his facts in the best possible light, and draw the board’s attention to relative documents, some of which might be of assistance to the man, but which the board might overlook, quite innocently or unconsciously. It is imperative that a man should have someone to draw attention to the salient evidence that has been led, and put his case in the best possible way. Under the circumstances. I would like to move—

I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I think it is very advisable that, when a decision has been given in a case of this sort, the man concerned, whether he has been found guilty or not, should have the satisfaction of being able to feel that he has had every opportunity for his case being put in the best possible way. I have come across many instances of men who have come complaining to me that, owing to ignorance of procedure and what was meant by evidence, and in other ways, they had not really had a fair chance. If the amendment is accepted, there would be no room for complaints of that sort in future, and the man would feel, whether he was guilty or not, that he had every opportunity of presenting his case properly.

It seems to me that hon. members have lost sight of this fact. When a man is charged with, say, theft or any serious criminal offence, he is, under the clause which has been passed, entitled to say: I want my case to be dealt with by the outside courts before I am dealt with by the department. If he is then charged with a serious offence, he has full power to go to any advocate for his assistance. There is no bar there. If he is found not guilty, he is protected under this Bill from further action on the part of the department. There is a reservation in regard to certain matters, but in all serious cases if a man is acquitted by an outside court he cannot be charged again by the department. If hon. members suggest that in all these disciplinary charges—of which there are hundreds every year—the accused should be allowed to have legal assistance, then you would make the running of a big department like the Union railways impossible.

They are not going to employ lawyers in those cases as they would have to pay for them.

If the men were allowed to have legal assistance, then we should have to give legal assistance to our own officers. In these matters we want to get to facts, and it seems to me that the men are fully protected. I say, deliberately, that if his committee decides to bring in legal assistance into departmental enquiries then you will make the running of the railways to a very large extent impossible.

I quite agree.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has asked why is the privilege given in the case of public servants and policemen. But their numbers are comparatively small as compared with the many thousands of men employed on the railways. I wish to draw attention to one outstanding fact: the Bill has been before the staff organizations and the conciliation board, and this compromise has been accepted by them, and they have never by one word raised this question of legal assistance. If the men are satisfied that this is a reasonable compromise, why should the House insert a clause which will make the running of the railways difficult? I appeal to the Committee not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says I have met the men to too great an extent, but I do not agree with him. That is my reply to the amendment to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). In many cases it is interesting to members of the Railway Board to be able to see the appellant himself, and the board may want to ask the man certain questions and to test his veracity. There can, however, be no question of producing further evidence or of reopening the whole question, because this is a sort of court of review. If a man brings up additional facts before the Railway Board, he must confine himself to the facts contained in the record, I don’t want to see any injustice done to any servant, for I recognize that in these cases the work of the man’s lifetime is in jeopardy, but if they bring in outside assistance they would not be helped so much as if they obtained the services of a friend or a member of a staff organization. Where there is a serious charge we are prepared to assist the servants and the prisoner’s friend is paid his wages while he is thus engaged. I repeat, the railway servants are quite satisfied. You cannot keep men under suspense for a long period.

They do with the police.

They are a comparatively small number. You cannot keep a charge hanging over a man’s head indefinitely.

I want to draw the attention of the committee to a certain instance which, I believe, is known to the Minister of Railways, which shows the necessity of such an amendment as that which has been submitted. An official of the railways had put in some 30 years’ service, and finally was charged with a most serious misdemeanour. The case was enquired into by certain clerks at the divisional headquarters, and the official was found guilty and discharged. He appealed to a magistrate, and the magistrate, in giving him judgment, expressed his astonishment at the treatment the man had received. I submit that if that railway servant had been able to employ legal assistance, not only would his position not have been in jeopardy, but the department would not have been blamed by the magistrate. We want a contented public service, and for the men to get their rights and to be free to employ what help they deem necessary to defend themselves, their reputation, and their means of livelihood.

I think the Minister rather exaggerates the difficulty.

My predecessor agrees with me.

I do, indeed.

I know the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) agrees with the Minister, but I would like to suggest that although the discharge of business is a very important matter, it is still more important that a man who is charged with serious misconduct should have every possible opportunity of defending himself. The giving of legal assistance is not going to take up very much more time. The Minister says the railwaymen don’t want it, but I can only speak of my experience of the public servants’ organization. I know when the Public Service Bill of 1923 was being discussed, that was a point on which the Public Service Association was very strong, the right of a man to choose his own representative if charged with serious misconduct, and we put in the Bill that the servant could be represented any way he likes. I agree with the Minister that ordinary petty charges of misconduct should be dealt with quickly and be got out of the way. There is no likelihood that lawyers will be employed in the small trumpery cases of discipline. It will only be where there is a serious charge against the man. When we discussed this matter with the Public Service Commission in connection with the Public Service Act, they informed me that their inspectors preferred a legal representative to appear for the accused in a serious matter, because the case was put to them far more clearly for the defence, than by the man himself, and it was an advantage to have the case conducted for the accused by someone who knew how to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. I think the amendment is fair, and I intend to press it. I do not think we should deprive a man of the right of choosing his own representative in circumstances which, if the finding goes against him, which will have serious results for him.

I cannot agree with the Minister. The Minister will remember when the 1923 Bill came before us in Select Committee we tried to make provision for the appellant to appeal in person to the board. In the present Bill, the proviso in clause 18 reads: “Provided where the appeal is against dismissal,” etc. That is all I am speaking upon. I do not want it in cases of ordinary misconduct. What is the use, I ask, of a person if he so desires, having the right to appear before the board in person if he has to listen like a dumb dog whilst the decision is being considered? He should have the right at that appeal to be accompanied by his friend. It is no use his appearing in person unless he is going to have his case handled properly, and the only way is to allow him to have the same assistance as he had at the trial before the appeal. Unless he does this the position is possible. A man may be asked some very important question on the final appeal, which would nonplus him, and as a result he loses his employment. Having taken away the right from this large number of public servants to have recourse to the courts, having taken away the ordinary rights of a citizen, it is imperative that the servant should have the right of being accompanied by a friend at the final appeal. If the Minister concedes this point it will do a great deal towards creating that feeling of contentment in the service which is so desired by all sections of the community.

I don’t know that there is very much in the question of allowing a prisoner’s friend to appear at the Railway Board, and as hon. members feel very strongly on that point I have no objection to accepting that. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), because it goes too far, I take it that hon. members will not bring the prisoner’s friend there too often, otherwise the work of the Railway Board may be embarrassed.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Kentridge put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Duncan put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

In accordance with the promise I made on the second reading, I wish to move that clause 23 be deleted. I do not think there is any necessity for me to detain the committee about this, what is usually known as the strike clause, and I do not think it is necessary for us to retain it. As I then pointed out, we have never had any prosecution under this clause, which is simply taken from the 1912 Act. Notwithstanding all our difficulties and the trials and tribulations we have been through, and the strikes we have had, this clause has never been brought into operation by any previous Minister. It is irritating to the staff, and, as it serves no purpose, I cannot see why we should retain it.

That is quite all right, but are you going to retain the old clause in the Superannuation Bill which provides that men shall surrender their pension rights if they go out on strike? If you are going to retain that clause in the Superannuation Bill, it does not matter very much if you delete clause 23 from the present Bill.

I do not want to anticipate that Bill. It will be introduced to-morrow.

Then why don’t you let this clause stand over?

I do not think we need let this clause stand over. I am amending the position at the present time. I am not leaving the clause as it is in the present Act. I am moving certain amendments to the present Superannuation Act, but I think the hon. member might let that matter stand over until such time as we come to the Bill.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 26,

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to sub-section (3) which provides that one-fifth of the total number of each grade may present a petition for a commission to be appointed to investigate any matter in dispute, and states that the Governor-General “may in his discretion” appoint a commission. Í want to ask the Minister if he will delete the words “may in his discretion” and insert “shall.” Much is done in this Bill to prevent anything in the nature of a rupture, and if one-fifth of the total number of each grade is convinced that a case should go before a commission of impartial persons there should be no question as to the appointment of such a commission. I understand that the Conciliation Board can only deal with matters which are referred to it by the Minister. An occasion may arise where the men feel a grievance so much that the appointment of a commission would be in the interests of all concerned. I would like to know whether the Minister is prepared—he has already given way on certain clauses to substitute “shall” for “may in his discretion.”

I appreciate that the hon. member (Mr. Strachan) gives me an opportunity of just stating the case. The position is that clause 26 (1) really deals with a case where there is a dispute, and there is no question that the matter must be dealt with by the Governor-General, but under sub-section (3) you have a case where there is really no dispute, but where a certain section of the men—one-fifth of a grade—may think they have a grievance. In actual practice you may have got a dozen men only who are concerned; cases of this sort are usually dealt with by sending them to the conciliation board. It has happened that a particular grade had a point which they wanted decided. It is dealt with by the conciliation board, but this clause really goes further than the conciliation board. When you have a dispute which threatens to become widespread over the service, the Governor-General shall then act; but in the smaller matters the conciliation board will, in the first instance, deal with the case on the petition of one-fifth of the grade or on the Minister’s instructions as he thinks fit.

Clause put and agreed to.

On clause 33,

I have here a further sub-clause, and I move to the following effect—

We now want to stabilize that position.

Does this not affect the pension rights? Does not this leave carry pension?

No, it does not.

As this amendment involves additional expenditure, I am unable to put it to the committee until the Governor-General’s recommendation has been announced.

I will take occasion to get the Governor-General’s cover on this and move it at the report stage.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 37, the schedule and the title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Rockey from service on the Select Committee on Amendment of Public Holidays Act and had appointed Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius in his stead.

I would like to know from the Minister whether he is satisfied in regard to the accommodation in mental hospitals that it is adequate for the number of patients in those institutions, and also what is being done in regard to certain proposals that have been under consideration for some time for increasing that accommodation. For example, whether the Minister has been able to take any steps in regard to enlarging the institution at Fort Beaufort. There a certain amount of land was put at the disposal of the Government by the town council, and water laid on, but owing to financial depression it was only last year that it was possible to consider the proposal to build an institution there. I should be glad to know if the Minister has been able to go on with that building and also whether he has been able to take steps to reduce the serious amount of overcrowding that I know exists in these institutions. I should also like to know whether he has been able to make improvements in regard to the length of hours worked by attendants in these mental hospitals. I know it is a matter that takes some time, but I should like to know what is being done in that respect and whether progress is being made in carrying out the arrangements necessary to bring about a reduced working day in these institutions.

I think I should be neglecting my duty if I did not take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the services of the officers and staff of the various institutions for mentally deficient and feeble-minded people. I recently had the privilege to visit those institutions in each province, and I think the public generally does not sufficiently appreciate the sacrifice and devotion of the staff. According to the statement on page 80 of the estimates, there are about 8,000 mentally deficient people in the institutions. It is a pleasure to us who, fortunately, are sound, to know that much attention is being given to these people. But the question some people ask, and that has also occurred to me, is whether possibly too much capital is not being expended on construction work, but on the other hand there is no doubt that the institutions in our country can bear comparison with the best institutions in other lands. As for the daily cost, I find on page 80 that it amounts to from 1s. 11¼d. to 3s. 5¼d. per patient. This expenditure compares particularly favourably with that of our ordinary hospitals, and I should like to know whether under this daily cost there is also included the increase on the capital, and whether amortization is also included therein. In the ordinary hospitals the daily cost is from 9s. to 15s., 16s., 17s. In the last-mentioned amounts of course, not only interest but also amortization are included. If the two sets of figures are compared, then it is noticeable that there is this great difference in the daily cost. Of course there may be other factors which make up the difference, but we should very much like to know whether the same calculations apply in both cases. We see that additional provision is made for about £36,000 for the Witrand institution, and we see further from page 80 that provision is made this year for the reception of 633 new patients. I should like to know whether the additional provision that is being made is for the increase in the number of the patients in the Witrand institution. As far as I know, the Witrand institution is more especially intended for feeble minded, who fall under the same class as, e.g., those of the Alexandra institution, and we would like to know if feeble minded are more and more being isolated from mentally deficients, and whether the increase of about £36,000 for the Witrand institution has any bearing thereon, and whether the increase is specially for mentally deficients or is an increase for the usual class in general. Under vote 20 mention is made of the appointment of a psychiatrist. I shall be glad to learn from the hon. Minister whether the work of the psychiatrist is in relation to educational work, for which there is great need, or in connection with the search for weak-minded children and the removal of them from our schools to institutions similar to the Alexandra hospital, and if his work is not in connection therewith; then I should much like to know what steps are being taken to give the excellent work of the Alexandra institution every attention, and to sort out from society the people who are a danger to themselves and their surroundings. Under another head mention is made of provision for furniture and equipment to an amount of £30,300. I do not know whether the furniture and such like which is made in the Alexandra hospital is made for general use or whether the furniture and other similar articles is made for use in the Alexandra hospital and other similar institutions. I shall therefore be glad to know what the amount of £30,300 represents

I do not wish to enlarge on this vote. But I just want to say that I should like the Minister to give us more information about the hospitals for mentally deficient people and the institutions for the weak minded. About half a million is spent on this and the increase is £40,000 for the year. This must strike everybody as being a very large amount compared to the small population and the healthy condition of the people. I have read with interest all the reports of the department of public health and much is mentioned in them of various kinds of diseases and remedies for them. But I see no mention of any mental disease that the department of public health has made a study of. It will assist us very much if we can have more particulars of this. We do not only want information about the number of whites or coloured people who are in the institutions, but also what kind of mental deficients they are, e.g., how many of them are so through abuse of drink, venereal diseases, etc. I should like to know if the department is doing anything to decide why there are so many mental deficients in the country upon whom we have to spend so much money.

I would like to ask the Minister a few questions which I hope he will answer. In the first place, is insanity greatly on the increase in this country? Then, what is the Minister doing with regard to the hours of the attendants? Five years ago the Government’s representative at the Washington Conference signed a document to the effect that they were going to bring in a general eight hours a day. Is the Government going to deliver the goods in regard to this matter? I also wish to know whether the people who receive intermediate sentences are examined by a psychiatrist? I went into the Pretoria prison the other day, and it struck me that some of the inmates should have been mentally examined, and that some of them should have been in mental homes instead of in gaol.

I am glad the hon. member has raised the question of the hours of attendants. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the figures on page 80 regarding the estimated daily net cost per patient in mental hospitals. We who have been on hospital committees are amazed at the smallness of these figures—surely they cannot include all the overhead charges? In the case of the Maritzburg hospital the cost is only 1s. 10¾d., and the very highest is only 3s. 5¼d. When I compare that with the Johannesburg hospital, where the actual cost is 6s. a day per coloured patient and about 13s. per European patient, I would like to know how the figures are arrived at as it is generally understood that mental hospitals are exceptionally expensive because of the constant attention necessary for patients.

I see that the total cost of mental hospitals and institutions for the feeble-minded has grown from £433,979 to £473,674. Why has the Witrand institution been started?

In the provision for certain mental hospitals there are two institutions which are to receive decreased amounts. Will this reduction mean the sacrifice of efficiency?

In reply to the last speaker, I may explain that an arrangement has been come to between the Alexandra institution and Valkenberg for the amalgamation of the artizan staff of these two institutions, which are very close to each other. This arrangement means a decrease so far as Velkenberg is concerned, to the extent of about £1,200 a year or so, but on the other hand the Alexandra is now liable for one-third of the expenditure in connection with the artizan staff, so there is an addition of £900. In reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), the explanation is that in general hospitals we do not ask, and it is impossible to require, patients to do any work, but in mental hospitals it is a good thing to require these patients to do work. That, of course, very largely reduces the expenditure. In one of our chief hospitals the book-keeping and accounting are done perfectly by one of the patients. We have taken steps in the direction of the reduction of the hours of the staff. I think, as a rule, the staffs of mental hospitals were formerly required to work 13 hours a day. I think it has been reduced to 10 hours. I must give the hon. gentleman the information that the staff is not generally in favour of the change. These mental hospitals are, in the majority of cases, more or less isolated, and if an attendant at those hospitals is required to work only 10 hours, he does not know what to do with himself when not on duty. They prefer to work longer hours every day and to get more days in the month off to be free to go into town. That possibly is a better arrangement, because if one would like to give a mental hospital attendant anything, it is a change of environment. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has asked me for some figures, in connection with the increase of mental population in the country. I can give him the figures for the period 1911-’24. The mental hospital population in 1911 was 4,012. That has increased in 1917 to 5,323. It increased in 1921 to 6,408 and in 1924 to 7,922. So the mental hospital population has increased during the 14 years roughly from 4,000 to 8,000, more or less double. The average in civilized countries is that there are 40 persons out of every 10,000 persons in mental hospitals, whilst in South Africa we have only 20 persons in 10,000. That does not mean we are a more sane people in South Africa than in other countries.

Perhaps the others have come here.

Then the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has asked a question with regard to psychiatrists, whether those who are sentenced before courts are as a rule examined by psychiatrists. It has always been done in the case of a person who has been before the court on an accusation of murder and the plea is insanity, in that case there is examination by experts. We feel in this country that the system should be extended, especially in connection with juvenile courts. In America, a psychiatrist is attached to every juvenile court, and many children are not sent to prison, but to institutions for the feeble-minded.

†*The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has commented upon the large sum expended under this vote and pointed out that £40,000 more is being spent this year than last. I think that I have partially explained this matter before. The cause is that in the past 14 years the number of mentally deficient people has been doubled and the more close the population is the more a mentally deficient comes into touch with his surroundings and the greater the necessity becomes to send all mentally deficients to institutions. The increase in the number of mentally deficients annually is about 500 or 600 and every year provision must be made in our institutions for the growing number of mentally deficients. On these estimates we find an increase of £40,000 because the Witrand institution which is practically a new institution must be provided with all kinds of necessities and that alone means an increase of about £36,000. Further there is an increase in the case of the Queenstown institution and as hon. members will see we are Budgetting this year for a new institution at Fort Napier. Further the hon. member for Winburg has said that in the public health report no mention is made about mentally deficient people, although that work is very important and it should be more studied and more information should be given to the public about it. I refer the hon. member to the report of the Commissioner for mental hygiene. It is one of the most important reports issued this year and I can recommend hon. members to make themselves acquainted with the contents. Then a few questions were asked by the member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). I am glad the hon. member said a few words of appreciation in connection with the good work that is being done by the staff of the mental hospitals. I think that word of praise has been fully deserved by the staff. Everyone knows that the work entrusted to them is very difficult and especially depressing. Such a word of encouragement on the part of hon. members would certainly encourage the staff of such institutions. Then the hon. member asked whether the daily cost of maintenance appearing on page 80 of the estimates include capital expenditure. No, it represents only costs of maintenance per day per patient. Then he asked a question in connection with the Witrand institution. That institution has actually been more specially established with a view to weak-minded people. I cannot say whether there are at the moment mentally deficients as well in that institution but in any case it is chiefly intended for the weak-minded and the more provision is made in other institutions for mentally deficient the more this institution will be used exclusively for the weak-minded, because the weak-minded must be treated differently to the mentally deficient. Weak-minded people can within bounds still be educated and must be treated accordingly. With reference to the appointment of a psychiatrist (I think that the correct Dutch word is psigiater) I will just say to the hon. member that we have for a considerable time felt that the institutions for weak-mindedness in our country must give more attention to education, and must not be regarded exclusively from the medical point of view. A large number of weak-minded can still be educated and advanced to such a point that they are able to provide for their own maintenance. The matter should therefore not be approached from the medical side but also receive attention from an educational point of view. Hence the appointment. Then the hon. member asked a question in connection with the furniture, etc., which is made in the Alexandra hospital. The question can probably also be put in connection with the Witrand institution. Well, I can make the statement that a large amount of furniture, and good furniture, is made there by the feebleminded for the institution itself and also for other institutions. Valkenberg, e.g., is largely provided with furniture made by the feebleminded in the Alexandra institution.

†Then I come to the question put to me by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). His question was whether I am satisfied with the present accommodation for mental patients and whether we intend to do anything in the future in regard to that. My reply to that is that I am not at all satisfied, as the hon. gentleman when he was in my place was not. There is very great overcrowding in the mental hospitals, but the overcrowding has been relieved with the institution of the mental hospital at Witrand to some extent. The overcrowding about six months ago was to the extent of over 1,000. There were actually 1,000 more patients in the mentals hospitals than we had beds for.

That is all over the Union?

Yes. It has been relieved to the extent of 730, so that is some relief. Anyway, new accommodation has to be made for these patients. As the hon. gentleman will see from the Estimates we are starting a new institution at Fort Napier, and we are asking £1,000 for preliminary expenses in connection with that. Then we have made several new wards in connection with the Witrand institution and we have extended the mental hospital at Bloemfontein, and I hope with the institution at Fort Napier that the overcrowding will be completely removed.

What about Fort Beaufort?

With regard to Fort Beaufort I am informed that the question of the site has been settled, and that the Public Works Department has approved of that site, and that tenders are being invited for the extension of the hospital.

My hon. friend will, perhaps, be able to give us some further information in connection with the Fort Beau-fort asylum. My hon. friend will remember that at the end of last session I brought to his notice the report of the medical officer of the Cape in regard to the serious position in connection with tuberculosis, and my hon. friend said he was then enquiring into the matter. I do not know whether he has any further information he can give the Committee.

As far as I can remember the right hon. gentleman put a question on the Order Paper with regard to that, and my reply was that certain steps which I detailed were being taken. I have not enquired again after that, but as far as I know those steps are being carried out.

Perhaps the Minister would obtain the latest information and let us know the position.

I think it is a very distressing fact that the Minister has given us that every year there is a considerable increase of those among our people distressed mentally. Six hundred people are added every year to these mental hospitals. The expenditure has grown to practically £500,000, and the inmates to-day amount to 8,900.

7,900.

In addition to these, there must be quite a number outside these hospitals who are, of course, treated and maintained by their relatives, so that I do not think the position is so satisfactory as the Minister tries to make out by comparison with other countries. Of course, we, as a State, have to do our duty towards these people. I want to ask the Minister if we cannot, as a State, do anything to counteract this increase in regard to these people suffering mentally. Of course, this raises a very important point. Could it be done through the Minister of Education by means of lectures, to try to counteract this increase? I am not going into the scientific aspect of the matter, in regard to heredity, and so on; but there are many aspects of the question which I hope the Minister will look into, in the direction of educating public opinion. Eventually this expenditure is going to be a very serious drain on our resources.

In regard to the matter referred to by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in his reply he mentioned that the number of deaths from tuberculosis during the last three years showed a steady decrease. He said it had dropped from 37 deaths in 1922 to 16 in 1924. But the point I want to make is that the very serious report of the medical officer of health at Fort Beaufort was made after that. It was at the beginning of this year. He made a very serious report of the conditions at that hospital, and I think the Minister should cause searching enquiry to be made, to see whether matters cannot be bettered. The decrease occurred before this report was made, and I think that is the reason why the hon. member for Fort Beaufort put that question m February last, and that is what I think my hon. friend waned enquired into.

I promised to bring forward, under this vote, the matter of the housing of married male nurses within the precincts of the various institutions. I understand this subject was discussed at a conference between representatives of the staff and the Acting Secretary for the Interior, the commissioner of mental disorders being present. The staff asked that sufficient married quarters should be provided to house the married staff. The Acting Secretary for the Interior said this matter was one which had the full sympathy of the department, but the difficulty was that they could not get the money. I have, however, a proposal to make. It has been communicated to me that at the Potchefstroom institution there are a number of vacant married quarters, made of wood and iron, and it has been suggested by one of the male nurses at the Maritzburg hospital—where there are no fewer than five of the male nurses on the married staff, who are obliged to live outside the institution—that these wood and iron buildings, which are not required at Potchefstroom, might be dismantled and railed to any institution unable to accommodate married male nurses within the grounds. There is no lack of space for the buildings so far as Maritzburg is concerned; it is simply a matter of insufficient accommodation to house the married male nurses, who have, in consequence, to leave the institution sometimes late at night, to get home to their residences in various parts of the town.

In connection with the contracts which have been issued for the purpose of extending hospital accommodation at Fort Beaufort, where there is enormous overcrowding, will the Minister do everything possible to see that building is expedited in every possible way? Fort Beaufort is a very large native centre and there are tremendous calls on that institution.

Does the Minister intend to discontinue the use of the buildings on Robben Island which were formerly occupied as a mental hospital, but which are now vacant?

With regard to the last point raised, we might remove wood and iron buildings from Robben Island, but we cannot remove stone buildings. It has been found necessary from an economic point of view to remove the mental hospital from Robben Island to the mainland, and for reasons of economy we are going to give up the leper institution on Robben Island and send the patients to other institutions. The expenses in connection with any institution on Robben Island are very heavy.

Are not the surroundings also unsuitable for a mental hospital on Robben Island?

Very unsuitable. I have had representations from Fort Beaufort in connection with the matter raised by the hon. member, and we have been expediting it as much as we could, and we have only now heard from the Public Works Department that it is satisfied with the site. In regard to the institution itself, I give the undertaking that as soon as possible I will visit Fort Beaufort, specially to visit that institution, and to see what the further needs are. With regard to Fort Napier that site has been taken over by the department of the Interior from the defence department in the same way as the site has been taken over at Potchefstroom and our idea is to accommodate about 1,100 patients at Fort Napier. That will work out as far as our estimate goes on capital expenditure, at about £100 per bed. That is about £40 a bed cheaper than has been the case when we started the new institution at Potchefstroom, where it is about £140 a bed. On the Estimates now provision is made for about £1,000 purely preliminary expenditure and we cannot go further until more money is voted by Parliament on the Estimates of next year. With regard to the housing of married male nurses. I think the hon. member referred especially to the Maritzburg hospital. The difficulty is the buildings mentioned of wood and iron and they must be used for permanent residences by officials in that mental hospital although wood and iron is very unsatisfactory. I may point out that the hospital at Maritzburg is very close to the town and I don’t think it is a very great hardship to require the married male nurses to live in the town.

They cannot get suitable houses in the town.

I will have the matter looked into. With regard to tuberculosis in Fort Beaufort mental hospital. I will try to get the latest information and supply it to the hon. member.

The extra space will get over that.

I would like to ask the Minister to give an explanation why there is such a difference in the cost per patient in the different mental hospitals. At the bottom there is a schedule and you will notice in Maritzburg the cost per patient is 1s. 11d. per day whilst at Witrand it is 3s. 5½d. per day.

I cannot give the explanation of that, but I dare say it is because some institutions are full and are large institutions and others are small. With regard to Witrand, I do not know to what period in the life of the institution the information refers. It is probably for the period when the institution was just started and the number of patients was small and the cost per patient higher.

Vote put and agreed to.

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

On Vote 22, “Printing and Stationery,” £271,304,

I would like to ask the Minister a question on this Vote, but it is rather difficult seeing that he is not here. I do not quite know who is in charge of the Vote; probably the Minister of Justice. I see the Minister of the Interior has now arrived, so that at last I shall have an opportunity of asking a question with a prospect of getting an intelligent answer. I would like to refer to Item “F,” advertising in public newspapers. I see that the Vote taken this year is £10,000, which is an increase of 25 per cent. on the Vote of last year, £8,000. I would like to know whether this means that there are more matters to be advertised or whether the rates are very much higher than they were last year. In connection with that it has been freely stated in the press that instructions have been issued by the Government that their advertisements are to be confined to certain newspapers. These newspapers were to be of their own way of thinking politically. I think it would be a good opportunity for the Minister to explain the position to us now.

Before the Minister replies, I have got a question to raise, and if he is not prepared with the information at once I will hand him the documents I have here, so that he may go into it. It is in reference to the coloured packers and porters in the Government stationery store at Cape Town. Some of them have had between 27 and 28 years’ service. Before Union they got 14 days’ ordinary leave on full pay. Now they have got no such leave at all on pay, though the fifth report of the Public Service Commission recommended that all branches of the service, including these men, should get relief. I put a question to the late Minister of the Interior on March 6th. 1923, and the reply I then got was that the matter was being considered by the Public Service Commission. I pointed out that the cleaners in the Public Works Department got this leave, but for some reason which I have never been able to understand, these coloured packers and porters have not got it. I would like the Minister to let me know whether the matter has been considered in the interval, and what is the decision arrived at.

I see that there has been an increase in this vote of £14,900, there is an increase in artizans and temporary men of 30. Then there is a large expenditure on new plant, £16,000. I would like to have the reason for that. I want to support the enquiry of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) about advertising in the public press. Some time since, I think about the time when the Pact Government came into office, it was stated that the Minister of Justice had issued a circular that all the advertisements, or the major portion of them, were to go to the Pact newspapers. Has the major portion of the advertisements since that time gone to Pact newspapers?

As a matter of fact, they have not,

It is not my hon. friend’s fault. I would like to know what is the result of that circular or whatever it was that was issued.

Would you like to have the figures for your time?

No, I want some explanation as to whether preference is being given to newspapers simply on account of their being of a certain political complexion.

I take it that the idea of advertising is to let the public know what is being advertised. In Natal instructions were given that the advertisements were to appear in the “Guardian.” Only about two per cent. of the population of Natal read the “Guardian,” a paper which only appears once a week. How on earth are the public to become acquainted with public notices when these are advertised in a paper, which only about two per cent. of the population read? It seems to me that it savours of subsidizing that particular part of the press, the Pact press. We have got an increase on this Vote of £2,000. It is quite evident that this extra £2,000 is to be used in subsidizing the Pact press.

I am glad that the Government has seen fit to give certain newspapers which support the Pact Government advertisements, because in the past all the advertisements went to newspapers supporting the South African party.

Nonsense, childish nonsense.

All these advertisements went into newspapers supporting the South African party.

Nonsense.

My hon. friend is a good judge of nonsense. To-day these advertisements go into all the newspapers. If my hon. friend the member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) looks he will find them in the “Natal Mercury” and the “Natal Witness.” Far more advertisements appear in the South African party press than in the Pact press.

Because they are better papers, that is all; they have a bigger circulation.

Not all of them. My hon. friend sneers at the “Guardian.” I do not know what the circulation of the “Guardian” is, but it gets into the hands of people who probably never see the other papers.

Heaven help them.

A good line has been taken by the Government in giving the advertisements to all the newspapers. It follows that the Pact papers reach a much greater number of readers than the others. If not, why is it the Pact party are such a majority? We have the majority of votes in South Africa. My friend shakes his head. I can see he does not read the “Guardian”; if he did he would be wiser. It is a good thing to give all the papers the advertisements because everyone in South Africa will now be able to know what is going on. Nobody can grumble.

I wish to draw attention to one of the old vexed questions under this Vote and to ask the Minister whether he is doing anything in the matter. Three hundred artizans and temporary men are employed in the Government printing works, and the salaries paid amount to £90,000. In the recess my friend the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) and myself had occasion to go into this question with the printing men, and they raised the old vexed question as to whether they were not entitled to be placed on the permanent staff, and we came across some extraordinarily hard cases. There were men who had been permanently working in these works for the last fifteen or twenty years who are still temporary men and subject to a moment’s notice. Their case was undoubtedly a strong one and a deputation waited on the Minister. I believe the late Government had gone as far as drawing up a Bill—I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows something about this—dealing with this question more or less comprehensively. I would like to know whether the present Minister has taken this matter in hand and whether he is going to give the men some relief

I should like to say something about this matter of advertising. It seems to me that hon. members opposite are not well informed. To give an example of the way in which the Government advertisements are given to newspapers it may be mentioned that after the recent election when the Government decided to send advertisements to all other newspapers and not only to S.A.P. newspapers the official was so in the habit of walking in the old S.A.P. route with all the advertisements that when the Minister decided to send an advertisement to a Nationalist newspaper the official went to a S.A.P. newspaper. This shows how strong the tendency was with the old Government, and yet the Nationalist newspapers are read in places where the S.A.P. papers are not read.

Where is that?

In the Transvaal. I will just say this that members opposite have talked without knowledge. I know that there were Ministers who followed a broad policy but they were the great exceptions. It would be interesting if we could institute an enquiry into the manner in which the former Government preferred the S.A.P. newspapers to the detriment of the State. I shall be prepared to lead the enquiry on to the spoor by mentioning a few things about which we should be astonished.

I am interested to hear what the hon. member who has just spoken has told us because he seems to have the idea that under the late Government there was some official whose business it was to say where advertisements should be placed. Well sir, that it quite untrue. The system under the late Government was that the head of the department who had advertisements to deal with was left to place his advertisements in the manner he thought would best reach the public who were intended to be reached. That was the policy and to say that it was confined solely to S.A.P. papers is to say something that is transparently not the case.

How did they get to the “Weekly Herald”?

The “Weekly Herald” cannot be accused of being a South African party paper at any rate. I cannot understand this animosity against the “Weekly Herald,” because whatever its politics were they were not South African party. I know that our brothers with whom we fall out cause us more bitterness than our enemies. What I wanted to ask about was what the present policy is, and I would like to know from the Minister what it is, because I believe that shortly after this Government came into power a certain circular was issued by the Minister of Justice laying down as a policy that they should not advertise except in papers supported by the Government. That is the policy of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) evidently. What a falling off is there.

A tit-for-tat policy.

When they were in opposition they preached pure politics. I am sorry to see that the temptations of office have been too strong for them, even for the hon. member for Pretoria (North) that pillar of rectitude, in regard to political matters. Even he has fallen. Where are the rest of them? I am sorry to see this; it is a sad business; but I wanted particularly to support the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) in regard to the artizan staff of the printing works. There was in the days of the Transvaal Government a provident fund in that department. Men who were serving in that department who did not come under the superannuation fund had the opportunity of subscribing to this provident fund, which was also subscribed to by the Government, so that when they left the department they were able to take out with them something in the nature of a gratuity which would help them to get along. Now that was stopped in 1908 or soon afterwards, and since then the men who do not come on the superannuation fund, artizans and others, find themselves after many years’ service leaving the department with nothing at all. I do think the Government would do well to take up that proposal, which I had in hand when I left office, to see if a new provident fund cannot be started if they cannot be admitted to the superannuation fund, so that men who have served the State for many years may be able to take something out with them. It is a very good way of enabling these men to make some provision for their old age or sickness, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to it.

I should like to say further for the information of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that whether it be head officials or other officials the fact remains that the officials act on the instructions of the Minister, and I would like to add that one of the few Ministers who also in this respect tried to be honest was the former Minister of the Interior. But unhappily he was one of the few exceptions. Now it is certainly true as he says that the Nationalist newspapers also expect to get their share but he has no right to say that they get the major share. That was the case always with the S.A.P. papers, and it is no more than right and fair that a large part should also go to the Nationalist papers. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) may regard this view as “a great falling off,” but it is certain that the “off-falls” and a good bit more went to the S.A.P. papers. In the recent election it appeared also that the large majority of the country-side population read the Nationalist paper. There are enough newspapers in the villages, but I am speaking about the districts. It is a great point that the country-side people should also be reached. Under the former Government a paper in Pretoria was used for Government advertisements of which perhaps only fifteen copies reached the public on the country-side, and in this connection I have in view advertisements of importance to those people. I am convinced of it that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) will be the first to agree that the practice amounts to a waste of money and I hope the present Government will see that justice is also done to the Nationalist newspapers.

One, of course, does not expect any member of the Pact party to use newspapers for party purposes. I would like to know whether the extra expenditure we see in the Estimates is due to only one of the several sets of newspapers receiving Government advertisements at present. I have it from the Minister of Justice, that according to his instructions, all advertisements were to be sent to certain papers only. If I gave you the list you would find that, contrary to the views of the hon. member who spoke last, only one section of the community is able, according to these instructions, to see the advertisements. I will read the circular to you—

Where does “only” come in?

There is no necessity to use a particular word to express a particular meaning. The intention here is perfectly clear. We know it depends on the Minister’s views as to what the head of the Department will do. These are his views. The papers which should be mainly supported are “Die Burger,” Cape Town; “Onze Courant,” Graaff-Reinet; “Die Middellandse Afrikander,” Cradock; “Die Middellander,” Middelburg; “Re Echo,”. Humansdorp; “Voorligter,” Somerset East; and “Karroonuus,” Willow-more.

Is not the “Kokstad Advertiser” there?

I understood there were papers in the Cape other than these, which reached a large section of the community.

They get the advertisements.

These are the instructions of the Minister. Perhaps the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) will allow the Minister to reply. Of course there have been later instructions which I shall read later on, but as it is some little time since the names of these papers were given me, I have no doubt that since then the “Kokstad Advertiser” has been added to the list. Is this, perhaps, the reason for the increased expenditure? Then take the Transvaal, a fairly large province. There are only two papers which are privileged. “Ons Vaderland,” Pretoria; and Die Weste,” Potchefstroom. In the Free State, there is “Die Volksblad”; and in Natal, “Die Afrikaner,” Pietermaritzburg, and “The Guardian,” Durban. We know the class of paper the “Guardian” is, and I think those very closely connected with it will hear more about it before very long. On a further list there is in the Transvaal, “Forward,” P.O. Box 198 Johannesburg, and there is “The Volksrust and District Recorder,” P.O. Box 23, Volksrust. This is the whole list given to me by the Minister of Justice, and there is not a single paper on it which belongs to any but the Pact parties, and I think it comes very badly from the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost), and even from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to say first of all that the papers should be used which reach the largest section of the community and, secondly, that political use should not be made in giving advertisements to newspapers.

I am surprised that gentlemen of the Opposition, who have criticized this vote so very narrowly, have missed an answer to a question which I put to a Minister of the Government, as to the amount which was paid out during last financial year to the “Cape Times.” Of course nothing is said about that. That is one of the approved press. It was paid £17,000 a year for printing, and something between £500 and £600 a year for advertisements. That is “sugar for the bird.” Newspapers such as the “Cape Times,” which certainly has a very large circulation, are owned entirely by the capitalists who have run the show so far in this country, and who are fortunately running it no more. They have taken very good care to make their dividends and their papers secure by seeing that all the printing and advertisements that could possibly be given “got there,” and now because there is some little attempt to redress the balance; to give a voice to those who had no voice before, we have the Opposition—who are determined to have the fairest of fair play—now criticizing these few pounds of extra expenditure. Are these smaller papers not to be allowed to live? The one idea is to get a big foot out and crush anything published in this country that does not suit the hon. gentlemen opposite. Nothing could live under the Upas tree which they grew. When they are criticizing so narrowly, let them remember how wide-spread were their rewards to the press which served them so admirably, but which ultimately dragged them down to their defeat; because it had over-praised them and the public saw through it. Their fall was due largely to the press which enjoyed Government subsidies. I ask the Minister to take into consideration the case of the men in Pretoria, in the Government printing works, to whom an injustice has apparently been done. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs knows what happened in regard to temporary employees in his department, and has largely been put right. I feel sure these temporary hands should be put on the permanent staff. They are competent men and, in some cases, experts at their work, who could be replaced with very great difficulty. I hope enquiry will be made into their case. Their request has been ignored, and they feel the matter very bitterly indeed.

I feel that Ministers in this House are continually fain to cry “save me from my friends,” when they listen to the speeches made in their defence from the cross benches, because the so-called defence of this circular by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is as usual a complete “give-away” of the case. He says “are these papers not to be allowed to live?” Of course, he is giving the game away. He is in effect saying that they are so small, and have such miserable circulations, and in themselves are such miserable, paltry little rags, that unless they get this bolstering support, they are not to be allowed to live, and that is true. In the majority of these cases—

Mention one paper outside the House.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) ought to know better than make a challenge of that sort. If he had said, outside this House, everything that he said inside, he would spend 12 months of the year in defending libel actions.

Mention a paper outside the House.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has a habit of making provocative speeches and then leaving the House and not stopping to listen to any reply. When he next leaves the precincts of this House I advise him to turn up the current number of “Punch” in the library. There he will see a cartoon about a mother and father taking their daughter out for the evening. The mother is saving—

That seems to be the attitude of the hon. member for Brakpan. May I be permitted to express to the Minister of Justice my surprise that he should have had the courage to put his name and his official imprimatur to a circular of this sort.

I dare much more.

Which enshrines the principle of political patronage in the gravest degree. I venture to make this statement: that, taking the combined circulations of all the newspapers on this list, and, multiplying them by three, you will not get the circulation of one leading daily in the Transvaal or the Cape. He is committing a grave disservice to the public. He is taking care that the public of South Africa, as regards three-fourths of it at any rate, is kept in the dark as to what the Government wishes to convey by advertisements. There is not an English newspaper on this list, (until we come to “Forward,” and I think the “Guardian,” both weekly papers of insignificant importance, and minor circulation, and the whole of the Dutch S.A.P. press is studiously omitted. The Minister must have a forehead of brass if he can stand up in Committee and justify this circular. Nothing more brazen have I ever come across in my life. When a paper called “Forward” was started in Johannesburg in the labour interest—I wish it all success; it would be a dull world if we did not have papers like “Forward” and the “Guardian” to enliven us at times—the Minister must have taken a lead from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who, when he was chairman of the finance committee of the Johannesburg municipality, and chairman of the board of directors of the Labour paper, “Forward,” passed a resolution committing the municipality to taking away its advertisements from the “Rand Daily Mail” and putting them into “Forward.” The Minister’s circular reads—

etc. This means that unless there are very substantial reasons to the contrary the advertisements must be confined to the newspapers mentioned in the circular. I don’t want to be corrected by the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) whose function in this debate seems to be to boost his own paper.

When the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl)—otherwise the trustee for wisdom—read á list of the papers in which a certain department was to advertise, I looked at the files of the three principal South African party papers in Cape Town. In the last two issues of “Ons Land” there are about 20 columns of Government advertisements, in the last two issues of the “Argus” about eight single and two double column Government advertisements, and in the last two issues of the “Cape Times” about ten columns of Government advertisements. The Minister’s instructions were very necessary, for in the past the national newspapers obtained very few Government advertisements.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) must have been rather unfortunate when they visited the Government printing works at Pretoria. The artizans there come under the agreement arrived at by the National Industrial Council of the printing and newspaper trade, and. I understand, it would be no benefit to them whatsoever if they were put on the permanent staff. I cannot help thinking that the artizans who approached the hon. members were not men who desired to support their union.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) with his usual conceit and bumptiousness, has referred to the Labour papers. I understand that the payments to the “Guardian” for Government advertisements amount to about £10 a month. All these papers were boycotted by the South African party, and all the Minister’s circular says is that as far as possible, the department’s advertisements should be inserted in them, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) insert their own words when reading the circular. There is a big difference between confining advertisements to certain papers, and a circular which says that as far as possible the advertisements should be inserted in Government papers, and there is nothing in the circular about boycotting the other papers. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout should have gone a little further with his motherly advice—advice not to be bumptious or conceited—or when he speaks he wants everybody to flock in to listen to the words of wisdom that fall from his lips. The hon. member sent out the other night, when I was having a cup of coffee, for me to come in and listen to him, but I refused. He stands up and lectures Ministers, because they don’t sit here for fear that they should miss something he has to say. We are getting a little bit tired of this. If the hon. member thinks so much of himself he should not let is be so obvious. When I speak I don’t care whether hon. members are in this House or in the lobby.

If the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) will this time wait and listen to a reply to his speech I shall be very gratified. He made a similar speech the other night, and instead of staying behind like a man to face the music, he went out, although he was told I desired to make a reply to what he said. He has accused me of being ambitious. Well, there are worse accusations than that of ambition.

What Vote does this come under?

We have listened to this sort of discussion for five or ten minutes.

I take it I may reply to a personal attack made on me.

The hon. member may continue.

It is a curious idea of fair play that the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) listened without protest for five minutes to a speech from the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) attacking me, but as soon as I rise to protect myself the hon. member rises to make a protest. Speaking of ambition I wonder if the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has seen a recent cartoon in this paper “Forward” representing three gentlemen?

We cannot have this continued.

On a point of order, we are discussing—(dissent). I am pleading for the privileges of members of this Committee despite the howls of hon. members opposite. We are discussing certain papers in which the Government are placing advertisements. There are certain members or this House who consider that the Government has not made the wisest choice in selecting the newspapers. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is referring to a particular paper in which the Government are placing advertisements, and I appeal to you, sir, it in connection with this discussion the hon. member has not a perfect right to refer to that paper and its character, and the manner in which it conducts its business.

If there is any further personal attack I will stop it.

I take it, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to reply to the exceedingly offensive attack which has been made on me, otherwise where are members’ privileges? If I may not reply, hon. members will come to feel that their privileges are not safe in your hands. I do not object to any member attacking me, so long as I can reply.

The hon. member may defend himself, but we have had enough of mud-slinging this evening.

May I submit, with respect—

Just a moment. I will allow the hon. member to say what he wants to say

It seems to me that after the mud-slinging exhibition by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) the least the Chairman can do is to allow the hon. member to reply in common fairness.

In common fairness, but I will not allow further mud-slinging.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was simply defending himself against a very blatant attack.

We owe great respect to the Chair, but hon. members will feel exceedingly uncomfortable if they are, subjected to an attack such as I was from the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). May I recall to your recollection that the hon. member referred to, throughout used several uncomplimentary epithets, but I don’t mind him using them if I am allowed to reply. If I am pulled up we are bound to smart under a felling of unfairness and you, sir, as the custodian of the liberties of this House are entitled to the respect of this House, and we should not abuse your right.

The hon. member is now insinuating I have been guilty of unfairness.

I withdraw that if you think so.

The hon. member will not only have to withdraw but to apologize.

I will apologize for nothing, because I never made the insinuation.

We are getting to a critical stage in this House. I want to know from you, sir, in your responsible position in the chair, whether the hon. member on that side of the House has got your permission, because you didn’t call him up, to make definite statements against members on this side, and then you rule you will not allow the hon. member to reply. I put to you a fair question. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) made use of certain expressions, for which there have been periods of time when the hon. member might have been called to order. The Chair has allowed those expressions to go through, and I ask you, as a point of privilege, whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has not the right to claim your protection while he replies to the hon. member for Brakpan.

Did I understand the hon. member did not insinuate that I was unfair?

I did not. You must have thought I was speaking ironically, but I was not. I have nothing whatever to apologize for.

The hon. member may proceed, but he must bear in mind he owes respect to the House and to the Chair. I have no objection to your replying at all, but this attacking and counter personal attacking must cease. It has gone on long enough.

When I was addressing the House the hon. member for Brakpan interrupted. It is the custom in the House to deal with an interruption when it is made, but he has got up and used various epithets towards me which sounded offensive and I was going to reply to him, which I must do, if we are not to become a kindergarten, when you pulled me up. I am going on now, until you pull me up again. The hon. member for Brakpan accused me of the horrible crime of being ambitious. The paper “Forward” shows in one of its issues an amusing cartoon which represents three hon. members of this House standing as three goddesses waiting for the Prime Minister to throw one of them an apple entitled “Cabinet Rank.” One gentleman is called “Sammy,” another one “Arthur,” and the third is called “Bob.” I don’t know who the “Bob” is that is alluded to, but I should be sorry if the discreditable looking person shown with no clothes on in this picture was the hon. member for Brakpan. I am afraid the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) shares with me the crime of ambition.

The hon. member gets very cross in his attacks, yet no member makes more attacks than he does. He spoke about a picture in “Punch” about a baby.

There was no baby in this.

Oh! I thought the baby was called “Leslie”! The hon. member goes to “Punch” for his jokes and to the “Pink Un” for his manners. I had to pull him up last year, and I have to pull him up again this year. To come back to the question with regard to these advertisements, I personally saw Mr. Knightley, head of the printing department and asked him exactly how the advertisements were given to the newspapers of South Africa. He said, a list of newspapers was made out and the Minister had nothing to do with it after that. The advertisements were given out by the head of the department, and that is the way newspapers get their advertisements to-day. The list is made out by the Minister, handed to the head of the department, and the advertisements are sent out to any newspapers they like. Is it not a fact that you cannot find a single advertisement in a Pact newspaper that you do not find in a South African party newspaper? That didn’t happen in the old days. I admit the” Cape Times,” the “Argus” and the “Star” have a big circulation, but they do not get into all the country areas, and these papers have been left out in some cases. I guarantee that out of £10,000 spent £2,000 goes to Pact newspapers and £8,000 to South African party newspapers. Our friends, therefore, have nothing to grumble at. Why these sneers at the Labour party press? There are only two papers, the “Guardian” and “’Forward”, and both of them can do without Government advertisements. They are both poor papers from a financial point of view, but from a reading point of view, they are better than the South African party press. My friend sneers. I remember him sneering at the National party when they started.

I remember you sneering at the National party.

I never sneered at the National party as a party but at some of the things they advocated. I am not of a sneering habit. Let us take two newspapers which were subsidized by the hon. member for Standerton when in power, the “Umteteli wa Bantu,” a paper published in Johannesburg, belonging to the Chamber of Mines, edited by Mr. Brereton, a free paper, sent out amongst the natives, which has nothing to do with anybody but the Chamber of Mines. It has no circulation, yet it was always full of S.A.P. advertisements. The Chamber of Mines is supporting that paper. Mr. Brereton, the editor, told me himself it circulated in the compounds. Take the “Weekly Herald,” which was supposed to be a Labour paper. In that paper the South African party leading articles were run by the late Archie Crawford, who was a man up against the Labour movement from the beginning to the end. He was used by the South African party and was considered by the Labour party as a traitor to the party. The men who carry on to-day are considered to be traitors to the cause, and hon. members on the other side supported that paper through thick and thin, although it has not got a circulation of ten paid copies, and probably not 300 altogether, yet those are the gentlemen who come forward and charge this party with subsidizing newspapers. Can they tell me of one of these papers that would die if the Government would not support it? If the Chamber of Mines and the South African party and the late Government had not supported the “Weekly Herald,” and this “Umteteli wa Bantu,” compound paper, they would not have come into existence at all; they were the sewers of the South African party, who kept them alive with their advertisements.

I am afraid I have only risen to give some cold figures, not entirely devoid of humour when you consider this debate. The figures relate to certain advertisements in certain parts of the country for the year ending 30th June last. We find in the Transvaal, for instance “De Volkstem” had, in advertising, received £1,030 16s. 6d., “Ons Vaderland.” £47 3s. 9d. A paper like the “Klerksdorp Record” receives £50 9s. and “Ons Vaderland” certainly has a much greater circulation and reaches a much larger portion of the public. We have two papers in Potchefstroom, the “Westelike Stem,” which received £98 8s. in a year, and the other “Die Weste,” supporting the National party received £19 17s. in the same period. At the same time the “Umtateli wa Bantu” got £125, or three times as much as a Dutch paper like “Ons Vaderland. Those are only some of the figures. We then come to Natal. We find that the “Witness” got £263 13s., the “Natal Mercury” £308 Os. 6d., and the “Guardian” nothing.

It has got no circulation.

The “Guardian” has a larger circulation than many of the other papers.

During the same period “Die Burger,” a daily paper, got £549, “Ons Land,” a tri-weekly, £521 11s. 4d., the “Cape Times £705, and the “Cape Argus” £352. If you add these figures together, you will find how much more the South African party papers obtained than the Pact papers. I find a great deal of interest always displayed by the Opposition in the circulars issued by my office, and I am seriously considering whether I should not make these circulars a great deal stronger. The circular in question has not been fully quoted, because if the whole of it were quoted my intention was perfectly clear. May I say what has been done under it? Under that circular in my department—I am not talking about other departments at the moment—more advertisements have been placed to-day in the South African party press than in the Pact press of South Africa.

That’s wrong.

I admit that it is a wrong thing to do, but at any rate it is being done. I am just showing that we are not carrying out the policy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I think there are a large number of us who consider that that would be a right policy for us to carry out, but I am only pointing out that this is not being done and, instead of elementary gratitude being displayed by members of the Opposition that we are not following the extremely bad precedent that they set during all the years when they were in office, we find attacks made on grounds which are very dangerous grounds indeed for the Opposition to choose to attack us on. I only want to make these few remarks because I am not ashamed either of the circular which has been issued or anything that has been done under it, and I wish to add that we are continuing to act ten times more fairly than the past Government ever acted in South Africa.

The Minister has cleverly avoided the point raised by us. He has given instructions to his department. He suggested that I did not read the whole of the circular. I now propose to read the remainder. It states further—

Then there is the list that I gave you a little while ago. That is, to my mind, an instruction by the Minister of Justice to his department to give advertisements to these particular papers. The Minister goes on to say, for there are cases, where they cannot use these papers—

It is perfectly certain that when the Minister gives these instructions to the heads of his department, the heads of his department are going to carry out those instructions to the letter. Where did the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) get his information about £2,000 of this money going to Pact newspapers and £8,000 to S.A.P. newspapers? The latest information that the Minister can give us is up to the end of June last. I take it that the information of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) is about as correct as the information given to us by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux). He told us that twenty columns—

I meant inches.

These columns have now shrunk to inches. But what about the “double columns,” have they also shrunk to double inches? He got up and said that twenty columns appeared in “Ons Land,” eight columns appeared in the “Cape Argus,” and ten columns in the “Cape Times.”

That is quite a normal exaggeration for the hon. member.

Unfortunately for him, an hon. member on this side has investigated the matter and he finds that in the last two issues of “Ons Land” there was only a quarter of a column instead of the twenty columns mentioned. There was nothing in the last issue of the “Cape Times.” In the “Cape Argus” there was no advertisement by the Government, though there was one page of advertisement by the Thrift Society, which the hon. member, apparently, believes is a government institution. Those are his twenty, ten and eight columns he so unctuously referred to. I think we need not bother about the hon. member for Ceres any more. I am not going to accuse him of being a second Baron Münch-hausen, because I would be told that I was out of order. That is the sort of information we get from the hon. member for Ceres, and the information that we get from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is not much more correct.

In “Ons Land” on the 26th at page 2 the hon. member will find two inches of Government advertisement. In the “Cape Argus” on the 27th, page 4, you have got six inches and on the same page two double-column inches of the South African Railways. In the “Cape Argus” of the 26th you will find two single column inch advertisements. In the “Cape Times” of the 27th, page 7, you will find eight single inches and on page 8 two inches. This kind of thing is typical of the South African party—when a member gets up and makes a trivial mistake such as saying “columns” instead of “inches.” Even a child would understand that you cannot have twenty columns of Government advertisements. I am glad I have provided hon. members opposite with a little hilarity. Their leader prophesied lots of fun; hitherto they have had very little. I am glad this small slip of mine should have caused their empty minds so much hilarity.

Every House wants a jester, you know.

I wish to reply to some of the questions which have been put to me on this Vote. First of all I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. members for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) and Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), and others, with regard to the provision of a provident fund for the artizans at the Government Printing Works in Pretoria. I quite agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and others, that the establishment of this provident fund is very desirable. I can only give the House the information that the initial steps in connection with this matter which were taken by the former Minister of the Interior are being carried further now. As I informed the House on a former occasion, this is really not a matter for the Ministery of the Interior, but a matter for the Treasury, and the whole question of the provision of such a fund is now under consideration by the Treasury. A question has been asked by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) with regard to the general increase on this Vote. I can inform the hon. gentleman that this is certainly not the result of less economy on the part of this Government, but it is entirely due to an increase in the volume of work done by the Government printing works. The volume of work has increased because the printing of the Railway Department is done there now, which was not the case formerly. Taken in general, the volume of work has increased 12 per cent.; the general expenditure has increased only by .7 per cent. The increase has generally been in connection with the new plant which will be acquired to deal with the greater volume of work. To counterbalance that increase I can inform the hon. member that the receipts have increased by £10,000 per annum. A question has been raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) in connection with the Government Stationery Department in Pretoria. As I understand him, these employees wish to be put on a permanent basis as the ordinary civil servant. That point has been referred, as he himself says, to the Public Service Commission. The Commission has since reported on this matter, but they think the wishes of these men unfortunately cannot be met, and the argument in connection with their view is this, that these men, as far as their pay is concerned, do not stand on the same footing as public servants. They are paid, not fixed wages as many of the public servants are paid, but at trade union rates. They are treated just like ordinary employees in any private business, and therefore, the Commission are of opinion, they cannot have it both ways, they cannot have trade union rates of pay and at the same time enjoy the advantages of public servants. With regard to the question of the placing of advertisements that has been raised in the House, and upon which we have had a rather lively discussion, I think it is best if in the first place, I just give a little general information. There is an increase on this vote of £2,000 as compared with the Vote of last year. Now hon. gentlemen who remember the Vote on former occasions will know that the Vote for advertisements has during the last few years been decreased to a very large extent; and if we now increase this Vote by £2,000 it only means that we are approaching the expenditure on advertisements in connection with the ordinary normal expenditure of the different departments, so that there is nothing wrong in the fact that this Vote has been increased by £2,000.

What is the need for it?

It is to meet the ordinary normal expenditure of the different departments, which has been cut down too much. This item appears on this Vote merely as a matter of form, because in reality for the advertisements of the different departments the permanent and political heads of those different departments are responsible. The departments themselves, under the supervision of the permanent secretaries and the Minister, decide in how far they shall advertise, in what papers, and for what amount, That is the ordinary procedure in connection with advertisements. I can say that hon. members who have spoken to-night about the great difference between the amount spent on party political papers on the one side and on the other under the previous Government, and under the present Government, are quite right. There is certainly a great difference; if we look at the papers in which advertisements are placed and the amounts paid for the advertisements, there is undoubtedly a great difference which is noticeable, but it is simply a redress of the balance, simply a restoration of justice. It is nothing else than that. It is true, as hon. gentlemen on the other side have stated, that the previous Government did advertise in Nationalist papers. But when you look at the amounts paid for the advertisements in Nationalist papers and compare them with the amounts paid for advertisements in papers supporting the Government, there is practically no comparison. Practically the papers which did not support the previous Government, were excluded. One instance is typical, and has already been quoted by the Minister of Justice. Taking the Transvaal these two Dutch papers published in Pretoria. “De Volkstem” and “Ons Vaderland,” undoubtedly the majority of the Dutch-speaking people in the Transvaal is Nationalist.

They do not read “Ons Vaderland.”

A comparison between the two sides of the House will show that very clearly. The great majority of the Dutch-speaking and Dutch-reading population of the Transvaal is Nationalist. We find that the South African party Dutch paper gets, by way of advertisements, from the previous Government, £1,060, and “Ons Vaderland,” representing the Nationalist section, only £47.

That is a much better medium than “De Volkstem.”

The Minister of Justice has mentioned two other papers issued in Potchefstroom, Die Westelike Stem” and Die Weste,” and stated, correctly, that the Western Transvaal is preponderatingly Nationalist, and that “Die Weste” has a much greater circulation than the other, and yet the other got practically all the Government advertisements and “Die Weste” only about £10. I will give the House a little more information in regard to that. We have heard from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that it is not good manners to refer to files, but I happened to go over certain files and I came across this. I will run the risk of being accused of another breach of good manners, and will refer to these files. An advertisement appeared in “Die Weste,” the Nationalist paper with the largest circulation in the Western Transvaal, but it was found, afterwards, that that advertisement had been placed, by mistake, by the manager of the printing works, and there was a considerable correspondence between the Minister responsible—the predecessor of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan)

How many years ago?

About three years ago. That is immaterial; but it was made under the previous Government. Quite a big correspondence was carried on between the Minister, personally, and the manager of the printing works, about this mistake, and the manager was severely reprimanded for it. That shows the principles, with regard to advertising, on which the previous Government, of that period, proceeded. All I can say is that we have done nothing more than to restore even-handed justice. I will just give one or two instances. The “Guardian” was mentioned, and the impression was given, by certain speakers on the other side, that the Government now advertised in Natal practically only in the “Guardian” and that the South African party papers were left in the cold. I have it from my department that the “Guardian” was added to the list of newspapers for Government publication, but the “Witness” and the “Mercury” still continue to carry most of the Government publications.

It is wrong.

I am beginning to think it is wrong, and might require looking into. I can tell hon. members that I get, from the manager of the printing works, monthly, all the facts with regard to advertising, and all the papers in which, during that month, advertisements have been placed, and the money value of these advertisements, and the list is open to the inspection of any hon. gentleman of this House, month after month. I will most gladly lay it on the Table of the House, if asked for it.

A perfectly innocent question to the Minister has caused a very considerable discussion, with which I have nothing to do, but it has been a most informative and interesting discussion. The reply of the Minister, however, seems to me to be very disingenuous. He said that the cost of advertisements had been very much cut down for economy’s sake, and that the increase now was due to coming back to normal. Surely the answer must be, from what the Minister has said, that if some ten newspapers have been added to the list the increase is due to the adding of those newspapers.

I wish to say that out of £10,000 spent by this Government, £8,000 would go to S.A.P. papers. It was stated that the Minister of Finance was subsidizing the Labour papers in Natal. This is the latest return. “Natal Mercury,” £2 11s.; “Guardian,” nothing. I have the list of papers here, which shows that in the Cape all the papers, with the exception of four, are S.A.P. newspapers, which get all the money. In the Transvaal they are all S.A.P. except two. In the Free State almost everyone is S.A.P. This is a shock for me. I am out for “jobs for pals.” I thought this Government was giving us some advertisements; but they are handing them over to the other side. The Nationalists are giving all their advertisements to the South African party papers. The paper “Forward” is not getting a shilling, and the Labour press has had nothing from the Government except a few pounds for the “Guardian.” The Minister of Justice is giving the Labour party nothing, and the South African party is still “scooping the pool.” It has all gone to the party which attacks us and misrepresents us on every occasion, and tries to throw the Government out of office, while our papers are getting nothing. I am very glad the Opposition has raised the point.

I want to say a word on behalf of the Minister. Business people advertise in those newspapers which have the greatest number of readers. I presume the Minister acts on the same business-like principles, and if the Government wants to advertise anything it selects the papers with the largest circulation. I hope the Government is going to continue on those business principles. I wish to deny the statement that all the newspapers in Natal mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) are South African party newspapers. As far as I know there is only one which can be said to be controlled by the South African party and that is the “Natal Advertiser,” and all the others are independent.

Anti-National.

While these papers in Natal may not be owned by the South African party the fact remains that on almost every occasion when any particular issue was raised they supported the South African party.

It shows their sound commonsense.

I appreciate the remarks about the necessity of selecting newspapers with the largest circulation, but advertisements by previous Governments have not been placed on that ground in the past. I have a list of the amounts paid by the Government for advertisements for the 12 months ended June 30th last. The “Guardian” was completely boycotted in spite of the fact that with the exception of, perhaps, two other papers it has a larger circulation than those Natal papers which received those advertisements. The circulations of newspapers are kept very quiet as a rule, but the “Guardian” has never hesitated to tell the truth regarding its figure.

Free circulation?

I am talking of bought copies. We started it with a free circulation, but it was in such great demand that people were prepared to pay for it. Without these Government advertisements they managed to hold their own, and if to-day we receive some of these advertisements we are entitled to them on the basis of circulation. It has been put on the list, and takes its chance with every other paper, and is entitled to receive Government advertisements because the South African party papers circulate amongst the same people, but the “Guardian” reaches a different class. The “People’s Weekly,” at Bloemfontein, has also been boycotted, and it has a circulation, I think, of about 5,000 a week. On the circulation argument the last Government made a sorry show in the choice of the papers in which official announcements were published.

One or two things have come out and I take it that first of all this extra £2,000 is for the purpose of putting advertisements in these extra papers.

No, certainly not.

The grant last year was only £8,000 and the year before although the grant was £10,000, the money spent was only £8,200. You are compelled to advertise in those papers with the biggest circulation. There seems to be an impression abroad that the Nationalists greatly outnumber the S.A.P. in the Transvaal, which I would like to correct, and I will do that by quoting the figures of the votes cast in the last election. The votes cast in the Transvaal for the South African party were 48,752, and for the Nationalist party 36,230. Does my hon. friend know that the Pact party gets the majority because of the 23,809 labour votes? There is a big difference of something like 12,000 majority which the South African party had at the last election over the Nationalists. Take the Cape Province. There were 78,923 South African party votes, against 53,863 for the Nationalists. That is the reason the Government were compelled to advertise in these papers because they had the biggest circulation.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) wants to correct me. Let me correct him. The point is this that the Government must not necessarily advertise in certain papers which have the largest circulation because the Government is not a business concern but must get into contact with all sections of the population and for that reason it must advertise very often in small local papers. My point is this, take the west of the Transvaal. The political complexion of the Western Transvaal is certain. It is almost, constituency after constituency, without exception, Nationalist, and here we find the previous Government advertised in the South African party paper in Potchefstroom and ignored the other paper. With regard to the other point, which the hon. gentleman raised I have the correct figures here with regard to the money expended upon advertising in different years. The Vote for 1922-1923 was no less than £11,000.

And expended.

Yes, expended. The next year it was reduced to £10,000 and the year after it was cut down to £8,200. What is there wrong, in the circumstances, in our increasing again by £2,000 to approach the normal which in 1922-1923 was £11,000. The population census will be taken next year and a vast amount of advertising is necessary in connection with that and the extra £2,000 we require for advertising is also meant to cover that.

I ask the Minister to again go into the matter I mentioned. There are men in other departments who are doing similar work and getting the trade union rate of pay, but also getting annual leave on full pay. It is not possible for him to go into it more fully now that is why I have handed the Minister the memorandum from the men and another paper so that he can further consider the matter.

In the course of this discussion a number of newspapers were mentioned in a circular issued by the Minister of Justice by whom they were singled out for preferential treatment with regard to advertisements. We have had speeches supporting the claims of their respective newspapers from two hon. members in the House who have some direct pecuniary interest in the question of advertisements. We had a plea from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs voiced with almost obsequious humility to show that his newspaper is entitled to these advertisements, and speaking in the editorial first person plural he has tried to make good his claim to the advertisements going to the “Guardian.” There is a rule that any member shall not in the House, vote or take part in any matter in which he has direct pecuniary interests, or in which any benefit may be derived by him, either in partnership or in any company of which he is a director. I take it that as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was speaking of the “Guardian” in the first person plural—

He is voicing in this House a pecuniary claim on behalf of his company or the partnership he represents. We had a similar appeal from the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) who seemed to be both advertising his paper and making a claim for further custom. I would venture to ask your ruling, sir, on this subject. It seems to me to be irregular and if not actually infringing the rule is very near to it.

The hon. member has raised the point of order rather late. The speech he objects to has already been made. I have been reading this rule, rule 122, and in the first place I may point out we are not discussing a contract or a bargain, and, in the second place, that the words “direct pecuniary interest” would not apply in this instance at all, as there is nothing to show that the Minister is going to gain directly by the passage of this Vote. I do not think that the fact that the Minister may be connected with some newspaper is sufficient to bring him under the rule.

You have just given a ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I would like you to give another one. We have got certain hon. gentlemen sitting in this House, who take down reports—I have got no grievance against them on that ground—but certain of these gentlemen, whose papers are represented in the gallery to take down the proceedings of this House, go into the lobbies where these gentlemen sitting in the gallery are not allowed to go and report private conversations.

That is not a point of order arising out of this question.

I would like your ruling on it.

That is not a point arising on this vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 23, Public Health, £410,482,

There are one or two points I would like to ask the Minister about in connection with this vote. I would like to know what the department is doing and what success it has met with in connection with the infection of plague. I would like to know whether that infection is spreading in the country, and whether the measures that are being taken are in any way adequate to prevent its spreading and becoming endemic. Another point is, what is being done, if anything, to secure something like ordinary sanitary conditions in the alluvial diggings of this country? I am afraid the conditions under which a large number of our people live in these alluvial diggings are, to put it mildly, most insanitary, and that people are living there under conditions which are practically asking for an outbreak of disease on a very serious scale, and I would like to know whether the Minister has been able to make any progress in bringing these alluvial diggings under some kind of health control. I also want to know what success is being met with in carrying on the tuberculosis sanatorium at Nelspoort. I regard that as in the nature of an experiment, an experiment which may be a fruitful one for this country, or, on the other hand, we may find that it is not so fruitful in its results as was expected. If it has been found to be fruitful, I would like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to extend that system of dealing with tuberculosis to other parts of the country. I would like to know what the Minister’s policy is in regard to the leper hospital at Robben Island. The expenditure in connection with Robben Island is excessively high, and hon. members will see if they refer to page 96 of these Estimates that the cost per patient at Robben Island during last year was 10s. 9d. per day, and for this year it is estimated at 10s. 8¼d. That is more than double what it costs at any other institution of that kind. One knows what the circumstances are which make that expenditure necessary, and I would like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to continue that settlement as a leper hospital, or whether it is their intention to remove the patients who are now there to the mainland. The other point I wish to ask about is to what extent advantage is being taken of the system of housing loans, whether the amount that was put on the estimates last year is being made adequate use of, and whether it is intended to continue that form of assistance or not.

I notice from the report of the public health department that a conference was held in Angola in 1916, where conversations took place with a view to the establishment of an organization to spread information when serious epidemic sickness breaks out and spreads in southern Africa. I should like to know whether an agreement was come to between the various states to create a central office. I think that that is a splendid idea and an amazing amount of good can be done for the Union as well if such a system is created for a proper organization to avoid or to properly limit infectious diseases. The second question I find in the same report on page 3. There are 26,000 white men on the diggings and 36,000 non-whites. As regards the health of the white people much has already been said and I do not wish to go into it again. With reference to the non-whites the position is that they also, to a certain extent live in an unnatural manner, and no provision is made by the Government for them in connection with health conditions. I, therefore, think that it is necessary to know what the Government is doing with the pass fees which are paid by the native mine workers. The condition of one of the diggings was so serious that it was necessary to have a meeting of natives. The appreciation of their own requirements was so faulty that the natives became riotous until they were told what they were to do. What can be done? If an infectious disease breaks out amongst the non-whites then it means infection of the whites as well and the disease will go beyond the diggings. On the other hand it is unmentionable what is done with the pass fees which, in the first instance, were levied with a view to health measures. On page 20 of the report there is something of importance in view of the leprosy census of the Union. For economic and philanthropic reasons it was the intention of the Government during the last couple of years to remove the lepers from Robben Island to the mainland. I sympathize with that, but I think more can be done in fighting the spreading of the disease. A special board has been appointed in that connection and I should like to know what is being done. The report referred to states that there are still about 10.0 lepers at large in all parts of South Africa, of whom about 1,300 are in the Transkei, according to an estimate in 1911. The position is that the disease in many cases was only discovered when it was far advanced. It is not an impossibility to eradicate leprosy if proper scientific measures are only taken, even if the disease is incurable. If the position is as I have stated then what is actually required is not being done. I think that the appointment of a special board is very good, but I do not think that the country is sufficiently well aware of the facts. I should also like to draw the Minister’s attention to the surprisingly high statistics of infantile mortality. I know that he takes great interest in the matter and therefore, I will not enlarge on figures. He has made known to the country that the white population of South Africa loses 100,000 of the white children every 25 years. That is something which white South Africa does not sufficiently grasp and what a cancer there is at our national life. There are a few directions in which much can be done to lessen this evil The first I wish to suggest is whether it is not possible to create a Government organization to take action in connection with this matter. I am not anticipating more expenditure. At the moment money is being given to associations which do good work in this connection. I have to-day attended a meeting of one of them, and I appreciate the work which is done by those associations, but I want to know whether the Minister is not thinking about a State organization and whether something more cannot be done than is being done at present.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I should like to bring two points to the notice of the Minister in connection with this Bill. I refer to page 100, Vote F (1) to (7), allowances for the treatment of venereal diseases. It cannot be denied that this terrible disease has increased of late and, according to the latest returns of the department for public health, it prevails not only amongst coloured people and natives, but also amongst the white population. When one reads the return of the numbers of people who suffer from this complaint and are treated by doctors then it really makes one shudder. Take the most recent return which I have here, the report of the Department of Public Health for 1924. The population is here divided between whites and coloured. Coloured people here means natives, and also includes Cape coloured people. Then the cases treated were sub-divided into two categories, viz., cases treated in hospitals and cases treated by doctors outside of hospitals. The number of whites treated during the year in hospitals is 417, and outside cases 18,900, while for natives the figures were respectively 7,000 and 43,000. In all a total of over 69,000. Now, one understands, of course, that this is a disease which is often suffered from secretly and I believe we may accept that to the 69,000 that are treated one should certainly add half as many again for secret cases so that the total number of persons suffering from this disease may be estimated at 100,000. The danger of contagion is especially great, because on farms and in villages small kaffir boys or girls are so often used as nurses and it is quite possible that they also suffer from the disease. Now, I ask whether it is not within the scope of the department of public health, on the instructions of the Minister, to deal more systematically with the matter, and to investigate more closely how far the disease has already spread amongst whites and natives so that a better census and better statistics can be obtained, and the disease can be systematically fought just like leprosy, plague and other diseases. I am surprised and disappointed that this vote has been reduced instead of increased. One would surely think that this vote would increase a little each year, but instead of an increase of a few thousand pounds we find that these votes in connection herewith are reduced by £3.000. The vote for the chief hospital with reference to the matter, namely, the Rietfontein hospital, shows a reduction of £3,000 And for eight other hospitals where venereal diseases are treated and which are mentioned at the bottom we find a grant of £8,000 against £9,000 last year. Then I come to allowances to doctors and others and I find that there is £2.500 for this year and the same amount for last year, therefore no increase. The special allowance for treatment of venereal diseases last year was £3.550 and has again been fixed at the same amount this year, not a penny more than last year. So that, according to the estimates, instead of advancing with the combating of this terrible disease and instead of spending more for the purpose we are going back. I again bring to the notice of the Minister the danger of venereal diseases.

Speaking of myself I went to one of the diamond diggings and lived there for about three weeks, and I found the position most deplorable in regard to health, and I would like to know if the Government are doing anything with regard to the health of these places. There are frequent outbursts of typhus and enteric, and other diseases, and the water supply is always polluted. No one seems to bother about these people living under these awful conditions, nobody takes the slightest interest. No one bothers about the refuse, and the death rate must be very high indeed. There seems to be nobody in South Africa who has taken any interest in the diggers and their children, white and black, and it would be a good thing if hon. members would remember these things. Another thing is in regard to the lepers. I notice by the report issued by the department, an excellent report, that there appears to be 1,000 lepers in the Cape Colony, and 1,400 in the Transkei just roaming about, what is the policy of the Government going to be? Are they going to amend the Bill and move them from that awful island off Cape Town? It is bad enough for us to come and live here in the winter, but it is like suicide to the lepers on that island. On the question of the plague, I would like to say that at a conference in Bloemfontein, I attacked the head of the department (Dr. Mitchell) for the way he is carrying on the work. I want now to publicly withdraw what I said, and to give him the greatest credit for the way he is doing the work. I have found I was wrong, and I think it is only right I should now withdraw it and give him the credit. On the question of cleaning the farms. I would like to say in my own case, I have not a big farm, about 1,500 acres, and it is not difficult to clear it by carrying on the work systematically. In fact, I have practically cleaned it of gerbille. It is quite easy to go round and put these pellets in front of the burrows, and you will find, as the department says, that this is—

I believe that if we carry that out it is going to help more than all the money that is spent in South Africa to-day. Dr. Mitchell said at the time—and we took exception to it, farmers generally do—that the thing lay in the hands of the farmers. I cordially agree with him. If the farmers are banded together and form clubs to kill the gerbilles, just as is done in the case of the locusts, I do not say that we should get rid of the gerbilles altogether, but I do believe that they could be kept down to such a low number that our danger from plague will not be very great. I am speaking now from practical experience, because I have done it. The town council of Bloemfontein has also done it. One of my neighbours is the Government, the Defence Department, and they have done nothing, and all the Government gerbilles come over to my farm. I just want to ask the Minister one question, and that is whether he will tell us what has happened to the mobile field laboratory and the special research staff which I understand the Government have got out, and I would ask him not to be afraid to spend money on this thing, because, although we have been lucky during the last few months, we may have a great outbreak again next year. I want to congratulate the department on the work it has done in the Free State, particularly in regard to the bioscope film which it has sent round in my district and the adjoining districts, showing the farmers the dangers of plague.

I want to urge on the Minister the necessity for more efficient control of the sale of poisons. I am alluding especially to arsenite of soda. The Minister will know that in all districts where the dipping of stock is compulsory, arsenite of soda in solution is the medium that is principally used. Arsenite of soda is 80 per cent. pure arsenic and is one of the most deadly poisons. The ease with which it is obtainable encourages people who are criminally minded, or who wish to gratify feelings of spite or revenge, to use this for the criminal purpose of poisoning stock and human beings, and it is becoming a very grave menace to this country. It is maliciously done and I will give a few examples. I will deal with the stock question first, although perhaps it is not the most important one. Quite recently in my own district, a farmer named Mr. Evens had 84 dairy cows, mostly on the point of calving, poisoned in one night. A neighbour had five poisoned within a few days. There are other instances in the same district of stock lost by malicious poisoning with arsenite of soda. A couple of years ago in Natal, a heard of Friesland cattle was almost exterminated and the damage was estimated at something like £7,000. This is a most serious state of affairs. Then we have the danger to human life, which is still more important. Only a few days ago, in the “Argus,” I noticed an account of the demolition of a dwelling at Claremont. A native picked up a packet of what he thought was glauber salts. He swallowed it; it was arsenite of soda and the result was fatal. We know an hon. member of this House and his family have twice been maliciously poisoned by native servants. Fortunately, owing to prompt medical attention their lives were not lost, but the effect to their health was very serious. You have only to look through the columns of the press and you will see many cases of poison in which arsenite of soda has been the medium used. It is so easily obtained and so easily administered that it is practically impossible to bring the crime home to the offender. Farmers’ associations have urged upon the department that some steps should be taken to cope with this menace; and while we realize the necessity of arsenite of soda being available for stock dipping purposes, we do think it should be so treated as to be easily detectable, when mixed with human food or cattle fodder. I make bold to say that unless he is well-known it would be most difficult even for an hon. member of this House to buy an ounce of morphia or any other poison. Yet you can go to any dealer in agricultural requisites and buy half a hundredweight of this stuff if you like. I am only trying to show how easy it is to get this poison. This matter has been exhaustively discussed by the farmers’ associations, and in response to requests by these organizations, a proclamation was issued under the Stock Diseases Amendment Act, 1923, which laid down that arsenite of soda should be coloured with Chlorazol Sky Blue. This was issued on the 6th February, 1924, and was to come into force on the 1st October, 1924, but it has been absolutely ignored. I do not believe there is one ounce of arsenite of soda sold which has been coloured in accordance with that proclamation; the law has been ignored and the department have not followed it up. Colouring in itself I do not think it enough, because you may put this substance in a man’s coffee or his food, even if it is coloured, and it cannot be detected. The greatest necessity is that it should be strongly odorised in some manner. We have been asking the department for some time to take steps, that arsenite of soda or any dip compound of which it forms part, should be strongly odorised so that it will act as a deterrent if mixed with food, and especially human food. I understand that in India arsenite of soda is compulsorily odarised with kerosene by a very satisfactorily process. At the same time I would like the Minister to very seriously consider that any dipping material, on similar preparations containing arsenic, should only be sold in a liquid form, it would be very easy to colour and strongly odorize a liquid with, say, carbolic and while this would perhaps raise the cost slightly I think no one should grudge that if the safety of human life and of livestock was in the balance. This matter of the unrestricted sale of arsenite of soda is one which endangers human life. It is easy to impart a strong odour to the dip by means of carbolic acid, which would minimise the risk that the people in the stock-raising districts are subject to to-day. I can assure the Minister that this is a matter which we view very seriously, and which the associations have taken up for some time past very insistently and we do think there has been a certain callousness on the part of the authorities in not taking steps to deal with this menace before this.

I am very glad the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has brought the position in connection with venereal diseases to the notice of the Government. I want to emphasize the position in Cape Town in connection with the health of the population. It appears from the report of a meeting that the chairman of the health committee of the Cape Town city council said that the condition in connection with venereal diseases in Cape Town was very bad. One out of every five is affected, and this means 40,0000 out of a population of 200,000 in Cape Town. This is a terrible state of affairs. It ought to be tackled and every means tried to fight it because everybody runs a danger of being contaminated. It is often the cause of suicide, and it is not a matter that we can play about. Recently when it appeared that the conditions were bad at the vegetable market a big agitation was started, and I wish the population of Cape Town would also start a big agitation regarding this matter. I saw in one of the hotels that a servant tasted the coffee in the morning, and if she were affected with this disease she will affect other people. A scabby sheep infects a whole district, and is the cause of all the sheep having to be dipped. Here in Cape Town, however, 40.000 people are walking about that are a danger to the community. The public health committee of the Cape Town city council has recommended that a full-time doctor should be appointed to give his attention to the matter, but I regret to say the finance committee turned this down. I should like to know from the Minister whether the number of clinics in Cape Town are sufficient and what the Union Government intend to do in connection with this disease. Formerly placards were put up to notify people of the danger of the disease so that people should not keep it secret. I do not see these placards any longer and I shall be very glad if the Minister will direct that they should again be put up. Like the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) I am also sorry that this vote has been reduced by £3,000. I think that we are justified in spending more money on this matter. I will only repeat that the condition in Cape Town is terrifying and I concur in the hope expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) that the Minister will make better provision in future legislation for the health conditions on the diggings.

I wish to endorse what has been pointed out regarding the arsenite of soda poisoning to both human beings and stock. A great deal of damage is being done and the only safeguard is to odourize and highly colour the arsenic of soda. There is great danger to public health in one of the most important suburbs of Durban owing to the behaviour of the Indian population there. Every year in October they celebrate a festival which lasts six consecutive days and five nights, and during that time they beat tom-toms and drums to the detriment of public health. There are two large hospitals in this suburb, and very great complaints are made. I have a letter from the secretary of the Public Health Committee of Greyville, the suburb to which I have referred, in which he says—

What is required is two clauses inserted in the Health Act to give power to the provincial authorities to put an end to this. One has only got to experience the terrible nature of this din going on day and night to realize what it means. Those in delicate health are undergoing torture and I hope the Minister will be able to give relief in this direction.

I think there is something which should be brought to the notice of the Minister and that is the increase of consumption amongst our people. The conditions here in Cape Town and suburbs came under my notice during the past week. It appears that a percentage of 7.59 per 1,000 suffer from that complaint in Cape Town and suburbs, and that 834 new cases were discovered last year. It also seems according to the best authorities on the subject that they are not even certain with regard to consumption that any proper statistics are available. It seems further that a few years ago it was reported that the disease was decreasing, but from the figures I have just mentioned it appears that it is increasing enormously. The mortality figures of consumptives are 4.71 per 1,000 and last year there were 399 deaths from this dangerous disease. It seems, further, according to the best authorities, that in Cape Town and suburbs there are still hundreds of cases that have not yet come under the notice of the authorities. It shows that the matter is very serious. I am speaking here only about the capital, because things are worse here than in any other portion of the country, and the disease occurs here very much among the coloured people. Among the whites it is 100 per cent. less, but because the coloured people are such an integral portion of the population the danger of the disease to whites is made very much greater by their contact with the coloured people. I have read somewhere that the disease was introduced here in the middle of the 18th century from elsewhere. Formerly it was unknown here. Our country with its healthy climate is a strong barrier against the spread of the disease, but nevertheless we have now to do with a serious problem. A change must be made by a greater measure of separation of the consumptives.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.