I notice that the Public Service Commission in their report on page 7 state—

Perhaps my hon. friend the Minister will give us some explanation as to why he took this action in contravention of the commission’s recommendation.

I will explain at once. As far as my department is concerned, I want it to become properly bilingual. We have a large number of officers who can be obtained from my department who are absolutely bilingual in every sense of the word, and I preferred somebody who was more bilingual than the clerk in question. That is the only reason. I am acting always to try and get the best men I can for the Department of Justice, which is, after all, the crack department of the service.

Does not my hon. friend seem to desire to get his department more than ordinarily bilingual? Does he not realize that there is a certain amount of justice that should be meted out to all sections of the community ?

I will mete out justice.

I doubt it very much. The Public Service Commission say that this officer had passed his examination. He was competent in both languages.

I do not agree with that.

Does it mean that my hon. friend is specially picking out his favourites and putting them into positions ? It was for that particular purpose that the Civil Service Commission was established, so as to prevent anything in the nature of favouritism on the part of Ministers. Surely my hon. friend must feel himself to be in a very awkward position when he finds that the chief section of servants in this country are Ministers of the Crown, and that his three colleagues sitting alongside him are not thoroughly qualified bilingually, and yet he has no objection to sitting with them.

Nor were they recommended by the Public Service Commission.

Is that the reason they are there? Surely my hon. friend under these particular circumstances ought certainly not to penalize a member of the public service who passes the necessary examinations. I can only tell my hon. friend—it is right he should know—that there is a feeling, whether justified or not I am not going to say now, that in many of the appointments he has made he is guided by other influences than those of the best interests of the public service.

I may deal with that at once. I do not know who the gentleman was who took the place of this particular gentleman, so I think the charge of favouritism falls away. I do not know the officers who come to my department, and I have no favourites one way or the other. Nor do I have any appointments dictated even by the question of bilingualism. I could point to the appointment of judges who are men who have only a slight knowledge of Dutch. I am sure my hon. friend cannot point to a single judge who does not know a word of English. Would he, in my position, appoint men as judges who do not know any English whatever ? I do not think it is fair to make an attack of this kind, and these attacks do much more harm than good. There is a section of the people who are carried away by them. As a matter of fact, your unilingual English-speaking man has a much better chance in the public service than the unilingual Dutch-speaking man. What is more, as far as we are concerned, the unilingual Dutch-speaking man never will have that chance. It is wrong that he should have.

The excuse the hon. Minister makes is that he would not appoint anybody who cannot speak English. Is there a single barrister in South Africa who cannot speak English?

That is what I said.

There is not one who cannot speak English. In the Government Gazette, I find almost every week there is some justice of the peace or special justice of the peace removed, and in many cases, messengers of the court. What was the reason of these dismissals from the service ? I can understand when he tells us he has not sufficient justices of the peace for positions on the licensing boards, but the excuse he generally gives is that it is “in the interests of the public” that they have been removed. That is a very useful excuse for him to make, but it is most unsatisfactory. Surely it cannot be in the interests of the public to remove all these people.

How many?

If you take the numbers in the Gazette you will find out. Take special justices of the peace—15 removed. Take messengers of the court all over the country— a total of 21 removed. These people have been in these positions for many years. The Minister suddenly comes into office and finds it necessary to remove them. The only reason he can give is that it is in the interests of the public. I say it is highly unsatisfactory.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has made a great point of asking the Minister of Justice how many advocates can speak only Dutch. I want to put the question how many speak Dutch and how many are bilingual ? I am glad the Minister has commenced to make his department absolutely bilingual. If there is a department which comes into close relations with the public it is that of Justice, and we on the countryside have a great deal of trouble if magistrates and officials are unilingual. The time has come for the Minister to see in the general interest that we have bilingual officials.

I would like the Minister to put himself in the place of these men. What is the test these men have to pass ?

They pass a certain test which, as far as they are concerned, they consider has proved them bilingual. It seems to me you make the test what you like. If the test is wrong, then make it more severe, but when a civil servant has passed that test there should be no further question as to whether he is bilingual or not.

I want to congratulate the Minister on the attitude he has taken up. I think this is the last thing we English-speaking people should attack. We find, right through the service, that the English-speaking man has had the plums. If he had been a Dutch-speaking man he would have had to do translation work. To accuse the Minister, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has done, of favouritism he has not a single case he can bring forward. The first judge to be appointed was a South African party man, then an English-speaking man was made judge, and Mr. Justice Greenberg who was made a judge in the Transvaal, is certainly not a Nationalist or a Labour party man. A man of English name has been appointed Government attorney. In the Orange Free State they have left all the South African party men on the licensing boards. Then the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) comes along and mentions the messengers of the court who have been discharged, not because they are qualified to do the work. He mentioned Bloemfontein. Does he know what he is talking about ? The messenger of the court there was 81 years of age, decrepit and old, and could not do the work. Who was put in his place ? A man with an English name. The Minister did not stop the old messenger from being given a pension. He got one of over £100 a year, and it also goes to his wife. As far as the people of the Free State are concerned, they have not a word against what the Minister has done. I am glad the Minister is getting a bilingual service. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has nothing left to argue about in these days, and his party is falling to pieces because they have not the old racial cry.

I do not think the Committee will do itself much credit if it allows itself to descend to these wrangles. I, and we all, agree on this side that the public service must be bilingual, particularly that section which comes into contact with the public.

You did not carry it out.

It was sincerely and honestly carried out by the late Government.

When ?

From the beginning.

What about the appointment of the Secretary for the Interior ?

He was appointed at Union, and was a bilingual man.

What about the recommendation of the Public Service Commission ?

I do not think the hon. member knows what he is talking about. Why should the Minister be the judge? I know that is what we have been trying to get away from during the last 16 years by appointing a commission which is perfectly competent to decide whether a man is sufficiently bilingual for his position. If the Minister does not like a nomination sent forward by the Public Service Commission, all he has to do is to refer it back to the commission, and say the man is not sufficiently bilingual for the work he has to do. What we object to is that the Minister makes appointments himself, and that is practically superseding the functions of the Public Service Commission, whose whole object is to give public servants confidence that they will be selected for promotion on impartial lines.

It is not in the hands of the Minister—it is merely a recommendation of the P.S.C.

Have recommendations been set aside ?

But they do not appoint.

I do not know who the man is.

I do not either.

But he is not “sufficiently bilingual”!

On examination.

I think the Minister is going on a wrong track by going over the heads of the Public Service Commission.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said I did not know what I was talking about. I was referring to the appointment of the Secretary for the Interior.

That was a recommendation.

It makes no difference whether it was a recommendation of the Public Service Commission or not. The successor who was recommended—I mean to Mr. Shaw—was a unilingual official. The Minister said he would not appoint a unilingual man to the post, and the view of the Public Service Commission was that they did not think bilingualism was necessary for an appointment of that kind. Hon. members cannot get past that. I assure the Minister that if he appoints unilingual people he will get into disfavour with the Nationalist party, or at any rate with those of us who are protagonists of bilingualism. Appointments are still constantly being made in Ministerial departments of persons who are not bilingual. It is unfair towards people who think that the service ought to be bilingual.

What department ?

I am not going to mention these departments.

Surely this is the place to mention it.

In which department?

If the hon. member will see me I will mention several to him.

Why do you not name them now ?

I shall take no notice of the remark of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). He knows better, and is generally wrong. My constituency consists largely of Dutch-speaking people, and unilingual persons are still being appointed there. We are resolved that bilingualism be carried out not only in words, but in deeds. If a unilingual English-speaking person is appointed to a town which is entirely English, I have no objection, but I protest against the appointment of unilingual officials where bilingual ones are required.

I have been requested to raise three points, and I do so because I am told that no satisfaction can be gained from the department after correspondence. The first is a native called Makaleni, employed by the department, who was found guilty of stock theft, desertion, and illicit liquor dealing. He was engaged by the department as a detective, and is now being tried for perjury in connection with one of these cases.

Where is that ?

At Kokstad. All these cases come from Kokstad. He is undoubtedly a man of very bad character, and he is engaged now to trap natives, as he did in one case. Another case is that of a man named Martin Matweno. He was engaged by the department as a trap and informer in regard to natives, after the department knew he was engaged by a firm of attorneys as interpreter. This firm deals very largely with native clients, and in this particular case it is alleged that he, as interpreter to the firm, got the information for the department. The department admits that this man was engaged as a trap. Does the Minister agree that that is a proper assistant to employ ? The third case is in regard to one of the detectives. I have here two pages of interrogation of a man in gaol by this detective, the man not being accused of any of the particular acts in regard to which he is interrogated, and it is quite clear from the questions put that he endeavoured to get the man to make a confession. I do not know whether this case has been brought to the Minister’s notice, but I do think that that method of interrogation is not only dangerous, but improper.

I would point to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) with regard to unilingual, English-speaking officials in Dutch centres, it is quite true that in many cases you find a unilingual man in the Dutch-speaking centres, but if one enquires departmentally, you will find the reason is that if the department were to go on the principle that only Dutch-speaking officials were to be transferred to the smaller towns, the result would be to penalize the bilingual Dutch-speaking official ; because the plums in the service are generally in the larger centres along the coast, and elsewhere where there is more English spoken. So the Dutch-speaking members would be sent to the small centres. We are not against bilingualism, but you cannot make a man bilingual in a day. The Minister recently in Durban gave an assurance that he would not penalize any man who is unilingual. The law gives them to 1928, and why anticipate the law ?

When one listens to speeches from hon. members opposite, one would conclude that the “plums” of which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has spoken are all occupied by Dutch speaking officials. It would do hon. members opposite good to look at the Civil Service list for 1925. If one only takes the non-British names (Norwegian and Scandinavian included) as against British, then one can deduct from the latter from 5 to 10 per cent. who are Afrikaans-speaking, although with British names. On this basis of British as against non-British names, one finds that the proportion in the various departments is as follows.: The Department of Justice (now under discussion) of the 148 highly-paid officials, there are 100 with British names and 48 with non British names ; in the Department of Defence of 48 highly paid officials, there are 18 with non-British names. In the Department of Native Affairs of 154 senior officers, there are 14 with non-British names. In the Department of the Interior out of 10 highest paid officers there are only two with non-British names. Who are now the people who have the “plums”? Even in the Department of Agriculture there are only 12 non-British names among the 33 highest paid men; in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs of the first 339 highest officials there are 312 with British names. In the Department of Irrigation, out of the 44 highest officials, there are 9 with non-British names ; Department of Inland Revenue, out of 53 senior men, there are only 4 with non-British names ; in the Department of the Auditor-General the head has an Afrikaans name, but of the 34 next succeeding officers, there are 6 with non-British names ; in the Department of Customs and Excise, of the 87 officials who draw more than £585 per annum, there the 6 with non-British names ; in the Railway Department, as already mentioned in the House, of the 162 highest paid officers, there are 11 with non-British names. I should like to know what a man like the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) would say if, when he entered a public office, he were treated in the way that Afrikaans-speaking men and women have already been treated and snubbed with the remark—

Wherever has that happened ?

It happened to me here in the so-called mother city in the head office of the railways, forsooth in the Information Department. I asked to see the head and received the reply: “What … ?” However, I did not understand “what”, and again asked to see the head. I then received the reply: “I do not understand Dutch, wait till someone comes in who does.” I should like to hear the language of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) if he were treated like that. One would hear the echo of it in Picadilly, in London, when the hon. member commenced to raise the dust about it. There are many people in South Africa who have not had an opportunity of learning English, and they are snubbed if they speak Afrikaans, and are not attended to. We are not opposed to anyone with an English name and speaking English being appointed to the public service, but we demand (it is not merely a request) that the people of South Africa should be served by bilingual officials.

We regret very much the speech we have just listened to.

Why?

It is the most racial bit of talk I have heard for a long time. (Ministerial cries of “Nonsense.”) It is pure racialism to go through the civil service list, not to find out whether members of the service are bilingually qualified, but to find out who are English and who are Dutch. What earthly good is served by that ? It only stirs up strife. We had thought that hon. members opposite, since their party came into power, had learned more sense and acquired more responsibility. I think the hon. member (Mr. Rood) has done one of the most mischievous bits of work we have had for some time, after all the talk we have heard about racialism being dead. The hon. member should not come in a lighthearted manner and stir up mischief in this bad old way. The hon. member says that he goes into a department and is answered in English, and is told that if he wants to speak Dutch he will have to wait until somebody else comes. I challenge him to give more than one instance where this has happened. Unfor innately, members of the railway and public service have been bullied by certain Afrikander people who have tried to force them to do more than they possibly can do. There is a certain kind of trapping and mischief making going on towards the unfortunate fellows in the public service who cannot speak both the official languages. The Government should stand up and protect these officials against this sort of thing.

Even if they hit people.

The hon. member seems to gloat over the only instance of that kind that has taken place. Supposing, even if there were two instances, they do not constitute proof of the general allegation by hon. members. If people do that sort of thing let them be punished. And they have been punished. But to come here and make vague, wild, unjust and childish statements against members of the public services is more than the public servants can bear, or ought to bear. It is largely a question of how you treat people. I have never had any trouble in that way.

Of course not.

I have gone among Dutch people, and I have shown civility to them, and they have shown civility to me. Certain hon. members opposite ask what I know of Dutch. Well, my Dutch is not very good, but it is good enough to make myself understood ; and I find that if you are civil and try, even in a halting way, to talk Dutch, they are the most courteous people. From this tribute of courtesy I specially except those members opposite who challenged me as they did. But, on the other hand, there are hon. members who seem to have the unfortunate knack of being able to provoke discourtesy and bring it on themselves.

I wonder if the hon. member for Rondebosch is serious about this matter ?

Quite serious.

Then I want to say that, during the last few years, there has been an improvement as regards the public service, but there was a time when, if you spoke Afrikaans to an official, you ran every chance of being snubbed. I want to assure hon. members that if officials try to answer Afrikaans-speaking people in Afrikaans there will be no further difficulties, but if that is not done then the troubles will continue. Take my own case. I always intend, when I get into touch with officials, to speak in Afrikaans and, when I see the man tries to speak it, but finds difficulty in doing so, then I always meet him and say we can continue the conversation in English. We must, however, not forget that it often happens that people come, who do not know a word of English, and it does happen, alas, that such people are snubbed. The other day Mr. Roos, of Wolmaransstad, who has just come from Europe, came and told me that he had been snubbed by an English railway official because his clothes were not like those of us who sit here. I say that, if everyone tries to learn to speak the other’s language then all race hatred will disappear. If that is not done, then things will never come right. We can go through the whole country, and we shall find everywhere that the Afrikander tries to talk English as well as he can. We expect the hon. members of the Opposition to take up the same attitude, and we can assure them that in that case race hatred will cease. I am very sorry that race hatred has been referred to again. I can as sure hon. members that I am not speaking from race hatred, but just want to see justice done to my language and to the English language. Then our country will progress, and we will respect each other, but if our language is despised, race hatred will increase. We, who sit here to-day and are bilingual, respect the English language, and have studied it, and I am glad that I have studied the English language. It has been a great help to me in life. I have been able to learn much from English writers such as Carlisle, Ruskin, etc., but I wish the same spirit with regard to my language also prevailed with hon. members opposite. How many of our English members ever read the books of our Afrikaans writers and poets? I am glad that the Minister of Justice is going to see to it that bilingualism will be generally introduced into the service, and I hope that any Minister now in opposition, if they ever come into office again, will also do so. I do not think that will happen quickly. Not long ago in Namaqualand a man came and asked if he was still far away from a certain place. The answer was—

So it is with the Opposition. When they get through the valley and over the rise they may possibly have a chance of some day getting into power again, but it is still very, very far off. The officials are surely servants of the public and are paid with public money. If an English-speaking person comes they have to answer him in English, but if an Afrikaans-speaking person comes, they should also be able to answer him in his own language. That is the ideal, and I make an appeal to all hon. members to assist in reaching the ideal condition of things, then we may expect peace. But as long as that does not occur … I do not wish to bully. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has spoken about people being bullied. He possibly knows what a bully is, that when a big fellow bullies another he is a bully, but when I insist on equality for my language I am not a bully. It is just the official often who bullies the simple citizen. I am not asking a favour. We have the right, under the constitution. We do not ask it, we demand it.

I don’t think many members of this House disagree with the main arguments that the hon. gentleman opposite (Dr. van Broekhuizen) has brought forward, but I would say to him, if he is desirous, as he says he is, of bringing about bilingualism he should welcome those young men who have not learnt Afrikaans as their mother language, but who yet are trying to equip themselves as best they can in that respect. The hon. member said—and I entirely agree—that it should be the-policy of everybody in this country to try and make it a bilingual country, because there are two official languages, but if you are going to encourage people to become efficient in the other language, which is not their mother-language, you must treat with a certain amount of sympathy those who are trying to make themselves efficient. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) said— and I agree—that as far as possible in making these appointments, you should consider whether they were largely a Dutch-speaking community, or largely an English-speaking community, so as not to penalize either the individual or the public. I do not know the individual in this case, but if my hon. friend will read the report of the Public Service Commission he will find that the appointment was that of a third grade clerk in the magistrate’s office at King William’s Town. What does the commission say ?—

The commission further says—

If my hon. friend the member for Graaff-Reinet were in the position of a Minister, holding the views that he has expressed to-day, and this report were submitted to him, would he have accepted it ? My quarrel with the Minister of Justice is that, having had this report before him, and having, as he has stated in this House, not known the individual, or known what his qualifications were, he overrode the decision of the Public Service Commission, and made another appointment. To say that raising a question of this sort is raising a racial question is perfectly ridiculous. The intention of Parliament in appointing the Public Service Commission was to keep official favouritism or political considerations out of the making of any civil service appointment. When the Public Service Commission recommend a man who, according to the rules of the service, has qualified himself, then I say the Minister of Justice should have had more tact than to override the commission’s decision when he personally was not in a position to judge, because he has told the committee that he does not know the man, and, if he does not, who is his authority on what this man’s bilingual qualifications are?

I knew where he passed the examination, what class, and what grade. I think it was marked “E.”

But it is an examination according to the regulations of the public service. He was being sent to an English town.

They start in one town and go all over the country.

Why should you, without having had an opportunity of knowing this man, or whether he was bilingual or not, take upon yourself the responsibility of overriding the commission’s recommendation? You may be doing him a grave injustice. You say you don’t know him.

No.

But you must know the other fellow.

I don’t know either.

Then how do you know that the other man was better qualified ?

Because he had a better pass in his exam.

I think the committee knows that it is not alone members on that side, but also members on this side, who are extremely anxious to see that the rising youth of this country are efficient in both languages, but, while that is gradually and silently taking place, you should not penalize anybody who is qualified for a post, and who is doing his best to equip himself in both languages. If the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) will look round the House and see my hon. friend the member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy), he will know that that hon. gentleman has not got a Dutch name, but he is perhaps as strongly Afrikaans in his views as the hon. member for Barberton. Let him take my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. When we have the Annandales, the Sutherlands and the Churches throughout the length and breadth of the Union, who, to a large extent, are entirely Afrikaans in their language, and who bear English and Scotch names, if my hon. friend is going to lay down that because a man’s name is so-and-so he cannot possibly be efficient in the Dutch language, I think he is making a very great mistake indeed.

I was pleased to hear the speech from the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen), especially when I contrast it with the speech of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood). Here we have been only sixteen years in the Union, and I think we have progressed remarkably well with the language question, and I do not see any necessity for these squabbles. I am glad to see the hon. member for Pretoria (South) has changed for the better, and for that reason I welcome him to this House for I remember, in 1909, when he was present at a large meeting in Pretoria, the view then expressed was: “If you go into a shop ask in Dutch to be served, and if they could not do so, then walk out. Again, if you received a letter from the Government in English, send it back and say you don’t understand the language” ; but one shrewd person present then put the question: “If you received a cheque in English, would you also return it, saying you did not understand the language?”

I should just like to make a few remarks to show my hon. friends opposite that we are in earnest about this matter. I have practised as an attorney for the last twenty years before the magistrate’s court and in the High Court, and I can assure the House that during the first fifteen or sixteen years of my practice I never had the opportunity of making an argument in Dutch, because the magistrates did not understand that language. I may inform the Minister of Justice that the greatest complaints of the country districts in the north are on account of the fact that he cannot give us bilingual magistrates and judges. In my village, my whole practice is in Afrikaans, all the deeds and the court work are in Afrikaans, and because it is an Afrikaans-speaking district, the summonses are made out in Afrikaans, but when I get into court I cannot plead in Afrikaans unless I have the good luck of the assistant magistrate being on the bench. Then I argue in Afrikaans, and defend my client in that language. The complaints of the great number of Afrikaans-speaking people in the Free State, Transvaal and Cape Province are that there are not enough magistrates who know the language and temperament of the people on the countryside. To a great extent, our magistrates were people who had been imported and appointed here. Do hon. members opposite know that in the Free State, when it was proclaimed British territory, we had a public service as good as any in the world ? We had magistrates, magistrates’ clerks and messengers who were bilingual, but practically all of them were dismissed, with the exception of four or five who made common cause with the conquerors. None of the other officials were reappointed under the Milner Government. I do not wish to make reproaches, but it is the truth that when the Milner Government came into power all the bilingual officials were discharged and replaced by people with the names of Capt. Edwards, Maj. Richards, and others. They came out to South Africa, did service temporarily in the South African Constabulary, and were then appointed as officials. Now I want to ask my hon. friends opposite why those capable officials were not taken over, and why new officials — the captains, majors and colonels—were imported? We are still stuck with them to-day. Why do members opposite object if bilingualism is one of the chief attributes to be considered in making appointments to-day? Take, e.g., the Railway Department, which is still full of unilingual officers. They are capable officers, but if the Minister tries to get bilingual officials into the service, then hon. members opposite object, and say that it is an instance of race hatred. As soon as we speak a word about our language and our language rights, then the glowing Imperialists, like the hon. members for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and Illovo (Mr. Marwick) say that we are preaching race hatred. They then get blue in the face and have convulsions. We are now getting tired of it, and I want us to understand each other. When Ministers appoint bilingual officials, hon. members opposite should be thinkful, and I should like to see them having their children taught both the languages of the country.

They have their children taught French instead of Afrikaans.

Yes, that is the case. I wonder whether French will yet become a language in this country. Let me just say that the question referred to by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), viz., that of the Justices of the Peace, was formerly such in the Free State that after the Milner Government I was the only Justice of the Peace in my district who was not a Milner man. I was appointed after the Free State got Responsible Government. In Bethlehem it is still the case that all the Justices of the Peace are South African party men. If you do manage to chance upon a Sap., he is a Justice of the Peace and a member of the Licensing Court or of the Land Bank, or holds some other appointment. When the new district of Reitz was established, the magistrate recommended six new Justices of the Peace. I, fortunately, saw the names, and in this case the few Saps, were got hold of, and nominated as Justices of the Peace. If the recommendation is left to the magistrates, then they look all around for some individual Sap. they can find to recommend them as Justices of the Peace. In this case, I protested, and I recommended six persons to the Minister, and I hope they will be appointed. There are two Saps, amongst them, and two persons who are of my own way of thinking in politics. Now I want to tell my friends opposite that four to two is just a nice representation, but if in Reitz, where there are not fifty Saps., in all six Saps, are to be recommended as Justices of the Peace, then one feels that it is not right.

Didn't you recommend your own brother as sheep inspector?

No, I did not recommend my own brother. He was appointed because he was an ex-official, and, according to the report of Mr. Morgan, the chief inspector in the Free State, he was one of the best inspectors in the Free State. My brother was dismissed by the former Government because he was a Nationalist and accused of being a rebel.

What about your brother-in-law?

I can answer all the questions put by the hon. members for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) and Illovo (Mr. Marwick). If my brother is fit for an appointment, let him have it. Why should he not get it just because he is my brother ? I suppose he should have been a Marwick. I want to warn my friends opposite that they must remain off my list. As long as I have anything to say in Bethlehem and the Minister will listen to me, I will see that the best men get the appointments, and not necessarily Saps, and Englishmen. I have now recommended two Saps, as Justices of the Peace, not because they are Saps, or English, but because they are bilingual. If a man is unilingual, then I have no time for him as an official in my district.

The point raised from this side of the House was this, simply and purely, and that bilingualism should be sanely applied. This party has been working steadily for bilingualism in this country and the services, but on reasonable lines, and not in the way it is now being dealt with. We, who are born South Africans, realize that it is essential for any man who is to get on really well in this country. But when we, who are not really Dutch scholars, attempt to speak Dutch, we are jeered at, as was the hon. member for Rondebosch by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). That does not encourage us, I must say. Some time ago it was said that this Government would make the civil service a 50-50 civil service, and if you listen to the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), you find he has let the cat out of the bag by comparing the relative numbers of civil servants with Dutch and British names. It should not be a question of English names and Dutch names. I say we are South Africans, whatever our descent. Every time let us go in for efficiency, and without reference to race descent. What did the hon. member for Barberton say ? He took the civil service list, he read through it, and he said there were so many English names and a few Dutch names. If you go on that basis, you are simply stirring up racialism. I like to listen to a speech like that of the hon. member for Pretoria South, who did speak common sense and spoke with moderation, but when you come to the hon. member for Barberton he puts the whole thing on a basis of pettifogging narrow-mindedness, which really is disgusting in a House of this nature. I would like to hear the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) make his interjection a little more manfully. I ask him to have the courage to make it so that I can hear it.

We have a good many renegades.

Thank God, we on this side of the House do not keep them. We get rid of them at once. For God’s sake, let us approach this thing in a broad-minded way. If a man is bilingual, never mind what his name may be. If we are going to proceed on the principle of dividing up the public service so that there are 50 Dutch to 50 English, you will only get a mediocrity which will be absolutely useless to this country. I deplore intensely the remarks of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), whom I did look upon as a broad-minded man.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) that I did not take his name as English. I think it is German. Nor did I say that everybody with an English name was English-unilingual. I clearly said that a large percentage had been deducted by me from the English names who spoke Afrikaans. I only wanted to explain to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) what the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) made much plainer than I, viz.: That, under the Milner regime, a lot of Afrikanders were thrown out and Englishmen put in their places. In my district there are many English people who speak just as good Afrikaans as I, and many who are learning Afrikaans. I only complained that, in 1926, there were still complaints that the Minister of Justice was taking care that bilingual persons should be appointed in the service. Not one of us complains that people with English names are appointed. Nor do we make a fuss if one, who cannot speak Afrikaans, as long as he treats us politely. I have never yet raised any difficulties when an English-speaking official has said: “I am sorry, I cannot speak Afrikaans.” But we are tired of complaints still being made when bilingual people are appointed.

Might we now make some move to get on with the vote? This is not a laughing matter—not by any means.

No, it is a crying matter.

The peacemaker!

It is no use for the hon. member attempting to throw the whole of the blame on this side of the House either. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) started the whole thing going. It will not end in this House, but it must do untold harm to South Africa if this thing is continued. The subject matter was raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), and then one word led to the other. If there is any blame, it rests on this House as a whole, and not on either side. I feel that if my friends here feel that on any occasion there is any English-speaking official who is not getting a square deal, and they go to the Minister in charge of that department, they will get a square deal. Instead of doing that, a debate is started in this House, passion is aroused, and before we know where we are, a very undesirable state of affairs is reached. The history of this country is bad enough with this sort of thing without having any more. If the hon. member cannot learn by experience, I am one of those who can, and who profits by experience. If an occasion arises where an official takes up a superior attitude where he is addressed in English or in Dutch, all that the hon. member has to do is to report the man to the departmental head of the Minister, and the complaint will be rectified. These isolated cases do not represent the feelings of English and Dutch-speaking South Africans. We have gone a long way, if one considers the history of this country, and people can be very thankful indeed that we have reached the stage we have in regard to the good feeling that exists between the different sections of the South African community. I hope that the good sense of this House will now close this debate, and that we will get on with the vote. It is no use for us, from the party or other point of view, scoring out of this matter. The sooner a question like this is taken out of the hurly-burly of this House, the better for South Africa, for the House and for the people.

The whole matter seems to me a storm in a tea-cup. I think we are all in favour of equal rights for the two languages of the country, and I do not know why so much noise is being made here. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) comes here with a whole sequence of names. He does not talk about the language, but about names. What about the name of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) ? I think he is just as good an Afrikaansspeaking person as the hon. member for Barberton himself. What, on the other hand, about the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) ? One never hears him speaking Afrikaans. In my opinion South Africa is composed of a mixed population coming from various nations. Even under the old Voortrekkers one finds English names. I have met people with English names who do not know a word of English. The hon. member for Bethlehem was very angry about Lord Milner’s work. We admit that he did wrong, but the hon. member for Bethlehem is now going differently to work. He is introducing party men. That is the trouble to-day. I am thankful to the Minister for appointing bilingual officials when new appointments are made, especially in the case of magistrates. I must say there are still great difficulties on the railways, but, on the other hand, I have never been badly treated by English-speaking people, and if a man cannot speak Afrikaans, I meet him half way. They have, however, never yet insulted me. I agree that new appointments should be made from bilingual persons. Do not, however, go and dismiss unilingual persons now.

I had not intended to take part in this debate, because I did feel that we on these benches, and those of us who are essentially descended from English-speaking parents, should not take too much notice of the excess of zeal displayed by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Tilomas Smartt) on a question such as this ; but, in view of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) having intervened, I want also new to come in, and not entirely to agree with him, but I wish to say that I do think that when a question arising out of the promotion of a third-grade clerk should be relevant to a first-class debate on a first-class subject—a subject that has been fought on and settled years ago—namely, the equality of the languages in this country and the bilingualism of those in the public service. I regret that we should to-day be faced with a position which could easily and readily lend itself to bitterness, not only in this House, but in the country. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort, with his years of political knowledge and service, with a speech such as he delivered this afternoon, has altered a great deal of the feeling I have towards any services he had done before. I did feel that, as far as a subject such as this was concerned, we would not have had it brought up under such a head and on such an excuse as we have had this afternoon. The greybeards and the grey-heads of this House can make trouble, but the children and the younger generation are going to solve this question, and they are doing so to-day. Everyone of us realizes that the attitude of the present Government is no different from their predecessors in office. We have had similar experiences of treatment either by English-speaking or Dutch-speaking effieials of Dutch-speaking or English-speaking passengers or in the public offices. It has generally been raised by cranks. And, having been raised by cranks, they should be dropped, and the Minister has generally put matters right. We have come to a very low stage in politics and public life when we find responsible men, who have occupied ministerial positions in this House, creating all this feeling. Thank goodness, so far as this House is concerned, while a certain amount of bitterness may be caused by this, there are people in business throughout this country who are not going to be influenced by it, and that is the saving grace in regard to this whole debate. The “English town” of King William’s Town, which was referred to— it is the first time I have ever heard the expression “English town” in South Africa. You might as well say that Glasgow, near where I come from, is an English town. They speak English in Glasgow, but it certainly is not an English town, and it is very proud of the fact that it is a Scotch town, but it does puzzle me when I hear an expression such as that. But, whether in Cape Town or any other part of this country, I put it to my commercial friends here that they take very good care that the people running their branch businesses and meeting the people of this country are 100 per cent. bilingual, if at all possible. I speak with a certain amount of business interest, and all my men are 100 per cent. bilingual. I am only sorry I am not that myself, but that shows the necessity for meeting the demands and requirements of the country, and if they would do that, there would be no need for all this crying about a certain difficulty about a junior clerk and attempting to make a first-class political debate out of it. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) does not agree with me, but in his own heart he knows that he made a mistake; that he was out to make trouble, and thought he had a grand chance, and his sole desire in making, what I can only class as bitter remarks, was to create a certain amount of trouble in this House and in the country, and any man who will attempt to make division on this political question that we are supposed to have settled in 1910, is certainly not a friend to South Africa. If hon. members are satisfied that the position is as stated, they should bring it up in a more straightforward manner. It is like the same question they brought up against the same Minister in regard to a celebrated circular issued to the police, when we were shown that the circular was practically identical with one issued by his predecessor, and when we realize that each year a grand attack seems to develop round this subject, that is all the more reason why the people of this country should realize the dangerous position we are placed in by a party who will descend to, and do play with dynamite. I will not pursue that matter further. I have had a grievance for some time with regard to the employment of convict labour in various parts of this country. [Time limit.]

There is no doubt that Glasgow has produced many extraordinary individuals, but I do not think we should judge them by one individual that it has produced. It has produced very fine people indeed. My hon. friend, since he got into his exalted position five years ago, considers that the third class clerk is beneath his interest. But whether he be a third-class clerk or the head of a department—

Or a third-class chemist.

He is an official of this country, and is entitled to justice.

That is right.

The only question raised was that as the Public Service Commission had stated that this third-class clerk, being two years in the service, and having passed all the necessary examinations, and who was both English-and Dutch-speaking and “writingly” qualified, I wanted to know why, having been recommended by the commission, who are supposed to be the judges of these qualifications, the Minister of Justice, who says he does not know him, and consequently is not in a position to judge, should have passed him by, and appointed somebody else whom he says he does not know either? It is not a question of bilingualism. It is a question of the powers and functions of the Public Service Commission. When the commission was appointed, it was pointed out in Parliament it was not right to leave in the hands of any administration the possibility of its having been said that they made Government appointments for political considerations. When a Minister, and especially a Minister who has more than once flouted the Public Service Commission and recommended its being done away with, fills up a position of this sort, with the recommendations of the commission before him, he must have a very good case to give to this House to justify the action he has taken as head of his department. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) wants to see everybody 100 per cent. bilingual. I do not pretend to be that; but I think I am bilingually 100 per cent. better than he and, holding these views which he has expressed, and having been five years in this House, why has he not used his leisure to become a little more bilingual than he is? If he had done so, perhaps I would have paid more attention to what he said, but, finding himself in rather an invidious position, he has thought it necessary to make these statements to the committee, but I do not think it is going to alter the opinion of hon. members on either side. We are as anxious on this as on the other side that everybody in this country should eventually become bilingual, but you are not going to get that unless you give every possible consideration to the young man who was not born in an Afrikaans-speaking family and has tried to qualify in Afrikaans, which this young man apparently, from the evidence of the Public Service Commission, has not got.

I think we all regret that we should have a debate like this to-day, but it is a fact that a large part of the Afrikaans-speaking population feel that their rights are not sufficiently acknowledged. A case happened in Bloemfontein last week of a man being appointed town clerk, although he is unilingual. Such cases make it necessary to protest in this House. One point I want to bring to the Ministers’ notice is to ask him on what basis it is decided to make enquiries into railway accidents. In my constituency, a very serious accident occurred recently between Vet River and Eensgevonden through the explosion of an engine, and, as a result, the driver and fireman were killed. The accident caused a lot of comment in the neighbourhood, and there were rumours about the people who should be held responsible, whether it were the workshop officials at Bloemfontein, or those at the place where the locomotives got their water. I asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours a question about it, and he replied that his Department was investigating the matter, but that it was not necessary to lay the papers on the Table for the enlightenment of the public. The public outside feel that certain persons should be protected. The public may be wrong, but the Minister of Railways and Harbours said that the Minister of Justice had refused to institute an enquiry. The latter Minister doubtless has his reasons, and if he publishes them and the public know them, it will give satisfaction. The public wants to know whether there is any ground for the general feeling, and I should like to ask the Minister what his reasons are.

I think the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) is to be congratulated in having made the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) change the issue before the committee. I certainly understood from the earlier part of the afternoon, when the hon. member spoke so eloquently about this case, that his whole grievance was that someone had been overlooked on account of the language qualification and that apparently the Minister had utilized his position and pushed someone into an appointment on account of this question of bilingualism.

No, he said “favouritism.”

If that was not the grievance, I do not see why there was any need for the reference to an English town. He referred to Kingwilliamstown. Kingwilliamstown is an English-speaking place. Probably all or most of the officials there have hitherto been unilingual; that is probably one of the reasons why the Minister sent a Dutch speaking official there. The right hon. gentleman seems to be a rag-merchant, as he brings up things that have been worn threadbare. He raised the question of the powers and rights of the Public Service Commission, which is essentially an advisory body, and the final decision rests with the Minister. Since 1910 there have repeatedly been cases of the commission’s recommendations having been overridden. The Minister is carrying out to the fullest extent the promise he made last session, that in every instance he is trying to do the just thing by officials, and only in cases where he thinks it imperative that a certain qualification should be possessed by an official, would he override a recommendation of the commission. The Minister is right under the law, and the only grievance we have is that sometimes too much attention is paid to the commission, and too little to the general requirements of the service of the country.

Has the Minister gone into the question of convict labour being used in private gardens in Johannesburg and other large towns ? Some very wealthy people with plenty of ground around their houses, particularly at Parktown, Johannesburg, have been able to get the services of native convicts on payment of 6d. or 1s. a day per head. It is wrong that convicts should be brought into competition with the poorer white men of Johannesburg, many of whom are quite capable of doing gardening work. The Minister should put his foot down very firmly on this practice, for it is a very wrong principle. Particularly so in Johannesburg, where the municipal council has done its best to employ the unskilled whites in the Parks Department, and as a result of that policy many of those previously unskilled whites have become efficient gardeners. Last year, and in previous years, I have pressed this objection to the hiring out of native convict labour to private persons. I hope, before next year, this matter will be rectified.

I wish to call attention to the Minister’s interference with the sentences of judges of the Supreme Court.

It happens in all civilized countries in the world.

The Minister, in tendering wrong advice, is likely to provoke a constitutional crisis between the judges and the Executive. I wish to refer to the case of Rex v. Herd & Sherrard, who were tried at Durban by a judge and jury, and I am glad to see the Prime Minister in his place, because as an ex-judge he will appreciate the importance of my criticisms. I put a question to the Minister, and in the course of his reply (which appears in column 1776 of Hansard) he stated that they were indicted on one charge of culpable homicide, and two charges of procuring abortion. Both were convicted on all three counts, and were sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour on the first count, and five years’ imprisonment with hard labour on the second and third counts, the sentences to run concurrently. The Minister recommended the reduction of the sentences by one-half, a consideration of previous similar cases and the sentences imposed for the same class of offence convincing him that the sentences were excessive. I asked if Mr. Justice Carter, the judge in question, had been consulted, and the Minister replied that he was not aware that Mr. Justice Carter, whose functions terminated after the conclusion of the case, expressed any view on the question. I have asked that the papers be laid on the table, but I understand that the Minister does not intend to comply with that request. My information is that the evidence in the case was never before the Minister. When I sought to obtain portions of the evidence I was informed by the Registrar of the Court that the evidence had never been transcribed, and the short hand notes had been sent to the bookbinders. Hence, when the Minister arrived at his decision, he was without the facts disclosed by the evidence, and it seems to me to be a very serious position that he should reduce a sentence by one-half without having the facts before him. One of the leading newspapers in Durban, commenting on the unwisdom of the Minister’s decision said—

Another important point is that, when the Minister was moved to grant this remission, he did so on the representation of a brother-in-law of the accused, who was rebuked by the judge because of the nature of the evidence he gave at the trial. We have this remarkable position, that a man, who was rebuked in this way, turns the tables on the judge, and is the means of reducing the judge’s sentence by half. The Minister has suggested that it was not necessary to consult the judge, but the ordinary procedure in capital cases is for the Governor-General, when taking the advice of the Executive Council, to have a report from the presiding judge, and the attendance of the judge before the executive is also required. Dr. Alpheus Todd, one of the best authorities on such matters, supports the view that the judge should be consulted in other cases, as well.

He is not an authority on this.

He is an authority on parliamentary government in the colonies. Professor Keith also concurs in this view. Dr. Todd says—

If you come to the evidence which was reported in the press, then it seems to me that the Minister’s action is utterly indefensible. [Time limit.]

Regarding the Minister’s admission that he came to this decision without calling for a report from the judge, I am not going to question the Minister’s right to do so, but I think in a serious case of this kind that he might have exercised the power which he undoubtedly had of calling for the judge’s report before coming to a decision. It seems rather extraordinary, in view of the seriousness of the crime, that the Minister neglected to do that. Then again, in regard to the evidence in the case, the Minister had the right to come to a decision without reading the evidence, but I think it was a necessary precaution which he should have taken, in view of the serious nature of the crime. The Minister will admit that it is only in very exceptional cases, where there possibly may be mitigating circumstances which the judge has not given due weight to, that the Minister should exercise his right to interfere, and I am rather curious to hear from the Minister when he replies to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) what the mitigating circumstances were in this case which influenced him in making such a considerable reduction in the sentence passed on these men.

I was desirous of showing to the Minister what the evidence would have brought to his notice had he had an opportunity of perusing it. I am willing to be fair to the Minister and say that I believe, if he had known of these facts, he would not have recommended the reduction of the sentence. In the first place, the principal accused was a married man, who is shown by the evidence, to have courted a young unmarried girt for a period of three years. Although her parents had forbidden him to come near the house, he continued for a long course to court this girl without their consent, and he seduced her. According to the declaration of the girl herself, when she was at death’s door, when she became pregnant she was afraid to tell her parents, and the accused took her to a chemist, who performed an illegal operation. After she had suffered a period of agonizing pain, she was taken again to the same chemist and a further operation was performed. It seems to me that, instead of the accused being charged with culpable homicide, the circumstances, the deliberation with which the crime was committed, would have justified their being charged with murder. Apparently the principal accused was carrying on with this girl without the knowledge of her parents, who had deemed it prudent to forbid his attentions. At the time when this girl was dying he came and, in his own crude words, he—

He dwelt so much on the financial side of it that the father of the girl was barely restrained from striking him. The remarks of the judge showed that this was a case in which a very severe punishment was called for, and the judge accordingly awarded what he considered an adequate punishment for this crime. No sooner was this sentence passed, than the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) presented a letter to the Minister from the brother-in-law of the accused and the Minister, to my mind, wrongly agreed to reduce the sentence, especially if we consider all the facts which would have been disclosed by perusal of the evidence. The conduct of the two accused was the conduct of two unmitigated scoundrels. It was public knowledge in Durban the one accused had before been charged with an offence of a somewhat similar kind, and, although he escaped punishment on that occasion, it was perfectly clear from the whole of the evidence that his trafficking in this particularly sordid business was not a new thing. I venture to say that no recent case has occurred in the courts of South Africa in which a sentence has been more universally supported by the community than this sentence in Durban, and yet the Minister came along and, apparently without any support from the public, or with the very smallest modicum of support, reduced the sentence in the maimer indicated. This is not the first occasion on which the Minister has proceeded in this manner. In the case of van der Merwe, where the Judge-President of the Cape Provincial Division had passed sentence on a man in connection with the Insolvency Act, the Minister recommended the man’s release. After that release certain other features of the case came before another judge, Mr. Justice Gardiner, and I propose to show what his view of this case was. Van der Merwe was punished for not keeping books, but that cannot be said to be the essence of the charge, which was that the absence of books enabled him to go in for collusive dealing of a grossly fraudulent kind. On that Mr. Justice Gardiner was quite plain. He says that, during the hearing of the case, an adjournment was granted in order that a settlement might be effected. In the interval van der Merwe passed a bond to his brother for £6,000. It was eventually set aside by the Supreme Court as being collusive. Speaking of van der Merwe, Mr. Justice Gardiner said—

In connection with a sheep transaction his lordship found it proved that, after the sheep had been in van der Merwe’s possession for three years and marked by him, they were suddenly delivered to Hoffmann at a time when van der Merwe was contemplating the depletions of his assets in order to defeat his principal creditor, and that, on the same day, they passed into possession of his brother, in whose favour he shortly afterwards collusively passed a bond. The court, therefore, came* to the conclusion that the whole sheep transaction was a collusive deal designed to prejudice van der Merwe’s creditors. The Judge President’s judgment was thus thoroughly vindicated by Judge Gardiner’s remarks. In this case we were not dealing with a simple farmer, whose neglect to keep books might be pardonable or justifiable, but a man who was undertaking the most cunning transactions with a view to defeating his creditors, and the judge did nothing more than his duty in sentencing him to six weeks’ imprisonment. [Time limit.]

On the first point raised, I do not know whether it is clear to the House that the fact of this clerk not coming to the Department of Justice does not put him out of the service, or anything of that kind. He remains in the civil service. Where men come into the Department of Justice and the magistrates’ courts, I want them to be bilingual in the proper sense of the word, so that when they occupy magisterial positions they can deal with both sections properly. As far as this young gentleman was concerned, he passed very badly in the Dutch language. He was marked “E,” and I have no doubt that he would not have been suitable for a magisterial appointment at a later stage. Nor is it an answer to say that he is going to King William’s Town or East London, because no one in the service has the right to insist upon promotion in that office to the highest extent. He goes to any part of the Department of Justice all over the country.

How do you know he has not improved himself very much in Afrikaans since he entered the service, in two years?

One does not know that; but from the position where he was placed, an improvement was very unlikely indeed. Suppose I have two young men, one of whom I know is properly bilingual ; the other I am uncertain about. I take the man of whom I am certain. I do not know either of these people. The position I take up is this, that this young gentleman had been in another department for two years, and I am not accepting transfers, unless I am satisfied that they would suit the magisterial side of the service. I want to take away the impression that such a man goes out of the service ; he remains in the service, and he can he transferred to the Department of Justice at any stage. I want to make this clear, because I am afraid there is some doubt in the minds of the committee as to whether this gentleman was still in the service or not. I have strained to the utmost my circulars to see that no injustice is done on questions of promotion and questions of superannuation. I have strained the position very much in favour of the unilingual man. I am not proud of that— I think I am wrong—but I did think there would be no complaint from the House. It seems to have been a misguided softness. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I have no personal knowledge of the cases he mentioned. I have had certain cases before me in which natives employed as traps had criminal records, and I have asked the police to be very careful indeed not to employ men of that description. I will go into this case. On the second point, I agree that where you have a trap and informer, you should not take a man of that kind out of an attorney’s office where he has been for some time. I will enquire into that case too. There is no issue between us as far as these interrogatories put to prisoners are concerned. It is in every way wrong to put questions of that nature to prisoners to try and trap them into making some statement from which facts can be elicited against them. I will go into the matter and give instructions that that shall not recur. The point was also put to me with regard to railway enquiries. The enquiries into railway accidents, as far as my department is concerned, are on this basis. Where these enquiries are made unnecessary by the form of the railway departmental enquiry, then enquiries are not held, but in important cases where the ground has not been covered, then enquiries are held in every case into these accidents. I am not at all certain whether there is really much point in that power being placed in the hands of the Department of Justice. Probably your railway enquiries are practically, in every case, sufficient to deal with the matter. I have never seen that it serves any useful purpose. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) spoke about convict labour being employed in gardens round Johannesburg. It is useful to a certain extent to do rough work, but I do not think any person who has had his garden for some time would venture to have convicts working in that garden. The labour is not cheap—1s. 6d. a day. Our difficulty is to find work for the convicts. They are sentenced to hard labour, and there is only a certain amount who are able to do the harder work. If we have not this work, it is hard to see how to keep them busy. They do not compete with labour, so that the committee should not take up a serious attitude. Then the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) raised the question of Rex v. Herd and Sherrard. He referred to the constitutional question and to Tod and Professor Keith, and then to the merits of the "case. As far as the authorities are concerned, they said it would be useful to consult the judgment and the prosecutor with regard to the remission of sentence. I am not acquainted with what the procedure is in England, but here the procedure is that letters or documents are placed before the department; sometimes they go to the Secretary of Justice and sometimes to the Governor-General. Those documents are placed before the law advisers, who go into the evidence, and where the evidence of the trial is not available, they go into the evidence given at the preparatory examination, or the newspaper reports. At all events, they take all the information they can get, and the report which is made is a very full one on the whole position. In this case a very full report was made by the law advisers, and I went through the whole of the papers of the case. I quite agreed with the recommendation, and the sentence was reduced at a later stage. Of course, one also has the terms of the judgment which was given. In connection with the sentence of Mr. Justice Carter, you find that under the old and the present administrations several of these sentences have been reduced because, rightly or wrongly, he imposes more severe sentence for certain offences than other judges.

Can you mention sentences reduced by the Minister?

The case of the school children in Durban was one case. There was another case—I think Cilliers, if I am not mistaken.

When?

Recently —last year. There are several cases. I will get a number of these cases and give them to the hon. member. There are several cases under the last administration, as well as the present one. I cannot tell you from memory, obviously.

Ido not think Cilliers is one of Mr. Justice Carter’s cases.

I was under the impression it was. The hon. member said that this sentence had been reduced on account of representations made by Mr. Hunter. In one sense it is, because if Mr. Hunter had not applied, nothing would have been heard of the matter; but it is not on the representations he made that the sentence was reduced, but on the report of the law advisers which was made to me. The sentence is a very severe one indeed. On a man like a chemist, a sentence of three years is a very severe punishment, and, as far as a chemist is concerned, the punishment would include his being struck from the roll. We are all prone to consider that the punishment imposed in the case is the only punishment that is suffered; and hon. members not acquainted with the law-courts may think a man is lightly punished, but that is not so. Then the hon. member asked whether a report was received from the judge. I have no report from the judge whatever. The only representation was this petition from Mr. Hunter. With regard to the question of the consultation of the judges, there is no consultation in any of these cases—it was not the practice before and is not the practice to-day. We have the judge’s judgment. It is not practicable to consult the prosecutors either. Whether a capital sentence must be carried out or not, there is a very special procedure, which is carefully adhered to. In connection with this matter, the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) said that the evidence disclosed that the chemist made a practice of this kind of traffic.

I said he was known to have had a previous charge against him.

The hon. member says it was clear from the evidence that traffic in this thing was no new thing. If that was part of the evidence, he would be able to escape on appeal, because no one had a right to introduce that evidence in the matter. If the hon. member is right, the case was not conducted properly—I appeal to any lawyer in the House. If he appealed, he would have been acquitted.

I said that, from the nature of the evidence of the principal accused, this man was well known for this kind of work.

That is rather a different statement than that evidence had been brought to show. With regard to van der Merwe’s ease, action for setting aside the bond was a subsequent proceeding to a charge upon which he was acquitted. One cannot take a charge upon which he was acquitted for a charge of not keeping books— the two things are entirely separate. The two charges are entirely separate. I think one cannot consider that question, because on that part of the charge he was acquitted. In regard to the other charge of not keeping books, I went into that when the matter was before the House. But I want to say this: They are not isolated cases that are placed before the law advisers, and before me, for recommendation. There are hundreds of cases happening every year, and that happened under my predecessors. As hon. members are aware, it is in a small proportion of cases that sentences are reduced or remitted, but it is part of a very large administration indeed, and I think the department is perhaps to be congratulated on the fact that so few of its decisions form The subject of debate in this House. It shows that, generally speaking at any rate, although it is impossible to satisfy everybody, it has succeeded in satisfying the general public. On the whole, I am prepared to accept this, I won’t say attack, but this endeavour to obtain information on these points, as a great compliment to the administration of justice, that so few of these cases can be brought up.

The Minister may pat himself on the back that he has satisfied his supporters on the other side, but he will not so readily satisfy the public outside. In regard to the van der Merwe case I cut the report out of the paper and sent it to the Minister, and tabled a question on it. The Minister went behind the back of the judge then, when the man had been sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment for not keeping proper books and insulted the judge by saying the man had been charged with other things of which he had been acquitted, and in sentencing the prisoner to six weeks had taken these other charges into consideration. The Minister, in my humble opinion, is setting an exceptional precedent, and a very bad one at that. I am glad that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) brought this matter forward. When the Minister answered the question I put to him, I asked him whether it was not an interference with the administration of justice, and his retort was that he was there to see that justice was carried out. I say, without fear of contradiction, his interference in van der Merwe’s case was an interference with the administration of justice, as it was also in the case announced this afternoon, because he interfered on a letter or whatever it was, received from the brother-in-law of the accused—

I said that was what I had not done.

—who made representations to him and who had been a witness in that particular case. Surely the judge might have been consulted. Here is another insult to another judge. I do not know Mr. Justice Carter, but I know of no case during my experience, as registrar, when the judge’s sentence was altered, reduced or set aside without reference, to the judge. Take the case at Beaufort West, where he released five Barkly West electors sentenced in December, 1924, for various election frauds. These are chickens that will come home to roost. Surely the Minister must reflect on these questions and see that he is casting reflections on the judges who sat in these particular cases. Take the van der Merwe case. The Minister said on that occasion—

but he had not the courage to put a clause in the Insolvency Bill that a farmer should not be expected to keep books.

In fairness to Mr. Justice Carter, whom I have Known for over a quarter of a century, I want to protest against the Minister’s statement that he has a reputation for imposing severe sentences in certain cases. I practised before Mr. Justice Carter for a number of years, and also with him, and it is the first time I have ever heard that. I am rather curious to know who the Minister’s informant was, and whether that information is such that it is entitled to be taken serious notice of.

The officials of my department.

They are very wide of the mark.

I said rightly or wrongly.

The Minister has not made it clear whether this case came before him personally and that the decision based on preliminary examination papers or the press report was his own decision or that of his law advisers, and it was they who recommended the remission of this sentence. Did the Minister take the trouble to obtain the full report and the evidence as given at the trial? I think it is trifling with justice to get hold of preparatory examination papers, or a newspaper report of a trial, and then come to a serious decision based on these papers, and reduce a sentence of 7 years to 3 years. I would suggest to the Minister, and I think the gravity of the case warrants it, that the papers should be laid on the Table of the House.

We have heard a great deal about the sufferings of the two accused—

I say the accused in every case.

In this particular case the Minister’s heart seemed to bleed because of the time these people had been in gaol before their trial, and the disgrace and consequences of their punishment, but we heard nothing of the broken home of the girl who has died, and who was the victim of the passions of one man and the cupidity of the other. We have heard nothing of the fact that this girl was a clerk earning money for her people. She has been sacrificed without any sort of sympathy from the State. Apparently all the sympathy goes the other way. Are we to be told that Mr. Justice Carter’s judgments are to be reduced on the mere assumption that he is an austere man? We have evidence to the contrary, that, for instance, he refused to send a woman to gaol for debt or to hear a case where a woman who was cited as co-respondent without proof of her having been served with process of the court.

There is nothing peculiar about that.

The Minister has not told us of a single case in which Judge Carter’s sentences were reduced by the late Government. In Natal we regard Mr. Justice Carter as a right-minded man who makes the punishment fit the crime in cases of this sort. Apparently the sympathy of the Minister oozes out at every pore for the accused in this case.

That is also not so.

The Minister’s plan is to ransom sinners by releasing them from gaol wholesale. The man who gave evidence in the case and sent in a petition looks upon himself as having scored a point over the judge. I consider that a cruel crime was committed, the effect of which was to ruin a home, but the sympathy of the Minister is with the offenders.

I did not say a single word from which my hon. friend can deduce that I have sympathy with these people. I was trying to show how serious the punishment was, and that you do not always measure punishment in terms of years. The case was dealt with by the same law advisers as acted under the late administration. I cannot remember whether the only evidence they had was that given at the preparatory examination. I had given no personal instructions in the matter. I did not give any instructions as to the way in which the report should be drawn. We followed the same procedure as has been followed for years.

Was the judge's opinion taken before the sentences were reduced?

No. There are thousands of these cases, and this is the only method to follow.

The time has arrived when this practice of dealing with cases on the evidence given in the lower courts and on newspaper reports should be discontinued, as it is open to great abuse. The evidence given at the trial should be obtained.

It is perfectly clear that, in this case, the sentence was reduced without the Minister or his legal advisers having access to the evidence given at the trial. There is not a judge in the land who would stand for that sort of thing. If that sort of thing is to be done, every sentence they pass will become a lottery. If judges’ sentences are to be reduced, the least that can be done is to reduce the sentence on the evidence, on the strength of which the sentence was imposed. If in this case the judge was considered to be a severe man, there was all the more reason why he should have been asked to justify his sentence. We might any day be called upon to face a constitutional crisis because of judges resigning in consequence of this tampering with their sentences.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 15, “Superior Courts,” £230,928, put and agreed to.

On Vote 16, “Magistrates and District Administration,” £588,406.

The Minister stated, in the course of the previous vote, that he was very anxious to have efficiency in his service, especially in regard to the magistrates. I would draw his attention to the fact that out of 250 magistrates only 13 are in receipt of salaries of £1,000 and over, while only 29 have reached the first grade of £900. I have been informed that it takes about 22 years for a magistrate to reach a senior position, and that about 70 per cent. of the magistrates never pass into the first grade, that is to say, they reach their retiring age of 55 years, and it is impossible for them to get the higher retiring salary. The magistrates are viewing this with a good deal of concern, as they are realizing that the fact of their being graded in the administrative and clerical division is a wrong procedure. It has been suggested that the whole grading of the magistrates should come under review by the Public Service Commission. The magistrates have not only to carry out their ordinary duties, but also to keep abreast of the times in regard to municipal and provincial laws, as well as legislation passed by this House. I hope the Minister will take the position into his serious consideration with a view of alleviating it.

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to the unsatisfactory condition prevailing in many of the outside districts where the magistrates are sometimes absent for ten or twelve days a month from the towns attending periodical courts It happens that magistrates of large towns like Zoutpansberg, etc., have to attend courts at various places that sit every fourteen days. People come during his absence from long distances to see him and find him away. I would suggest that in various places more special Justices of the Peace should be appointed. It will cost no more than the expenses caused by the magistrates holding periodical courts. The special Justice of the Peace can then deal with the small matters, and the larger cases can come before the court. It often happens now that a big case cannot be disposed of in one day in the periodical court, and it is then referred to the magistrate at Pietersburg. That causes difficulties, because the distances are often great, and it is impossible for people to bring witnesses to the court from such a long distance off. Then, unfortunately, native commissioners are often appointed as magistrates. The native commissioner does not even come under the Department of Justice, but he is appointed to sit as a magistrate in the ordinary course. It does not follow because one is a competent native commissioner that he is an equally good magistrate, and in many cases a great dissatisfaction has been caused among the farming population.

I should like to bring it to the notice of the Minister that it often happens that when there has been a case of stock theft before the magistrate and he has inflicted a fairly severe penalty, not extraordinarily heavy, and quite within the law, that when the case is reviewed by a judge, a large part of the punishment is often taken off. The newspapers have been discussing this lately. It has often been said that it is discouraging to the magistrates, because they think they have more knowledge of local affairs, and think that that is not the proper thing to do. The farmers also feel this, and they consider that stock theft should be punished severely. I do not know what course I can suggest to the Minister, but he will possibly know some way of making an alteration in this respect.

I think on the point that the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) raised, that everyone is in sympathy with the general position that where a magistrate performs very important functions and does the work well, he is not getting an adequate salary, but the difficulty is this: That, if you take the vote as a whole, and take the money that we spend on the administration of justice, it is very difficult for anybody to say that we are, as a country, able to spend a larger amount of money on this vote. I quite agree that, in many cases, the work performed is of such a nature that one does feel that the salaries paid are not as high as they should be, but there is a certain outlet that your magistrates have. They become, in many cases, inspectors of the Public Service Commission. Where a good man is required by some other department, they come to our department and obtain that good man. Take the present secretary of the Public Works Department ; he was an old magistrate and afterwards became an inspector of the Public Service Commission. Your better magistrates are always being drawn upon for higher positions in other departments, and certain special work requiring special attainments, so that their own particular work is not the only outlet that the magistrates have, and the position is not quite as bad as it appears at first sight, though I quite agree that in many cases where the magistrates are doing good work they are not being as well paid as they should be. I am very doubtful, indeed, whether we shall be able to largely improve that condition of affairs for long years to come. I am entirely sympathetic with regard to these cases, but, of course, sympathy does not help very much in a matter of this kind.

†*The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) asked whether any alteration could be made in the holding of periodical courts by magistrates. It is true it takes up much time, but the alternative, suggested by the hon. member, of appointing special justices of the peace with a small salary will not give satisfaction. I think it would be wrong to throw more and more work on their shoulders. The justices of the peace are only used in urgent cases, and do not always have the necessary general knowledge. In the districts where we have long distances, they are used in cases where nothing else is possible. We shall increase the dissatisfaction if we were to comply. The same applies to native commissioners. They are only appointed as magistrates in special cases. They have a fair experience, and I do not think we shall give more satisfaction if we could appoint special justices of the peace. We try to limit that as much as possible. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) asked me a question in connection with the reduction of punishments for stock theft. In the various provinces the judges met and, in some parts, they decided not to allow lashes for a first conviction. In other parts they did not decide in that way. The matter is an inexplicable riddle to me. It rests with the bench, and we cannot take it away from them.

I would like to point out that each magistrate in the country cost us in 1911-'12 an average of £1,496. Last year it was £2,118, so that we see there has been a considerable increase in the expense of these magistrates. Why has the Minister increased the number of magistrates by two, which represents something like £4,000. Perhaps my hon. friend can explain this. I think a tight hand should be kept on the number.

There has been an increase in the number of independent magistrates. We do keep a very tight hand upon these increases, but where the population of a district has increased so largely that it is necessary to form an independent district, I do not think we can keep it back entirely. I am afraid that, with the growth of the community, we will find in certain cases that we are forced to create new magistrates. I think my hon. friend can rest assured that there is not one-hundredth of the claims that are made that are considered.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 17, “Prisons and Reformatories,” £755,100.

I should like to point out to the Minister the damaging position in which the Cape Province finds itself with reference to the use of convict labour. I see from the report of the Auditor-General that he says arrangements have been made through the Treasury to supply convict labour to the provincial administration at the expense of the Union. In the Cape Province we have divisional councils who look after the maintenance of roads, and they have to pay 1s. 6d. per day per head for that class of labour, while the other provinces—where they have no divisional councils—get convict labour gratis. That is a state of things which I hope the Minister of Justice will alter.

I would like to know from the Minister what provision is made in regard to prisoners who are released from gaol being furnished with means of getting back to where their homes are or where they want to be. I believe in the case of Europeans some provision is made to enable a man to go to the place where he wants to be, but the case I have particularly in mind is that of natives. I believe what happens is that, when a native prisoner is released from gaol and he says he wants to go to a certain place, he is given a travelling pass to that place. The possession of that pass prevents him from getting work until he gets to that place, but at the same time, nothing is done to enable him to pay the expense of getting to his destination. I have read of cases where a native has been compelled to steal food in order to satisfy his hunger, and so he goes back to gaol simply because no provision seems to exist to enable him to get to the place where he wants to go, and the travelling pass prevents him from looking for work. I would like to know from the Minister whether something cannot be done to put that matter right.

I should like to ask the Minister a few questions in connection with the housing of juvenile offenders. We see from the figures that there are 866 children in the reformatories and consequently there must be a large number who from time to time come before the court. It is clear to all that the housing of juvenile offenders before they are sentenced is of very great importance. The surroundings must of course make an impression on the young temperament whether they are offenders or not. It is so important that a pressman had an interview recently with the Secretary for Justice, and he admitted that the present system was unsatisfactory, because there are not separate places for detention every-where. He stated that in the large towns the children were kept in the police cells but that in Johannesburg there was a home where the children were detained till they were sentenced. In Pretoria, however, there is no such home, and in Cape Town one is being built. In the small places the children are put in the cells but nothing else can be done. We feel at once that the surroundings can be nothing but injurious, and that the reformatories cannot have the desired effect if the children are not placed in favourable surroundings before they are tried. I should like to ask the Minister what is being done in other places which have not been mentioned, and what is being done to improve conditions. In connection with the same Vote I want to ask the Minister about the inebriate homes. I should like to know whether these come under the Department of Justice or whether they come under the private supervision of charitable societies which are subsidized by the Department? I should like to know from the Minister what the result is of the treatment of these unfortunate people in the institutes for inebriates?

In connection with what the hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) has mentioned about the gaols, I should just like to mention that a sad occurrence took place in Pretoria where a lad was detained in a cell with ordinary criminals. It was a boy who got fits and he was looked after in the cell. His condition, however, became much worse. That is not the place to lock up such a boy for him to get proper treatment. A change must be effected in this regard. I have mentioned the case of the young lad who was not an offender, but who was locked up with other offenders. The condition of the boy became much worse so that the mother had to be sent for and the boy taken to another place. We know what the result may be of coming into touch with criminals. We have had the evidence of magistrates that people who have been in prison for illicit liquor drinking and mixed with deep dyed criminals in the Pretoria gaols who after their release, not only continued with the illicit liquor dealing, but committed other crimes as, e.g. theft. Cannot provision be made for separate places where people can be imprisoned who are sentenced for illicit liquor dealing so that they do not have to mix with the criminals referred to?

Labour colonies can be established.

Yes, they could be detained in Labour colonies so that a change could be made in the existing condition. I hope the new liquor law will make an alteration so that there will no longer be so many poor criminal people. With regard to the question of reformatories, we are very thankful for what has been done for the young people, and it is important for them to get into touch with a better class of people. I therefore hope that the heads of the institutions will take special care who is appointed as warden. The hon. member for Hope Town also mentioned the inebriate institutions. I know the one at Pretoria where the inebriates are detained, and I can tell him something about it. The inebriates are well-treated there and the managers are people who sympathize with them. The heads belong to both sections of society, because there is an English and Afrikaans-speaking person. Between the heads and the subordinates there is the best co-operation. The inebriates are well-treated and I hope that more such homes will be established to save these unhappy people for society.

In connection with what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) asked me, railway warrants are given to natives who are released, and go to their homes. Nothing else can be done by the Administration.

Does that include food?

No, merely warrants.

I thought they did not get their warrants.

They get their railway warrants. Some money they have earned in prison may pay the cost of any food they may require.

What happens when there is no railway to their home? Do they get any allowance?

I do not think they get any transport allowance then. They cannot, for instance, get rid of their railway warrants and give them to someone else. †*The hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) has brought up the question of the detention of juvenile offenders before their trial. The position is that we are extending the facilities so that the children can be kept away from hardened criminals. Arrangements are being made, e.g. in Pretoria, to have a special detention place. It is largely a question of expense and it is impossible to do this in every place. Where it is possible it will be done. It is all a matter of the expense connected with it. Then the matter of convict labour was mentioned by the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten). The hon. member mentioned that the system should be identical for the various parts of the country, because the provincial administrations in the Transvaal, Free State and Natal get the convict labour for nothing, and therefore the divisional councils in the Cape Province should be put in the same position. I will go into the matter with a view to uniformity in all the provinces.

What we are aiming at is that the divisional council should be treated in the same terms as the provincial council.

Yes, we wish to get uniformity.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 18, Police, £2,575,755.

I notice that the number of police in the Estimates is the same as in the previous year. I have been asked to put a question with regard to Johannesburg. They say that Johannesburg is not properly policed. Has the Minister any information about that, and if so, will he allocate a larger number of police there?

I reiterate what I suggested to the Minister last year. I am referring to the question generally, and not to a particular instance. It is quite easy to levy a local rate making a place pay a share for its policing, such as is done in some other countries, where half is paid by the Government. That is the only way in which the Minister can meet all the demands that are made upon him for more police.

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to something he already knows, viz.: the transfer of police sergeant Momsen from Heilbron. I want to assure the Minister that I am not speaking on my own behalf, but for the whole of the Heilbron public. I have received telegrams about the matter and the greatest dissatisfaction prevails about the transfer of this official. Sergeant Momsen is bilingual and so far as I know at every place where he has been in the past he has given the utmost satisfaction. He is a man who always considered the interests of the public and the public of Heilbron are rebellious about his transfer. This proves that he has always given the greatest satisfaction as a police official to all sections of the community. Now he is suddenly removed. I do not think there are many other places that can boast about their high officials being bilingual. Now we feel that not only has an injustice been done to Sergeant Momsen but to the Heilbron public. On behalf of the public I want to make an appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision and satisfy the public. I do not know what the motives of the Minister were regarding the transfer. If there is anything wrong the Minister can have an enquiry held. The large majority of the public of Heilbron are Afrikaans-speaking and therefore a bilingual official is necessary there.

I am sorry that I have again to complain to the Minister about the shortage of police on the countryside. I did so last year and the Minister then said that it was due to the finances that more police could not be appointed. We feel that there should be more uniformity as regards the division of the police. In the small villages one finds a considerable number of policemen, but on the countryside where they are required because there are many thefts there are few. At Virginia, a large centre, there is only one policeman and if he patrols the district and a murder takes place then it can only be reported to him the next day or two days after. During the recess, when I was ploughing, one of my servants deserted his plough leaving it there, and I had no one to take his place. I reported the matter to the police, but they had no one to send to look for him. Now I have received a letter from home that the man has come back himself, and that the police could not trace him. There should be at least two men at a post so that when one patrols the district there is another who can receive and act immediately on complaints that come in.

I should like to support what the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) has said with reference to police on the countryside, and I want to notify the Minister that in my constituency where a large number of natives are employed on the small mines. White’s Company has, e.g., 500 natives working there and they are not kept in proper compounds. The police protection provided is utterly inadequate and the farmers have to pay for it. There is much ground for the statement that the police have become clerks and inkslingers and that they are not the people to catch the culprits who have offended against the farmers in the country. There is something that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. Provision should be made for importing more properly trained police dogs. Unfortunately the importation of any police dog has now been stopped unless they are born in England. I recently had to do with the application of a man who wanted to import police dogs from Germany to have demonstrations on the countryside with them. But in spite of all I did he did not get the necessary permission because the dogs were not born in England. This is not race hatred now that I am preaching. There may very well have been a good reason for the refusal because there are dog diseases on the Continent which do not prevail in England. Provision should, however, be made for the dogs if they are suffering from any complaint to be detained here in quarantine, so that the dogs can get a passport to enter the country. As there is a shortage of police dogs now I hope the Minister will consider the matter.

I just want to heartily agree with what has been said by the last two speakers. As a representative of the worst paying industry in the country, I should be neglecting my duty if I did not bring the stock thefts to the notice of the Minister. Farmers are beginning to take up the matter seriously. They have spent large sums of money in jackhal proof fencing and to alter their farming methods. It is, however, difficult to catch the thieves and it is much easier for the natives to steal. The farmers are becoming desperate and I fear that they eventually will take the law into their own hands. I have received a letter from my constituency I should like to read. It says: “Now there is a matter which I should like you to get for us and that is the strengthening of the police at the coast. To continue sheep farming means certain bankruptcy. During the last two months thirty of my sheep have been slaughtered and a large number of my neighbours’ have also become lost. The habit of the natives is to meet on Sundays at one farm or another to drink beer with the natural result that sheep are slaughtered. When one remembers how the farmers struggle to raise a few lambs, then you as a farmer can well understand how I feel, and that I am not inclined to catch the thieves any more, but to shoot them without more ado. We require better protection and the Government must give it. As things are now sheep farming is impossible.” That is the feeling prevailing to-day throughout the whole country. I find that we do not stand alone in this matter for in Saturday’s newspaper I saw that in the Free State people are also complaining about stock thefts, and I saw that complaints were also coming from the Free State that the police force is so insignificant that with the best will in the world they cannot properly look after the stretched-out areas. That is the feeling throughout the whole country. Where the farmers have fenced in their farms and have altered their farming methods I appeal to the Minister to have the matter properly investigated and to give better protection to them.

I should just like to say a few words about the trapping system. In Middelburg the people feel it is a real grievance that this system is extended to the country. To my great disappointment I had to learn that people were sent to my district to tempt people there. They are arresting poor people and although they are not innocent yet they have been brought into temptation. Now I want to bring to the Minister’s notice the fact that the trapping system has always been considered a grievance in this country. It makes the gaols full and leads to court cases, and now it appears that that system does not alone exist in Johannesburg, but is extended to Mapoch’s country. Many of the people who are used in the trapping system went in for it and supposed themselves to be inspectors, and in a sneaking manner they have gone to trap respectable men and women there with so-called peach brandy. The people are poor and according to the provisions of the existing law a large fine is imposed or they are sent to gaol if they are convicted. I protest against this thing continuing any longer.

We farmers all have the same complaint. I should like to urge the Minister to discharge the police from all their other duties so that they can do their regular work. The great reason why the police cannot do their duty properly is according to the farmers because they have to do all the clerical work. I understand that for all the clerical work as a whole 500 policemen would be required who would then do no other work. The policemen cannot leave the office to catch offenders. Only now and then do they come and see what is going on.

I am sorry to again take up the time of the House, but it is a very important matter. I want to give a word of praise to the police because I think that if there is one body doing its work then it is the police department. It is true as some members have said that the police are insufficient, but what is the position. Take public prosecutors. On the Witwatersrand there are three public prosecutors to-day, 114 in the whole of the Transvaal, 67 in the Free State, 73 in the Cape and Eastern Province, 23 in Kimberley; the total number in the country is 489.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6. p.m.