I move—

seconded.

It is far from my mind to start any debate which may lead to any feeling of friction or any unpleasant relationship between this House and the Senate, but I raise my objection to paragraph (1) of this report purely on grounds of principle and I hope that any discussion which may follow will be purely on the merits of the Committee’s recommendation. My objection to the acceptance of the report is based mainly on two grounds. The first is that the House is called upon to accept a resolution from the Committee which makes, I may say, a very radical change in the accepted practice as to the rights and privileges of this House as far as pensions are concerned. Secondly, I wish to raise the objection that I regard this House not only as entitled to discuss, but that it must have an opportunity of fully discussing the merits of the case, so that when it accepts the recommendations of the Committee it must do so with open eyes, and I maintain that this opportunity will not be given to this House by the recommendation submitted by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Therefore I regard the resolution of the Committee as making a revolutionary change in the accepted practice. Then, of course, I put to the House and myself the actual principle involved in this resolution. I should like to quote it—

It seems to me quite justifiable to draw the conclusion from this resolution that we are laying down an entirely new practice as far as the views of this House are concerned with regard to its privileges. It seems to me to be quite a new position and to start a practice which to my mind is quite revolutionary. The practice in the old Cape House of Assembly was that the House should have full and complete control of all financial matters, and that practice was adopted by the Union House of Assembly up to 1912, when a modification was made by the Public Service and Pensions Act, That Act provided that recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions should be approved of by this House and then forwarded to the Senate, and if they met with their approval then no further step was taken, but in 1912, by Clause 17, the procedure was altered and subsequently that section was substituted by section 76 of the Act of 1923, whereby the old practice in which it received the force of law by resolution has been supplanted by this section, by which a recommendation cannot be valid unless it has had statutory sanction. This has been the practice practically up to last year, when the same difficulty arose over one particular recommendation for pensions, and then it was submitted to Mr. Speaker’s ruling, and I find that in the minutes of the 3rd of July, 1925, the following ruling is given by Mr. Speaker—

That view was confirmed the next day by this House in a message submitted by Mr. Speaker to the Senate. Something very radical must have taken place since then for this House to have adopted a new principle. My first objection is this, that the majority of us did not realize the significance of this recommendation, and none of us ever realized that such a radical change would be recommended to this House. I furthermore aver that the majority of members did not realize the significance of the recommendation until they saw the report in the minutes of the next day, and I believe that even now a number of members will not have noticed the revolutionary change suggested unless it has been specially brought to their notice. My first objection, then, is this, that this House, in being asked to accept such a momentous change in what has been regarded as an explicit privilege, should have had a better opportunity of discussing this before it could accept it as the practice for the future. I wish to appeal to hon. members, if we differ on the principle, that we postpone further consideration of the matter until an opportune time can be set down for full discussion. I feel that unless we can get the assurance of the Government or the House that the matter can be postponed I must proceed to my second objection. My second objection is on the ground of principle. We accept and maintain that the ruling of Mr. Speaker last session was entirely within the provisions of section 60 of the South Africa Act. We further maintain that this is quite in accordance with the practice of the past. Section 60 of the South Africa Act states—

1. (1) Bills appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall originate only in the House of Assembly, but a Bill shall not be taken to appropriate revenue for moneys or to impose taxation by reason only of its containing provision for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties.
2. (2)The Senate may not amend any Bills so far as they impose taxation or appropriate revenue or moneys for the services of the Government.

I wish to read the clause in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, section 53, which is almost in the same terms as section 60 of the South Africa Act—

Sub-section 2 of section 1 of the English Parliament Act states—

I realize that a certain amount of doubt can arise from the terms of section 60—

A certain amount of doubt and difference of opinion may arise from these words, “the service of the Government,” but it is going too far to lay special stress on a few words of doubtful meaning ; then, prior to these, we have words very concise and clear in their meaning, that is, “appropriate revenue.” The question centres round the words, “appropriate revenue.” I would like to hear the opinion of any hon. member whether the granting of a pension on the recommendation of the committee, and when this House has approved of this recommendation, is not appropriating revenue. There is no question at all that this appropriation must come from the consolidated revenue fund. It seems to me that if we have any doubt in our minds as to the meaning of the words, and if we are at all anxious to arrive at a reasonable and rational understanding of the privileges and powers of this House, we may compare the provisions of our own statutes with the provisions found in other constitutions or Acts of Parliament. I have taken the trouble to read the English Parliament Act, and I wish to quote sub-section 2 of section 1, dealing with the same question of finance, where it is specifically laid down where the House of Commons has control. It specifically mentions supply. It is quite evident that the British House of Commons have secured for themselves the sole and exclusive right to deal with the moneys and finances of the country, and there can be no doubt of the meaning of that Act. For that reason, I hold that though our section 60 of the South Africa Act may not be as explicit as we may want it, the practice of the past, and the practice of Speakers like yourself, sir, has laid down that the procedure is correct, and if we have any doubt, we may safely refer to the Parliament Act of 1911. This subject was also broached in 1912 in this House, when Mr. Speaker Molteno gave his ruling in words not exactly the same as your own, but words intended to convey exactly the same meaning. I think they are words which bear out the ruling of last session. Apart from the authorities I have quoted, I may say further that I have the highest authority for maintaining the principle enunciated by yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the highest authorities have confirmed your ruling—we have authorities both inside and outside to confirm your ruling. I maintain that if this House accepts the resolution of the standing committee, we are on the threshold of further developments. We cannot abide by the acceptance of this resolution, because it implies a distribution of the power and a division of the responsibility of this House as far as finance is concerned. There can be no question about the soundness of the principle that in a bicameral system only the Chamber directly responsible to the people shall be responsible to the country, the electors and the taxpayers for the distribution of moneys.

I hope we shall not—

Would the hon. the Prime Minister just permit other hon. members to discuss the motion. If the Prime Minister speaks now there will be no opportunity for discussion.

I feel that some of the rights which this House had are affected by the motion. I will go into the origin of the matter. Certain cases came before the Select Committee on Pensions, and the same person, the chairman of the select committee, who has just made objections, did the same thing in one of the unfortunate cases arising out of the rebellion. We know that later on condonation was given in all the strikes to people who took part in them. Most cases were settled, but not this one. As a result a petition was filed. The then member for Boshof, who was chairman of the committee, was, I understand, not quite satisfied when the petition was approved by select committee, and when it came before the House he made certain observations, as the result of which the House rejected the petition. Subsequently it came up again, and the select committee unanimously accepted it because the members felt that it was one of the outstanding cases. Many other cases had already been settled, and there was a small amount involved, the same amount that the previous select committee had voted. In the Senate the same objection was made by the hon. member. Now it is asked that an amendment be made. I want to tell the Prime Minister that it is difficult to get members to serve on the select committee. When members have done their work and the House adopts the recommendations, I think it is not right for the Senate to make alterations.

The objection we have on this side exists because we have to do with a matter which looks as if it was going to make worse something which appears already to be in an unsound state. There is in these days a kind of disease—or fashion—in the country which is called appendicitis. It originates presumably because that part of the body no longer functions as it formerly did. I hope I shall not be blamed if I say that the impression made on me by the difficulties we have lately had with regard to legislation is that our legislation is suffering from appendicitis. During the past two years we have had a number of attacks. If the motion is adopted it will only make things worse and not improve the position. I make no reflection on the other place, but we know what difficulties have arisen as a result of the powers given to that body. It has the power to stultify the wish of the people, and when an attempt is made to extend their powers we should try to defeat it. It is not clear to me that the motion does not amend the Constitution. If it does I think it ought to be effected in another way. If it cannot be done differently, it would be better to refer it to a select committee to obtain information which is not now available to the House. Documents and memoranda could be put before a select committee and so enable it to go thoroughly into the matter, and to give us a report clearing it up more. I hope the Prime Minister will not insist on the motion being passed now.

I want to say a few words about the motion because I desire to explain why I am in favour of it. Let me tell the hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) that I am glad he has made such a study of this important point. It would be a good thing if members took more interest in points of practice coming before the House. I can compliment the hon. member on the trouble he has taken. Up to 1912 we had no amendment of such a Bill in the Senate. We went to the Senate with mere resolutions as now proposed, and the Senate had the right to amend the resolution in detail or to reject any of the proposals. Then the House introduced a change in practice. The House stated that in future all pensions would be granted by legislation. Up to 1912 it was only done by resolution of the House, approved by the Senate. In 1912 the system was altered, and the result was that we drafted a Bill with a schedule which contained all the proposals for pensions and gratuities. Hon. members will see at once that the Senate to a certain extent felt then that some of its privileges were being taken away, privileges which it had had in practice up to then. What is the Parliamentary position? The Prime Minister will adduce this strong argument. In the Parliamentary sense every proposal for a pension or gratuity stands on its own legs, and the Senate can fairly ask that every such proposal should be dealt with in a separate Bill. It was to facilitate parliamentary machinery that all pensions and gratuities were included in one schedule. In the strict parliamentary sense that is not right as regards the Senate, because it is deprived of the privilege of judging each pension or gratuity separately on its merits. If the pensions are brought forward by means of a schedule to a Bill, then the Senate has to reject the whole Bill, and cannot treat one of the gratuities separately. Parliamentary practice requires that if, e.g., we want to grant 100 pensions a year, then 100 Bills ought to be introduced, and constitutionally the Senate can fairly demand that. To make it easier for the House and to enable the two Houses to cooperate the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders conceived the idea of not sending each pension in a separate Bill to the Senate, but the motion to a certain extent reverts to the position before 1912, because the resolutions of the House are sent to the Senate and dealt with piecemeal, and the Senate has the right to amend them. The resolutions upon which the Senate agrees with this House are then included in the Bill, which contains all the grants agreed to by the two Houses. If there are grants which the Senate is not prepared to make, it is left to the Government to introduce a separate Bill for the cases to which the Senate does not agree. We give the House the right of dealing with and deciding about every pension. I would be the last man to abandon any rights which this House possesses under section 60 of the Constitution, and I should not like to see this House giving up any of its rights in financial matters, but as to the privileges of the House under the Constitution this motion will not encroach on them. The motion only aims at an amendment of practice.

We are not justified in extending the powers of the Senate at the present time, and I believe the country at large would much prefer to see the powers of the Senate restricted. The Senate is not functioning in a proper way and has not justified its existence. Sometimes pensions are very highly contentious, and if pension recommendations had to be transmitted to the Senate there would be more contentions than ever. We had better remain as we are instead of tinkering with our rules.

The Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has carefully considered this, with full knowledge of the difficulties, and with full appreciation of the various sides of the matter. After everything had been considered I thought this motion should be brought before the House. Now I want to say to the hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) that I believe when he speaks of the constitutional position of this House we all agree with him, I do not think there is any doubt about it. All we are concerned with today, and all the committee was concerned with, is how far it is desirable to meet the Senate in connection with the difficulty which that body felt in dealing with pensions submitted by this House for their approval. Since 1912 the constitutional position has been assailable, but with the position, as hon. members will see from the motion, there is no intention to interfere. This motion does not encroach upon it. It only tries to remove the difficulty which has arisen between the Senate and the House of Assembly by a kind of “give and take”—not the sacrifice of privileges—and what is here proposed is simply that the House of Assembly says: We are going to follow a slightly different procedure from heretofore, viz.: we will, before the pensions get to the final stage in this House, submit them to the Senate for approval. We then leave it to the Senate to agree to the grant of the pensions, either all or one or other of them, and where they disapprove of any, we say to ourselves that we are surrendering to the Senate the formal right we have, but we are in future simply going to include the pensions of which the Senate disapproves in a separate Bill. If the House at any time finds that this procedure does not work well, then there is no reason why we cannot revert to the practice which we have followed hitherto. Thus with regard to privileges there can be no question of the surrender of any, but merely that the Committee has taken up a standpoint differing from that held possibly by certain hon. members of this House. Of course, if we wish to regard the Senate as an enemy to be fought, then we should not do what is here proposed, but I say it would be a fatal thing for this House as well as for the Senate to start with that assumption. It would be fatal to create such mutually hostile relations. It may be right or wrong, but the Senate exists, and it is the duty of all of us to see that the two bodies co-operate as well as possible. I agree with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that we must acknowledge that the Senate’s complaint is reasonable. According to the letter of the law, we may say that we are right, and I maintain that, but that there is something hard and unreasonable in it no one can deny. We continue with existing conditions with reference to financial matters. As correctly stated by the hon. member for Caledon, the position is that if, e.g. 500 petitions are filed for the grant of pensions and are approved, each one practically stands by itself as an independent unit, and has nothing to do with the others. Although the law only gives the Senate the right to approve of the whole, we must admit that it is unreasonable to insist and to say to the Senate: You must not criticize much unless you wish to reject all the 500 pensions. That is practically what happens to-day. Now the Senate says that we cannot expect it to reject 499 of the 500 pensions people ought to get because it is opposed to the grant of one. Therefore we are suggesting an amendment in the practice, and we can see whether it will work better and bring about co-operation between the two bodies as long as they exist. I think if we feel that, we cannot but say—

If it appears later that this does not work well, there is always time to revert to the present position. In the circumstances I hope the House will approve of the motion. It is open to everyone in the House, members of the Government, as well as hon. members on both sides, to vote as they please, as it is not a party matter. Whether hon. members or even Ministers vote with or against me will make no difference, but I think this resolution will be in the interest, firstly, of settling a doubtful point which has existed for some time, and, secondly, it will be in the interest of good co-operation between the two bodies in the future.

May I ask a question?

The debate is ended. The lion, member cannot ask a question.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—70.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, D. M Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Jager, A. L.

De Vililers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Grobler, H. S.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox. F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorios, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl. G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Watt. T.

Weasels, J. B.

Tellers: Nicholls, G. H. ; Pienaar, B. J.

Noes—30.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Basson, P. N.

Cilliers, A. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick. M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Hay, G. A.

Kentridge. M.

Madeley, W. B.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll. H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. K.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwc, N. J.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Visser, T. C.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W. ; van Hees, A. S.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I find in the abridged annual report of the Department of Defence, at June, 1925, on page 18, under the heading Stores, that the aggregate value of store received and issued was £721,166, the receipts amounting to £355,551. I cannot find any figures corresponding to that in this Vote. My point is this, that there should at all events be a foot-note showing exactly how much money it was proposed to expend each year in the form of stores. It is not clear to me whether this is in addition to the vote of last year ; it ought to be made clear. If so, the total cost of defence last year, instead of being under a million, would be a million and a quarter. It is very desirable that the estimates should show with sufficient exactness the amount of money being expended annually for defence.

It does show it.

I cannot find any sum remotely corresponding to this large expenditure. It does not seem to be a proper system of public accountancy, where no note is taken of stores in the annual Vote. That information should be available to members before they are called upon to pass the Vote. I am very concerned indeed at finding the following in this annual report under the head of Discipline. It is a very serious matter—

The more this matter is studied the more apparent it becomes that the unsatisfactory position is to a large extent due to the fact that a large number of senior non-commissioned officers have left the service, and their places have been filled by younger and less experienced men. It is the more noticeable in the departmental corps, where the majority of non-commissioned officers have little or no regimental experience. That is what we have been saying for several days past, that you cannot get proper instructors unless they have had regimental experience. If we find in the permanent force the condition is such that the Adjutant-General has to make this very serious statement, it bodes very badly for the future. We have been pleading year in and year out that, without discipline you cannot have an army; you cannot have a proper system of defence, and the country is relying not on troops, but on a mob. If they have not been able to get non-commissioned officers with all the machinery at their command, who will instil and maintain discipline in the regular troops, it is hard to expect that such inefficiency will produce efficiency in the citizen forces in the future with the rather poor quality of instructors that will necessarily be forthcoming. We are yearly at a disadvantage in having to discuss a vote when the information pertaining to the matter under discussion is usually two years old, but I am grateful to have been able to get a copy of this abridged annual report up to June, 1925. The report further states—

Members of the permanent force are paid at a higher rate than any other soldiers in the world. Hardly a year passes without some scheme or other for reorganization being put into effect, pulling up things by the roots that were only organized the year before —no wonder that things are in a very unsatisfactory state, and are likely to consinue so—

It is evident there is a considerable number of high-class recruits forthcoming, but apparently they do not stay. This is the casualty list for the year:—Deaths, 6; discharges, either through time expired or, more probably, through men purchasing their discharges, 319 ; desertions, 16—that is a very considerable number in a country like this—or a total casualty list of 342. I think I have said enough to show that all is not well with the permanent force, and I am persuaded that things will be much worse if the Minister carries out his scheme of reorganization. I ask him once more to pause about his action with regard to the artillery. I do not know what expert advised him that he could get efficiency from sections of artillery scattered all over the country, but whoever that expert is, I think the consensus of opinion would be against him. Why not carry it further? Why not split them up into single guns? Then, of course, you would obviously reduce it to an absurdity. But only a little less absurd is the proposal of the Minister. To Split the artillery up into sections will accentuate the evil that this report alludes to. You will not maintain the high standard of efficiency. Men will degenerate into gun-polishers and harness-cleaners. [Time limit.]

When the House adjourned, I held the floor, and I thought it was the practice for the hon. member who held the floor to carry on. I was discussing the question of the defence of the native territories. I was pointing out that the Mount Fletcher trouble which took place some years back was entirely suppressed by 150 men of the Transkei, men who at that time were training at Port Elizabeth. We arrived at a very serious stage. There was practically a state of siege prevailing. I believe that in the report of Col. Stanford, who was sent up as a commissioner to enquire into the matter, it is stated that the conditions were extremely serious. At that time all the S.A.M.R. had left the territories, and we had no local defence of any sort; and had we not arrived in the nick of time, the position would have been more than serious. As it was, it cost the country nearly £100,000, and had our arrival been delayed for a longer period the expense would have been considerably greater. I maintain that if it is necessary to keep three or four mounted regiments in Natal, it is just as necessary that we in the Transkei should have similar protection. I agree with the Minister that the T.M.R. may not be an economic unit, but I do say that 100 trained men in the Transkei would, in time of trouble, be worth 10,000 trained men in Cape Town, and even if it does cost more to train men in the country, it is the duty of the Government to see that all native areas are protected. Such is as much in the interests of the natives as of the Europeans. I do not wish to suggest that the natives will cause trouble— I do not think they will—but the whole basis of the Minister’s scheme is to be prepared for such trouble. I say, without any hesitation, that it is impossible to put 10,000 men in the field in the Transkei in the time stated by the Minister. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there was a general feeling of unrest right through the country, and an outbreak occurred amongst the natives, say, at Matatiele, where is the Minister for Defence going to get his 10,000 from to proceed there? Does he mean to suggest that the men from Natal, from the eastern borders of the Free State, or from the Eastern Province, all areas in which a similar unrest exists ; does he suggest that these men will leave their homes and families unprotected to come to our aid and assistance? Of course they would not. We would not expect them to come. If serious trouble did arise, it would be a case of every man for himself—every village, every town for itself. That will be the position for the first two or three weeks, and it is the duty of Parliament to see that every little area has its own protection when the crucial time comes. I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture—does he not feel that such is the correct position? We in the native territories realize the position we are in. We are prepared to protect ourselves, but the Minister should see that we are prepared. Before the great war we had a battery in the Transkei ; I have seen it in training, and have seen natives on the hills watching its evolutions, and it had a tremendous moral effect on the natives. Why should the Minister take that away from us and have two batteries in the Free State? Why not have one in the territories? Will the Minister tell the committee why, while we managed to maintain a mounted regiment many years ago, it is impossible to-day? This £16,000 Saved on the defence vote is going to be saved at the expense of the T.M.R., and at the expense of the defence We have had in the past. The Minister may say “Form your rifle club. " We have had them, but they have never been satisfactory in the territories. In time of trouble the men who are most required are mounted men, and the Minister must realize that one mounted man in the territories is worth 100 men in Cape Town, or far from the seat of trouble. As a premium for insurance, a mounted force is the most economic unit. It is absolutely essential that there should be protection, not only for the Transkei, but for every native area. As I said before, I do not wish to suggest that the natives will cause trouble—I think they are too sensible—and while we treat them fairly and with justice, they will be prepared at all times to help us.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Payn) appears to be tinder the impression that an injustice was done to him by the chair in not calling upon him to address the committee. He seems to be under the impression that he was in possession of the floor. That is a misapprehension. The rule he refers to does not apply to committee, where hon. members have the right to speak as frequently as they please.

I think everyone will agree that the Minister of Defence should be criticized on his reorganization proposals. On looking at the estimates, it is difficult for anyone to find out the exact position of our existing defence force. We see that certain reductions have taken place in ordinary expenditure, but beyond that we have difficulty in forming a conclusion Last year, when the House was prorogued, speeches were made stating that the Minister of Defence was going to create a defence force which would satisfy everybody. This year the Minister says he has consulted nobody with regard to this reorganization, and that is where he made a mistake. If he had consulted people well acquainted with the conditions of the country, it would not have been necessary for us to criticize to day. This is a very Important matter. We must not forget that the greatest responsibility rests on the citizens of the country. The Minister’s reorganization is such that he holds the population responsible for the defence of the country in times of trouble, and they are not professional soldiers. What is the organization he is creating? He has told us that the country is divided into forty commandos of 200 men each. Are they to be composed of members of rifle associations, or of people who have to undergo a certain training every year? Do those commandos form the first line of defence? We assume that if troubles arise there will be a certain force which can immediately strike. Is that the forty com mandos? The permanent force has been abolished or so much reduced that it is hopeless in the first instance to rely on it. The force still consists of four columns, one in each province, and what can we do with four batteries spread over the whole country? Therefore, the citizens will be called up in the first instance, and will have to bear the brunt, but they have to buy their own rifles and provide their own uniforms, as the Minister only provides at wapenshaws. Will this give satisfaction? Is it right to proceed from the assumption that the more shots a man fires the better the soldier? Let me tell the Minister that a soldier cannot be made in that way. Even with the best material, no soldier can be made by merely firing at ranges. I had sons who went to South-West Africa when the trouble came, who could shoot well, and knew how to handle a rifle, but when one of them mounted the horse with a rifle, he fell right over it. What are we going to do with people whom we cannot put on a horse, and who, when once on, cannot dismount again, because the rifle gives them trouble? All this had to be learned according to the old system, which the Minister has abolished. A soldier must understand discipline and learn obedience and everything that is taught soldiers in other countries, so that we can have an efficient force. What is the Minister going to do with untrained commandos of citizens? I say that the feeling which outweighs all others is that if the Minister intends to put the defence of the country on the shoulders of the citizen, he should have acted very differently. The feeling of dissatisfaction is growing, and people say that there should be a permanent force which can receive the first attack and can strike the first blow when necessary. The feeling exists that the citizens should not be called up for all sorts of little troubles and native insurrections and strikes, but that there should be a permanent force which the Government can use, and which can be quickly mobilized. People are prepared to pay for that, but the Minister is making a mistake if he puts the whole defence on the shoulders of farmer commandos. As for the cadet system, I agree with the Minister, but I am opposed to the abolition of the travelling inspector and to the training of the children by teachers. The teachers have to go for fourteen days to Roberts Heights and follow a certain course to learn how to turn to the right and left-about. What can we expect from a fourteen-day course? It is impossible to train people and make them efficient in that time. Those people are to become officers to drill children. Will they afterwards take the field as officers? Those who can only turn to the right and left are made responsible for the education of our boys into soldiers. I go further. The system may be useful to children in the towns and villages, but what of the countryside? They live in many cases far from school, and it is impossible for them to train. Firstly, because they cannot find time for the exercises, and secondly, because they have to travel far to get to the school, and are then not fit to do the exercises. The organization of the Minister is hopeless. It is, as the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has said: From year to year what has been built up in previous years is broken down, and the muddling keeps on. This year the Minister goes so far that he has only the staff left. The expenditure on the staff is further increased, but the foundation on which the staff should rest disappears. When the time comes that the commandos are required, it will appear that the whole organization is a paper one.

I have just glanced through this report from the Defence Department—it is the first opportunity I have had of seeing it—and it seems to be the ambition of the Minister to have a thoroughly reorganized defence force, on paper, at least once every twelve months. The last reorganization took place on the 25th June, 1925 ; the next, I note, is to take place on the 30th June, 1926, and so on. I suppose now as a result of the last reorganization we are informed in the report that the South African Field Artillery was to be brigaded, and a headquarters staff provided. The brigade of field artillery and the brigade of S.A.M.R. were to be organized into a field force under a single command, and the officer commanding the field force also acted as officer commanding the troops at Roberts Heights. I think that is a small, but admirable, organization, and what one would have expected any intelligent staff to have adopted with the very limited material and means at their disposal. But that is to be entirely done away with ; why, I cannot understand. Here, also, I note is a very serious reference to the lack of discipline in the permanent force. Now, if there is one spot in the South African army where you would expect to see discipline it would be in the permanent force. If there is a lack of discipline, you have to look for the cause, and you find in nine cases out of ten that it reflects on a bad staff organization; a lack of training, and a lack of suitable men to see that the discipline of the army is maintained ; to see that the officers have full knowledge of military law. And here, again, we are told there is a great lack of knowledge of military law and of regimental experience. Now that brings me to a question which I put to the Minister last session, as to the system by which officers had been selected for staff appointments, and particularly in regard to their being sent to Camberley for training. Of course, the Minister did not answer that question although I gave him a month to prepare his reply, and I am perfectly certain he never will answer it. It reflects anything but credit on those responsible, and it is not to be wondered at that, when officers are selected in an utterly slovenly manner having an entire lack of military experience and training. In one instance, a sergeant, without any regimental experience whatever, being given commissioned rank in order to qualify him as a student at the staff college at Camberley—

You had better direct your enquiry on that side.

It matters nothing to me by whom it was done, but you sent men with this lack of fundamental knowledge to receive the highest scientific military instruction in the world. It is most irritating for the people at home, although they do their very utmost to make inefficient officers welcome, and save themselves no trouble to make their training as practical as possible under the circumstances. Then, after their two years’ training, you bring them here, and there is nothing for them to do but sit in an office and drive a pen. Now you have, in this country at the present moment, an officer specially sent out from the War Office general staff to bring about some sort of liaison between the South African troops and the Imperial army. The idea is that, if possible, touch should be maintained between those men who have had this training at home, and are carrying into effect in this country the instructions they have received. It is useless sending them to Camberley unless they have some practical means of applying the instruction which they have received up to that stage. It is purely theoretical instruction, so far as men without previous experience are concerned. Australia, New Zealand and Canada also send their officers to Camberley, but they arrange an exchange between these officers and Imperial officers for a period of years, so that they have an opportunity of working with troops and putting their theoretical instruction into practical use. I put the suggestion to the Minister that he should discuss this matter with the staff officer I have referred to, who is at present in this country. Of course, if we turn it down, we shall be the losers, but we should not miss this opportunity, if it can possibly be avoided.

I would like the Minister to give us a little more information in regard to rifle associations. I should like to know what amount of free ammunition is to be issued to the country rifle associations. I am sorry to say that the young countryman to-day is not as good a shot with the rifle as his father was. The Minister lays great stress on these rifle associations, and therefore these young fellows should be made efficient by a free issue of ammunition. Those who can afford it are buying their rifles, and where they cannot afford it five per cent. of the rifles are loaned to them. In time of emergency the Minister is relying on these commandos and they would be the first on the spot, being mounted men ; but they get no horse allowance or any other privileges, and I think the least the Government can do is to give them a liberal supply of free ammunition, so that they can make themselves efficient. Then I come to a question which I raised previously in the House. Surrounded as we are in Natal with thousands of natives continually having faction fights, we ought to have a sufficient supply of rifles there. If an emergency arises in Natal, where are these rifle associations going to get their rifles from? Are they to wait until the rifles come from Pretoria, I hope the Minister will reply in regard to this. Will the Minister tell us why there is a reduction of £3,000 on rifle ranges? Is that consistent with the great importance the Minister attaches to these rifle associations?

I think that more interest is taken in defence matters in the Eastern Province and Natal because the people, living as they do among a prepondering native population, realize the potentialities and possibilities of trouble more than those living on the high veld. A great deal has been said in favour of the commando system, but I would point out that the commando system is of very little use in Natal or the Eastern Province. During the Natal rebellion in 1906 there were two incidents which I might tell the House to show the inefficiency of the commando system. The officer in charge of a commando refused to order his troops into the low veld, saying that—

and a squadron of the Natal Mounted Rifles had to do the job. The men on commando would have gone, but not having been drilled together they did not have that reliance on each other which otherwise they would have had. Another instance occurred at the same time. Colonel Leuchars had to camp on the banks of the Tugela ; he had three squadrons of his own regiment and a commando. He formed a square camp and put the commando on the rear flank and in the morning he was attacked by the Zulus. The men were ordered to lie down behind their saddles, but the men of the commando stood up with the reins of their horses over their arms, thus offering a better mark to the Zulus, some of whom had rifles. Several casualties occurred. The men of the commando not having had the benefit of the training the mounted rifles had did not have the confidence in themselves or their officers that their comrades of the mounted rifles had. In my own district there are under 1,500 Europeans, but there are 53,000 natives. It would be a very great benefit if we could have an adequate supply of rifles and ammunition in charge of the commanding officer of each regiment. We can mobilize very rapidly in Natal, and we are ready to jump on the fire whenever it breaks out. We never know when the day will come when the agitation which is being stirred up among the natives will come to a head, but so long as we treat the natives justly I do not think we shall have any trouble. Nevertheless the Zulu when his blood is up sees red, and he might do things in not blood which would be very regrettable.

I see that £5,100 are put down on the Estimates for part time adjuntante for Defence Rifle Associations? Are they to be members of the Associations?

Yes, officers.

I see that the following further items are included for defence rifle associations: pay and allowances, £16,100; subsistence and transport, £8,800 ; clothing, £9,000 ; arms, accoutrements and equipment, £27,557 ; ammunition, £9,130 ; camps and field manoeuvres, £7,000 and corps contingent allowances and capitation grants, £9,000. The total for defence rifle associations is £120,000, being an increase over last year of £85,000. Is this increase justified?

It seems to me as if the Minister is being urged, especially by Natal members to arm the people. I think it is the duty of Natal, especially as it is such a prominent province, to see that the people put their hands in their pockets and buy their rifles. They can be got very cheaply. That is what every citizen who has the interests of the State at heart Should do. We insist on economy in the House but if the Government had to arm every citizen it would run into a considerable amount, It seems to me as if there is a grudge against the high veld, where it is said that the people there do not have the same danger as Natal, but let me tell hon. members from Natal that when danger comes the high veld does its duty just as well as Natal. I am sorry to comment on what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said on. Thursday in the House. He said that the commando system was the cause of our losing the Anglo-Boer War. I am surprised to hear that from the hon. member because he also was an officer of the Boer Forces at the time. The experience of those who took part in the war is that no war can be carried on without the commando system. We had disciplined forces against us, and nevertheless we defended ourselves well for three years. In my opinion the commando system is the only method to be followed in this country to make fighting possible. Of course discipline is required as well, and if we had had more it would have been better. We can be satisfied with what was done, and if we had had the officers at the commencement that we had at the end of the war things would have been entirely different. Therefore I am glad that the Minister of Defence has reverted to the commando system. That is what the farmers on the countryside Want, and I think anyone with sound commonsense will agree that it is the only way in which a success-can be made of the system of defence. The officers, however, must be the right people. In this respect I must criticize the Minister because the persons appointed were not always the right men. He will find that he must have the right people as officers, because the Afrikander is a wonderful person. If he does not like his officer he will not fight. The Afrikander wants officers that he Can respect and not officers that will send him into danger and stop out of it themselves. I therefore hope that the Minister will see that the officers appointed shall be persons that the citizens want.

I would ask the Minister’s very serious attention to the situation at Durban, which has now the largest graving dock in the southern hemisphere and the second largest in the world. It cost £2,400,000, and it is absolutely indispensable-in time of war that it should be available. At Durban, too, before very long, a power station is to be erected which it is estimated will cost about £2,000,000. That station intended to supply municipal requirements and the power for the electrified railway from Durban to Maritzburg. The aggregate value of these two undertakings will not be less than from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000, and their destruction would paralyze all the east coast of the Union as regards land transport, while the navy would be seriously handicapped if it could not use the dock. It would be a comparatively easy thing for a hostile power, however puny, to Cause irreparable damage to the dock and power Station.

The same in Europe, as far as power is concerned.

Where?

Switzerland.

There are no graving docks there.

They have power stations there.

I think the hon. member may rest assured that the Swiss navy has ample accommodation for all its requirements. This matter to which I am referring is a serious one, and I would ask hon. members to visualize the effect of the power station at Durban being put out of action. There is another point. I see that the Minister is allowing adjutants £50 a year, and commanding officers of commandos £60 a year, or £110 in all. The public services they are expected to perform, as laid down, are to have a rifle practice of four days a year, and a wapenskou of two days a year. Is that the maximum or the minimum?

I won’t go on bothering you with explanations.

I am quite serious. The adjutant and the commanding officer of these commandos, who will have to give a minimum amount of their time compared to the adjutants and commanding officers of other units, are to receive, one £50 and the other £60, while the commanding officer of an infantry battalion, who puts in a great many hours per week, and probably every week, and his adjutant, who puts in a considerable number of hours per day, gets no allowance whatever. From what I know of the commanding officers and adjutants of the citizen units, they do not want these allowances for their emoluments at all. I am sure that in every case the allowance would be devoted to a regimental fund, because they know that a regiment cannot be established and maintained and kept in the condition which they would like, unless regimental institutions of various sorts are established, and there is thus developed that regimental spirit, which is a powerful aid to discipline and to efficiency in the field. Naturally, it is very puzzling to know why the Minister has made such a distinction between the two. I do not begrudge these officers of the commandos their money, but, if they deserve that remuneration or allowance, surely the adjutants or commanding officers of your ordinary citizen units deserve it even more. If the Minister will look at the map, he will see a large and populous territory called the Transkei, thickly populated with natives—and splendidly enhanced fellows they are. But we must remember, and I repeat, that if the Government of which the Minister is a member is going in for a policy of repression among the natives, there will be repercussions. Order may have to be kept, and where are the nearest troops? Durban on the one side, and East London on the other, a very long distance away. The Transkeian Mounted Rifles have been disbanded, but no corresponding increase has been made in the district. I do not expect the Minister to go back upon the decision he has come to, but I would suggest, to him that he can save his face, and perhaps add to the safety of the district and efficiency of the regiment by increasing the establishment of the Kaffrarian Rifles, which is at present 300. There are 8,000 registered voters in and around East London, and there are well-known factors by which you can determine the number of men available for military-service from the number of adults. It is certain that there are about 2,000 men of suitable age for military service in that district, and yet there is a miserable establishment of only 300. An increase of the establishment will add to the efficiency of the regiment, and to the peace and safety of that district.

Make it up to 900, like the D.L.I.?

No, I do not say it should be as large as that; you could not do that all at once, hut I do say that 300 is a miserable establishment for an infantry battalion. [Time limit.]

It is very clear to me that the feeling on the countryside is that the citizens are practically unarmed. The feeling on that point is very strong. I think that a country like South Africa should arm the citizens. I am glad to say that the rifle associations are very popular, and that people are joining them as much as possible. The Minister will agree that the object of the rifle associations is to teach our boys to handle a rifle, and to become good shots. The Minister will know that if a man has to use a borrowed rifle at the range, he cannot possibly become a good shot. I know it is difficult to arm all the citizens, and the Minister will possibly say that the citizens can get their rifles cheap. I, however, appeal to him to assist the citizens, and if they cannot get the rifles gratis, they should be given time to pay the amount off by instalments. I can assure him that if he does so, it will have good results. The Minister is being urged to do this on all sides. He ought to be convinced that the public outside are dissatisfied because they are practically unarmed. When anything happens, the citizens have to take the field, because the rifle associations exist in the interests of the State. If trouble comes, they must serve the State in defending the country. If that is the case, then it is the duty of the Government to see that the rifle associations are well armed in the event of there being trouble. I can say that they are being depended on. Where are the rifles to come from in times of trouble? I know the feeling exists in my constituency that more facilities should be given to the citizens to get arms. That can easily he done, because the officers are prepared to he sureties for the citizens who buy rifles. If a citizen deposits a certain amount for his rifle, then the Government still has the rifle as security for the unpaid portion: and further, the officers know the men, and are prepared to give security on their behalf. Various other hon. members have also mentioned this point, but as feelings run high in my constituency. I cannot let this opportunity pass without making my voice heard.

I only want to say a few words. I was pleased at the speech of the last speaker, because he said that the rifle associations were now very popular. In the days when this side of the House was taking an interest in them, we had a great deal of opposition. Had it not been for that, the system would have been much more advanced.

Why?

Your leaders said that the people were not to join the rifle associations. As one gets older one can always learn more, and to-day my hon. friend opposite sees how necessary the rifle associations are, and I am glad he has reached that length. I nevertheless differ on certain points from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan). He advocates the arming of all the citizens in the country districts. I have always said, and I repeat to-day, that it is impossible for the Government to arm the whole male portion of the population. I am in favour of the members of the rifle associations being armed. They were established long ago, and to-day building is still going on the old foundations, and I am glad of it. It is not necessary for the citizens to join the associations, but they are at liberty to do so. Those who joined the associations ought to be armed. This can be easily done by the Government. To furnish 10 per cent. of the rifles to rifle associations is insuflicient. I hope the Minister will listen, because I want to tell him that the system is a good one, but that it is not adequate. The people ought to be attracted into the rifle association, and it ought to be made a pleasure to them. If the citizens can get their own rifles, it will be a good thing, because when a man has his own rifle he will be proud of it and look after it well. Borrowed rifles are not too well looked after, and if a man has to shoot with a rusty rifle, he does not do very well, and the second time he is not keen to go to the range. Those who voluntarily join the rifle associations ought to get more rifles, even if security has to be given to assist the people. The thing should be made attractive, and the people should be assisted. The Minister is neglecting those people a great deal. As a result of the reorganization of the defence system, the whole burden will press on the citizen force. The police force will have its hands too full. The permanent force will be too small, and therefore the citizen force will have to be resorted to. The citizens ought therefore to be trained. I should like to ask the Minister why the citizens are so neglected? They now get a certain number of rifle practices every year, and the range allowance has now been raised from 1s. 6d. to 3s. a man, but the number of cartridges has been reduced. When the citizens go to the range, they want practice. In my constituency, each burgher only gets four cartridges. It discourages a man to ride for two hours to the range, and then to only fire four shots. The people ought to get sufficient cartridges, so that it will be worth their while to go to the rifle practices. I want the Minister to bear in mind what I am now suggesting, even if it costs more. It is not a bad thing. The people are quite willing to join the associations, but they must be assisted. If the Minister makes the rifle practices attractive by providing rifles and cartridges, the system will be successful.

It is very sad that the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) when he speaks, tries to make political capital out of a good thing.

You were advocating a wrong thing.

The hon. member is in dreamland, and does not know what he was talking about. If he had a little knowledge of the condition of the country he would know that every Nationalist member in the House, even before we came into power, went through the constituencies and advised the people, from platform after platform, to join the rifle associations.

The Minister of Justice sent a circular to the people to resign their membership.

If the hon. member wants to make another speech, I will sit down. I am quoting what the hon. member said. What are the facts? My hon. friend differs here from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) as regards the arming of the citizens. This side of the House has throughout urged the Minister of Defence to arm the citizens who belonged to the rifle association.

Where is the money to come from?

That is exactly what my hon. friend has been pleading for. I wanted it to be clear to him that we urged the Minister to arm the citizens belonging to the rifle association.

That is right.

The hon. member must take the wad out of his ears, and then he will in future follow what is said. We are glad that the Minister has increased the issue of rifles on loan, but as the hon. member for Bethal has said, if there is only one rifle for every ten men, then it means that, if there are ten needy citizens belonging to a rifle association, it is discouraging for the people to fire with one rifle, and they cannot get proper practice. In former days the sons of the Afrikander people began to learn how to use the rifle when they commenced to ride. It is characteristic of the Afrikanders to be masters of a horse and of a gun. Under present circumstances the boys do not get this privilege. I understand that the Government cannot afford to arm all the people. I do not ask that the rifles should be given free to the people, but if the Government are in earnest about arming citizens belonging to rifle associations, they will sell the rifles to burghers on the instalment system. At the commencement of the session I thought the Minister would make a concession. The Government need not lose a penny and as the hon. member for Heilbron has said, the officers of every rifle association are prepared to be sureties for their citizens, until all the instalments due on the rifles have been paid off. The State will not lose anything and, in the end, every citizen will be armed. Any one of us, who has a little knowledge and experience of active service, knows that a soldier—let me rather say citizen, because the people in our country detest the word soldier—that a citizen, who is put into the field in war time, is no good if he cannot handle a rifle.

He is rather a danger.

That is so. Now I ask the Minister what he is going to do in case we have war or trouble, and he has to call up people who do not understand how to handle a rifle. What is the good of such a man, and why are hundreds of thousands of pounds being spent on defence in peace time when, if war comes, the army cannot be used? For this reason I hope that the Minister will seriously consider whether he cannot carry out the armament scheme. I do not say that it should be done on a large scale immediately, but if every year about six thousand men are armed then, in ten years, we-shall have a whole army armed, and the citizen force will be much more serviceable than it is to-day.

When I was interrupted I was making a few remarks about the necessity of increasing the establishment of the Kaffrarian Rifles. I have a communication from a constituent, who writes me—

and my correspondent goes on to emphasize that they feel unprotected in that district, and would have some difficulty in dealing with any disturbance that might arise. The Minister is, perhaps, not aware that the Kaffrarian Rifles, which has an establishment of 300, has a detached company in King William’s Town, which considerably reduces the number for parade in East London. I do urge the Minister to give this question his consideration on the ground of efficiency, safety and to promote a feeling of confidence amongst the inhabitants of that particular area. Under the head, medical service, we find that, out of a total of 1,622 applications to enter the permanent force, only 235 were attested. I have a right to complain of the slack and slovenly way in which the information is presented. The presumption is that the doctors had no cognisance of the number that applied until the number came into their hands. An enormous percentage of the young men of this country must be physically unfit. We have more detailed information with regard to the citizen forces. I should say that the medical examination for the permanent force is strict and stringent, and the men who are examined are to be equal to carrying out the duty of a soldier in this country under any circumstances whatever. But, in the words of the medical authorities themselves, there is a relatively low physical standard for the active citizen forces, and Cape Town has a bad pre-eminence in the number of rejects: 28.67 per cent. were found to be permanently unfit for any sort of service in the defence force, and 2.37 per cent. were found temporarily unfit, or a total of 31 per cent. Cape Town is the worst. In Port Elizabeth 21.86 per cent. were found to be permanently unfit, and 6.9 per cent. temporarily unfit. I can congratulate Pietermaritzburg, which had only 6.32 per cent. permanently unfit, and 1.73 per cent. temporarily unfit.

What about East London?

East London is bad, too, but not as bad as Cape Town. 18.54 per cent. were permanently and 4.03 per Cent. temporarily unfit; in Durban 14.15 per cent. were found to be permanently unfit, and 3.86 per Cent. temporarily unfit. Now these figures are startling and disquieting. From my own experience I would like to tell the Minister how it works out. During the East African campaign I received a draft of 650 men, and on my own responsibility I rejected over 200 before we left Zomba, and I can tell the Minister that these recruits—gallant spirits as they were —were physically almost impossible. The 200 were suffering from all kinds of disease, from insanity to hammer-toe. These were men who had to go into action at once on arrival at the scene of hostilities, and of the balance only a very small number had handled or fired a rifle. We were getting to the end of the war, and we were—

as it were. It is positively a crime to send men into the field, and to send them into action, who have not even handled a rifle; and something of the same kind will happen again, unless we have a better organization of the defence force. I am glad to see that, with regard to the cadets, the headquarters staff has said—

That is the professional view, if I may so put it. I hope the Minister will give all these matters his serious attention. We are getting on—I am optimistic—we are improving. In the old days, when one raised the question of the defence force, someone raised the cry of “racialist,” and the debate was switched off. There is a tendency for the Minister to answer that this is the cry of the professional soldier, who wants an ideal standard, and who is quite right from his point of view—but we need not pay much attention to these points of view— they are good ideals, but we cannot work up to them. One does not need to be a professional soldier to see the benefits of the compulsory cadet system. His own professional soldiers have so advised him. One does not need to be a professional soldier to know that discipline is necessary in the men who have to enforce and teach discipline to the forces ; or to see the disadvantage of having men suffering from insanity and hammer-toe taking part in serious operations on active service. I think this discussion has been very considerably free from racial considerations. We are getting on, and I hope the Minister, in his reply, will show that he realizes that the country is in earnest about this matter, and that these defects and drawbacks to which we have called attention are real and serious, and that he will give us, on this side, the credit of not making party advantage out of the subject. We are prepared to support him in any reasonable steps he takes towards efficiency, but these continual reorganizations take the heart out of the men, and prevent eligible men from joining the defence force as a career, and do not tend to the good of the defence force. His own staff say that they—

that—

that—

and so on. I hope this debate will be productive of thought leading to action, and I hope the action will not be on the lines that we took such exception to, but that the Minister will see that some of his proposals are very retrograde indeed, and if he is to maintain the efficiency of the forces he must re-cast them to some extent.

I believe the intention exists to establish small artillery camps in various parts of the country. I just want to bring to the Minister’s notice that there are very good centres in the eastern Transvaal and, in Bethal especially, there is a place which would form a very good centre.

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for my hon. friend to give us a statement on the policy of the Government in connection with the naval works at Simons Town over and above the £71,000 which now appears under the Minister’s vote, because I think it will appear self-evident to everybody that under existing conditions this amount is extremely inadequate for carrying on coastal defence. Taking the vote as it here appears, I think it works out for the European population at about 10d. per head, and if you take the whole population, including natives, it works out at something like 2½d. I have not worked it out adequately. If you take the total ocean-borne trade of this country with the old country both ways, I should think it would represent an insurance of about .15 or .16 per cent. The Minister has told us that we need not be apprehensive that the British navy is going to be wiped off the seas just yet or that our coasts are in danger of bombardment. Why? Not for anything this country is doing. The Minister was only justified in making that statement because he knew the people of Great Britain were under taking this burden not alone for the protection of their own trade but the protection of every portion of the commonwealth of nations of which we form a part, and surely when we hear so much of South Africa first and South Africa alone, the time has come when our self-respect should show us that we ought to be prepared to pay a little more for the upkeep of this service which alone allows us to sleep at night. No doubt the Minister has the figures and although he has refused to answer questions from this side in regard to other votes, I hope he will be able—

Which?

I think the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) asked for information on a particular point and the Minister refused to give it.

I do not remember it.

What I want the Minister to tell us is what the taxpayer of Great Britain is paying.

I am afraid I cannot.

If the hon. member will ask his advisers they will be able to tell him that it is considerably over a sovereign, even with the reduced naval vote ; that is per head of the population of Great Britain. Under the circumstances, for this country to pay 2½d., is a very inadequate contribution, especially as the Minister has pointed out that we can be perfectly easy in our minds because the British navy is protecting our coasts and oversea trade and commerce. I should have thought that with the views held by hon. members opposite, they should have been only too anxious, as a self-respecting people, to pay an adequate share. When you consider what New Zealand and Australia are doing, I should have thought the time has come when my hon. friend should realize that as we are desirous of taking over as much of our coast defence as possible, we should be able to do what Australia has done and have one cruiser in which our men could be thoroughly trained. If it is considered that this vote is adequate, when you take into consideration the volume of our trade and general revenue, then I say unhesitatingly that it is not to the credit or the dignity of this country that we are doing so little in connection with naval defence, and I hope the Minister will give us the reasons why this vote is so small. I think it was in 1907 that Sir James Rose-Innes, who was then a member of this House, got a resolution passed unanimously in this House—when you only had the Cape to consider—that the contribution should be £85,000 a year. Natal also gave over £30,000, whereas now we give only £71,000. Under these circumstances I ask the Government to consider whether it will not be more becoming to our dignity, and considering the great increase in our trade, whether we should not pay a little more for the protection the British navy is according us.

The right hon. member will find on the Loan Estimates that we are carrying out exactly the programme at Simon’s Town that he and his colleagues undertook to carry out. As to the reason why the Vote is so small, I will hunt up the Hansard of the last two or three years and see the reasons which are given by the right hon. gentleman for the amount of the Vote. Hon. members opposite were entirely imbued with the desire to uphold the honour and dignity of South Africa, and we are going along the same lines. Our effort to-day is certainly inadequate for the naval defence of our shores, but we have to cut our coat according to our cloth, and we have to do what we can. That is my whole answer to the sermon which the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has been delivering in ten-minute doses. If all the recommendations which have been urged upon me from all quarters as being absolutely necessary for the defence of South Africa were to be carried out, I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—

Would have a few words to say.

And so would every sane member of the House. It is no use painting visions all over the place and imagining dangers in their most extreme form, and asking whether we are prepared to meet them.

Keep down to facts, and say where the expense of these proposals come in.

We will take the proposal of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The two essentials, he said, were discipline and the training of officers. I interjected—

and he replied—

These statements are all treated as if they were gospel, but I will give the House the information. Canada does maintain a considerable standing militia force. We are speaking of permanent formations. And of these Australia’s permanent forces are: field artillery, 1 nucleus body of 2 officers and 63 men ; garrison artillery, 10 batteries of 24 officers and 428 men; and there is an engineer and a service corps, the total force numbering 39 officers and 755 men. Well, we have just about the same. Going on these lines, apparently hon. members opposite would increase our standing army. We, however, take a totally different view, and are going on the same lines as Australia. When we speak of a standing army we mean a citizen army, and we are going to devote the bulk of the money to the development of our citizen army. I don’t pretend that everything the most soldierly critic would require is carried out, because we know perfectly well to maintain a state of complete readiness for every potentiality is beyond our means.

You are putting words in my mouth.

I don’t want to do an injustice to the hon. member, but the whole trend of ins remarks, and also of other hon. members’ remarks aimed in that direction. We take the machine as we find it, and we have lopped off what is unnecessary to the machine, and devoted the money to the citizen forces. I want to return to the point regarding the training of officers. So far as active citizen force officers, the South African permanent force, as originally conceived, was not a force for the training of officers at all. The active citizen force officers are receiving the same training, and on the same lines as they have ever received since that force was instituted by hon. members opposite. When hon. members over there speak in the contemptuous manner like the hon. member for Beacons-field (Col. Sir David Harris) who said—

it is top ridiculous. The officers go through a qualifying course, and we are carrying out precisely the same course of training that has obtained ever since the active citizen force units were instituted.

The hon. member for Beaconsfield was talking of the sergeant instructors, and said they had no opportunity of learning their work.

Because we have not a sufficient number of regimental formations. I have to pay attention to professional opinion which I think is sound, and I have no qualms whatever about being able to get a sufficient supply of well-trained instructors. In regard to discipline, that will depend entirely upon the degree of training you can give to your citizen force. In comparison with past years, we are doing more in that regard. I appreciate perfectly that you must increase your training and that is the reason why we are devoting larger sums in that direction and arranging yearly camps. The hon. member (Brig.-Gen. Byron) spoke about the Quartermaster-General’s stores and read a paragraph from the report that the turnover was £771,000. In that turnover is included every issue from the Quartermaster-General’s stores. The issues from the stores appear in their relative places in every single division of this Vote. The hon. member was strongly opposed to my proposal for splitting the artillery up into sections. I am afraid I must agree to differ from the hon. member in regard to that question. I am confident that the purpose we have to serve will be well served. The hon. member also spoke of the situation at Durban and painted a tremendous picture of the defenceless position of Durban in case of attack. I would point out that the whole matter of coast defences, as he knows, is the subject of investigation by another body. The question of fixed defences as against other forms of defence is to-day in the melting-pot. With regard to the allowances to adjutants and commandants of commandoes, the hon. member thought it was grossly unfair to make these allowances while no such allowance was made to the commanders and adjutants of A.C.F. units. This is simply an allowance for travelling and subsistence. Commandants have to travel over a large area. A.C.F. officers get free tram and train fares. This money is really very well spent, and is in recompense for outlay. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has asked why we cannot have a regiment there as well as in Natal. It was only by increasing the area of recruiting for one of the Natal regiments that it was possible to maintain it as a regiment and have the requisite number of youths coming forward. In Tembuland our registrations of youth are not sufficient to keep it up really as a unit. The conclusion I have come to is that as a unit of the A.C.F. we are not justified in keeping it up. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) asked me in reference to the training squadrons of the commandoes. I spoke of the training squadrons in 40 commandoes. That is these squadrons will be organized in 40 commandoes selected from the commandoes that exist. In those we propose to have these training squadrons for the young men. The training we shall provide is better than nothing at all, and it certainly is a step in advance, which, although it may cost money, is a very necessary step in advance. The hon. member also spoke of the burghers wanting arms. I think it legitimate for hon. members over here to raise that cry, but I think there is hardly any justification for hon. members opposite raising it.

Why shouldn’t I raise the same point?

I will tell you. Because you were very silent on it all the time your own friends were in power. We understand the sentiment, but the Government say that the position is not such, the dangers to the country are not such, that it is necessary to have every man armed in the countryside. The measures we are taking, we believe—and the Government have carefully considered the whole thing—are such as the real defence needs of the country demand, and we do not feel justified in giving way to the pressure being put upon us to supply every man in the rifle associations with a rifle. It is no use at all for us to think that we are serving the country, and even serving the defence of the country, by devoting resources to unnecessary developments of defence arrangements, which might go into channels really to develop the manhood of the country, which is really our ultimate defence. I want again to emphasize, and I repudiate altogether what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said the other day, that we are destroying the permanent force of this country and that our permanent regimental formations are altogether incomparable with what Australia and New Zealand have. I say the figures show that the regimental permanent formations in Australia are hardly a whit more than ours, and in New Zealand it is a good deal less. The training we are giving the Active Citizen Force units is identical with the training which has been in vogue ever since they were instituted twelve years ago. So far as staff officers and the necessity for military training and so on, are concerned, it is interesting to notice that out of the forty odd staff officers whom I inherited I think there were twelve whose training had been in permanent formations. So we have to take the material we have and the resources we can afford, and by careful attention and by the enthusiasm of the people in such formations as we have, to try and make the defence of South Africa as efficient as we can within the means at our disposal. I doubt very much whether some of the things said this afternoon and the other afternoon are really helpful in enlisting on the side of the formations, of the organization we have, that enthusiasm, both in town and country districts, upon which so much depends, when so much of your effort depends upon voluntary sacrifice of time to give to defence matters of this country. I think I have now dealt with every point.

What about the shirts?

Oh yes; I would not for worlds have sat down without dealing with that world-shattering question. The last question to addressed to me in thundering tones was—

I sent a “clear-the-line” wire at once. The first tender was 120 shirts at 7s. 4½d. That was the price paid.

And the size?

No, yon cannot expect 7s. 4½d. to cover the ties.

I said the size.

Size 6 was originally quoted at 7s. ; size 7 at 7s. 6d. and size 8 at 8s. 6d. That was the actual merchant who supplied the stuff, but eventually he reduced it to an all-round price of 7s. 4½d. with 1s. 3d. extra for the ties. I want to state again we paid this grant for clothing and contingencies over to the commanding officer of the cadet detachment. All we are concerned to see is that it is spent for this purpose and spent with reasonable economy. He has a perfectly free hand to go and buy where he likes.

I would like to know if it is not possible to ensure that tenders are-called.

We do not do so. We do not want to give ourselves an infinity of trouble over trifling things. In regard to the point of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller) I took the hon. member to mean that if we took £30,000 or £40,000 from these estimates, we should be able to have a big reserve of flying officers. It is a matter which I shall watch, but I cannot hold out any immediate hope that we are going to increase these estimates for the flying service—not on my estimates.

With leave of committee amendment proposed by Brig.-Gen. Byron withdrawn.

The Minister has complained that the criticisms he has received from this side are not very helpful. I think the points I have brought up are worthy of at least one second of his time, but the Minister has not paid the slightest attention to the remarks I have made, although, as he is aware, I have discussed a phase of a very important subject, concerning which I may claim to have some personal knowledge and experience. I have further myself spent some time attached to the imperial service, and know its inestimable value. An exchange of staff officers with the imperial army is also of material benefit to both services. Has the Minister considered this matter at all, and if so, with what result?

Major Scaithes' visit has nothing to do with that opportunity. There is a standing invitation. There are obvious difficulties against an exchange—language is one, and a very obvious, difficulty. I agree it sounds rather an absurdity for a non-commissioned officer being given permission to attend the staff college, as was done some years ago—it is like sending a boy from the elementary school to the university. With regard to the officer we sent over last year for two years, he is spending his first year attached to brigade and divisional staffs, getting training in practical work, and finishing up with one year at the staff college. I think the hon. member’s contention may be summed up in one word, if I understand him aright—the value of practical association with the regimental brigade of staff officers. As far as my opportunities will allow me, that is what I was trying to ensure in making this arrangement, and I will see how far it can be developed. In the matter of exchanges, there is a very great and insuperable difficulty—the language question.

How are you going to select the candidates?

I think I had only one occasion of selection—that is to select the officer we thought would make the most of the opportunities given. With regard to future cases, I will consider whether it should not be by competitive examination. With regard to the hon. member’s charge of discourtesy, I think he was a little hard—it was by no means my discourtesy, but my forgetfulness. So far from treating his propositions with contempt, I have done my best to meet him.

I would like the Minister to answer my question—about the rifles for Pietermaritzburg.

There is a stock of rifles in Pietermaritzburg.

What number?

I could not tell you off-hand.

A couple of dozen?

We will undertake to equip the men about as soon as they can muster. The Government is not going to accede to requests which would be tantamount to being a nation in which every man has an arm in his hand and a pocketful of ammunition. The measures we have taken are sufficient to ensure the safety of the country and pay for the necessary equipment of the men.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. J. J. Pienaar withdrawn.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 20, “Interior ”, £238,664,

I move—

I know I am barking up the wrong tree, but I wish to challenge the policy which it falls to the Minister to carry out; and it is only right that when there is a lack of business ability, there should be examination. We should take steps to put matters right in the only possible place where they can be put right—here in Parliament, to which we are sent by our constituents.

It would be convenient if the hon. member will state what the point is. He says the Government’s policy. What particular point is it?

The policy of administration falls under the Minister of the Interior in regard to certain societies which it is to the country’s interest to support ; and the policy of the Government in supporting certain societies to the neglect of others. I would like the committee to understand that an appeal was made by the Geological Society of South Africa to the Minister, who finally wrote, on Dec. 12th last, as follows—

The Treasury is really the tree I would like to bark up. The Government knows we owe much to the mineral resources of the country. The output last year included 41 millions from gold, £166,000 from silver, £170,000 osmoirridium ; diamonds, 8 millions; coal, nearly 4 millions ; copper, £495,000 ; tin, £298,000 ; and other minerals, £272,000 ; or close upon £60,000,000 from the production of minerals in this country. It is an astonishing thing that a Ministry which, I take it, considers itself businesslike, turns down the South African Geological Society and wastes money in some other directions, when if there is one country-in the world where geological investigations should be encouraged, it is South Africa. It might be an inducement to the Government if the Geological Society could publish its proceedings in Afrikaans. I have no doubt that if its transactions were published in Afrikaans, there would have been no question of maintaining the grant given by the previous Government, which was £240 a year, and which, owing to very misplaced economy, was cut down to £60. That does not cover the cost of publication of the valuable papers of its members. When it comes to a geological society, it is very difficult indeed to publish proceedings in Afrikaans, but I know if that could be done I would not need to appeal to this House. We find among other societies receiving grants in aid, that that for ethnological research gets £700, and the Imperial Institute Mineral Resources Bureau £1,200 a year. That is an overseas institution. The Royal Society of South Africa gets £300. If our poor Geological Society could only call itself “Royal” I suppose the amount would be granted by the Minister of Finance. Then the South African Society for the advancement of science gets £250. That is a notable society. I have here a very instructive appeal from them. They appeal to me on the grounds, among other things, genetics and eugenics, and I am asked to co-operate with them in the investigation of instances of transmission of family peculiarities. I think this House would be a very good place to start on. They refer to the inheritance of clearly marked characteristics appearing in families, and I take it that economy in the family of the Minister of Finance is one of the things I would have to follow up. I am going to see what I can do to meet this appeal from the South African society, especially in regard to the study of heredity, in members of the Opposition. Then the National Council of Child Welfare gets £250 ; the South African Studbook Association £200. Sport must be encouraged at any cost. I am sorry the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir Wm. Macintosh) is not here as we come to the South African Poultry Association, £266. He is anxious we should know that it is the healthiest chickens which scratch for themselves, and that is what we want to do in this country, in regard to the further discovery of mineral wealth. Then there is the South African Agricultural Union. £450, which I certainly do not growl at, and the Imperial Institute of Agriculture in Rome, £256. There is the fascinating word " Imperial” again, which, perhaps, has caught on with the Government. Then there is the Imperial Bureau of Mycology, £150, and the Imperial Entomological Bureau, £700. There is the botanical survey of the Union, £2,600. Why is the Minister willing to give that amount for botanical survey while he only gives £60 a year to the Geological Society, and yet it is the geology of this country on which we have based our success. Ministers consider this “a business Ministry.” It is the most unbusinesslike, in this connection, one could imagine. Then we have other societies, including the National Society of Mental Hygiene, £250. That certainly appeals to one. When we cannot find more than £60 a year for our Geological Society, it is time we subscribed to the Society of Mental Hygiene. There is something wrong with our brain power.

The Minister’s, you mean.

Well, it was the last Government which cut this society down to £60 from a mistaken idea of economy. I am only sorry this Government has emulated their bad example. We expected better things. I am still speaking sorrowfully. I put it down to the fact that most of the Ministers are actuated by the legal question: “Are we legally compelled to pay the sum?” Where you have a Cabinet composed mostly of lawyers, that, unfortunately, is the position they usually take up. I think I have said enough to show that we, who support the Government to the fullest extent, can also come to them and say plainly: What is it you are thinking about? I admit Ministers are in the hands of their Minister of Finance, and no country can be more successful that its Minister of Finance permits it to be. I personally waited on the Minister, who declined to accede to the request for £180 for the society, though he has returned £180,000 a year to mining companies by abolition of the Transvaal employers’ tax. The Minister has no money; he has estimated for a deficit and is “on the rocks.” Very well, if he thinks that the people are going to be satisfied with that explanation, he is very much mistaken. The time will come, as it came to the last Government, when the Ministry will regret that it did not embrace opportunities for developing our country in every possible way, and encouraging societies such as this, for which I appeal.

I move—

The hon. member cannot propose a reduction if he wants to discuss various departments. The hon. member can only do that with regard to a special point of policy.

Yes, it is the education of certain feeble-minded children. The position is such to-day that the institutions for mentally disordered people come under the Minister of the Interior. I am now thinking of the class of feeble-minded who are on the border line not idiots or dull-witted, or children who are under normal. I mean children who fall on the line, who are boundary cases. Children who sometimes go on to the normal side and sometimes to the abnormal side. These children are still able to receive a certain kind of education, something can still be made of them. By practical education, they can still be made useful. Fortunately, there is such an institution to-day, but the institution strangely enough comes under the head “Mentally disordered persons.” It is the Alexandra institution. It does praiseworthy work, and I can recommend hon. members to visit it. As for education, I want to point out that, in an institution for feeble-minded at Witrand, near Potchefstroom, such children are also admitted. The children to whom I refer are in the same institution as mentally disordered people. The children actually live and are educated apart, but they come under the same institution.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.8 p.m.