as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Irrigation Commission Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments Report and evidence to be printed ; House to go into committee on the Bill to-morrow.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the select committee on the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg College of Agriculture Bill, viz., the Minister of Agriculture, Messrs. Duncan, J. P. Louw, Pearce, Col. D. Reitz, Messrs. Roux and Swart.

announced that on behalf of both Houses of Parliament the President of the Senate and he had accepted from Sir Ernest Oppenheimer the offer of a bronze bust of the late Lord de Villiers by Mr. Thackeray Edwards to replace the plaster cast at present on view in the Queen’s Hall.

I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he is going to present the annual report of the Railway Board?

The report is in the hands of the printers.

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

Agreed to.

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

House in Committee :

Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed :

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

When this vote was before the House last year, I raised the question as to the appointments made by the Minister in his departments, and I quoted a speech which he had made outside the House, in which he stated that in making appointments and promotions to the public service, other things being equal, he would give the preference to Nationalists. The Minister has had another year in office and I would like him to tell the committee whether he really does carry out this policy, or whether that statement was made rather on the spur of the moment, and in order to get a little applause at the Koffiehuis, because one could scarcely imagine the Minister sitting down and enquiring into the politics of young men who are entering the public service. As hon. members know, when a department wishes some juniors, the Public Service Commission puts up the names. It has been the custom in the past, as far as I know, for these names to be accepted by the Minister, unless there is some very serious objection, but apparently, if the Minister carries out his policy, he enquires whether John Jones or Johannes Boshoff is a Nationalist or a South African party man or a Labourite, and, other things being equal, if there are two or three men put up, he will give the appointment to the Nationalist. I suppose the Labour party sometimes have an advantage over a member of the South African party. Supposing an appointment is to be made in say the Census Department ; if an officer is to be transferred from one department to another, and that other is the Census Department which is under the Minister, does he enquire into the politics of this officer, and does not turn him down if he happens to be a South African party man, and say—

Take the case of the registration officers. These have always been selected because they are not connected with politics, and in most cases they are members of the public service. In other cases they are taken from outside. So far as I was concerned, when I was in charge of the department for five years, we never enquired whether a man was a Nationalist, a South African party man or a Labourite before making the appointment.

Oh!

As a rule the names were put up by the magistrate, and I can honestly say that I never enquired, and never knew, what the politics of these registration officers were. Take the case of district surgeons. When a vacancy occurs in a desirable place, such as Cape Town or Johannesburg, the Minister usually has a number of applications from medical officers desirous of being appointed district surgeon. Other things being equal, does he always give the preference to Nationalists? If a man happens to have voted for one or the other political parties, has he no opportunity to get an appointment ; It is very easy for the Minister to say I appointed so-and-so who happened to be a Nationalist, because, other things being equal. I give the preference to the Nationalist, but who was to say that other things were equal?

Other things being equal, it should go to the South African party man!

The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak later on. I cannot hear what he says, so his points are lost to me. This is not a joking matter. It is a very serious one, and I happen to know that it is disturbing the minds of the public service, but the Minister seems very complacent about it. I think probably he will tell us that the standpoint that he took last year was more or less done on the spur of the moment, and that he is following the good practice which existed in the Department of the Interior when he took over office. It is quite true mat last year the Minister, in order to throw dust in the eyes of the House, quoted a letter which was written not by me, nor to me, but by a man who was in the public service to an officer in the public service, objecting to being dismissed in order that a Nationalist might take his place. The practice has been in regard to all appointments, such as the one I have referred to, to fix a reasonable scale of remuneration, whether the man was a stock inspector or a registration officer, or a district surgeon, and it was not usual to displace a man simply because another applicant came forward and said, I will do the work for £50 or £60 less. I would have been entirely wrong if I turned out a man who happened to be a member of the South African party to put in a man who happened to be a Nationalist, even if the latter did the work a little more cheaply than the former. The Minister in his attempt to make the committee believe that I was making political appointments, said the Nationalist who applied for the post had previously occupied it, but he did not say that because of some irregular conduct he was replaced. We did not know what his politics were. Was I to put him back in his old post because he offered to do the work for less? Assume that all the Minister stated was correct—I do not admit that it was—does the Minister really tell us that he has been going on on these lines, introducing politics into the public service and inquiring into the political colour of each applicant for appointment or promotion? If he will look into the matter— he has already scoured the records for another object—he will be told by the permanent officials of his department that politics were never introduced. I am quite sure in his calmer moments the Minister will regret the statement he made that it was his object to introduce politics into the public service. That is lowering to the public service, it tends to lip service and time serving, and is not in the public interest. I can hardly believe that the Minister is serious. Supposing three or four men apply for a district surgeoncy does the Minister inquire into their politics. [Time limit.]

In connection with what the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has just said, I am astonished that he complains of the practice just laid down by the Minister of the Interior. The South African party Government went much further, because they gave the preference to Saps. when other things were not all equal. In the northern Transvaal, that was not only the custom, but to Nationalists whom they thought they could bribe were promised appointments if they would resign from their party and have the resignation published in the Volkstem. Then they were appointed. The hon. member said that he regularly made appointments in his Ministerial capacity on the recommendation of magistrates. He knew well enough how the magistrates thought, and he was never disappointed with their recommendations. I want to bring a case to the Minister’s notice which happened at Pietersburg. I do not blame the present magistrate for it, but it is a fact that between thirty and forty census enumerators were appointed, of whom only three were Nationalists and 33 Saps. Not only was the large majority S.A.P., but the organizing secretary of the S.A.P. was appointed. Fortunately, I saw the list of names, because the people came to complain quickly enough. I went to see the magistrate about it and I admit that he is not to blame. He replied that it was the old list of names, that the people had been employed previously, and that that was the reason why they were again appointed now. In the past a Nationalist had not the least hope of getting any of these jobs, because Saps. were appointed throughout. If we are to find fault, then it is that our Government does not throughout do the same thing that the former Government did. We should like to see the Minister take further steps, not in an unjust way, but to remedy the injustice of the past. Then there is something else. It is a pity that the debate on immigration last night caused some bitterness, but I hope the Minister will give his attention to the immigration question and go into it thoroughly. As for myself, I was possibly elected as a member of this House as a result of the Jewish vote, and I have certainly no feeling against the Jews or any other race. The position of our country as regards unemployment is, however, very critical, and some of the people who enter the country occupy posts which could be held by Afrikanders. I have spoken a great deal to Jews about the matter, and some of them agree that it is not right to allow a class of immigrant to come in to occupy the posts, e.g., as shop assistants, while there are unemployed people walking about the country without being able to find work. The Department of Labour is trying to-day to find work for the people, but the position cannot be improved if people, of whatever race they may be, are allowed to come in to fill the posts. While things are so, the Minister ought to seriously consider whether the time has not come to do the same as other countries with regard to immigration until unemployment has been reduced in our country.

Not only have the Government threatened to give preference to Nationalists, but they are actually doing so—they are actually re-engaging discharged civil servants because they are Nationalists. Three years ago a Nationalist who was in a magistrate’s Dundee office was discharged for misconduct. A prominent member of the Nationalist party in my constituency is the brother-in-law of this individual, and he interviewed the Minister of Justice, and this Nationalist was reinstated in the civil service and his back service was allowed to count ; in fact, he suffered no disability whatsoever. There are other cases all over the country, and I have simply given one specific ease. The Natal boys have not a chance—they are crowded out every time. They are as much entitled to enter the civil service as anyone else. Where does Union come in? Is Natal not part of the Union? There is no wonder at this feeling of insecurity in the civil service. Hon. members opposite ought to be ashamed of themselves when they laugh and jeer when such facts are stated.

I think it will be convenient if I first answer all the Afrikaans speeches, and dispose of all the matters that have been mentioned. Let me just say that hon. members since yesterday afternoon up to the present have not been discussing the actual Vote for the Interior which is on the Order, but have discussed all the seven Votes on the Estimates for which I am responsible. I suppose that hon. members, just as I, hate repetition, and I hope that when we have finished with the Interior Vote and get to the other Votes, they will remember that if there is so much discussion on this Vote before the others are passed, the remaining Votes will go through without discussion. I come first to the speech of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who brought to the notice of the House the training of feeble-minded children, more especially in the Potchefstroom institution known as the Witrand institution. His first objection was that the training was not effective, and that the method of teaching should be altered. He said that more should be done in connection with manual work, which should take place in the way it did at the Alexandra institution in Maitland. Let me assure the hon. member that I myself had some qualms with reference to the system of education for weak-minded children, as we are in the commencing stage of work of that nature. The institution of Alexandra has only been in existence a few years, and that of Witrand only commenced last year. Where it concerns a matter which will develop much in the future, we must see that we start in the right way. Therefore I appointed a commission, consisting of Dr. Fick (a psychologist in the department of mentally disordered people), to approach the matter from that standpoint, and Dr. van Schalkwyk (of the Department of Education), to go into the matter from the point of view of education. I am glad to be able to say that they reported that on the whole the two institutions mentioned are doing excellent work, and the two experts testify that the right method is being followed in the two institutions. Certain observations have been made, and improvements in educational matters suggested, by them, and we will go into the matter further and try to remedy the defects in the system. In any case, this matter is engaging our attention, and I can assure the hon. member that on the whole the education is not ineffective. The Witrand institution is still young, and has only existed since last year, and I think it is a little premature for the hon. member to say now that the institution is not answering to his ideal. I think he should give the institution an opportunity, and there is no reason why education should not follow the same lines as at the Alexandra institution. The hon. member further wants additional institutions of this kind. I have already partly answered this point by saying that the work in this direction is still in the commencing stage. The institution in a certain measure is an experiment, and before we are certain that we have adopted the right method and provided the existing institutions with their requirements, we can hardly think of further development. We are, however, keeping this in mind, and if money permits we will develop them more. Then the hon. member remarked on the sale of the articles made by the patients in the institutions. As for that, the principle has been laid down that when friends of the institutions pay visits there, they shall be given an opportunity to buy some of the articles they want, and they usually pay a good price for them, because the visit to the institution and the purchase of the articles prove that such visitors actually take an interest in the institution. As for the remaining articles that are made there, they are not sold directly on the market, but to traders, and I think that is a good principle, because if we were, e.g., in Potchefstroom to put things directly on the market, we should have all the traders in Potchefstroom up against the department on account of our competing with their trade. The hon. member, further, would probably like the education of the feeble-minded to come under the Department of Education. There is a good deal to be said for that, but, on the other hand, we must not forget that the education of feeble-minded people is regulated under the Act dealing with mental disorders, the same Act which deals with lunatics, and it is difficult to have more than one department administering the same Act. The conditions on which feeble-minded are placed in these institutions are more or less the same as those in which lunatics are placed in mental hospitals. I further want to point out that the education given to the feeble-minded is not of the general kind we know in ordinary life, but a very specialized kind of education. Thus, whether it comes under one department or the other, does not make any difference. The hon. member also wants the institutions in connection with the feeble-minded to give agricultural education. I will not say, finally, that that is not suited to feeble-minded children. It is a matter for investigation, but, superficially regarded, I should say that agricultural education is not suitable, for the reason that initiative is necessary to make the agricultural industry a success. To be a good agriculturist, one must take account of the great difference of circumstances one has to deal with, especially in this changeable country. The agriculturist requires a strong mentality. The manual work, however, is soon got into as a routine, and it therefore does not require so much mental ability?s agriculture. Therefore, it seems to me that the feeble-minded child with small mental powers is not so suited to agriculture. The hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) asked whether enquiry would be made into biological chemistry in this country. He thinks that it would be valuable to investigate what the influence of material in the human body is upon the human mind. It is undoubtedly a very important study, but enquiry of this nature is not something which can be entrusted under the existing law to the Department of Public Health I can, however, assure the hon. member that a beginning has recently been made with enquiry in that direction. There was recently a specialist in biological chemistry appointed in the institute for medical research in Johannesburg, and therefore a commencement has in any case been made in study of this kind. I can further tell the hon. member that something of this sort was done a long time ago in connection with mental hospitals, at any rate in connection with the Pretoria establishment. There is a certain kind of lunacy which is cured by inoculation with malaria, and there has been an actual cure by that method. The treatment of these cases in Pretoria is under the supervision and collaboration of Dr. Pyper—one of the best bacteriologists in the country. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) spoke about agricultural education, and he asked what is being done for it by the Department. I can inform the House that after professional training in general was transferred last year from the provincial administrations to the central Government it became clear to me that provincial administrations did not quite know where the division was between their jurisdiction in agricultural education and that of the State. I came to the conclusion that consultation between the various authorities was desirable and necessary. Therefore during the recess I convened a conference in Pretoria between the Departments of Agriculture and of Education and the four provincial administrations, and at the conference it was laid down on broad lines what the jurisdiction, as regards agricultural education, of the various authorities was. Only the division between the Department of Education and that of Agriculture was left undefined, but thereafter a joint committee was appointed, composed of representatives of the two parties and their reports, which was handed to me a few days ago, clearly lays down a dividing line, so that in future there will be no vagueness about agricultural education and no overlapping will take place. That work had first to be done before the department could think of establishing agricultural schools in various parts of the country. In this regard I can assure the House that I will try so far as finances permit to meet the long-existing and urgent need for agricultural education, agricultural education which is available not only for well-to-do farmers’ sons, but also for the poor class of farmer. That has been required a long time. In other countries of the world it is seen to that the sons and daughters of farmers are properly trained in agricultural industries, but we in South Africa have only come to the edge of the problem. It is high time that action was taken, but I can give the House the assurance that I do not intend to act in this matter in an ill-considered manner. There is to-day a tremendously strong demand for agricultural schools. I do not know whether there is one place of importance in the Union from which no application has been received for the establishment of an agricultural school. My view is that as agricultural education is more expensive than other education care should be taken in establishing schools of that kind, that they are established in the most strategic places and that they cater for large areas. We must thus go well into the requirements of the country and I do not intend to make expensive experiments in this connection. I think we owe it to the Treasury and to the public to act in a wise manner, and before I am certain that the schools established in the most strategic places where they have the greatest chance of success have actually been a success and met a need, I do not intend simply because there is a demand for it to commence this great development. As hon. members will see provision is made on the Estimates for the establishment of agricultural schools on the lines of the school at Tweespruit in the Free State. That is an institution which deserves, and gets all praise and our intention is to follow the example of the Tweespruit institution in establishing agricultural schools in the most strategic points in the country. The hon. member for Boshof further complains that the Free State has been neglected in this respect. If that complaint is just then the complaint is not against the Union Education Department but against the Free State Provincial Administration who until recently had charge of this branch of education. We can say that there would probably have been more progress in the Free State if the Provincial Administration there had not until a few months ago always refused and delayed in transferring trade schools to the Union. So long as the Provincial Administration (controlled matters I could of course do nothing. The hon. members for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) and Los-berg (Mr. Brits) have touched upon a matter-which is undoubtedly of a very difficult and delicate nature, viz.: the education given at the universities. They complain that in the universities education was being given of an irreligious or an anti-religious character. Now the hon. members ask that that shall be stopped, that the so-called conscience clause in the University Act shall be repealed and that the universities or college councils in future shall have the right to enquire, before making appointments, into the religious convictions of applicants. That is the standpoint taken up by the hon. members. I should like to say a few things in connection with the matter. Firstly, hon. members must not forget that the universities and university colleges are-institutions where the appointment or dismissal of professors is not in the hands of the Union Education Department. The universities and university colleges have in this respect practically got absolute autonomy. Where hon. members come to me and complain saying that that kind of teaching is given by the professors who have been appointed they lay the blame, if they feel that there is blame, at the wrong door. The appointment of those persons and the direct supervision of them is in the hands of the university councils. Then I want to point out further that the institutions are controlled by the councils that make the appointments, and that those councils are for the most part not appointed by the Union Government. The public have an indirect influence, through the old students’ union and other bodies who appoint members on such councils, on the constitution of the councils. Consequently the public to a large extent have the matter in their own hands, and if therefore wrong appointments are made or persons are appointed who teach anti-religious doctrines in the institutions, then it is the fault of the university council which is under the control of the public or of bodies representing the public. The university councils are bodies which to a great extent do not come under Government control. The Government indeed appoints representatives on the councils, but the representation is comparatively small. Now I want further to say this. It is in any case difficult to circumscribe education in institutions of this kind. The soul of science is freedom and it is impossible to ask anyone to do scientific work and at the same time to put restraints on him. Science has advanced in the world and reached to-day’s level because its liberty has not been taken away but maintained. If I may say something personally to make my own standpoint clear then I can say that I believe in Christian teaching, that I believe in the existence of the Supreme Being and in the Truth of the Bible. Consequently, I say what I say here not from any enmity towards religious or Christian education. I believe so strongly in the justice of the Christian verity that I think that it does not need to be protected in the scientific world, or to be tended in a hot-house. The Christian verity is intrinsically so true and powerful that it can meet science on an equal footing and triumph, and therefore it is not necessary to circumscribe science in the universities. The complaints arise more definitely in connection with the doctrine of evolution. Let me say that in the religious world there is absolutely no unanimity about this doctrine. If some say that the doctrine of evolution is against the Christian religion, there are others just as religious, and who are serving the Christian. Church, who say that it is not un-Christian. It will be very difficult to get unanimity in this instance. I want to say further that in principle I am opposed to repealing the conscience clause in the University Act. If there is a part of the community taking a more particular interest in one or other institution for higher education, and that part of the community wants to have the conscience clause removed in so far as that particular institution is concerned, I am in favour of their being free to do so. Every institution for higher education has its own Act, and if one of these institutions comes to the House to have the conscience clause repealed, I shall have no objection to it. It is a matter for Parliament to consider. I only want to say that the principle is still laid down in our Education Act that such an institution shall not get the same allowances from the Treasury as institutions who do not apply a conscience test. Liberty should, however, be given to an institution to have the clause in its Act repealed, and if that part of society demands that the basis of the higher education in that institution must be limited then that portion must be ready to make sacrifices for the limitation of the basis. I am further opposed to remove the conscience clause generally because if enquiry is made into the religious convictions of applicants for a post, then I ask what test as to Christian belief is to be applied. If the test of Christianity is applied from the standpoint of one or other of the religious creeds then such an institution is not a public institution, but a Church institution. Suppose that we allow an institution to act in this respect on a Christian basis, what test is then to be applied? So far as I know there is only one religious creed which all the Christian churches agree upon, viz.: the Apostles Creed If then an applicant is asked about the Apostles Creed, and it is someone who believes in the doctrine of evolution, then he will be able to state, although he believes in that doctrine, that he believes in the Apostles Creed. That Creed does not touch upon the question of evolution, or a definite view of the Bible. Therefore, I do not see that that test will do at all. What then is the test? It is simply just to leave it to the discretion of the members of the different university councils, and if it is left to that discretion, then there is practically no test and, in many cases, it will become a church test, instead of a general Christian test. If we are to repeal the conscience clause, then I see a thing happening that will do this country a great deal of harm, that we shall have a religious feud in connection with every institution for higher education. I do not think that that is in the interests of science and of the people. We must, as far as possible, keep it out of the institutions for higher education. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) made a remark about the archives, and expressed himself rather strongly when he spoke of disorder. I have not as yet heard such a strong complaint from scientific persons engaged on historical teaching at the universities, and yet they are people who are constantly busy there. In any case there is an archives commission, and it is composed more or less of experts, and if there are any complaints the commission will probably go further into them.

They know nothing about it.

The hon. member further said that it is necessary to have people who are well trained in archives matters from time to time to visit our archives and give advice. We have a chief archivist, Mr. Graham Botha, who, from time to time, visits the archives in the whole country, and let me say that some time ago he visited Europe and, if I mistake not, America as well, in connection with archives, and there-made a study of the matter and presented a very important report. I do not think that there is any reason for complaints in this connection. Naturally, in connection with archives, there is still much work to be done. Perhaps-the hon. member is thinking of the preparation of a proper catalogue of all the material in the archives. That cannot be done in a year’s time. It is work which is constantly being-done with reference to the oldest archives, and the best archives in the world, and it can only be regulated in the course of years. I hope-that the persons who do the work in connection with the archives will be able to complete it, even if it takes quite a number of years. What makes the matter of archives much more complicated is that, e.g., at Graaff-Reinet (of which the hon. member said the archives were so neglected) the archives are in the hands of the church, and the Government has no control over them. What, in my opinion, is very necessary, is that churches, and especially the Dutch Church, which is the oldest church in the country and possesses the most historical archives, should give more attention to the proper custody of those archives. I will undertake, on my part, to bring this matter to the notice of the churches, and to offer specially that, if they will hand over their archives, which are of great importance, to the State for safe custody, we shall be ready to accept them. I believe that the Dutch Church in the Transvaal have already made such an arrangement, but naturally, in the first place it is a matter for the churches. Then, with reference to the training of young people in archives work in Europe, I want, in the first place, to say that we have a course with regard to historical studies which is just as good as anywhere else in the world, and young people who enjoy training here get practical experience by personal investigation in the archives, which is very valuable to them and to the country. Therefore, I do not see that in general it is necessary to send people overseas, but I will give the matter my consideration, and see what the archives commission think about it, and if it is thought necessary, I will consider whether a bursary can be given to one or other selected person to go overseas, a person whom it is proposed later to employ in our archives. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. H. A. Louw) pointed out that it was advisable that enquiries should be made into the curative value of bushes. I think we all feel that there is a great field for investigation. The hon. member or Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) also pointed this out in connection with Kirstenbosch, but experiments of this kind do not come under the Department of Public Health. That department was created under the Public Health Act of 1919, and hon. members will see that, under that Act, nothing of the kind is referred to the department. But the department, of course, attaches importance to it, and I think that hon. members have spoken with that in their thoughts. At Kirstenbosch enquiry is made about the economic value of certain plants, and I think that the enquiry is of great value, but the enquiry into the curative value demands laboratory research, and it does not come under the department, but under the Department of Agriculture. I want however, to point out that the University of Cape Town has, through Professor Gunn, taken pharmalogical tests. The appointments at the laboratory are, however, not such that good tests can be made of the curative value of plants, but in future it will be possible with the better arrangements that will exist, when the new university is completed. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has remarked on the manner in which climatic allowances are given to Government officials at Barberton. He complains that the officials are not treated on an equal footing, because, in the same town, and in the same district, the one gets a climatic allowance and the other not. I think that the same complaints exist at Potgieter’s Rust. Let me explain what the actual position is. The principle has been laid down over and above the local allowance, a climatic allowance will be given to officials who are compelled to live in unhealthy districts. The Health Department have, with this object, divided the unhealthy areas, especially where there is malaria fever, into four classes—(a) the areas where there is always malaria ; (b) where malaria is serious although not continuous ; (c) where malaria is moderate, and (d) where malaria is slight. A coloured diagram has been prepared showing the malaria conditions of the country, and climatic allowances are given to officials according to that diagram. Officials living in (a) areas get 2s. a day, in (b) 1s. 6d. a day, in (c) 1s a day, and in (d) nothing at all. The following things must also be taken into account to decide what the local allowance shall be. Let me read it in English—

1. (a) The risk of malarial infection in the particular locality in which the employee is stationed or required to serve;
2. (b) the nature of the employee’s duties ;
3. (c) the class of accommodation provided, i.e., whether the quarters occupied are mosquito-proof or not ;
4. (d) the provisions of free medical attendance ; and
5. (e) any other circumstance or condition which may have a bearing on the application under consideration.

Now I come to the special case of Barberton, because the hon. member (Mr. Rood) complained about conditions there. The report about Barberton is as follows—

The hon. member will see from this the actual basis on which the various climatic allowances rest. Therefore, officials who live in one and the same town or district can receive different allowances, although the allowances do not merely depend on the place, but on the conditions in which they live, and on the duties they have to perform. So far as I can judge, I think that the basis is a sound one. Then we come to what was said by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). He spoke of the poor support the Bloemfontein museum received in merely getting £1,000 per year, while other museums were better treated. The Bloemfontein museum has been in a peculiar position since the commencement of the Union. It was decided in 1911 or 1913 that the museum in Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg would fall under the provincial administrations, and not under the Union Government. The provincial administrations, however, ultimately refused to accept the obligations of the museums. The law justifies them in as much as the power is given the Union Government to transfer the museums to the provincial administrations with the approval of the executive committees. Matters, however, remained pending until last year and the former Government had decided that if the provincial administrations did not accept their responsibility for the museums, no allowances would be given to those museums later than 1925. The matter was considered again last year by the Government, and we decided to retain charge of the museums, and no longer to urge the provincial administration, as they were not agreeable to do so, to take them over. The allowances then remained at £1,000 as before, because there had always been uncertainty, but I can give the assurance that the Bloemfontein museum, if it has an actual need, will be treated just the same as the other museums. I will treat all matters and requirements submitted to me on their merits. I cannot now give the assurance that the allowance will be raised or not. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) mentioned the abnormal child mortality, and asked what was being done in connection therewith. All I can say is that the matter is receiving our serious attention. There is an amount on the estimates of £1,000 for the Lady Buxton Home where persons, who have been trained in midwifery, are employed and, with assistance of women’s associations throughout the country, such persons are employed and attempts are made to get work for such people, especially in rural districts where the infant mortality is highest and necessity the greatest. The matter is having our serious attention, but hon. members must not, in this connection, expect Rome to be built in a day. A commencement has been made, and hon. members will have to exercise a little patience. It takes time for the matter to be completely unravelled. As for venereal diseases, I stated last year in detail what the position is. I cannot say that since then the position has become worse or better. The hon. member has, however, referred to something which I think is necessary, viz.: That if doctors in general know of cases where venereal disease exists and such persons are not under treatment or give up being treated before they are cured, the doctors shall have the right and also the duty to bring such cases to the notice of the proper authorities, so that they can be dealt with under the existing law. The hon. member will have noticed that, at the commencement of the session, I announced that I intended to introduce a Bill to amend the Public Health Act, and it is just to provide for what the hon. member wishes. Then the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) made the remark that, in the Pietersburg district, in the appointment of census enumerators, only persons had been engaged who belonged to one party, viz., the South African party. If the hon. member is right that it is the policy of the Government to only appoint direct or indirect supporters of the Opposition, then it completely removes the accusation of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), because then it simply proves that where, on the one hand, supporters of the Government are appointed, on the other hand there are complaints that only supporters of the Opposition are appointed. Thus the one cancels the other, and neither party has reason for complaint. But I am sorry that, unfortunately, I cannot give this consolation to my friends opposite, because the appointment is not in the hands of the Government, but in those of the Director of Census. The law is that the Director of Census appoints as enumerators whom he wishes, and the Government has nothing to say. The director acts on the recommendation of the magistrates. I received complaints from Pietersburg and other places that only supporters of the South African party had been appointed, but replied that I was, unfortunately, quite powerless to appoint Government supporters, however willing I was to do so, simply because the law left the matter to the Director of Census, and to him alone. I should, perhaps, now say just a word on what the hon. member for Dundee said in connection with my statement last year in the Koffie Huis. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) asked me if I stood by the statement then made with reference to the principle on which I intended to act in making appointments, viz.: That I would consider the merits of each applicant, and if it was clear to me that a certain applicant was best for a certain position, I would not make further enquiries as to his political views, inasmuch as I would only consider the interests of the public, but if I knew what the political views of two applicants were, other things being equal, I would appoint a supporter of the Government. Now the hon. member wants to know what I am going to do with reference to the enquiry about the political views of the applicant. Let me tell the hon. member that during my hole period of office I have not made such an enquiry, and if anyone was in the public service or came into the permanent public service, then, so far as I know I have never yet in any case considered what his political views were. But there are quite a number of appointments coming outside the permanent public service, and outside the permanent service there is hardly anyone whose political views we do not know, because in South Africa politics are possibly our chief industry, therefore it is difficult in any case where there are applicants for an appointment not to know their political views. I need not make enquiry. Everybody knows them, and in such cases, when I know other things are equal, I appoint a Nationalist or a Labourite, in any case, a supporter of the Government in preference to a supporter of the Opposition, for the simple reason that the supporter of the Government may be supposed to carry out the policy of the Government with more zeal and willingness than the other man. Hon. members surely do not expect that, if I am to show a preference—and if all things are equal, it is a question of preference—that I should then give the preference to supporters of the Opposition. Apparently they expect that. I stand by the doctrine I announced, and I think it is a very sound one. The hon. member for Dundee had the same department under him that I now have, and he did not once go so far as to institute any enquiry into the merits of applicants. I do not wish to say it with certainty, because I have not specifically investigated it, but my impression is that it will be very difficult among all the appointments made by the hon. member to find a single case of the appointment of a Nationalist or a Labourite.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has raised some points of very great importance in connection with the civil service. With regard to salary scales and local allowances, they do not fall under me, but under the Minister of Finance; I have to do with the machinery and regulations of the public service. I do not think it necessary to create a special opportunity for the discussion of the matter, because it might very usefully be brought up when the Appropriation Bill comes up for second reading. The hon. gentleman, who was a member of the Select Committee on the Public Service Act of 1923, will know that the representatives of the service insisted on changing the machinery of the public service and introducing the principle of a joint council and an appeal board. The House decided to leave the machinery unaltered, except for the institution of an advisory council as the body with which public servants should consult. After the change of Government, the services asked me whether it would not be reasonable to reopen the whole question of the constitution of the council and the appeal board. I told them I thought it was only reasonable, and I would lay the whole question before the Cabinet, because I could not personally come to a decision. I submitted the views of the advisory council and the Public Service Commission on this matter to the Cabinet, which went very thoroughly into the question, but the Cabinet decided that the machinery should remain unaltered, only we thought the machinery of the advisory council could be improved in two respects, to bring the Public Service Commission and the Advisory Council into closer touch, and when they differed to bring them to the notice of the Government. There has been a good deal of delay, which is unfortunate, but inevitable. The Cabinet could not deal with this matter before the end of last session. Immediately after I arrived at Pretoria I fell ill, and spent practically the whole of the recess in hospital. I did my administrative work in hospital, but I could not deal with this matter administratively, and had to be personally present in the Cabinet when it was discussed. We could come to a conclusion only very shortly before I left Pretoria to attend the session. I met a deputation of the public services on this point this morning, and I have agreed with them that I will discuss this matter of improving the existing machinery and seeing how far we can meet the legitimate desires of the public service in regard to consultation between them and the commission, and I have certain suggestions which I think are very valuable, and the deputation is going to send further suggestions. Then the only reasonable method of procedure will be for me to lay these suggestions before the Public Service Commission, and then to place the matter before the Cabinet and obtain a final decision. I am very sorry there has been so much delay, but it has been inevitable. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) asked what the regulations were governing the registration of births, marriages and deaths. I can only refer him to the Consolidating Act of 1923. I do not think that natives are compelled to register. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has made some remarks on the Census Department. His objection is that the Census Department has become a medium of propaganda for the Government, especially in matters relating to the white and coloured populations. I do not know of any information which the department has given which is not exactly in accordance with the census of 1911 and 1921.

It is admitted that the census of 1911 was wholly unreliable in regard to natives.

Who says that?

The Census Department itself.

The department is not a medium of propaganda for wrong information, but for correct information.

They drew conclusions on facts which they admit are unreliable.

The hon. gentleman refers to remarks made by Mr. Cousins that half the European children who leave school cannot obtain employment. As far as I can remember, the first official who spoke on this matter was not Mr. Cousins, but the Secretary for Mines and Industries, in a lecture, I think, he delivered in Cape Town. Whether it is correct or not, I do not know, but if Mr. Cousins gave that information on the results of any census, then he did that as an official who gathered that information under the supervision of the hon. gentleman himself. Mr. Cousins practically was never employed in the Census Department while it was under me. I have impressed on the Statistical Department and the Director of the Census the necessity of finding out how many boys and girls who have completed their education are absorbed in industries and professions, and how-many are unemployed. The department has promised to give that information from time to time, so if false information has been supplied, we are trying to counteract it. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has raised the question of the archives I quite admit that provision has to be made for the archives. They are at present housed in the basement of the Houses of Parliament, but I believe that the department has received notice from the committee on internal arrangements that, as soon as possible, that condition of affairs must end, because Parliament requires these rooms downstairs. That is a matter, however, not for my department, but for the Department of Public Works. I have insisted upon provision being made, and the P.W.D. have recognized that something has to be done, and they have placed it on the provisional estimates. The same may be said in regard to the art gallery and the S.A. Museum, but whether anything will be done is a matter not for me now to say. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Close) must have patience until the other estimates come before the House, but I can give him the assurance that in regard to all these institutions provision is made on the provisional estimates of the department. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) has asked me for information in regard to the Union agent at Lourenco Marques. This officer does work for the Department of the Interior in connection with immigration matters, but at the same time he does work for the Department of Finance in connection with customs. Each of the departments bears half of his salary. The hon. member also asked why there is an increase in the provision on the vote for Parliamentary registration. The simple reply is that we have another biennial registration at the beginning of next year, and this vote makes provision for that. The hon. member has asked for information in regard to deportation expenses. Under the Immigration Act, quite a number of people are deported every year, even people who have lived in South Africa for quite a long time, to the country of their birth for deportable offences. Last year about 107 were deported.

I asked what amount had actually been expended. There was an amount of £2,500 on last year’s estimates.

I am sorry I cannot give the information offhand. Provision is made, more or less, for a little over 100 deportees. In regard to the repatriation of Indians, I think I gave fairly full information to the House on a question being put to me some little time ago. In general, I may state that under the bonus scheme from 1914 to 1925, 19,609 were repatriated, while the number of indentured Indians repatriated was 12,060, altogether between 31,000 and 32,000. We make provision on this year’s estimates for about 1,500 to be repatriated, and if we do exceed the estimates for this year, I think I may say with assurance that the House will not grudge the extra money that we spend in that respect. A question has been raised by an hon. member with regard to the criminal statistics. He seems to have an idea that these statistics are gathered by the police for the census department, and that they must do the same work every year for the criminal bureau. The point is this, that the statistics of the department of justice are the only statistics which are gathered by the census department, and the question is whether it is not advisable in the interests of economy to ask the census department to do statistical work, tabulation, for more departments than one. I think the arrangement existing at present is economical as far as the department of justice is concerned, and it works very smoothly, and the whole question as to whether the census department should not do more statistical work, tabulation, for other departments, is being gone into by the public service commission.

I am anxious to bring to the Minister’s attention the increasing number of Indian deserters from ships in Durban harbour. I wish to emphasize the seriousness of the position and, in order to do so, I trust that the committee will permit me to read extracts from a report which has recently appeared in the Natal press. It is there stated—

The law provides a penalty of £100 to a ship’s captain in the event of any member deserting and who is not recaptured; and the unfortunate part is that with the inadequacy of protection which is granted to the various shipping companies at Durban and other ports it is impossible for them to avoid the number of desertions which are taking place continually. The opinion has been expressed that these seamen, the Lascar crews, are receiving assistance from the shore and that once off their ships they are assisted to obtain work in the country and on the Rand. The report refers to escapes from ships in the harbour which recently occurred, and goes on—

As this does not come within the limits of this Vote I can only hope that the Minister will use his persuasive powers with the Minister of Justice to see that adequate protection is granted. It is no use saying it is impossible to increase the staff. It is a case of absolute necessity. There is such a thing as false economy, and with matters of this description it is in their own interests to see that an adequate staff is provided for those who carry out the law as laid down by the Administration. I commend this very seriously to the Minister’s notice, and I sincerely hope he will make the necessary enquiries and take the necessary action to avoid any possibility of recurrence in future.

I think we are indebted to the Minister for the way in which he has replied to the questions put to him. In regard to the question of the restoration of the fifth report salary scales and the differentiation in local allowance between married and single men, the Minister says these come under the Minister of Finance. But we know that the Minister of Finance is a hard-hearted man who looks at everything in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. The Minister is right in saying that the question of the salary scales could be raised on the Appropriation Bill ; but I think as the matter is of such importance, and as there will he an hour or two to spare before the end of the session, we might deal with it as a separate motion. On the question of differentiation, the Minister replied to the advisory council as to the attitude of the Government. I quoted his letter. With regard to the appeal board, I might point out that the select committee he referred to considered this matter, and if he will look into the proceedings of the committee he will find that the present Minister of Labour and I were alone on one side in a division against five on the other. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour is still with me in this matter, he is in the Cabinet now. I hope this matter of the appeal board will not be finally shelved. There is just one question I want to ask the Minister, in regard to leave regulations. I hope this is a matter which comes under his department. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government would not consider the question of restoring the leave regulations as they were before the beginning of this year to the administrative and clerical divisions. New regulations have come in which have rather seriously interfered with the leave of civil servants in these divisions. Why I specially want to press this point is because the advisory council advised the Government in favour of keeping the old regulations in this respect. Perhaps I am now treading on delicate ground, but I am also informed—I do not know whether it is correct or not— that the heads of departments also advised the Government against altering these regulations in this respect, so that contrary to the advice of the advisory council and contrary to the advice of the heads of departments some of these leave days, which were very much valued, are taken away. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government will not go into the matter. It is true that as far as the general division is concerned, matters are improved. I am glad of that.

I only wish to say a few words in connection with what the Minister said in his reply to the speeches regarding the conscience clause at the universities. I am certain that a large part of the people will be disappointed at the Minister’s reply. I am not an expert and cannot argue on the matter with the learned Minister, but what I can say is this: We want to know that if we send our children to universities the professors who do the teaching are religious men who believe in the Supreme Being. The Minister says that we must give science the greatest freedom. I say give the freedom but give us as parents who still believe in the Supreme Being the chance of sending our children to institutions that honour the Supreme Being. We must take account of the religious character of our people, both English and Dutch-speaking, and of all sections, but I say that we feel strongly about the danger that if we send our sons and daughters to the universities one of the professors will say that the whole Bible is untrue, and express his unbelief in the existence of a Supreme Being, and say that it is no such thing that Adam was created, and tell our children: “You are descended from the ape-or the baboon.” That is science to-day. Then I say the time has come to be frightened. The Minister said that the universities come under the various councils and that the council which wants the freedom to repeal the conscience clause should come to Parliament by means of a private Bill. We are glad about it. But then he makes the condition that the council shall not be entitled to the same allowance as other universities who make no use of that. In other words the universities who avail themselves of the opportunity and who want to know what the convictions of the professor are will not get the same grant that other universities get. I do not say that a professor should only belong to one definite church, but we want to know whether he believes in the Supreme Being or if he is one of the clever people who say that the whole Bible is false. I appeal to the Minister to give this matter his serious attention and think that he will be having a very influential deputation one of these days in connection with this matter. I can assure the Minister that the population is not satisfied with the state of affairs and that it will agitate until there is a change. The Minister must re-consider the matter and make a concession to the just demand of the people.

I would like to know whether the Minister will reply to the question which was raised by me.

Y ou were not here.

The Minister spoke for about two hours. It has been the custom in the past, even when a member was not present, that the Minister replied to questions which were raised.

First, with regard to Kirstenbosch, I think the hon. gentleman complained that it does not receive that subsidy on the part of the Government to which it is entitled. I do not think the hon. gentleman’s complaint is justified.

I did not say it.

The hon. gentleman knows that, personally, I have a great deal of sympathy with Kirstenbosch, and I did what I could for that institution. The grants have been more liberal for the last few years than before, and I can tell the hon. gentleman that just a few days ago I received notice from the manager of the committee that Kirstenbosch had been left a legacy of £1,000, and other contributions of £50 had been received. According to the agreement existing between the Government and that institution, the Government contributes on the £ for £ system, so that they will get another £1,050 from the Government. The other point with regard to Kirstenbosch I have already replied to—I replied to the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw). There was another point which the hon. gentleman raised, which was in connection with registration. He complained that the form R.V.9 was, in one particular case of which he knew, sent to a person whose name was already on the voter’s list. All I can say is that if that was done, it was done against the definite instructions of the department, and there was evidently a mistake. If the hon. gentleman will be kind enough to give me that form and the correspondence that has taken place, I will go into the matter and give him all the information it was a mistake.

Let me tell the Minister that there are dozens and dozens of forms sent out at Stellenbosch to people whose names are on the roll. They state that if the form has not yet been filled in, the person receiving it should do it as soon as possible.

Will the Minister go into that matter of the leave regulations?

I did not know that there was a difference of opinion in this particular matter between the Advisory Council and the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission discussed with the Advisory Council all the new regulations, and we were not informed that the Advisory Council had a different view. When we, on the one hand, curtailed the right of leave on the part of civil servants ; on the other hand, the right was extended, and this alteration was made, on the one hand, because the leave which certain highly placed officials were entitled to was found to be such as they did not require, and for that reason these leave privileges were curtailed in regard to these officials; but, on the other hand, it was found that there were officials in the lower ranks who were not treated liberally enough, and their leave privileges were extended. That is the alteration, and, with the information we had before us, we thought that was a just amendment of the regulation.

I just want to refer to the answer the Minister gave me with regard to the registration of births and deaths of native races. If it is the case that there is no compulsion whatever, it simply means that the census returns, on which we have a great many statistics based as to the increase and decrease of native races, are utterly unreliable, and the information we get from the census returns are of no value to us in making a comparison between Europeans and natives in this country. It seems unfortunate that no compulsion could be applied to the farmers to give some return of the natives on their farms.

The hon. gentleman must not forget that the census returns, as far as the number of natives and Europeans respectively are concerned, are not based on the registration of births, marriages and deaths, but a census is taken every five years, and in the case of natives, taken every ten years. In any case, it is not possible to be far out when any estimate is made for the future.

The Minister apparently does not quite know what his department is doing. I read this letter yesterday; the Minister says he knows nothing about it, and that if I give it to him he will make enquiries.

The letter is from a magistrate, who, I take it, would not on his own account write a letter such as this.

Magistrates may make mistakes.

The magistrate in question would not make such a foolish mistake. The letter reads—

I do not think the magistrate would say he had been instructed by the Secretary of the Interior, if he had not been so instructed. As I explained, R.V.9 is the form to be used when a man’s name does not appear on the register. Now the Minister also told us last year that there is no differentiation between the two sections of the people. His instructions were that those who have their names on the list should fill in form R-V.50, and under no circumstances would he make a difference between Europeans and coloured people, but here the whole of his argument goes by the board, and he goes back on his own instructions. Surely, with a letter like this—and we understand from the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) that there are many of these letters being written to voters there— I do feel that this is not a matter for the Minister to say—“ Give me the letter, and I will make inquiries.” The chief of his department is present, and the chief knew about this question. The Minister knew about it. Surely enquiries could have been made since yesterday, because there is a differentiation—which the Minister denies—undoubtedly now between those persons, and according to our law the Minister has no right to make any differentiation. Surely we are entitled to some explanation in regard to this matter.

The hon. member is very difficult to satisfy. I told him in the House last year that A.V.9 was sent to persons not on the existing register. The instructions in regard to that were clear and definite. Now he brings a case where that was not done, where the magistrate acted contrary to those instructions.

On instructions from your own department.

I ask the hon. member to give me the letter, and I will go into the whole matter and supply him with information in regard to that case. I approached the Secretary for the Interior in regard to that point, and he said what I am saying here now in regard to the instructions having been given.

I am difficult to satisfy because I find the Minister and his department speaking with two voices.

The letter which the hon. member has read states that on the specific instructions of the head of the Minister’s department—

Surely the magistrate may make a mistake.

Will my hon. friend give the assurance that he will find out whether this is an isolated case or not?

Yes, it will come out.

Will he lay the letter on the table?

We had these same complaints when you had your general registration, that there was differentiation between European and coloured. I am sure half the members of the House could not fill in the form correctly, and I should be surprised if the Minister could fill it ill if he has not practised it.

Is that A.B. 9? That form was issued by the previous Government.

That form was not sent out, and people told that they had to fill it in. Europeans could fill it in at their homes and get any assistance available, but non-Euro-pens had to fill in their forms without assist-ance before the police. That was what was done. How can the Minister say there was no differentiation ; and you find the same thing going on at the interim registration.

Seeing that the Electoral Amendment Law was passed by both Houses of Parliament, it is purely an academic question now; because, under the new Act, that test has to be applied to all new applicants. It is the duty of the canvasser to apply that test. It is the only education test we have.

Irrespective of colour?

Yes, in all cases of doubt.

I quite agree that the new Act gives the Minister the right to test these people, but if he is putting that test now, why write to these people that the form has been mislaid and asking them to fill in an-other form?

I will enquire into that. I cannot give the in-formation without enquiring.

But you make the excuse that the new Act allows you to make these tests. The Minister is not asking for this under the new Act. This is 14th April, 1926, and it says the form has evidently been mislaid.

I just want to bring to the notice of the Minister that prior to 1883 some people were put on the roll that could neither read nor write. Many of them are dead, but of those who are still left, it is hard to be struck from the roll summarily. The people are now compelled to write, but one can surely not expect old people to go and learn to write.

I am sure every member of the House appreciates the thoroughness with which the Minister of the Interior replies to the various questions raised in the House. It is all the more surprising that he should have overlooked the matter raised by my colleague the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien), who drew attention to the fact that the Natal Public Library was still without its grant from the Government, and appealed to the Minister to restore it. The Minister has heard a good deal about this, but as I am also interested, I should be glad if he would reply either to myself or to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South). The Natal Society contend that they are as much entitled to be considered a State library as either the library at Pretoria or Cape Town, and their activities are very much handicapped through the Government’s consistent refusal to restore the grant which they enjoyed for so long. When one considers that the grant was paid up to March, 1922, the previous argument put forward by the Minister, that the Financial Relations Act of 1913 decided the point, is somewhat difficult to understand. If the Minister will give the assurance that the matter will be further considered, it would be much appreciated by the membership of that society.

I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member the assurance he wishes. He is very faithful to Natal generally, and especially to the interests of that particular library, because that question is raised in the House every year. But the position is that, whatever the previous Government did up to 1922, if the Government now decided to give that library a subsidy from the Treasury, then we would give that library a status which it does not possess, and make it a State library. If we are going to do that we will at once be inundated with applications from all over the country, from places which have all very good libraries. That is all I can say. It is very difficult for the Government to reopen the question now.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote 21 “Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-Minded,” £473,674, put and agreed to.

On Vote 22, “Printing and Stationery, £267,468.

Is the question of the provident fund for the employees in the Government printing works to receive consideration during the recess?

I received the deputation from the employees on the question, but I have referred them to the Minister of Finance, it being a matter for his department.

The artizans and temporary men have increased from 300 to 335. What is the need for this large increase? The department is showing a very considerable profit, but that depends on what the public are charged for publications, and the inference is that they are charged too much. Is it intended to reduce the price of Government publications?

The increase is due to the enlarged activities of Government departments and the railway administration. Only recently a large wing was added to the printing works at Pretoria, and naturally we had to employ more men, owing to the increased volume of work. A profit is made, not only on Government publications, but a good deal of printing is done for the railway department for which that department has to pay as it is run on business principles.

Is the Minister quite satisfied that he is not in the hands of a ring which exacts a very large price for printing? There is tendering, but no competition. The Cape Times, Ltd., which represents the only tenderer, have a practical monopoly, and can put in any price they like, with the result that we are paying very large amounts on which they make profits for distribution for their shareholders, who are mostly Cape Town shareholders. Would it not be an advantage to have a printing office here during the session, and stop this monopoly? It is very nice for them to be able to say—

Probably from this monopoly comes the dividend of the Cape Times shareholders.

The hon. member is now advocating an alteration in the law. He cannot do that under this vote.

I am not challenging the law. Surely I am in order in asking the Minister the question: Why the parliamentary printing is the monopoly of a private firm? If I cannot do that, I do not know why I am sent here.

I wish to ask the Minister a rather more practical question than the last one. The amount of printing and stationery which is supplied free to the various Government departments amounted, last year, to £182,000. The services of the telephone and telegraph department, which used to be given free, are now charged to the various departments, and it might lead to economy if a similar procedure took place in regard to the services rendered by the printing and stationery departments. It will be noticed that there are some very large amounts in this schedule. For instance, Posts and Telegraphs have free services to the value of £26,209 per annum, and Justice free services to the value of £23,101 per annum performed by this department. It seems to me that this expenditure would be very much more closely scrutinized if it appeared in the vote of the department that was spending the money, and it would, I believe, lead to very great economy.

The hon. member (Mr. Stuttaford) is now discussing what policy the Minister should adopt. The hon. member should confine himself to administration under this head.

I suggest that it should be done as a matter of administration. If the Minister were to read the report of the post office for the year ended 31st March, 1925 he would see that the post office say that the alteration as regards telephones and telegrams has led to very great economy.

I am sorry I have now to stop the hon. member. He may discuss the details of administration, but not the policy.

Would I be in order in making any suggestions that would lead to economy in regard to this expenditure?

The hon. member should have done so when the Minister’s salary was being discussed.

May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is rather difficult to distinguish between what you call administration and what you call policy? May I suggest that it is purely an administrative question, if the printing department says that, instead of doing this work free, they are now going to charge for it?

Hon. members should confine themselves to the details of administration as submitted to them.

May I submit that it is impossible for members to make any suggestion for the reduction of the expenditure of this country when we come into committee? We really have to do it while Mr. Speaker is in the chair. I feel that we are doing rather an injustice to the Minister of Finance, because we are not able to help him to reduce the expenditure on these items.

When the Minister’s salary was under discussion, hon. members had full opportunity of discussing the policy. They cannot do it now.

I would like to ask the Minister a question in regard to the abridged volume of departmental reports which we usually have issued to us. They are always of great value to us, but this year we have not had them so far. Can the Minister tell me what hope we have of getting them?

It is difficult for me to reply to a question of that nature, because it is something not concerning my department alone. It is a question that concerns all departments. It has been found by the previous Government, and we have continued that policy, more economical to have most of these reports in one volume. Where exactly the cause of the delay is, I do not know, but I will go into the matter, and see whether it is possible to expedite the publication of the reports. Certainly I agree that the reports ought to be in the hands of Parliament before the Estimates come on.

I would like to know whether it would not be possible to have the “Government Gazette” printed in two editions, one devoted entirely to English, and the other entirely to Dutch. There is a tremendous waste of paper in having one edition in which the official languages are printed side by side. I think a tremendous economy could be effected so far as printing is concerned if the Bills laid before this House were issued in separate editions, one in English and the other in Dutch

I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rockey) has got on his table documents in which the other principle to that which he advocates is followed. The Bills coming before Parliament have the two languages printed side by side. As regards the “Government Gazette,” it is very difficult to know exactly to whom a copy in the one language must be sent, and to whom a copy in the other language must be sent. I doubt very much whether the hon. member is correct in saying that it would be more economical to issue the “Gazette” in English as far as certain copies are concerned, and in Dutch as far as other copies are concerned. My impression is that it is more economical to have both languages printed in one edition.

May I point out to my hon. friend the serious position in which he puts this committee, not alone members on this side, but also members opposite, in asking us to discuss a large Vote like this while his departmental reports are not available to us?

As far as my reports are concerned, they are in the hands of members.

The ordinary departmental reports are not in the hands of members.

I am not responsible for the reports of other departments.

My hon. friend is responsible for the printing vote. Hon. members inform me that reports of this character give them a great deal of information in regard to the estimates.

All I can say is I will enquire what the cause of the delay is.

In that connection I should like to know whether it is the fault of the Minister’s Department or the fault of the Minister of Finance that we have not yet the customs and trade returns to the end of last December. We are now in May.

On a point of order, I think hon. members should appreciate the position. The hon. member is raising a question which has nothing to do with this Vote. If the hon. member has a complaint that a report of the Customs Department is not in the hands of members, it should be directed against my department. This question I explained the other day, and this sort of complaint should not be raised against my hon. friend, but against the particular department.

May I ask, for the information of the House, who is responsible for extracting from the reports the necessary information which goes into this blue book? Some department must be responsible for that. Who is the responsible Minister?

I simply wish to have some information. The question I was putting is whether it is printing delays which have turned these customs and trade returns into a purely historical document? It is no use for practical purposes. Under the previous Government we had them under three months.

The hon. member cannot discuss that at this stage. It is a matter for the Minister of Finance.

Because the Minister of Finance acknowledges he is a sinner because his report is not published, is that any reason why members should not ask the Minister of the Interior why he has not taken steps to see that these reports are printed and put in the hands of members? The fact of the Minister of Finance being a sinner does not absolve the Minister of the Interior.

The right hon. member has been a Minister himself, and I should have thought he would have known exactly what the functions of the different departments were, but evidently he does not know. The printing works, as far as they are under the Minister of the Interior, have nothing more to do than simply print the matter sent to them by the different departments. It is a printing department and nothing more. We have not the right to ask another department why its report is not in. That is a matter for that department, not for me. If there is any delay in printing that report after it has been received, then the complaint must be lodged against me, but, as far as I know, the cause of delay is not with my department.

I am prepared to give the information about the customs and trade returns if it is allowable for me to do so. I pointed out on a former occasion that the reason there has been this delay is that up to recently this particular report was only published in English. Representations have been made to my department that that was not carrying out the law, and then we had to make arrangements to furnish this report irr both languages. Unfortunately, that causes delay, but adequate arrangements have been made for regular publication in future.

With regard to the rather plaintive reply of the Minister, this committee had no reason to know that the delay is not on the part of the printing department. Why should we assume that all the other departments are to blame? We do not feel warranted in doing so.

Under this vote of £267,000 the Minister shows by a footnote that only £95,000 is received from other departments. I should like to know if the difference is charged to the various departments who order printing.

No, it is done free.

On page 181 of this Auditor-General’s report is a paragraph which reads as follows—

These are items upon which savings could have been effected. During the years I have been in Parliament I have frequently been told that I am always worrying about the pence, but at school I was taught to do so as the pounds will look after themselves. This Government told us that when they came into power they were going to see effective economy, but they have not done so.

I think the complaint is not so much against me, but it is a complaint against Parliament, because the reports of select committees and the printing of the reports are in the hands of Parliament, and the Government has nothing to do with that.

Yes, but my hon. friend must know that Parliament cannot authorize the reports of select committees until the reports are laid on the Table. I always took good care when I was in the Agricultural Department, that the report was on the Table long before the discussion of the agricultural estimates took place. The only thing to do is to wait until we have all the Ministers sitting before us in penitence. The Prime Minister has just come in, in time, and perhaps he will tell us why a number of his Ministers have been so remiss and the reports were not in the hands of hon. members before we were called upon to discuss them. It is a farce to discuss thousands of pounds on estimates of this sort without every member of the committee having every information of the departmental reports. Here is a departmental report (holding it up) which we always had before. That, my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior is responsible for.

For the printing, yes—not the reports.

His office does the editing of them.

I think the Minister’s answer is certainly most unsatisfactory. He tries to throw the blame on Parliament. We are not responsible, and he tries to shift the blame that lies on the shoulders of the Government, on to ours. Take another item—for 1924—’25 you find £10,000 placed on the estimates in connection with Vote F—advertising in public newspapers—and you find the same figure inserted again this year. Let us look at page 182 of the Auditor-General’s report, which I would commend to the Minister’s most careful consideration, because next year we will ask him again for information on this point, and let him not shield himself behind Parliament, because he is warned now. The auditor-general’s report states that £9,016 was the amount spent on advertising in the 1924 financial year or £803 more than the previous year, on which the increase was 9.8 per cent. Again £26 12s.—

Somebody is responsible for it, and the Minister is the one at whom we must fire in this committee. We have to do with the present Government, and not with the past Government. The country looks to the Government at present in power to see that they effect those economies which they said they would if they got into power. They have got into power, but the expenditure goes on gaily.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 23, Public Health, £405,027.

I want to remind the Minister that the people on Robben Island are very uncertain with regard to their position, and I would like him to make a statement.

I shall be glad if the Minister will make a clear statement about the duties of district surgeons so that we can know what is expected of them, what the public can expect from them and what they are paid for. At the moment the public are under the impression that the district surgeons are there to do Government work. Now I should like to know how far the part of the public which is unable to pay can make use of the services of the district surgeons. Is a district surgeon obliged, when he is called in to treat a case, to do so? While I am mentioning this I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to go into the whole matter to see if an alteration cannot be made. There are parts of the country where it is not possible for the public to get the assistance of doctors because they live too far away from the villages so that they have no doctors to look after them in time of need. I think it is necessary to do more for the people who live far away and who make sacrifices to render the country habitable. We find that when east coast fever breaks out among the cattle there are enough people to put down the disease among the cattle, but if an infectious disease breaks out among people living 100 miles from town as often happens then there are no doctors to treat them and the doctors in the nearest town often do not even know anything about it. One possibly hears later on that someone is dead and buried but that is all. I think provision ought to be made in such a case so that medical help shall be made available for those people. What I am saying does not only concern the doctors but also nurses, because, e.g., in maternity cases the people have no help. Then there is a very serious question in connection with disease among natives in the northern districts of the Transvaal, because they are a danger to the whites. I will give the figures for 1922, the last available. The then Minister of the Interior in reply to a question in the House said that in a small hospital in Pietersburg which had a woman doctor in charge, 85 native patients had been treated for leprosy and 1,623 outside the hospital. For sexual diseases—venereal diseases—8,243, practically 10,000 natives, were treated in one year by that small hospital. That is merely in a small neighbourhood about one-fifth of the district. It can therefore be calculated that about 50,000 natives suffer from the disease. Something must be done to stop it because the natives and their womenfolk work for the whites. The natives in the towns are indeed subject to medical inspection, but not the women, and the whites therefore do not know when the women suffer from it. There are poor people who cannot pay for the medical examination of their women servants, but the women nevertheless look after the children. It is therefore absolutely necessary for something to be done to prevent the disease being further spread, and to see that it is properly taken in hand.

There are two questions which I wish to ask the Minister. Will he kindly make a statement as to the present position throughout the Union in regard to plague. I do not mean the scientific question as to whether the disease which we call plague is really plague—in regard to which there has been some discussion in the newspapers—but will he kindly say how far the epidemic infection is advancing in the Union and what is being done to stop it. The other question is in regard to the leper hospital at Pretoria. We saw in the papers some time ago that a commission of enquiry was appointed by the Minister to investigate certain allegations made by the patients largely, as I gathered, against the medical superintendent. I would be glad to know the result of that enquiry, if it is available, and to know whether the Minister intends to lay it on the Table.

In connection with the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), I want to ask the Minister to make a further statement in connection with it. As hon. members know a press war was recently waged in connection with the question whether plague actually existed in South Africa, and it attained a fairly acute stage. We saw that opinions were expressed on opposite sides with the result that the Minister gave a press interview to one of the news papers. On my part I have no doubt about the standpoint which the Minister and his officials take up, but because it is an important question to us to-day and because there are prophesies that the plague sooner or later will take on a new phase, I think it will be better to have an open statement by the Minister in the House. I want to read a few extracts from correspondence I have received. The first is a telegram from one of our best known pathologists. He wants to remain anonymous, but I can give the assurance that he is a man who deserves the consideration and trust of the whole population. He telegraphs—

The second is a letter from a professor which reads as follows—

This strong criticism on the existing position in the country indicates the uncertainty felt by prominent men. It is urged that the question should be whether there is plague or not. I have no doubt of it, that I repeat, but it may cause the unrest to disappear if the Minister makes a statement in the House. Then during the last few days the interim report has been published which the Minister recently promised to the House and in that many important things are stated, inter alia, that there are other diseases in the country which resemble plague very much, and which may cause confusion among the people. I want to make use of the opportunity to express the appreciation of the people to Drs. Pirie and Ingram for the research work they have done. I think that the discoveries of, and the information obtained by, these gentlemen, are of great value and that they deserve the thanks of the people. With, regard to the plague among rodents their statement is as follows—

These gentlemen make that recommendation in connection with the spread of the disease they have discovered. It is certain that that disease among the rodents is not merely automatic but can be spread artifically. In consequence of the disease the rodents of the country can be entirely or partially exterminated. Now I want to ask the Minister what steps are being taken in connection with this invaluable discovery.

I would like to remind the Minister that there is general dissatisfaction throughout the country with the great difficulty that the local authorities have in obtaining money from the Health Department. Section 48 of the Public Health Act provides for the refund of two-thirds of the money spent by the local authorities, and a great deal of money has been spent in the destruction of these rodents which scientific men say spread the disease that many people have died of in this country. A little time ago Kimberley spent £960 in destroying these rodents, and naturally expected that they would receive two-thirds from the department. That is £640. But, after a lot of correspondence and interviews they received only £28 13s. The department makes all sorts of excuses for not paying these sums over, which are provided for in the Act, and raises all sorts of technical, legal objections ; in fact, the department has made a science of refusing the assistance to these local authorities, and they raise so many legal quibbles that I am sure they would puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer. The department keeps a grip like a vice over the pursestrings, and I think are going to extremes with the State purse, and I have almost come to think that the head of the department—I am not referring to the Minister—must be a Scotsman.

I would like to ask the Minister whether anything has been done in the Union at all in connection with cancer research. There is an item for pathological laboratories. I am not sufficiently scientific to know whether this covers the research I refer to. There is also an item in connection with the Institute for Medical Research. Does this cover it? During the last few years very great attention has been paid in other countries to this disease, owing to the enormous spread of it. We know that the causes and condition under which cancer is developed have until comparatively recently been very obscure indeed. Has any attention been paid by the Medical Research Institute to the subject.? Has any study been devoted to the extent and development of the disease in South Africa, or any special peculiarities it may show in this country?

I should like to emphasize what the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) has said, viz., that the Minister should have an investigation made into the position with regard to district surgeons. It is not only the poor people on the countryside who complain about it, but I have received two letters from large farmers’ associations consisting to a great extent of English-speaking farmers, who complain of the manner in which district surgeons do their work, and that the work is not sufficiently efficient. The areas in the north are terribly large. Take my constituency, which is 12,000 square miles. There is one district surgeon and the people are quite in the dark to-day as to what his duties are. Sometimes they go to the magistrate and get a note to the district surgeon, but the doctor refuses, and says that they can pay and that, failing payment, he cannot come. Such cases occur, and I think the matter should be settled. We should have more conveniences in this respect. Perhaps it would be as well to increase the pay of the district surgeon, and that they should become whole-time district surgeons. I can assure the Minister that the people in the country districts are being neglected. The children of the poor people suffer from malaria there and their treatment is such that they are very much weakened and become poor citizens of the State. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter.

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

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill proposes to amend in certain respects the Financial Relations Act of last year. Its introduction is necessary mainly to make provision in connection with the situation which has arisen chiefly as the result of action taken by certain Natal municipalities in regard to licensing revenue. One of the important matters dealt with under the Act was the licensing question, as the result of an arrangement arrived at between the central Government and the provinces at a conference at Durban in 1924. Up to that time the trades, occupations and professional licences in all the provinces had gone to the provincial authorities, except Natal, where the proceeds went to the local authorities. There was an exception in the case of the Transvaal, where some of the municipalities had municipal licences. As compensation for the licences which in Natal were paid to the local authorities, the Treasury had paid £30,000 a year to Natal. One of the conditions the Government made was that this special subsidy should cease, and it was agreed that Natal should be put on exactly the same position as the other provinces, viz., that all licence fees would be paid to the provincial councils except the licences of certain trades and occupations that require supervision, and in regard to these (he municipal councils were to be allowed to derive the fees. Provision was also made that if any provincial council so desired it was entitled to pay all the revenue from licences to the local authorities. That was translated into law last session, but hon. members from Natal appealed to me that that section should not be brought into operation until the Natal Provincial Council requested the Government to do so. The object of this delay was to enable the provincial and municipal authorities to come to an arrangement between themselves. The necessary provision was made in the Act to delay the coming into operation until such time as a request was made to the Government to have the necessary proclamation issued. The proclamation was issued on November 20th last. Of course, there can be no question as to what Parliament intended when it passed the Act last year. But then certain developments took place. Acting on legal advice which they have taken, the municipality of Durban took up the position that because the Licensing Act only came into operation in 1926, and because we have stated in our Subsidies Act that the licences to be transferred were to be the licences imposed in connection with—

and because the Financial Subsidies Act was reserved for his Majesty’s assent, and that because that assent was given after the licensing ordinance had been passed, that in effect no proper transfer of licences had taken place, and they demanded from the traders of Natal in December. 1925, to pay licences for the year 1926.

That is in terms of the Natal Ordinance.

In terms of the Natal Ordinance, which was really repealed by this legislation which we passed. The action of the Natal local authorities purported to be based upon legal opinion, but the opinion of our own law advisers is to the effect that there is absolutely no flaw in the law, and that it would have been quite possible for the Government to have insisted that these licences should have been paid to the receiver of revenue, but, in order not to impose any hardships upon these people who had paid these licences, we informed them at the time that they could pay to either the local authority or to the central Government, but I informed them that I would ask Parliament to take the necessary action, if there is a flaw in the law, to put the matter beyond any doubt. That is what I propose to do now by one of the sections of the Bill. In this connection, I may say that I think praise is due to the action of the Pietermaritzburg Municipality for the dignified manner in which they accepted this position. As far as I know, no difficulties arose there. It was only in connection with Durban and a few other municipalities which followed the example of Durban, that we had this trouble. We propose now to ask Parliament simply to say that the licences which were paid to the municipalities shall be refunded to the people who paid them, and then they can take out licences with the receiver of revenue. There is another rather important amendment which we propose, and that is in regard to the schedule laying down the taxing powers of the provinces. As hon. members know, last year in the schedule we provided that the provincial council shall be entitled, in the first place, to levy a tax on persons, and then, in the second place, a tax on incomes provided that that tax shall not exceed 20 per cent. of the income tax payable to the Union Government. In connection with the poll tax, the tax on persons, it was found that the provincial councils would not be entitled to graduate that on the basis of income, with the result that only a flat rate could be imposed. That brought the Free State Provincial Council into difficulties. They had an education tax which was a combination of a poll tax and an income tax, but, in view of the provision that the tax on incomes could not exceed 20 per cent. of the Union income tax, it was not possible to get the revenue which they formerly got from the education tax so far as it was based on income below the exemption provided by the Union Income Tax Act. In view of the amendment which we propose under the budget proposals, where we contemplate increasing the exemption to £400, it has become still more necessary to make the provision which we propose here, and that is that the provincial councils shall be entitled to graduate the poll tax on the basis of the income of persons. Where we raise the exemption to £400, all those people under the exemption limit escape the income tax which the provinces are at present levying. The only alteration which we propose is that as far as the poll tax is concerned, they shall be entitled to graduate it on the basis of income, but not to exceed £5. As regards the income tax, that will remain as it is now, that is to say, not to exceed 20 per cent. of the Union income tax. The Bill also provides for a few minor amendments, which have become necessary from an administrative point of view, and I propose to discuss these when we come into committee on the Bill. One deals with the question of grants in connection with continuous schools, which has become specially necessary here in the Cape on account of classes being conducted for coloured people as well as Europeans. We also make a further alteration in regard to licences, by deleting the words—

We leave it absolutely to the provincial councils to decide in each case.

What is the effect of deleting the word “European ”?

That is to empower the Treasury to pay a grant in connection with part-time or continuation classes also in connection with coloured instruction.

And largely to increase the subsidy to the Cape Province.

No, it is a very small subsidy. If any other province has these classes, it will be entitled to the same privilege. The amount is very small

I do not think the Minister is quite clear. Take this Clause 2, sub-section 11, of the Act of last year. Does this just refer to church private schools, for which a grant of £2 is given? Is that so? It does not mean the grant of £14 per pupil, which is the grant given to European schools? I am taking the amendment in sub-section 1 (a), paragraph (b), the deletion of the word “European”.

It only refers to part-time or continuation classes.

Then I think there is no objection to the Bill being read a second time. There are a number of difficult matters, but I do not see how it is possible to discuss them except in committee.

Unfortunately, the position is not quite as clear as the Minister tries to make out. There has been a difficulty as far as the Natal Province is concerned in regard to certain licences which were not included under the eighth schedule of the Natal Municipal Ordinance of 1924. Those licences to-day are being issued. The receiver of revenue must issue them on application without any certificate of authority from the local authority. Another point crops up, and that is that, under the Natal Municipal Ordinance, provision was made that a licence to trade could be issued on certain conditions, and that the licence could be endorsed accordingly. There is no provision under the present Act for any such endorsement. Receivers of revenue, it is true, are meeting municipalities by making endorsements on licences, but I submit they have no legal right to do so. I would like the Minister to make it quite clear whether it is intended, under Clause 4 of the Bill, to restrict its provisions to licences issued heretofore by the receiver of revenue without the necessary authority. It might have a very serious effect on the control of licences, if it refers also to licences issued under similar circumstances in the future. I understand from the Minister it is not intended to apply it to any licence which may hereafter be granted. I see the Minister agrees, so I will not discuss that matter further. There are further difficulties. The Consolidated Licensing Act provides for occupational licences. In Natal, during the early part of this year, the receivers of revenue issued certain occupational licences. After these had been issued instructions were given by the treasury that the licence moneys paid were to be refunded, and that no occupational licences were to be enforced. Under the eighth schedule of the Provincial Ordinance of 1924 there were certain occupational licences provided for, such as cobblers, hairdressers, farriers, photographers, etc. People carrying on these occupations now are not called upon to obtain any licence, and the municipalities have completely lost control. I do not see how municipalities can control a licence when the Revenue Department say they are not going to claim any licence. I do not see how the Minister and his department can disregard the Act which was passed last year, the Consolidated Licensing Act, which provides for a fee of £1 for all occupations. If the treasury do not wish to claim these licences, I would like to know from the Minister whether, in these circumstances, the municipalities will be entitled to claim them I understand not.

If we withdraw occupational licences, as I propose the Provincial Council can legislate to allot the licences to municipalities.

But provision is made that no municipality will be entitled to claim any occupational licence.

See section 12 (2) of the principal Act.

At all events this provision is made here. The way I read it is that no municipality will be entitled to claim a licence whatsoever, except a licence for inspection or supervision.

All the people mentioned by you can come under that.

But how can you impose it when a man does not require a licence at all?

The Provincial Council must say he must take out a licence.

I would like to be clear on the point, because I understand that instructions have been given that no occupational licences are to be claimed. If that is so, how are we to control these licences if no licences are to be issued? As the law stands now, it is questionable whether the provincial council is entitled to pass legislation for any occupational licences. I do not think they can. Another point that crops up, which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, and for which I think provision should be made, and that is that the municipalities have lost control over laundrymen where their annual receipts are less than £500 5s. A laundryman has received a letter from the receiver of revenue in Maritzburg that he is not expected to take a licence, because his gross receipts did not exceed £500. He now claims that he may trade where he likes because of this exemption, and has intimated that he is moving to fresh premises, and declines to fill in an application for approval for the new premises. It is undesirable that a local authority should lose control because the applicant is exempt from taxation. While the premises may be perfectly sanitary, they may be totally unsuitable for carrying on a laundry business. I am only quoting this for the Minister, to show that some provision will have to be made to overcome this difficulty. I think the Minister told me that this provision should be made by the provincial council, and that it does not fall to the central Government to do so. The Durban Corporation was advised that, if the provincial council passed an ordinance providing for the necessary control, it would be upset by the Supreme Court as being ultra vires. The Minister has cleared up that point now under this amending Bill, and the provincial council can now pass this legislation without fear of it being held ultra vires. If complaints are made to the provincial council about the unsatisfactory state of licensing control, we are told to go to the central Government, and the central Government send us back to the provincial council. I think the Minister has had in mind making special provision for control in Natal by the provincial council, but, unless provision is made by that body, the position is going to be accentuated, and will react very seriously in all the Natal municipalities.

I feel obliged to say that the Minister has been a little too hard on the Durban municipality in his remarks in connection with this Bill. He told the House that the Bill of the last year was the result of the arrangement come to between the Government and the Provincial Council, but he did not mention that the Natal municipalities were not consulted in the matter at all, and knew nothing about it until the matter was practically settled, and the conference was finished. The Government were not entitled to ignore the municipalities, and it was not courteous or right for them to do so, and it would have been better if the Government had taken the municipalities into consideration and settled the matter with them definitely once and for all. The Minister said that they were informed that the Durban municipal council had been guilty of somewhat sharp practice in collecting these licences at the end of last year, but he must admit that the Corporation was acting strictly within its legal rights in doing so. They took the best counsel that they could get in this matter, and were informed that, taking the law as it stood, they were entitled to collect these licences at the end of 1925. The Minister says we all know what the intention of Parliament was in passing this Bill, but as a lawyer he knows that the law is not interpreted by its intentions, but by its letter, and there is no doubt that the law was deficient, otherwise the Minister would not have been obliged to bring in an amending law.

Our own law advisers say that it is not deficient. They are as good as Durban’s.

Well the Minister has practically admitted that Durban’s advisers were right, as he is now obliged to amend the law passed last year. The Durban Corporation has not had an opportunity of seeing this Bill before the House as far as I know. It was brought in last Friday, and it has not had an opportunity of getting to Durban until today or to-morrow. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will not push this Bill through too rapidly, but will put off the committee stage until the end of the week, so that those who are interested can bring forward proposals or amendments. The Government will have the opportunity then of settling the matter finally, instead of doing it hurriedly and without full discussion. I do not take exception to what the Minister stated about the Pietermaritzburg Corporation, except that it implied a snub to Durban. While Pietermaritzburg’s attitude may have been “dignified,” Durban’s action was strictly legal and constitutional.

I would like to endorse what the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) said about the difficulties with which we are confronted in Natal as the result of the passing of this Licences Consolidation Act. It is quite true we are told by the Provincial Council to come here for redress, and we are referred by the Minister to the Provincial Councils for redress. That has been going on for some time, and there is as yet nothing to indicate that we are going to get that redress from the provincial authorities. I brought the matter up I think on the Estimates, with the object of showing that there is danger of our losing control of the issuing of licences, but I was ruled out of order, so I should like to take this opportunity of pointing out one or two respects in which we are not enjoying the same control over the issue of licences as we had prior to the passing of this Act. It applies particularly to the new licence which has been created under the Consolidation Licensing Act, called the “General Dealers’ Licence.” There is provision there that where an occupation is being carried on which is not covered by any other licence issuable under this Act, then it may be carried on under a general dealers’ licence and in that way it is possible for a person who trades in one commodity, if that commodity is not covered by any licence issuable under the 1925 Act, to obtain a general dealers’ licence. Under the Natal Ordinance No. 19 of 1924 the licensing officer for the municipality may grant a licence subject to certain limitations. There is no question that under that Ordinance the municipal licensing officer has power to issue a general dealers’ licence and to endorse it to the effect that it is restricted to the sale of any particular commodity not covered by any other licence issuable under the Licences Consolidation Act. Under the procedure since the Act came into force the Licences Consolidation Act—the municipal licensing officer merely grants a certificate to the applicant who presents it to the receiver of revenue, who is not an officer of the Provincial Administration at all, and who, on that certificate, issues a licence. If the certificate authorizes the issue of a licence limited to the sale of specific commodities the receiver of revenue endorses the licence accordingly. I put the question to the Minister. Under what statutory power does the receiver of revenue endorse that licence restricting the holder to the sale of a particular commodity?

He does not do it. He issues a general dealers’ licence in terms of this Act.

I think if the Minister will make inquiries he will find his receivers of revenue have done it scores of times. He has done it under the power held by the municipal licensing officer under the Ordinance in question although he has no corresponding power himself. That is where the question of control comes in. If the receiver of revenues’ endorsement is held to be illegal, as is probable, the holder of the licence will be free to trade as a general dealer without any limitations and the object, we in Natal have always had in view of controlling and restricting the issue of licences, will be frustrated. In Natal it is necessary that we should control licences, if anywhere, because of our mixed population and Asiatic competition. If an Asiatic wants to deal in coal, for instance, the only licence he can obtain is the general dealers’ licence, and by going to the licensing officer he can get a certificate limiting him to the sale of coal which he presents to the receiver of revenue, who issues a general dealers’ licence endorsed on the back—

the receiver of revenue having no statutory authority to make such an endorsement. As a consequence he receives a general dealers’ licence which has no valid endorsement and is, therefore, a clear licence. If an Indian should obtain such a licence and has not the capital to start a general dealers’ business he will have no difficulty in getting financial assistance from one of his compatriots and we shall have these general dealers’ businesses springing up all over the country. Our licensing system, since the coming into force of the Licences Consolidation Act, is wrong and should be rectified at an early date. In Natal it will soon become as easy to obtain a general dealers’ licence as it is to buy a pound of sugar.

Whose fault is that?

I think it is the fault of this Licences Consolidation Act.

No, the law says the control is with the Provincial Council.

The Provincial Council are evidently afraid of that.

That is not my fault.

And as the Minister is not disposed to come to our assistance we are between two stools. I want to carry this case further. We have rural districts boards which have jurisdiction in the rural areas of the province. An applicant asked this board for a licence. He was carrying on a business for which a licence was not required prior to the 1925 Consolidating Ordinance. The only licence he could get was a general dealers’ licence. The board refused to grant this licence to carry on a trade in one or two commodities as they held they had not the power to restrict the applicant to the sale of the particular commodities in which he traded and they feared by issuing clear licences in such cases control and restriction would go by the board. The applicant had been carrying on the business for some time and the result was that he had to close his business. These are real difficulties which are causing a great deal of inconvenience and dislocation of business in Natal, and I fail to see why this Bill with which we are dealing cannot be amended to give the receiver of revenue the power to restrict the general dealers’ licence in the same-way as the municipal licensing officer. There is another point, in regard to what is known as the “fresh produce dealers’” licence. Before this Licences Consolidation Act of 1925 came into force we had in Natal the “fruit and vegetable licence,” which restricted the holder to the sale of fruit and vegetables. This business is practically confined to the Indian, who enjoys a monopoly in it. Under this Act of 1925 a —

has been created. This licence empowers the holder to sell fruit, vegetables, tobacco, eggs, poultry, bread, biscuits, cakes, honey, pastry, confectionery, sweets and dairy produce, provided they are manufactured from the produce of the Union. The consequence is that the holders of these licences mainly Asiatics, are extending their operations and they are coming into direct competition with Europeans in regard to a lot of articles which they never thought of handling before this new licence was created. It may be said that the matter may be rectified by the provincial authorities, but the trouble is that the Provincial Councils take a long time to move. The Minister might amend this Bill so as to impose on the receiver of revenue a duty corresponding to that imposed on the local municipal licensing officers, of limiting by endorsement thereon of the general dealers’ licence to the sale of specific commodities where the applicant desires to deal only in those commodities.

I wish to thank the Minister of Finance heartily for the alteration made in connection with the Free State. Last year’s Act caused much difficulty in the Free State. A tax must be introduced in place of the existing education tax. A poll tax has indeed been imposed, but is not satisfactory because it could not provide for taxing on a scale according to the incomes of the persons who do not pay the Union income tax. The difficulties of last year gave rise to a serious misunderstanding between the Minister and the executive committee of the Free State. I do not want to talk about that, but I should very much like to know whether the new arrangement is giving satisfaction to the executive committee. We very much want to know that because if difficulties arise then we shall know where we are. The misunderstanding last year caused great dissatisfaction in the Provincial Council of the Free State, and consequently I should like to know whether the new provision has the approval of the executive committee.

When these proposals were first brought forward at the conference in Durban in 1924 I think the Durban municipality knew perfectly well what was in the wind, and it had many conferences with the provincial council authorities. When the Bill came before the House last year Natal put up a very good fight, and I very much regret I cannot agree with the borough as regards this matter. Natal put up a good fight against the licence moneys being diverted to the provincial councils, but the House passed the Bill, and decided that the licences should be transferred from the municipalities to the provincial authorities. I consider that the Durban municipality took up a most undignified attitude ; they knew the law, and to take advantage of what was supposed to be a flaw in the Act was not dignified. I am bound to say that because it is a fact, and I endeavoured to convince the authorities that they were knocking their heads against a stone wall. I do not wish it to be understood that I agree with any protest which may be made with regard to this matter. I regret the Bill was passed, but it was, and as a law-abiding citizen I accept the law.

The last speaker loses sight of a very important fact. Whatever the intention of the Act may have been its phraseology failed to carry out what we understood to be the intention. That was the opinion of the leading counsel in Natal, Mr. H. G. Mackeurtan, K.C., who gave the opinion that the effect of the law was to leave the traders in municipalities in this position, that they were obliged to take out licences from either the receiver of revenue or the local authorities. They received demands from both, and they composed their differences with the authority which got in first. The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Lennox) has reflected on the Durban municipality. The provincial auditor had it in his power to surcharge the municipality if they failed to collect their licensing revenue, that was implicit in the opinion given by Mr. Mackeurtan.

His opinion is not the law of this country, and there are just as eminent lawyers who are not of his opinion.

I do think that the department of the Minister was to blame for the muddle in which the trading committees of these several urban authorities in Natal found themselves, and not only to blame for that, but also for the subsequent proceedings in condition with the dual licensing bodies that were brought into being. At one stage of the proceedings the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) approached the Minister’s department and got from them an assurance that if the Newcastle traders took out their licences from the municipality they would incur no penalty from the receiver of revenue until the rectifying Act should be brought in. He afterwards received a report to this effect, however, that notice was given that licence monies must be paid to the receiver of revenue before March 1, otherwise a 30 per cent. fine would be imposed. In another case a certain firm had been fined on the 1st of the month when ten minutes later a telegram arrived to say the time had been extended to the end of the month. That was in spite of the understanding which had been arrived at. Very irritating exactions were placed on the trading community, and they were due almost entirely to the failure of the Act to say what it meant and to place beyond all doubt what the law set out to do. There is a very important point which I should like the Minister to consider, and that is that the Durban municipality has framed its revenue for the year upon the assumption that the licensing revenues belong to it. The property assessment rate has been levied on the basis of those estimates. The effect of the Minister’s action is going to be to bring into chaos the whole of the Durban Town Council’s financial arrangements. It certainly seems to me that the Minister should have allowed the Durban municipality to complete this year on the present basis. I wish to support what the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has said about the new description of licence in the Licensing Act for a fresh produce dealers’ business. The effect of that licence has been in the areas outside Durban to give to the ordinary itinerant fruit dealer the status of a trader, and he is now trading in bread, tobacco—

The hon. member is discussing the licensing law, which we are not dealing with at the present time. It is the Provincial Subsidies Act which we are amending.

I had imagined we were entitled to deal with these anomalies. I am content to leave the matter in view of what the Minister says. I would make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of the Durban municipality that some consideration should be given to their financial position, which for years has been determined. They have levied their rate and their position is pretty well final. The effect of the Minister’s cutting into their revenue at the present time is going to be very disastrous.

I would like to have an assurance from the Minister who introduced this Bill that it is brought forward after consultation with the administrators of the various provinces. If that is so, and they have agreed to its provisions, there is nothing more to be said, so far as we are concerned. The difficulty we have found in regard to these financial appropriation arrangements in the past has been the dispute afterwards as to whether the administrations of the provinces were agreeable or not. I regret very much this establishment of the poll tax. It is a tax which provokes the most hostile feeling, and the people treat it as an intense grievance. Naturally provincial councils have to meet their obligations, roads, hospitals, education, and various other things, and must get an income some way. Personally I express my regret at the abolition of the employers’ tax, which was bringing in a substantial amount, but it is useless pursuing that subject further, and the mining companies profit to the extent of £180,000 a year. In place of this the people of the Transvaal must find the amount by a hated poll tax. If administrators of the provinces, with their executives have agreed to the Bill we can merely accept it. Probably the Minister can assure us it is so.

I still think it was an iniquitous thing to capture the revenues last year from the municipalities of Natal and hand them over to the province, but that is a closed matter now. I have been interested to hear the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) defending the action of the town council of Durban in connection with this particular matter. I have also listened with interest to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) in connection with occupational licences. He made a great grievance of what the municipalities were going to suffer. As a matter of fact, the particular licence to which he referred was laundries, which can be granted by the municipality under the control of the provincial administration. I do not see any grievance whatever in that direction. There are, perhaps, certain provisions in the Bill before us which are a little involved, and I would like to ask the Minister not to take the committee stage for some days, until we have had the opportunity of hearing from the municipalities themselves whether there is anything they wish to put forward in regard to these particular provisions. Otherwise I think the matter is quite right. With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) as to the provincial auditor, I do not think any auditor will object to people capturing revenue. So far as the framing of the municipal estimates for the year is concerned it did not make one penny difference, because the municipal year in Natal runs from the 1st of August to the 31st of July, so there was ample time to make up the estimates for that year. I hope the Minister will take the committee stage as late as possible.

Let me say at once that in the Licensing Act which was passed last year what we did there was to lay down uniform licences; but, as I stated before, we deliberately refrained from inter-ferring with the existing rights of the provincial councils in regard to the control of the licences. That we left to them. If hon. members will refer to section 12, sub-section 3, they will see that we definitely lay down that any existing provision in regard to restrictions on the granting of licences shall remain in force. Then we have passed the Licensing Act, which made certain changes in the exist-in licensing system in Natal. All the trouble which has arisen, and which has been referred to by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), has been the result of the failure of the provincial councils to exercise their rights of control. Surely it is unreasonable to expect us to deal with a matter which is specially reserved to the provincial councils, and to blame us for a situation which has arisen as the result of this failure on the part of the councils. I wish to read to hon. members the correspondence which we had with the provincial councils. As late as August last the following letter was sent to all the provincial councils.—

Then we pointed out that the list of licences is not identical with the licences in force in the provinces. But I am under the impression that in most cases there would be no necessity for new regulations with regard to control. Their attention was drawn specially to control if they thought fit, and if they failed to do that that is no reason for the hon. member to blame us. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), dealt with clause 4. I may tell the hon. member at once that that deals only with licences already issued by the Receiver of Revenue under the position which has arisen under this Act, but will not apply to future licences. We can put in the word—

to make it plain if necessary. With regard to occupational licences, under section 12 the provincial council may impose those occupational licences whih they think necessary to allot to the revenues of the municipal councils.

Would the provincial council be entitled to claim these occupational licences?

The provincial council will be entitled to any licence issued as a result of the Act which we have passed. If we repeal occupational licences no revenue will be payable in respect of them, but if the provincial council thinks that any of those occupations should be controlled, they may lay down that the municipality will be entitled to the fee in respect of such licences for their inspection. We are going to take out the words “for special reasons” in order to obviate any possibility of this being declared ultra vires by the courts. We give absolute discretion to the provincial council to say which licences shall be subject to inspection and which shall go to the local authority. That applies to the lanudrymen. If the council considers laundrymen should be subject to inspection they can lay that down. As far as the general dealer’s licence is concerned, which was referred to by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), the hon. member is quite right. It would not be possible for the Receiver of Revenue to put on any restriction in regard to the articles in which a man can trade. I understand he is also right, that certain restrictions have been endorsed on these licences. But that is because a certificate has been granted by the borough licensing officer upon that restriction, and because we do not want to interfere in that. That is why we also put it on the general dealer’s licence, The hon. memeber is right. If the law says the general dealer can deal in all sorts of articles, we cannot restrict it.

The position is therefore a very serious one in Natal.

The remedy is obviously with the local authorities. If they get the rights from the provincial councils they can in the case of undesirable persons, refuse to issue a licence at all. They can simply say we do not give a certificate, and the revenue officer will not issue such a licence. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) says that certain confusion has arisen on account of the action which my department took, and referred to one case in regard to the imposition of penalties. These were claimable in terms of the Act, but when these difficulties were pointed out to me, and also in regard to the position that had arisen in Johannesburg, I said I would ask Parliament. Unfortunately before that could be notified to the Pretoria office, that telegram was sent to the Natal people. The matter was adjusted as soon as we found that out, but it was merely as a result of the arrangement made in Capetown not having been communicated to Pretoria that the telegram was sent. The hon. member appealed to me that if we passed this legislation we should arrange that it should not affect the financial position of Durban this year. If Durban is in a difficult position, it is their own fault, and I do not think they are entitled to any consideration whatsoever. Everybody knew the intention of Parliament, and I am afraid I cannot accept the plea put forward by the hon. member that special consideration should be extended to Durban in this respect. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) asked me whether the provincial authorities had been consulted and had agreed to this legislation. Various points for which I provide here were inserted at the instance of these various provincial councils. They were, as a result of representations made by one or other of them, and the Bill as printed has been sent to them, but I have not so far had their comments on it, but in regard to most of these points they were discussed with the various provincial authorities and provision made to meet the difficulties that they had raised. In regard to the point made by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) this amendment is mainly to meet the position in the Free State, where they are already imposing the twenty per cent. limit on income tax, and as a result of the increased exemption their position will be materially affected, unless we pass the amendment which is now proposed under this Bill. I had correspondence with the Administrator and told him the lines we would probably go on. The Bill has been sent to him, but I have not had his formal approval. The hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) and Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) asked me to put down the Committee stage and I shall later on put it down for Friday, and possibly extend it.

Durban will give you a vote of thanks.

I trust the second reading will now be taken.

Motion put and agreed to

Bill read a second time ; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 7th May.