I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I am glad it has been possible to reach this important motion so early in the afternoon so that it is possible for the House to express its decision on the matter, for it is a very important matter, and one upon which those who are asking for a decision are entitled to obtain a decision. The motion is brought forward by me at the request of the Joint Committee for the Restoration of the Salary Scale and the Railway Organizations. They represent all the public service organizations, the Railway Salaried Staff Association, the railway telegraphists, the railway engine and firemen, and it is at their request I tabled the motion, and they number 19,000 members. They are asking the House to deal with the just case they want presented, and there are large numbers of others, not in the organization, who will be affected by the decision. The fifth report of the Public Service Commission of Enquiry is a very bulky document, and I do not intend to take up the time of the House in referring to it in any detail. I would only say that the terms of reference to the Graham Commission were very wide. One of the matters specifically referred to the commission was the adequacy or otherwise of salaries and scales of pay. It is common knowledge that before Union and more particularly after Union there were a number of grievances felt by public servants and the discontent was very great. Constant demands for an inquiry were made, and we may fairly regard the Graham commission as a sort of conciliation board that was appointed to try and resolve these differences between the Administration and its servants, and ascertain what justice there was in the statement that these were undoubted grievances. The commission was presided over by an eminent judge, a tremendous amount of evidence was taken, the matter was fully inquired into and weighed and, as a result, a final report was issued about November, 1920, dealing with the various matters of public service administration that the commission was asked to inquire into. The cost to the country of this commission was close upon £17,000. The country evidently considered, and rightly so, that it was worth while paying that amount of money in order to have a scientific and judicial investigation into the rates of pay in the public service. The recommendations were numerous, scales of pay were laid down and the work was valued in so far as the various departments were concerned. Scales were laid down which proved the contention of the public servants that they were underpaid.

What about the cost of living?

That is a separate question. These scales were normal scales for normal times. The Cost of Living Allowance was introduced to enable persons to meet abnormal conditions, and it was done away with when the Government considered that the abnormal conditions had disappeared, but the salaries were not treated on the same basis. The present local allowance is also something quite separate. My motion deals with basic scales of salaries of various grades, which were laid down by the commission, irrespective of the condition of the country, as the normal scales for work done in normal times. The Government of the day, which was the late Government, substantially accepted the recommendations of the commission, and put them into operation. I know that I shall be told by some that the report of the Graham Commission indicated that they thought the result would be a smaller service, possibly, with greater efficiency. The members of the public service have not got any control over that; it is a matter for the Government of the day. If the Government think the service is too large, and that it can be made smaller and more efficient, it is up to the Government to do that, but you cannot say to those who are in the service—

If the Government do consider the question of a smaller service, I would recommend them to take the public service into their consultation. However, that is a side issue. The public service do not control how many men should be in the service. That is controlled by the Government of the day under the existing law, which gives them power to make re-arrangements in case of re-organization and matters of that kind. The railway salaries were similarly adjusted. In the meantime the cost of living has been constantly reduced, and finally in 1921, the allowance was extinguished. Many of us supported the objection that the public servants made to the whittling away of the local allowance. In 1923 came the reduction of the scales and the cause of the present grievances. One has to carefully consider the circumstances under which that reduction took place. It was not a revaluation of the work done by the Graham Commission. If it were, it would have been introducing a new idea into industrial matters. It is quite contrary to the ordinary idea with regard to conciliation boards that when times are hard you reduce the pay. The position was explained to the public servants. They objected to the reduction very strongly, but they said to the Government—

The chief reason given for the reduction at the time was the abnormal condition of the country—the financial stress. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that it was a question of finance. It is quite true that the Public Service Commission regarded the scale as too high. It is quite true that the Minister of Finance, when I put a question on the paper last time—I am not now going into the way in which my motion was blocked last year—stated that, after consulting the minutes, it would appear as if the reductions were intended to be permanent. I do not quite follow the Minister. The word “permanent” is used throughout the minutes, I know, but if the Government had then said: “We are not going any more to recognize the right of the public servants to the scales laid down by the Graham Commission,” that is wrong. Running right through the interview with the right hon. the member for Standerton and the Public Service Commission is this—

That was the position. It was not a case of re valuing the work. The conference took place in May, after the reduction was announced. The service organization said—

As the Prime Minister of the day said—

He made a similar remark in the debate in May, 1925. Similar reductions were made in the railways. There was then an accumulated deficit of £1,353,000, and the Minister anticipated a deficit on the year. I am not going to discuss the responsibility for the state of affairs that existed at that time. Under those circumstances this cut was made. But the condition of affairs in the country is not the same now as it was in 1923. The Minister of Finance buoyed me up with a great deal of optimism last night when I was listening to his speech on the finances of the country. He told us that they were providing for a tremendous amount of expenditure, that the accumulated deficits had been wiped out, and that “everything in the garden was lovely.” The general condition of the country compared with 1923 is undoubtedly good, and when you make your 10 per cent. cut because of abnormal times to meet abnormal conditions, the public service and the railway service have now a right to say to you—

I think that is a perfectly just demand. In 1924-’25 there was an accumulated deficit of £800,000. In 1925-’26 the Minister budgetted for a shortfall of £454,000, and closed with a surplus of £630,000. He budgetted in 1926-’27 for a shortfall of £138,000, but he was able to announce that he had provided for all this additional expenditure and still had a surplus. It cannot be said to the public servants that the condition of affairs is the same as in 1923. Things have radically changed. With regard to the condition of public affairs, there are some excellent barometers with regard to whether the country is progressing or not. There are the post office, a very excellent barometer, customs and excise and the building values, and on the other side, insolvency. I have a few figures here which show that in the first five months of this year the post office surplus was £238,000. Customs and excise, for the first nine months of the year, was in 1923-’24, £5,716,000; 1924-’25, £6,079,000, and in 1925-’26, £7,418,000, and in 1926-’27 it was £7,813,000, a progressive increase from 1923-’24 right up to the present time. On the other hand, there has been a decided shrinking in insolvency, another good sign. In 1922, from January to June, the insolvents were 1,117. The following year they went up to 1,150. In 1926 they went down to 526. Building values in 1924 were £2,632,000; in 1925, £3,777,000. Visitors who come to the country see signs of progress and prosperity. The president of the South African Federated Chamber of Industry, delivering an address on the 9th January, said that progress and activity were the key note to-day. He believed the country was hovering on the edge of a period of prosperity which might even become a boom in the not far distant future. The Government policy of development had been a good one. Professor Clay, who came out at the request of the Government in connection with the Economic Commission, also referred, on leaving, to the signs of prosperity he found everywhere he went throughout the country. This is a totally different picture from that of 1923, and the public servants have the right to remind the House that in the circumstances it is not fair to tell them that what was done in 1923 to meet an unexpected period of depression should be an answer to them in a period of progress and prosperity. The policy of the Government in this regard is inconsistent with their policy generally in regard to questions of the Conciliation and Wage Board. If the Government takes to itself the power to compel persons to pay these wages, how can they defend their action in refusing to accept the recommendations of their own Conciliation Board, which were only departed from at a time of distress? There are members who draw attention to the increasing expenditure of the country. It is no good criticizing that until you see whether that expenditure could have been avoided, because the more you develop the more you spend. I have got here the estimates prepared for 1913-’14 and for 1926-’27. The total estimates for 1913-14 were £16,165,000, and for 1926-’27 £26,971,000. The increase in the salary vote amounts to £3,000,000; the total staff has increased by 15,875. The average salary remains the same; it has not increased. What is the reason for the increased expenditure? Take the police. People are clamouring for police and no one will say that that is wasteful expenditure. It has increased from 1913-’14 by £1,550,448. The Provincial Administrations vote has increased to £5,000,000. Are the Provincial Administrations able to do all they want to do? No, they are still starved to-day. Ask the members of the public what is being done about hospitals. It only shows that there is a tremendous amount of leeway to be made up in this country. Take pensions. The pensions vote has very greatly increased. The war has to be taken into account, naturally. The pensions vote in 1913-’14 was £450,744. In 1926-’27 it has mounted to £2,491,000. Education has increased by £500,000, and in the case of the post office there is an increase of £1,284,000. The increase in the staff of police is 5,673; hospitals, 1,309; public health, 829; agriculture, 770; and the post office nearly 3,000; a total of 11,676. Who will say these were not necessary increases in the staff? Take the post office. It is a business department contributing a handsome surplus every year. Child welfare demands an increase in the expenditure. I submit it is absolutely essential. The man who spends nothing is not necessarily the best citizen. He has to spend a certain amount to make himself efficient and healthy, and expenditure is not in itself an evil. The point is, are we getting value for the money, and can the country stand it? I have variously tried to estimate the cost of this. In one of the service papers it is estimated that it would cost £400,000; in another, £500,000; but it is quite clear that if the Government are going to decide to do their duty to the public servants and give them what the Graham Commission recommended, it would not nearly absorb the surplus which the Minister mentioned last night; there would still be something left over. I have had communications from civil servants from all parts of the country. They feel very keenly and deeply upon this matter. It is not merely a question of the money; they feel they have not been fairly and justly treated. They see no reason why it should not be done and, personally, I cannot see any reason why they should be denied what they claim as a matter of justice. I hope this matter is not going to be dealt with or developed on party lines, and I hope that the Minister is not going to insist on those members, who support him, refusing to vote on this matter. It would be a great pity, and grossly unfair to the service, if the question were to be debated in that way. It is purely a question of justice. A commission was appointed at a cost of nearly £17,000, and they decided what were the proper rates of pay, and I am only asking for those rates to be put into operation. The Government paid those rates at the time, and only abandoned them when the storm came. The storm is now over, and there is no reason why the rates paid before should not be restored. I know I shall have considerable support for this motion. This was one of the things at the last election over which the late Government was strongly criticized. The public servants were given every reason to believe, having regard to the speeches made all over the country, that one of the first things the Pact would do would be to restore these scales. The Labour conference this year considered a motion and amendment urging the restoration of the fifth report scales, and it was adopted. I was very glad to see that, and I have also seen the correspondence which has passed between various members and these organizations on whose behalf I am presenting the case to-day. One of these letters puts the matter better than I could, and very tersely—

Who said that?

I do not intend to disclose the name of the member. He did not wish his name to be mentioned. With regard to the terms of the motion, it is difficult to express in Parliamentary language what you want the Government to do, unless you move a direct vote of no confidence. You must use diplomatic language. My motion on the post office a couple of years ago was couched in exactly the same way. I hope the Government is not going to steam-roller this motion to-day but that it will thoroughly go into the matter, because there is nothing so detrimental to the life of the country as discontent in the public service.

They are all contented. You are trying to make then discontented.

I was going to say the hon. member is talking rubbish, but I will not do so as he is such a nice fellow. I will say he is wandering. This motion is brought in on the direct request and solicitation of these public servants’ organizations. The hon. member comes from a part of the country where there are very few public and railway servants and, therefore, I will say he knows less about it than, say, about woodcutters. If I bring up a case in this House it is because it is a just one I know from my long experience in public life that a man who expects anything beyond his own sense of virtue is a man who is a dreamer. As a practical man, I say it is conferring a service upon the country for this motion to be passed. The secret of America’s success is that you have a contented body of men doing the work. Have hon. members not heard of the success of the Ford industry? America is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and the reason is that the men are treated so well that they put every ounce into their work. If the men here feel that they are getting a square deal, everyone, I feel sure would give a square deal in return. The extra amount that is required is relatively small compared with the revenue of the country, and every penny of that money is going to be paid back in good, solid, honest work, and the public will have no cause for regret if this motion is adopted, as I hope it will be.

I second this motion, and I think the hon. member who has just spoken has put up a well-reasoned case for the matter to be considered by the Government of the day this is a private members’ day, and this should not be made a party question, and if the S.A. party Government were in power today I would also say that in my opinion the Government of the day should reconsider the position of the public and railway servants. As the hon. member for cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has said, if you are going to compel private industry to observe certain rules for its workpeople, it is only fair that the Government of the country should set an example and give a lead in this matter. The Government should be a model employer If hon. members will take the trouble to look carefully through the estimates and strike an average of the salaries paid to public servants— not the heads of departments, but the rank and file—they will be surprised at the low average paid both to railway and other public servants, the men who are the backbone of the service. The average man is up against a barrier, and for the rest of his life he does not get beyond that. The average salary in the public service is about £240 per annum. We members of Parliament quite recently decided that our parliamentary allowance of £500 per year was insufficient to enable us to keep up our position and to pay our way; then how about these public servants who are asked to come out somewhere on £25 to £28 per month and also to keep a wife and family? In the postal, telegraph and telephone department, second and third-grade clerks and assistants start at £120 per annum, and go up by increments of £10 per annum to £140. In the next grade the increment is £15 up to £200 per annum, and in the next grade the increment is £20, going up to £360 per annum. Take another case, that of the postmen, whom we are usually glad to see coming to our doors. Hon. members may think they are well-paid, but they are very much underpaid. I do not know how you get such fine service from the postmen on the small pay they get. You have 772 postmen employed, of whom 634 are Europeans; and 540 of these men begin at £120 a year, their maximum being £216 per annum. I ask hon. members who live in nice houses and enjoy an allowance of £700 per annum as members of Parliament, how they would like to live all the year round on an income of £216, and have to keep their wife and family as well? The great majority of railway servants, too, are not paid a living wage, or sufficient to keep a wife and family on a civilized standard.

Where is the money to come from?

That remark reminds me of the Great War. I think the Great War proved that when you want money, which is, after all credit, you can raise it for any purpose. You can get millions for the destruction of human life, and we ought also to get money from somewhere to maintain human beings in decency and comfort. We are not the model employers we ought to be in this country. Have hon. members read the annual reports of the Commission for Inland Revenue? You will find that certain individuals walk away with £40,000 or £50,000 a year, and I think we have a very good source of taxation there. They make their money out of the working classes, and not by their own effort. It has been suggested that if the Government acts on the motion, we may thereby prejudice the chance of old age pensions being introduced. Naturally, the supporters of this motion would be sorry should that happen, but on the other hand, one of the indirect results of paying public servants a living wage would be to decrease the demands for old age pensions, and also to lessen the number of requests annually presented to Parliament by retired public servants for relief because their pensions are inadequate. I am looking forward to the day when all men and women will be able to claim from the State as a right, provision for their old age. As to the expense which will be incurred by the carrying out of the motion, we have not yet exhausted all possible sources of revenue.

Where from?

From the people who can afford to pay—from people some of whom live overseas—who yearly draw huge sums of money from this country. I am speaking for the poor man earning from £200 to £300 per year. I don’t know why some hon. members sneer; evidently if you are poor, you must be sneered at by well-to-do members of Parliament. We should not sneer at people simply because they happen to be poor. There is such a thing as poverty of intellict, and also poverty as far as this world’s goods are concerned; I would rather be poor in pocket than poor in intelligence. This matter should have been remedied by the late Government, but that particular Government was not very much concerned whether its public servants as a whole were well paid. Now, however, we have in power a Government which is supposed to specialize in bread and butter politics, and I ask it to go into this question, and to do what is merely abstract justice to the public servants and railway servants. The Government would get the money back in the shape of a contented service, and would obviate the necessity of many public servants asking Parliament to make provision for their old age.

There is no one in the House who has not received letters asking him to support the motion. We feel, however, a double responsibility, viz.: towards Government officials and towards the population generally, and therefore I think that our only fair attitude will be to take up one which is not open to any doubt. Let us consider the merits of the request and at the same time the circumstances of the country. I can say that amongst those from whom I have received telegrams there are personal friends whose position I know. I feel that the proper way to come to a conclusion about the merits of the case is to make a comparison between the average income of the Government officials and that of the average citizen. I do not doubt that, if we do that, the Government official will appear to be in a far better position than the average citizen. Then a fortiori when we have to do with extraordinary circumstances such as those to-day I think that we should be the more careful in passing a resolution which will bind the hands of the Government to do certain things which will increase the public debt and which we are not willing to grant to the other citizens of the country. I do not want to go at length into the details of the salaries in the various grades and classes in the Public Service and how the change which is recommended in the Fifth Report will affect everybody, but if the scales of salary mentioned in the report are adopted then it will mean an increase of from £100 to £200 a year for secretaries, under secretaries, chief clerks, principal clerks, senior clerks and accountants. In annexure A of the Fifth or Graham report I find the following figures of appointments in all the departments—

I mention this to show what increases the acceptance of the general principle of the report will result in. Under existing circumstances we already have every year a considerable increase on account of the annual increments of salaries, and last year this amounted to £180,000. In Dr. Leyfeldt’s book, which appeared in 1918, it is stated that officials in the service of the Union, of the Provincial Administration and of the Town Councils received £11,295,000 per annum, and of that the Union officials receive between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000. If on the other hand we take the income of the farming population as mentioned in the same publication, then we notice that the 167,000 people interested in agriculture make £29,000,000 per year after deduction of expenses, and this works out at an average of £174 per annum for agriculturists. The income of the white population as a whole (without including housewives) is a little higher and works out at £220 per individual on the average. If the Public Service is taken separately it will be found that the average income is much higher and therefore I think that if we are to compare the incomes we cannot come to any other conclusion but that the Government must act carefully before agreeing to the increase. I want to add that of the 400,000 to 500,000 adults in the Union only 76,000 receive more than £300 per annum and paid income tax. How many are there who do not earn £300 and are not able to pay income tax? In this connection I want to quote for the information of the House a few ideas from a work by Mr. Hirst, who visited our country in 1923. He says that on the whole the public expenditure of South Africa (Union, provincial and municipal expenditure) doubled in eight years from £27,000,000 to £54,000,000, while in the same time the white population only increased from 1,300,000 to 1½ million. He represents further that a matter for earnest thought is the extraordinary proportion of one public servant in every four of the people in South Africa, although he says, of course it must be remembered that the railways in South Africa are under Government control. Nothing, he adds, serves more in obstructing individual liberty and welfare than this. Certainly no one can doubt that here and there there are absurdities in the existing scale of salary, but that is quite a different matter to go and pass the motion as drawn, a thing which, according to calculation, will cost the State half a million pounds per annum, more or less, and when we do not know quite how far the motion will take us. I want to suggest that a new enquiry had better be made. The Government has a commission which is entrusted with the duty of going into irregularities and doing justice to those who are being unfairly treated, but to adopt the whole of the motion would be a very daring act. On the contrary I think that if the House can give a decision with regard to the unnaturally high standard of life (not only of those in the public service, of course) it would be a good thing. We all feel that the cost of living is becoming higher in an unnatural way from day to day and when we think about it we shall also conclude that it will not mean any greater happiness if the salaries are increased, but that the greater happiness lies in a more economical and more natural method of life.

I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) and I want to reply to the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) when he said that the public service was contented. I come from a centre where there are many public servants. They are very discontented and they think the time has come when this question should be reconsidered. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) said the salaries compared favourably with those paid outside, but let me point out that may be with the higher-paid positions, but that a lot of men reach a certain grade where they get, say, £25 or £26 per month, and I have known them stick for 20 years on that grade. Surely hon. members do not consider that a fair salary. There are other anomalies too that want to be put right. The commission recommended a highly paid efficient service, but a smaller service.

Does the Public Service want that?

I believe they do. They want to see their service built up on efficient lines. At the present time they are carrying a heavy staff of under-paid men which they think they could do without. The Public Service Association recognized that part of the Graham official report which was in favour of a smaller service but a highly-paid efficient service. The other point of the report was that it was considered by a committee of departmental heads and they considered and approved and the Government accepted these as normal salaries for normal times. The Minister of Finance yesterday pointed out that he was having a surplus of £600,000. Last year it was £630,000, and the year before £800,000. The receipts from income tax have gone down and the increase from customs duties was due to the importation of luxuries such as motor cars, which was evidence that the people were better off. The cut in the salaries of the Public Service was not due to inefficiency or because the Government thought they were being paid too much. It was done at a time of financial depression and I understood that it was intended, when times improved, that the position would be reconsidered. That is all the hon. member for Hanover Street is asking for. I heartily support the motion.

I move, as an amendment—

I want to make it clear that in connection with this matter, the pledges made were never expected to apply to the highly-paid officials of the service. I am not a believer in indiscriminate payments in spite of what hon. members often say about my views. I do believe that the salaries which are being paid, taking into consideration the standard of life in the country, are not reasonably adequate, and that the lower-paid public servants should get the benefit of the report. The interests of the high-paid officials are in direct economic conflict with the interests of the lower-paid men. The lower-paid men and women are the ones who carry out the work. They have nothing to do with influencing the Administration or the policy of the Government. The high-paid officials have a lot to do in making a success or failure of any policy in accordance with the spirit in which they administer it, and also in moulding the policy of the Government. It is a fallacy to think the policy of the country is conducted by this House or the people. To a considerable extent, the policy is moulded and carried out by our officials. I am not concerned with them, because they can look after themselves. Their position is that they have a particular outlook which inter-connects the Government with the financial interests of the country. One day you have a man in the highly-paid service of the State, and the next day he is in the service of private people. You have the case of Sir Robert Kotzé, who steps out of the Government service to be the director of a private corporation. I am out to see that the lower-paid men and women in the service get adequate remuneration commensurate with the standard of life we expect. It is said that 8,000 members of the public service receive incomes amounting to less than £20 per month, and many others less than £300 per annum. As an answer to the hon. member over there, I am prepared to suggest the scale that should be applied is the scale laid down by the Economic Commission in 1913. They laid it down on the scale presented by the Chamber of Mines for the workers on the Witwatersrand, and I can tell you they don’t believe in laying down a high scale. Taking the standard of life in that year and comparing it with to-day, it comes to £30 a month. I submit that there, at any rate, is one figure, a reasonable figure, that could be taken into consideration in dealing with these matters. It may be said that if you increase the rate of pay of these sections of the public service it is a waste of money, because it is not productive. That is a fallacy. If you increase the emoluments of those who are already in very comfortable circumstances, then to a certain extent it is waste, because it will lead to more being spent on luxuries, but if you take the lower-paid men and women in the country, those who are simply eking out an existence, and increase their salaries or wages, that money is expended on the necessaries of life. Thereby you are doing something to improve the home market, instead of always fighting for a market overseas. I submit that that policy is one that not only benefits those whose wages or salaries are increased, but it also benefits the country as a whole. Another reason why it should be done is that by keeping down the standard of pay or the rates of pay of the men in the Government service, you are prejudicing the workers in other industries. I think hon. members will have read from time to time that the moment there is any attempt on the part of any section of the workers to improve their lot and increase the amount of pay which they are getting, then the policy of the Government is held up as an argument against such improvements. We had that case a few weeks ago in Johannesburg in the arbitration which is going on between the miners and the Chamber of Mines, where the Chamber of Mines, as one of the strongest arguments against an increase in wages, held up the fact that the Government was paying a lower rate of wages than the men in the mining industry were asking for. I submit, therefore, that by keeping down the wages and salaries of the lower-paid men and women in the service, you are to that extent not only prejudicing them, you are not only prejudicing the producer of the country, the farmer and the manufacturer, but you are prejudicing the workers generally. The principle has for a long time been accepted that the Government should set an example, that the Government should be the model employer, and that, at any rate, those who are engaged in the service of the Government should be remunerated in such a way that they are enabled to maintain themselves in a state of decency and comfort. I know it may be said that as far as I am concerned, and perhaps as far as others who are supporting this amendment are concerned, that it is not completely carrying out our pledge. We hear a great deal of talk about being consistent in a pledge or an obligation of this kind, but the reason why I am moving this amendment is because I believe that, as far as I am concerned, at any rate, and I believe others, too, who take up this view, the amendment is carrying out the spirit of the pledge that has been given, and I am not concerned with the letter of it. I believe that the Minister will be doing not only an act of justice to the men concerned by accepting this amendment, but that he would be doing an act of justice to himself and to the Government, because he would be showing that the present Administration does not accept the phrases and shibboleths of the old régime. I appeal to the Minister to take that matter into consideration and consider this amendment carefully and favourably, because in doing so he will, on the one hand, be putting his foot down, as I agree he should, against any wholesale manner of increasing the salaries of people who are in no real need of such increases, while on the other hand he will be giving to the lower-paid grades of the service a remuneration which will enable them to live according to reasonable standards.

seconded the amendment.

I must admit that this is a very difficult and thorny matter. One finds oneself between two fires. On the one hand, you have the officials who insist on an increase of salary, which is only natural of course. On the other you have the taxpayer who complains constantly that the officials’ salaries are too high. It is almost impossible to satisfy both sides. There can, however, be no doubt that the Government officials are a faithful body of people. The State can rely upon them at all times. They are always ready to do their duty, but the farmer and the taxpayers in general think that the salaries are too high, and when one looks at the scale then one undoubtedly comes to the conclusion that the State pays an enormous sum every year in salaries. This, however, does not take away from the fact that we should adopt a benevolent attitude in the matter. If it is possible the Minister must commence by meeting the people at the bottom, e.g., the lower official paid up to £300. It is certainly an unsound principle that there are some officials who draw a salary on which they can live luxuriously and others one on which they can hardly come out on One really does not know whether to vote for or against the motion. I will in any case abide by the attitude of the Government, but I just want to ask the Minister to take up a benevolent attitude.

I am glad to see the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in his place, because I should like to put it to him whether, seeing he was responsible for the cut in service salaries and pay and the reduction which took place, he intended it to be a permanent reduction, or whether he imposed it merely to cover a period when the country was going through very hard times. A great deal depends upon what was the real understanding of the Government of the day, and if it was to be a temporary thing and restored when we could afford it. We have the constitutional principle of continuity, that a government when it comes into power should carry out not merely an understanding but particularly the obligations of its predecessor. This is a clear case of a large body of employees being dealt with to their satisfaction in accordance with promises made. It is perfectly true that we cannot possibly get along comfortably as long as there is discontent; we must have a contented service, and that was what we promised at the last general election.

The promises have not been carried out.

We know quite well that some promises have not been carried out, and some only partially but we had certainly a very good intention. I am sure if hon. members over there had remained in their position of power the result would have been to reduce this country to eternal servitude. That is what we have escaped by the fortunate change of the Pact, and so far we still enjoy the confidence of the country. As far as the railway employees are concerned there has been a partial carrying out of promises made to them, in regard to the eight-hour day and conditions of service. We are pressing for the full 100 per cent., and the only satisfactory answer that could be given to us in regard to not carrying out pledges would be if the country could not afford it. I am very glad to see that pessimists are utterly discredited. This country shows by its expenditure, by the fact that more expenditure is required year by year, it is growing and expanding under the present administration. Of course, we may be told there is no money. There never is, never has been, and never will he with government. That is the way in which estimates are made up. I would remind my hon. friends, particularly on this side, that we found enough money to do an act of justice towards the ex-republican officials. We made no particular pledge to them in the last election; I do not know that we made any specific promise, but at all events, although the amount was considerable, hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, to their credit, offered no objection, and as far as the Government was concerned they provided liberally and dealt honestly and justly, even generously, I think, with the ex-republican officials. If we are prepared to deal in that spirit with ex-republican officials, must we say to our own present civil servants, “We cannot put you straight.” Why? The Minister of Finance with the greatest ease produces large amounts from the Treasury, and he has already told us how well he has administered finance so as to anticipate a surplus of £600,000. This happy position is due entirely to what many of us have urged upon him from the start, and that is “Holism in protection.” I am sorry to say we have only had half-hearted protection, but he will see from his abounding treasury, and the customs duties flowing in that it is the right policy, and if he had adopted a full-blooded protectionist policy his surplus would have been double. If he will accept the full principle he will find our revenues bounding upward all the time. If he could be induced to go further on the road of protection, and from his little experiment, go the whole way, he would find this country respond in even a far greater degree. There is no need to fear. Not only is the customs revenue coming in in the most pleasant way, from the increased purchasing power of protection, but I remind him that he gave £180,000 back to the mining industry, for which the men who sit on the opposition seats and represent finance and companies have expressed no gratitude whatever, and neither have their press expressed gratitude. They simply absorbed what will give them 5d. additional dividend to add to the profits already sent overseas. If he wants to do justice to those who serve the country I would ask him to re-take the £180,000 he has given the mining industry yearly, and use that sum for an act of common justice, particularly as the recipients have not shown the slightest gratitude or appreciation of the Minister’s liberality. If we give these people in our services the increase, every penny is spent in the country. While people may talk of such payment as a vicious circle, if they read modern books on credit and purchasing power they might be convinced of the advantage derived from a velocity of money, and in increased purchasing power as the solution of getting over the difficulty of bad trade. I hope we shall not be told there is any difficulty in regard to money being found. There is also still a source almost untapped which the Minister of Finance can utilize at will, and that is doubling the export duty on our diamonds. If hon. members will go to the “Asturias,” that palatial ship lying in the docks at the present moment, and interview wealthy Americans who are on that ship, he will hear that there is no question of what they are willing to pay for their diamonds, and it does not concern them greatly whether they pay 10 percent. more or 10 per cent. less; and the Minister will get £1,000,000 a year at least. Any time he wishes he can get a double income from that source, but I am afraid if he does so he will lose his reputation with some of our financial magnates who have been praising him so freely as a most admirable conservative and dependable Minister of Finance. I recommend him to take the risk, the risk of being blamed instead of being praised by the press which represents particular financial interests. Let him do this, and the added revenue will assist the various departments which are being cramped for want of money for expansion. Large numbers are waiting to see whether this act of justice we advocate will be done, and we would like to see this vexed question put out of the way for all time. I have here numerous letters and telegrams asking the House to take the matter into consideration, and so far as the resolution is concerned, or even the amendment, it is one which any Government having the welfare of the people to serve could accept with alacrity. It would satisfy those who are looking, not for fresh favours, but to what they are fully entitled.

I have listened intently to the last speaker’s remarks and the cheap sneers which he always throws to this side of the House whenever he rises to speak. When one looks to him as a one-time diamond magnate, one would think that he, like his colleague, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) would be too big for this sort of thing. We and the country are tired of it.

interjected something about a mule.

I am not at all interested in your relations. I do not see how any member of this House can consistently withhold support from the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). When we consider that the House has raised our salaries, I think the motion should receive the support of the House—it is only right and just. The men who are the chief sufferers are the lower paid men in the public service, and anyone who knows the conditions under which they are living feels that the sooner they can be relieved from the small salaries they are getting, the better. Time is getting on, and I do not want to be accused of helping to talk out the motion, which I support.

I do not want to give a silent vote in this connection, and I wish to say at once that I am utterly unable to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I consider that is more or less a subterfuge, an attempt to avoid the main issue. It is not a question of whether one man is getting more than another, but a question of carrying out an honourable understanding, and of doing justice to all alike. In a time of great depression, the public servants voluntarily submitted to a reduction of their salaries, there is no question about that, and it was understood that when we returned to a time of prosperity we would restore the salaries on the basis of the Graham Commission’s report. Hon. members, when they stood for election, I think, took up that attitude, and I deprecate most earnestly any attempt to talk this motion out of the House, as was done last year. Let us bring this to a vote before the House rises to-day, and decide whether we are in favour of this restoration, or whether we are not. We cannot advance the excuse to-day that there is no money, whatever other excuse may be made. We have passed measures with regard to payments to the ex-republican officials, costing half a million and involving an annual charge of £15,000. If we can do a thing like that in justice to these ex-republicans, we cannot refuse justice to those who have worked for the country and are to a large extent responsible for its present prosperity. We have been told by the Minister of Finance that he estimates a surplus balance for the year of £500,000. Let those who have earned this money for us enjoy their share of it. If this House does not do justice in this case, they will make it very difficult to justify the vast expenditures in many other directions which they have been responsible for. I intend to vote for the motion of the hon. member for Hanover Street.

I presume hon. members realize what the natural result will be if the proposals underlying this motion are given practical effect to. As the one who is responsible for the expenditure and finances of the country, the House will consider it my duty to tell it and the country the view which the Treasury takes in regard to this question; and I have no hesitation in doing my duty in that respect, and do not desire to shirk the responsibility. Of course, nobody can blame the public servants for coming to the House and asking the Government and the House to give them an increase in their salaries as was originally recommended by the Graham Commission. But we have also responsibilities to the rest of the country—that portion of the community who will be called upon to pay the necessary taxation to give these increases. We cannot lightly regard that aspect of the case. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the people of the country expect us as a Government and a Parliament to take steps not to increase the administrative costs, but to reduce them, and not to accept any proposals which in the long run will mean additional taxation.

You didn’t talk like that when the old republican officials’ pensions were considered.

Parliament does not desire to do an injustice to its public servants, and we will be called upon to decide whether we consider that the salaries at present paid to the public servants are adequate, and how they compare with salaries outside the service of people doing similar work, bearing in mind that public servants have, in addition to their salary, security of tenure. The hon. member who introduced the motion said that in 1920 we had a Government commission which cost the country £17,000. He told us that the commission’s recommendations were departed from in 1923 because the times had become difficult, but now the times have improved. Let me point out, however, that in 1920, when the commission considered the question, there was a boom period—a period of inflation. Since then, however, we have had a fall in prices, and as a result of that the real wages and salaries of officials have undoubtedly improved. That must be taken into consideration. Taking the index number as 1,000, and as showing how the economic position of the country has materially altered, the index number in 1920 was 1,698, and in 1923, when these scales were reduced, the index number was 1,309, and it has remained fairly constant at that figure. Hon. members must not forget that when the revision took place in 1923, we did not return to the pre-Graham scales. The present scales are considerably in excess of these pre-Graham scales. I will give the House the cuts that were made. Excluding the permanent forces, about 58 per cent. of our officials are still on the Graham scales; the balance are on a higher scale, in spite of the cut which was made. Secretaries and under-secretaries and chief clerks are receiving £100 a year more than they did under the pre-Graham scales, senior clerks £110 more, first-grade clerks £90 a year more, second-grade clerks £100 a year more, while the initial salary of third-grade clerks exceeds the pre-Graham scale by £40 a year. So, we are still very much higher than the pre-Graham scales. When the cut in salaries was made in 1923, the House was informed that the intention was to obtain a saving of 10 per cent. on the salaries, which would result in a saving over a number of years of about £800,000. That was what Parliament sought to obtain through the adoption of revized scales. Although four years have passed since then, we have obtained just under a half of that anticipated saving. A large number of officials are still on the Graham scale, and it will take longer than we anticipated to get the full saving. Since that time the establishments have been increased, and that will alter the position to a considerable extent. On what do the public servants principally base their request for a return to the Graham scale besides, of course, the general claim that they are insufficiently paid? I understand from the introducer of the motion that this claim is principally based on the fact that when the cut was made in 1923, the Government of the day either expressed or implied that it was to be a temporary cut, and that the position would be revized as soon as the conditions of the country improved. I have gone through the minutes of the interview between the representatives of the public service and the Prime Minister, and I certainly can find nothing which will justify such a conclusion. On the contrary, I find it was made abundantly clear that what the Government was out for was to obtain a permanent position; the public servants were given to understand that the country could not bear the present scale, and that Government was trying to find a position which would be a permanent one. I want to refer the House to the position taken up by the Minister of Finance in 1923, when he introduced the budget. He made it clear that the Graham scales were such that they were a burden to the country. The point was made that the Public Service Commission had come to the conclusion that the scales were abnormally high, and should be reduced. He referred to the ideal of the Public Service Commission for a highly-paid but smaller service, but it was an impracticable ideal. It would entail wholesale retrenchment which would be politically impossible in this country to-day. If we have to come to that stage, we shall have to get rid of a large number of our public servants to-day, and I think that is a position which any Government will not care to face. What was the position of the present leader of the Opposition, then head of the Government, when the question was before him, with a deputation of the public service, to see whether this scheme which was put forward was justified, or that it was impliedly or expressly stated that this was to be a temporary cut and that the scale was to be revized again when the conditions of the country improved? The interview took place on the 23rd May, 1923. After the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had explained the position, Mr. Hayward, one of the representatives of the deputation—

The object and the intention was to get an agreement, and that was why the discussion was carried on. Mr. Whitaker said (he was another member of the deputation)—

There were three alternatives: the ten per cent. immediate cut, wholesale retrenchment, or a ten per cent. cut over a number of years. The agreement was adopted on the understanding that it would have to be a more or less permanent basis. I do not agree that there was any implied promise or undertaking that it would be revised if conditions improved in the country. Even if conditions did improve, should we be justified in raising these salaries up to a scale which I have no hesitation in saying does not obtain in the case of other people outside the service who have not the same favourable condition of service as have our officials? I submit the feeling of the country to-day is that we should not agree to any proposal which would mean an increase in the salaries and the administrative cost of the country. The country is looking to the Government and to Parliament not to unnecessarily swell expenses, but to make an effort, as other countries are doing, to reduce expenditure. That is my view, and I think it would be wrong on the part of anybody filling a responsible position to hold out a hope to the public service that their demand for the Graham scale would be acceded to. Let me add, and it has been mentioned here this afternoon, that hon. members in the previous Government and Parliament were pledged to face the position of old age pensions. A commission is considering this matter, and sooner or later we shall have to face it, and it will mean a heavier burden to the country. If we have to take this step to-day, then the introduction of an old age pension scheme, if not impossible, would become difficult. The country is developing and expenses are increasing, we have to agree to the institution of necessary services, and although we have been fortunate up to the present, we must face the day when revenue will not come in to the same extent. Therefore, it would be folly to accept the principle that because we have a surplus we can give these increases in salaries. It has been said that the Government can accept the motion without committing itself to any action. But unless we intended to take action, it would not be right to do so and let the people think that they were going to get their increased salaries. Carrying the responsibility I do, I cannot hold out any hope that the action contemplated by this motion can be accepted by the Government.

Whatever our views are we must congratulate the Minister on the straightforward, clear and courageous position he has taken up. There is no doubt whatever what his views are, and if other members had adopted a similar attitude during the election we should not have heard so much about this question. The bringing up of this question year by year is largely due to the promises of members made during elections and, to some extent, owing to the election last year when we added to our own remuneration. These are two of the reasons why, year after year, we go back to the Graham report. I am glad the Minister made it clear, from the extracts of the minute he read, that when this 10 per cent. cut was made in the salaries of the public service in 1923, it was done, not as a temporary measure, but a measure which the Government felt was called for by the permanent outlook of the country as far as we could see it. I know it was an arbitrary act. A cut like that necessarily has a certain amount of arbitrariness about it. Possibly, had the circumstances of the country permitted, and the financial position not been so urgent, it would have been far better to have done it by means of some enquiry, a new enquiry constituted in the endeavour to find out what was a proper permanent basis of salaries for the public service of the country. But that was impossible; the times were too urgent. It is quite likely that a cut like that has left anomalies in the service, and that there are anomalies and inequalities which require looking into. But that is quite a different matter from asking us to go back and simply re-instate the salaries recommended by what is known as the Graham Commission. In my opinion we have now got to get away from the Graham Commission. I think the service has got to make up its mind that the report of the Graham Commission is not a document by which any responsible Government can be guided in laying down scales of salaries for the public service. There are two reasons for this. One reason is that the report is now nearly seven years old. The commission sat at a time when the cost of living was abnormally high, when prices were abnormally high, when the country was in an unsettled state financially and industrially, and the conditions which obtained at that time, in 1920, were quite unfavourable to the production of a report which could have more than a temporary value. A report, which is going to have a more than temporary value in regard to the remuneration of our public service, must be made at a time when circumstances are fairly normal. The other reason is, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, that the Graham Commission made their recommendations on the scales of salaries of a smaller public service. It is quite clear, to my mind, first of all, that we shall not get that reduced civil service except by most exceptional and drastic measures, and, in the second place, if we could get it, it would be most unwelcome to the public service. It would involve wholesale retrenchment. The service should get away from the idea that this Graham Commission report can be re-instated in regard to the salaries of the public service. One has only to listen to the debate to-day to see that. Of the members who have spoken in favour of the motion, I think only one really asked for a re-instatement of the Graham Commission report salaries. That was the hon. member who moved it. He was immediately followed by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), who seconded it, and who asked, not for a re-instatement of the 10 per cent. taken off in 1923, but for a wholesale increase of the salaries of the lower grades of the service. That is not the Graham Commission report. The Graham Commission report would give them 10 per cent. more. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) moved an amendment to the same effect. He does not want the Graham Commission scales re-introduced; he wants a discrimination made between the higher grade men, whoever they may be, and the lower grade men, and an increase given to the lower grade men, but not to the higher grade men. That shows, to my mind, that even from the mouths of those who have supported this motion and the amendment, the Graham Commission report is no longer a standard, so to speak, by which we can be guided. I have no doubt that there are inequalities in the service. I have no doubt that there are anomalies which require to be rectified, but, if we are going to do that, I submit it should only be after a new enquiry has taken place, a new enquiry based on something like normal conditions and based upon standards of living and standards of prices which one can hope, as far as one can see, will be more or less permanent. The salaries of our administrative staffs are matters which, from time to time, require re-adjustment and rearrangement, and the way to do that is from time to time to have enquiries based on conditions that may have taken place since the last adjustment, and it may be that we have come to a time now when a new enquiry is necessary. I am quite sure of this, that this country will not be justified in giving any large re-adjustment of the salaries of the public service without a new enquiry. For that reason, as far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to support either the motion or the amendment, and I think the service would do well to drop the idea of getting back to the Graham Commission report salaries, and if they are dissatisfied with conditions that exist with regard to pay and grading, move rather towards a new enquiry based on present conditions.

The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has charged my hon. friend, the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), with moving this amendment simply as a subterfuge in order to avoid the main question. That is not so. There are many members in this House who would prefer that, instead of a 10 per cent. increase all round in wages, those who are receiving less than a subsistence wage should receive an increase and a more substantial increase than they would receive under the 10 per cent. advance.

Where would you draw the line?

I would draw the line at a minimum wage of £25 a month. You would then bring these men up to a civilized standard. There are many men in the civil service of this country trying to do their duty as citizens and heads of families on less than £25 a month. I would take into consideration the thousands of men in the service to-day who are receiving less than £25 a month, and bring your bottom man up to a civilized pay. The hon. gentleman said: “Let us say straight out whether we are in favour of the particular motion or not.” It seems to me that the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) would make a party question of this matter, and that they thought there was an opportunity here on the part of the Opposition to again make party capital.

That is all nonsense.

Then I would like to ask the hon. member why he made that statement that this was merely a subterfuge in order to avoid the main question? We have gone into this whole question very deeply, we have had the figures and the statements showing the exact meaning of the Graham Commission report. There are many receiving only £11 or £12 a month, and that is far too low a wage for a man to do his duty as a citizen. These are the men who should receive consideration, and that is why the amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). There are higher grade officials especially who are better off to-day than they would be under the Graham Commission report. The bottom men are the chief sufferers. The salaries of many of these men at the bottom, both single and married, are barely sufficient to provide the bare necessities of life. The great bulk of civil servants in this country are receiving less than £300 per annum. The civil servants believe that if this resolution of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is carried, that that means this particular scale will be restored. They are under that impression, but the hon. member for Hanover Street does not believe that. If the Government do not accept the resolution, then the hon. member knows that, in spite of all the talk, and in spite of our votes in favour of it, we would not advance the cause of the civil servants one step.

What more can I do?

I am not complaining about his action; I am only pointing out that the civil servants believe this. Here is the proof. I have letters in my possession from them. They say here—

If they did not believe that by voting in favour of this resolution the whole thing would be carried out, how would it be wiping out a grievance? I want the hon. member for Hanover Street to be perfectly frank when he replies. I want to point out that, even if this is carried by a majority, the Government has already stated they are not in favour of carrying it out, and we shall be in the position of so many hypocrites. I say quite frankly, and my past actions will bear this out, that I have refused to vote in favour of a general all-round increase of 20 per cent. We have tried to raise the level of the bottom man first, to fix a decent civilized standard wage for the whole of the employees, and then raise the top men according to merit and ability. If you want good service, if you want contentment, you have to or it. But we, as a community, have no right to keep any section below a civilized minimum standard wage which would enable them to do their duty as citizens. The first claim of the Government are the men receiving less than £25 per month. We, on the Labour benches, who have made pledges, have endeavoured to carry those pledges out. But the Government are firm on the question. They have put up a case, and a good case, against it, and whilst we are in favour of it, and while we have done everything possible to try and get an increase, we have failed, and, as far as I am concerned, I will not indulge in a piece of hypocrisy simply by voting for this resolution in order to pretend to the civil servants of South Africa that I am doing something when I know nothing can come of it. The whole of these questions rests in the hands of the Cabinet. Were it not for the fact that Mr. Speaker would rule me out of order, I would say that Parliament is an absolute farce, but I cannot say that because Mr. Speaker would rule me out of order. If it would not also be out of order, I would say that, as far as democracy is concerned, we have only advanced from the rule of an individual king to that of a Cabinet. However, hon. members over there know as well as I do that, unless the Cabinet is prepared to carry out this policy, it is not a bit of use any member voting for this, and then going to civil servants and saying: “Now I have done my duty.” We have done everything we possibly can on this question, and I, for one, am not prepared to vote in favour of this resolution, because, for one reason, supposing, for the sake of argument, it would mean the defeat of the Government and putting the hon. gentleman over there back into power. That is not my reason, however, because there are sufficient on that side who will come over to this side to save the Government, even if the whole of the Labour party voted against them. But even if it were possible to put the Government out, it would not be helping the civil servants of this country, because hon. members on that side would not take one step towards improving their condition. According to the statements made by the leaders of the party on that side, they are not prepared to follow the lead of the two hon. members there and make this a party question, because they realize that, as leaders, they would be called upon to carry out those pledges if ever they assumed office again. They have not the slightest hope of resuming office, and in the interests of the country, I hope they will not. On this particular question I have petitions and requests, and, as far as I personally am concerned, I am in favour of increasing the salaries of the public servants; I would like to see the eight-hour day restored, and each day’s hours standing by themselves, instead of the continuous fortnight. One would like to see old age pensions. I am quite prepared on this question to cast my vote as indicated, but, owing to the fact that the Government cannot see their way clear to carry out this recommendation, I will not support it, but I will support the amendment. If hon. members opposite are sincere they will support the amendment to show that they approve of bringing the lower paid men up to the others.

With regard to what was said by the Minister of Finance, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, what I said was that the reason given for the reduction was financial stringency. Before he became Minister of Finance he was a lawyer, and must have had some regard for the old legal maxim—

The whole of my argument is based on that sound legal maxim. My whole contention is that the decision of the Government in 1923 was based on the financial position of the country, and that condition having improved, the reason for the reduction disappears, and we are entitled to ask the Minister to restore the scales. The Minister also rather unfairly to me put up a dummy and started to be labour it. I was not referring to pre-war scales but the Graham scale from which we departed. The Graham report laid down that the new normal conditions of the country required these scales to be paid; it did not provide for inflation, which was met by the cost of living allowances. When the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) referred to the permanent financial agreement, he ignored the fact that there has been a very big surplus for years. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has read me a lecture on how to put the motion down and on Parliamentary procedure. There is no other method by which a private member can bring such a matter up than the way in which I have done, and he knows that if I brought up anything involving expenditure I would be ruled out by Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member does not know that he should study the formal rules of parliamentary procedure. The hon. member also said if this motion is carried the public servants will get nothing, but if the House expresses an opinion, sooner or later the Government must carry it out. We know perfectly well there can be no direct results from this, but we also know that in the long run in a country under a free constitution the will of Parliament must prevail. I cannot accept the amendment because it begs the whole question. The Graham Commission rightly fixed the salary scales, but not because there are necessitous cases. How can I take my blue pencil and say with regard to certain scales I put my blue pencil through them and with regard to others you are going to accept or increase them? I cannot accept the amendment because I think it obscures the issue, although I think it was moved with the best intentions.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—28.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Rates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Deane, W. A.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Kentridge, M.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Miller, A. M.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pearce, C.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Coulter, C. W. A.

Noes—74.

Barlow, A. G.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G A.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pirow, O.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A.L.; Pienaar, B. J.

Motion accordingly negatived.