I understand this House agreed three or four years ago, possibly in anticipation of old age pensions being considered by this House, to make available a certain sum of money for the purpose of making provision for certain participants in the Boer war, and a sum was provided for those people who had attained a certain age and who felt themselves through stress of time and circumstances, in want. This concession was subsequently extended to those who had participated on the other side, but I understand there has been some slight difference because whereas there was no limitation whatever placed upon the participants on the one side, on the other side, the British side, the stipulation or reservation was made that the person concerned had to be domiciled in the Union prior to the commencement of hostilities.

That was right.

It may be right, but there was no such reservation in respect of those who fought on the republican side. One might naturally assume that all who participated on the republican side were actually domiciled in the Union before the war, but that was not the case. I do not raise this for the purpose of in any way introducing on the floor of the House anything that is likely to react, or to stimulate, a hostile discussion.

Oh, no!

I say I do not, but I do feel that it is something to be deplored, and strong exception should be taken to the fact, that no single member who speaks in English or who, in any way, supports the party I have the honour to support, can get up and express any opinion without being received with a flood of invective or derision from that side of the House. I deplore it as a young member of this House. My remarks on this occasion are merely to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that this limitation has debarred certain participants who were not domiciled in South Africa prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Subsequent to this provision an Old Age Pensions Act was introduced into this House and provision was made for the granting of pensions on certain qualifications. Many of those who were domiciled in the Union and who had received these allowances for services rendered, to either side, received them in the nature of a permanent award, but now they are required to receive their £2 10s. per month through the medium of the old age pensions, rather than receive it as a gratuity for services rendered to South Africa. These participants in the generous, though not over-generous, recognition which this House made for services rendered in the history of South Africa, should receive the allowance, as and for services rendered rather than have to come cap in hand and beg for an old age pension. There is a schedule to the Old Age Pensions Act which lays down that no person, who makes application for an old age pension, will receive consideration if he earns £50 or more per annum, but these people receiving this reward for services rendered were only receiving their £30 per annum, and I submit they were qualified to receive the small amount in addition by way of old age pensions to help them out.

I do not know that the hon. member is justified in saying there has been discrimination as far as these Oudstryders’ Bonds are concerned. This is the first time I have heard it. When these amounts were made available originally it was meant to be in the nature of a charitable grant. People were not entitled to it. It was to give a certain measure of relief to those participants in the Boer war on the side of the two republics who were in needy circumstances. We took it for granted that people who had been on the other side were being cared for in some way or other, but after the Government had decided to make these charitable grants available to participants on the republican side, representations were made that there were also people on the other side who were domiciled in South Africa and who should be considered, and the Government at once admitted that should be done. This is the first time I have heard there has been any discrimination. In the nature of the case, the hon. member surely does not expect that these charitable grants should have been payable to soldiers who fought on the side of Great Britain and who never lived in South Africa. They were naturally debarred. On the other hand, in regard to the people who fought on the republican side, I do not know of a single case where a participant was not domiciled in South Africa prior to the war. As far as the department is concerned, there was never any intention to discriminate, and I do not think there was any discrimination in practice. As regards old age pensions, of course here we have to do with a right. Persons are entitled to claim their pensions in terms of the legislation passed by this House. The principles are known. Those that were adopted were mainly, or largely, recommended to us by the commission which was appointed to investigate the whole matter. Parliament has laid down that persons in receipt of a certain income—not earning that amount—are debarred from getting an old age pension. Naturally those people who originally received a charitable grant of £2 10s., when the Old Age Pensions Act was passed, were brought under the provisions of that Act. A small number who could not be brought under it still receive a charitable grant, and their circumstances were inquired into by a select committee.

The whole country is grateful for the Old Age Pensions this Government has granted, but yet in all fairness it should only be considered a partial solution. The age limit is seventy-five years.

I must again call hon. members’ attention to the fact that if increased or additional pensions are advocated it will require legislation and cannot be discussed in committee.

I did not suggest at all, nor have I ever suggested, that I was advocating that the provisions of these burghers’ pensions, this charitable relief, should be extended to all or need be, to those who participated on the side of Great Britain during the Boer war. The Minister has said quite definitely, I think he stated as an absolute fact, that all those who had participated on the republican side were domiciled in the Union before that war, but we know very well that there were many, I do not know how many hundreds, who did enter the Union and actively participated on the side of the two republics.

Will you mention a single person who has received a pension under those circumstances?

I cannot mention a single person who prior to and subsequent to the outbreak of that war entered the Union, receiving a pension.

What is your argument then?

My argument is that when the Minister has assumed that every participant on the republican side was domiciled in the Union prior to the outbreak of the Boer war I do tell the Minister that I know of an instance of a person who, ever since the Boer war, has remained in South Africa who has not satisfactorily established that he was domiciled in the Union prior to that war. He has remained in the Union. My point is that there are people who participated on the British side during that war who have remained in this country ever since, and from what the Minister himself has told us, so far as the British forces are concerned, he introduced the question of domicile to preclude—and rightly so—any person afterwards coming to South Africa and asking for an old age pension or charitable relief by virtue of the fact that he had participated in that outbreak One does not want that at all, and I hope the Minister is not inferring from my remarks that I want such a thing. These awards were given to these people and made permanent. These people, who are very grateful to the country for the recognition of their services, would infinitely prefer to receive it not as an act of charity; but as recompense for some service that has been rendered. I would suggest to the Minister that there are many old burghers both on the republican side and on the side of Great Britain in the Boer war who accepted this gratuity from a grateful country for services they had rendered, irrespective of the side on which they were.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 8, “Provincial Administrations,” £5,569,487,

With regard to the administrator of the Cape Province, I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the appointment of the late administrator, as a Minister, whether the Prime Minister could inform us if an administrator of the Cape has been appointed, and if so, who that person is.

No one has been appointed yet. Mr. Fourie is still performing his duties and there can therefore be no question of an appointment. We can indeed consider it and are doing so, but no appointment has yet been made.

I see here a grant of £340,000 for native education. This is fixed under the law, but under the same law there is an allocation provided for from the native development fund, and I understand £105,000 is allocated from this fund for the present financial year. I want to know why this amount allocated from the native development fund does not figure in these estimates. Natives of this province complain that the allocation from this source remains stationary and does not reflect the true position. They state that their share of such development fund should be much greater.

The hon. member must bring it up under the vote of the Minister of Native Affairs.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services,” £178,279,

Under the heading G, exchange on remittances £45,000. I notice that the amount last year was only £25,000. Why this increased amount?

Usually we borrow fairly large amounts to meet our requirements. This year a much smaller amount will be available, and consequently a larger sum is required to be voted.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 10, “High Commissioner in London,” £46,370,

I should like to ask what the intention is with regard to the High Commissioner in future. I think that the other diplomatic representatives come under the Minister of External Affairs, but the High Commissioner apparently still comes under the Minister of Finance. I should like to know whether the position of the High Commissioner is still unchanged or whether the intention exists to make a change in his position and to give him a more political status. I want to add that I constantly hear from visitors from South Africa to London, and I often get letters from London calling attention to our unsatisfactory accommodation at Morley’s Hotel, which does no honour to our country. The public go to the offices of Australia and Canada and then visit South Africa House, which is not worthy of our country. It is a quite inadequate building, and I want to call the attention of the Government to it. We are making propaganda and doing our best to hold our head high in the outside world, but seeing we are spending large sums for representation in other countries we cannot neglect the most important place of all, namely, London, in such a way. Complaints come about inconvenience and inefficiency; South Africa House is not what it ought to be. I should like to ask the Minister if something cannot be done to see that we are properly housed there. We have had Morley’s Hotel for some years, but an improvement has not been effected. The situation of the building is undoubtedly unimprovable; we hired it at that time from the British Government, and it is very centrally situated. I should like to know whether the British Government is prepared to allow us to keep the place and what the intentions about it are.

The Prime Minister will reply to the first part of the question of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) about the future functions of the High Commissioner and to the representation of the Union in Great Britain In reply to his remarks about the housing of the Union offices in London, I may say that the Government has long felt that the existing position is unsatisfactory. Our lease at Morley’s Hotel expires on the 10th October, 1930, and it is the Government’s intention after its expiration to make provision for the Union offices in the future to be housed in a worthy manner like those of the other dominions.

Will it be possible to keep the same building?

I am coming to that. Negotiations with the British Government have been going on for a long time, and the matter has advanced so far that I can say that an agreement will be come to for the retention of the ground by the Union Government on conditions which we consider reasonable. The intention is to pull down the building and erect a new one which will meet the requirements of South Africa—where the officials will be better housed where better arrangements will be made for visitors and where there will be a chance of exhibiting South African produce better.

And it is very necessary.

Are you getting more land.

We have quite enough ground at our disposal. The intention is to keep all the ground we have to-day and to erect a building which will cost about £200,000.

Are we going to erect the building or will the British Government do so?

We are going to erect it. We shall get the usual ninety-nine years. The annual amount for redemption will be something above the present rent, but in return we shall get better housing.

The position with regard to the High Commissioner is that he will retain his title of High Commissioner, but he is also appointed and recognized by the British Government as our diplomatic and political representative in London, and as such he is entitled to receive any communications and to have insight into any documents just as if he were our ambassador in London.

Is he to remain responsible for trade matters?

Yes, just the same as in the past. The other duties are given to him additionally.

There is another aspect on which I should like some information. I should like to know the manner in which tenders are called for in the office of the High Commissioner. The Auditor-General, as the watch dog of Parliament, has drawn attention to this, and evidently expects us to inform ourselves on the point. I should like to read from the railways and harbours report—

It came to his notice during the past year that in connection with the purchase of rails and fish plates—

From the point of order that is a matter of railway policy. This vote is under my department for cabinet purposes.

When on a previous occasion the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbours) drew attention to this matter on the railway estimates, he was informed that the matter should be dealt with under the general estimates.

It cannot be dealt with now.

I shall not go into details. I want to know what procedure is laid down, not only in regard to the purchases for the railways, but in regard to the general purchases of the Government. I would like to give a specific instance I have in view. I was saying that it has come to the notice of the Controller and Auditor-General that purchases had been made of fish plates and rails without the supplies having been submitted to public tender.

I put the question whether a vote of the salary could not be raised on in a point of administration in his department.

I am prepared to defend the High Commissioner’s contract on any particular matter, but not the policy of any Government department.

Let me put my question.

This matter cannot be discussed under this Vote.

We might have a case where a purchase of goods was made generally. I will not specify the class of goods but we will say the value is £200,000. I have a case within my knowledge where instructions were given to the High Commissioner concerning the purchase of goods to the value of £200,000.

Where he acts as an agent it cannot be discussed.

I am well aware the Minister of Finance will not be able to defend the case I have in view. No objection he may make, however, will prevent the matter coming forward. I will assume that this is a case where the Treasury intends to purchase stores, and it seems to me they should be most careful that tenders are called and contracts and specifications—

I am afraid I have not made clear the point I am trying to emphasize. I want to find out what the system is under which tenders are called for by the High Commissioner. I think I am entitled to ask these questions.

Put those questions, and the Minister will reply to them.

I want to make it clear to the Minister what I am after. There must be a proper system of calling for tenders, and I want to make sure that there will be no repetition of a case where the regular procedure was not followed, and where a very important purchase was made without tenders being invited. I have a report by an officer appointed by Parliament calling attention to the fact that instructions had been given for him to report specially on such points. I hope, despite the opposition of the Minister, I shall obtain the information. Is it the case that the system is so elastic that notwithstanding directions to the contrary, the High Commissioner is at liberty to ignore those instructions? [Time limit.]

At the bottom of the page there is an item, Income Tax payments by the High Commissioner, £150. This is a payment on behalf of the High Commissioner, and I would like to know from the Minister whether it is going to be the fixed policy of the Government to pay income tax for officials outside the Union. It seems to me that this is a far-reaching principle which not only can be extended, but which actually amounts to an increase in salary. I want to refer to an appeal in the Transvaal where the court had to decide whether the income tax could be regarded as reduction of salary or not. The judgment was that income tax was not such a reduction. Therefore when the Government pays income tax on behalf of the High Commissioner it is an increase in salary. I should much like to know if this is laid down as the policy of the Government, because only yesterday we approved of the appointment of envoys abroad and no provision is made under those votes for the payment of income tax. It seems to me that we are going to do an injustice to our officials in other parts of the world and I should like an explanation from the Minister.

On a former occasion I explained the history of this matter to the House. On the appointment of Sir Edgar Walton as High Commissioner he paid no income tax. Mr. Smit was appointed on the same conditions. After that appointment we passed the consolidating Bill about taxation, which makes no exemption for any official, therefore all now have to pay income tax; but the High Commissioner was appointed under an agreement under which he was exempted from income tax with the result that we must refund him the amount, but any appointment which is made in future will not include that exemption. Mr. Louw was appointed according to the present law, and I can add that it is not the intention of the Government to exempt officers abroad from income tax.

It is said Mr. Louw will return to New York, and I should like to ask the Minister who his successor will be?

With regard to the new lease for Morley’s Hotel, where the offices of the High Commissioner in London are located, one is very glad to find that it is not being-dealt with on the quid pro quo policy, but on the “quids pro nobis” policy. The former High Commissioner, Mr. J. S. Smit, replying to the toast of his health at a farewell luncheon in London, said South Africa had been laid under a deep obligation, under a debt which South Africa could repay only by love and co-operation, a proof of which was not lacking in that country to-day. He pleaded most unreservedly to be allowed to carry out the mandate for a better building for South Africa, and he asked England in this matter, “not to treat South Africa as a commercial firm, but as a daughter of Great Britain.” I am referring to it with perfect seriousness, because I approve of the sentiments expressed by the former High Commissioner on this occasion. We were told yesterday from the Ministerial benches that there could be no sentiment in these matters at all; in fact, I remember the Prime Minister telling us that while he admitted the existence of sentiment sometimes in connection with our status, sentiment on this side of the House was wholly and irretrievably bad. If these negotiations have still to go forward, the Minister might take a leaf out of the book of the High Commissioner. The High Commissioner went on—

My only criticism is that the former High Commissioner was not always consistent, for I have a speech made by that gentleman at the time he laid down his office, when, in a slightly different spirit from that in which he spoke of South Africa as the daughter asking for assistance, he said he would like to say that South Africa was lending its authority, influence and support to measures which Britain was taking for the welfare of the world. That is more in the spirit in which ministers plenipotentiary are about to be appointed. He hoped, he said, that the British Government “would not press for cash payments, which extinguished obligations, even the obligations of friendship and co-operation.” The Minister will agree that the High Commissioner, following a habit strong in South Africa, was here apparently speaking with two voices. I would like to know how far the negotiations for the renewal of the lease have gone. May I make this suggestion, that if these negotiations are to proceed, they should be approached in the spirit expressed by Mr. Smit, in the more rational moment, I have referred to, and in that case there is more chance of their being carried through successfully from the point of view of both South Africa and the British Government.

I can assure the hon. member he will find we are not getting the site for nothing. It is on a quid pro quo basis, a purely business basis.

What about the High Commissioner’s speech?

What objection has the hon. member to the High Commissioner’s speech?

I did not say I had any objection.

The hon. member tries to drag in the policy of buying rails. He can approach my hon. friend here if he wants any information about that policy. I am not going to reply to that. I do not require the hon. member to advise me with regard to the manner in which we should conduct any negotiations.

I notice that under the head of private secretary, £491, there is a personal allowance of £208. May I ask if this officer is a member of the Union public service, and if this is the customary additional allowance to a member of the public service employed in that capacity?

The present incumbent of the post referred to is a member of the public service, and the additional allowance was payable in terms of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, taking into consideration the position he had to occupy there.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 11, “Inland Revenue,” £154,653,

We see that Mr. McLaughlin is retiring. Would the Minister tell us who is to be his successor?

Yes, Mr. McLaughlin is retiring on the 7th of next month. We all regret we shall no longer be able to utilize his services for this important post. I intend to utilize the deputy commissioner, Mr. Corbett.

I wish to discuss this 20 per cent. rebate on income tax.

That cannot be discussed. The administration can be discussed, but not the policy.

This 20 per cent. allowance is made throughout the whole of the Union. In the Transvaal it is held, rightly or wrongly, that you cannot get the rebate on poll tax. Is that correct?

The hon. member knows that when the rebate was granted last year we introduced special legislation to provide that the rebate would not apply to provincial income tax, and we have to make the same provision again, otherwise we would be infringing on the existing rights of the provinces under the financial arrangement that was arrived at.

If the Minister will kindly look into the law.

Will the Minister favourably consider exempting charitable gifts by taxpayers to churches, hospitals, etc., from tax?

They are already exempted.

No.

For estate purposes.

In my constituency there is a man who annually makes very considerable contributions, and he suffers very severely owing to the tax.

I cannot do it.

The hon. member can ask a question, but I cannot allow him to ask for something which necessitates new legislation.

Then I want to ask whether the Minister will favourably consider it.

I do not think that I am able to do it.

Can you give your reasons?

I think they are obvious.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 12, “Customs and Excise,” £236,338,

It is only a small matter I want to mention. I have a letter from a friend of mine who tells me that he and others have got Christmas cards with calendars attached, and these have been opened at the post office and charged 35 per cent. duty. They are only greetings from overseas, and of no value. Surely it is something in the nature of “ticket snatching” to enforce this duty.

With regard to the training ship, “General Botha,” I would like to ask the Minister whether it is not the case that half the number of candidate cadets who have passed the other tests are rejected on medical grounds?

I regret I do not know very much about the administration of this ship. My department is responsible only for paying the grant. The Prime Minister is on the committee, which is responsible. As the hon. member knows, the ship is administered by a board of trustees. My department has nothing to do with the policy; we give only the grant.

It is not a matter of policy, but of facts.

I do not know the facts.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 13, “Audit,” £72,594,

With regard to the Auditor-General, which is one of the most important posts in the country, we recognize how remarkably well Mr. Roos has carried out his duties. The country would like to know whether the Government has yet decided who will fill his post when he retires—a post which is of supreme importance in this country.

Mr. Roos will reach the age of 60 years in November next, I think, and as I informed the House on a previous occasion, he does not desire to renew after that period. As has been customary in the past, on the retirement of the officer who has held the position Mr. Roos holds at present, the Select Committee of Public Accounts passes a resolution. Unfortunately that committee has not been set up this session, and as Parliament will not meet again before Mr. Roos retires, I propose to submit to the House, before we adjourn, a resolution which the House might pass, expressing appreciation of the services he has rendered. With regard to his successor, I may say that the Government has decided to nominate Mr. C. F. Schmidt, the present chief of the Department of the Interior, and I have no doubt that hon. members will agree that this is not only the best selection we can make from the officers available, but that it is a very good selection we have decided upon. He joined the Cape service in 1893, and was in the audit office there from that year until 1915—for 22 years—and during that time he has been in charge of the auditing of the accounts of nearly every branch of the public service. He was appointed Secretary of Education, and appointed Director of Education in the Free State in 1918, and transferred in 1926 to the Department of the Interior as secretary. He is acquainted with the service, and in view of his training in the audit office, I am quite sure he will make a very suitable successor to Mr. Roos.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 14, “Justice,” £86,806,

I do not know whether this is the proper place to raise a question which I think is of some public importance and relates to the administration of justice, so far as the natives are concerned. Some years ago we had a state of affairs in this country—agitation and propaganda among the natives, setting one class against another—which led to a great deal of difficulty, and ultimately to legislation. Proposals were made by the Government which were considered by the House and by a select committee, and afterwards passed in the form of Act 38 of 1927. Recently under that Act, some prosecutions have taken place, and to my surprise and regret most of these prosecutions have broken down. Quite recently Mr. Bunting was prosecuted in the Transkei for making outrageous statements which could only inflame feeling between white and native, and could have only the most detrimental effects. He was prosecuted and the case ultimately went to the Appeal Court, and broke down because the judge held that in terms of the Native Administration Act it was not possible to convict Mr. Bunting because no intention had been proved—no intention to foment ill-feeling between white and black, and although the words were clearly calculated to stir up strife and ill-feeling he could not be convicted. I will read Clause 29 of the Act [Clause quoted]. The court held, quite rightly—and I assume—no intention had been proved, and Mr. Bunting’s conviction was set aside. I would point out to the committee that this is a very grave state of affairs. We cannot leave the matter there. This Act was called for by very strong public opinion, and I hope it will be possible for the Government to see that the law and the administration of it is so tightened up as to deal with this state of affairs. Hon. members know that in almost every part of the Union there is grave discontent and agitation going on among the natives. There are people who make use of the situation by setting white against black, and creating a state of affairs which in the end may have very far-reaching consequences. So far attention has been concentrated on the I.C.U. movement. From the beginning this movement appeared to be a dangerous one, but more recently a change came over it owing to the intervention of a European organizer, Mr. Ballinger, who was appointed. Judging of his statements, and his work so far as it has come under my notice, he seemed to be determined to make a decent trade union movement of this organization. Kadalie was rejected from the I.C.U., and he has now severed his connection with this movement, and started a movement of his own. The popular idea was that the I.C.U. movement was a dangerous one, but so far as I can judge something much more dangerous has come to this country, probably fomented by foreign capital and by agencies from abroad. We see indications that a real communist movement is arising among the natives, and it may not be long before the whites in this country may be face to face with a most serious situation. We cannot object to a trades union movement so long as it keeps within the terms of the law. But that is not what is taking place. We see a communist movement arising, the object of which is to inflame relations between black and white, and I hope the Government will watch this matter very closely. I have some information which has come to me, but I dare say that the Minister of Justice and the police have a great deal more information, which shows that there is a movement working underground which may afterwards mean bolshevism and a state of affairs which will ultimately be very difficult to control. In face of that movement which comes from Europe we have not a law to deal with the situation, and I express the hope that the Minister will watch these new developments very closely, and that the law will be so tightened up as to place us in a position to maintain law and order. It would be the worst day possible for this country, both for black and white, if we do not maintain law and order. The natives of this country ought to know that they are going to get justice and fair play from the white people, but they ought also to know that they on their side are expected to give obedience to the law, and that any movement of a subversive nature will be severely dealt with by the public authorities. I hope that the Government will see that these movements are watched, and that matters are not allowed to drift until perhaps a spirit has come into existence amongst the natives which will be difficult to deal with.

I am very glad that the hon. member has raised that point. I think it is a matter which is felt throughout the length and breadth of South Africa by everyone that loves our country and wants to see it and its people safe in the future. It is a great pity that the Act could not be drafted in such a way to really meet the need with regard to the persons referred to by the hon. member. There is not the least doubt on the part of non-lawyers what the actual intention of certain persons named by the hon. member was. Unfortunately the Court was right when it said, as it did say, that when anybody preached a doctrine which is a recognised doctrine, then we must assume that he is only doing so to preach the doctrine and not with the object of inciting one race against the other. That was, I understand, the decision of the Court. I do not think we can find fault with it, and yet it is a great pity. I was responsible for the drafting of the Act, but I think it will be very difficult for anyone to do anything by way of legislation which will meet the object. Now I come to what we must do. What we have always allowed in the Cape with reference to natives and native territory is that the Governor-General will have to be the person to see if steps can at any time be taken to prevent the commission of crimes or attempted crimes of this kind. I can say that the matter has already been discussed with me by the Minister of Native Affairs, and he sees the necessity of taking further steps by way of legislation but not directly through an Act; but, as already stated, the Governor-General must be given the power to take steps at any time to prevent attempted crimes. I quite agree with my hon. friend that we must try as soon as possible to stop the tendencies existing to-day. If we allow things to get to such a pass that not only individual malicious persons but the great mass of natives, and not only individual Europeans, but a class of individual Europeans, have that tendency, then it may be too late to take proper precautionary measures. As stated, the matter is under consideration, and I hope that it will be possible in the next session in January or February to submit a Bill of that kind to the House.

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to the dissatisfaction existing on the countryside at the lack of bilingualism on the part of some magistrates. It is quite necessary for magistrates to know Afrikaans in districts where the majority of the population are Afrikaans-speaking. I know there is a lack of bilingual magistrates, but I hope the Minister will try to affect an improvement in this. We members of Parliament constantly receive complaints about the trouble caused through the appointment of unilingual English-speaking magistrates. There are people who have to bring an interpreter, and they feel inferior in approaching the magistrate. A second point I want to raise is the spreading of communistic propaganda among the natives. There are white communists who travel about, and I have myself heard in Cape Town and Johannesburg theories which are dangerous being preached at meetings. We have a police force which does honour to South Africa because the young South Africans in it perform their duties in the most efficient manner, but I think they ought to take notice of this matter. The communists go to the native kraals and preach doctrines there which make the natives rebellious towards the whites. It is not only the communists who are a danger, because the Ethiopians from America also preach dangerous things. Negroes come here from America and they tell the natives that the Europeans are encroachers, and that they should be put out of the country. These negroes do not only operate in the towns, because one meets them even in a district like Pietersburg. I want the police to keep a keen eye on their activities.

The matter raised by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is one of very great importance indeed to the country. It is a matter mostly for the consideration of the Minister of Native Affairs. My colleague and I are working in collaboration. The Administration, from the police point of view, is one of justice.

It is a police matter.

At this stage I would like to say communism in this country, as shown by police reports, is at present merely a nuisance, but there is a possibility, even a probability, that within a short time it will become an absolute danger, and as the right hon. gentleman has raised the point at this stage, it is one which will receive the attention of the Department of Justice.

Have you discovered where they get their funds from?

The police have done their best to find out whether money is coming from overseas, but up to the present we have no proof. If any proof is forthcoming, the matter will receive attention and will be dealt with very drastically.

*Then there is the complaint of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr van Broekhuizen) in connection with the appointment of magistrates. There is doubtless a great need for bi-lingual magistrates, but in most cases the Department of Justice is able, in arranging the appointments of assistant magistrates, to see that either the magistrate or the assistant magistrate is bi-lingual. In practice, therefore, there is not so much inconvenience, and the position is not so bad as in the past. I hope, however, so to improve it in a few years that most of the complaints will disappear.

I understand that the Buntings during their recent tour in Tembuland took the occasion to try and occupy the attention of the natives, and not the least of these emissaries of Russia was Mrs. Bunting, who, I understand, is a Russian lady herself. In this bilingual country we hear a good deal in these days of the police knowing both official languages, but we do not take into account that four-fifths of the people of this country, the natives, know nothing of either of these languages. As the police do not know the native language, they have to get all their information from the natives in the language they know, and the information obtained is often very inaccurate. I think it is a matter in which the department should be very careful indeed. Surely one of their first essentials is that the police should be able to understand what is said.

The point is so important, I should like to deal with it. With regard to the Bunting prosecutions, it is one of the matters of the Department of Native Affairs. There is, to begin with, the possible suggestion of an amendment of the Native Administration Act in such a way that a conviction would have resulted on the evidence given in the Bunting case. That raises a legal difficulty which is almost insuperable. If the Act was so worded that the “intention” was material, I do not know if members on this or the other side of the House might not find themselves contravening the Act without knowing it or without intending to do so. There is, therefore, a very serious difficulty with regard to amending the wording of the Act. Another way of dealing with the matter would be to exclude native agitators from native areas, or from areas which may not be described as native areas, but where large numbers of natives actually live. The other question is that of holding unlawful meetings of natives. We shall be faced with a certain difficulty there in finding a definition of an “unlawful meeting,” and we shall have to go very carefully, the difficulty being that whilst on the one hand you want to suppress what is unlawful, on the other hand you do not want to introduce legislation which will unduly curtail the liberty of the subject.

I just want to use the opportunity to call the Minister’s attention to the insufficiency of the Magistrate’s Court, Ladismith. It was built by a private individual twenty-five years ago and does not answer its purpose. The Government hired it first, then bought it, and the building is still being used for a purpose it is not suitable for. I have often pointed it out, but unsuccessfully, and I hope the Minister will now give his attention to it and furnish the necessary facilities. I understand that £300 is being made available for improving the building. This is, however, throwing money away, and it would be better to erect a new building.

I wish to call attention to a passage in the annual report of the Department of Justice referring to the position of our magistrates. It is obvious from this report that the magistrates are greatly overworked, and grievously underpaid. This matter should receive very careful attention, and I cannot do better than quote from the official report which describes their very numerous, important and diversified duties. The report states on page 20 that although magistrates are primarily judicial officers, in addition they carry out many semi-judicial duties. [Extract read]. The report shows that a great deal of additional work is thrown on the magistrate through the ever-increasing amount of legislation. In addition to their official duties they have expensive and rather important social duties to perform, and they have to extend a certain amount of hospitality. I think I shall have the support of every hon. member when I say that magistrates perform their duties in an admirable manner, that we are proud of them, and that we ought to recognise their services in a more generous fashion than we are doing at present. The individuals performing the important functions to which I have referred, have a commencing salary of £475 a year. One fortunate individual out of several hundred may possibly reach a maximum of £1,300 should he be appointed chief magistrate of Johannesburg, but the number receiving as much as £1,000 a year is only a little over a dozen. If one compares the amount given to individuals outside the public service, for far less important duties, involving much less responsibility, it will be admitted that our magistrates are grievously underpaid. I doubt if there is a town clerk in the whole of South Africa who does not receive more than the lowest paid magistrate, while the remuneration of town clerks in the big centres is very much better than any salary our magistrates can hope to get. I hope the Minister will not only recognise what a valuable body of public servants we have in our magistrates, but will also realize the necessity for dealing with them in a more generous manner. At the end of their career they receive a meagre pension—the maximum being two-thirds of their average salary for the last four years of office—a very poor reward for a lifetime of devoted and very important service. The number of complaints regarding magistrates is astonishingly small. It is our duty to represent the case of these gentlemen who are inarticulate them-selves, and are not in a position to plead their cause publicly. Most of the members of the House can bear testimony to the splendid and impartial manner in which, as returning officers, the magistrates carried out their duties in the recent general election. I hope in the interests of the service that the Minister will be able to indicate not only that he appreciates the work of the magistrates, but that he is prepared to put that appreciation in a tangible form.

In reply to the second part of the question raised by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), the question of a knowledge of one or more native languages by members of the police force, I entirely agree with the hon. member that in many parts of the country that is not only highly desirable but is an actual necessity. At the same time we are faced with this difficulty, that we have many native languages, and it is not enough if one constable has a knowledge of Zulu, to put him somewhere near the Basutoland border and vice versa. The importance of a knowledge of native languages is being impressed on individual policemen more and more, and in connection with duties, promotion, and so on it is being taken into consideration. At the same time we are unable to cope with all demands, but as far as I know we have always been able to meet representations in connection with special cases, and if the hon. member, or any other hon. member, knows of a special case where there is a police post in a locality where a knowledge of a native language is absolutely essential and where the constable in charge does not know that language, no doubt we shall be able to make suitable arrangements.

*Then the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) mentioned the matter of the public buildings at Ladismith. I can assure the hon. member that the matter has already received the attention of the department and will receive it again. The difficulty is the question of money, and unfortunately, owing to few public buildings having been built during the war, we have got so behindhand that we cannot meet all requests; but as for Ladismith, the matter has already been repeatedly brought forward, and I assure the hon. member that it will have my special attention.

† The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) raised the question of our magistrates, and I am sure the whole House appreciates the way he spoke about our magistrates throughout the country. There is not the least doubt that we have, in our magistrates, a branch of the service in respect of the performance of whose duties fewer complaints are received than might be expected in view of the difficult and arduous nature of their duties. Some time ago in reply to a question, a list was tabled setting out the various grades of magistracies and setting out the salaries and emoluments received in respect of each grade, and I agree with the hon. member that the list does show it would be highly desirable to do something to increase the emoluments of our magistrates. It is a question of money. No doubt the Minister of Finance heard and appreciates all the hon. member says. But on the other hand we must appreciate that our justice vote is a very large one, and if we were simply to go on increasing this vote we should certainly reach a stage when the country, as a whole, would not be prepared to approve. I am going into the matter, however, and it is just possible—I will not make any definite promise—that by rearrangement, by possibly creating a few more higher posts and distributing the work in a different way—a matter that is receiving my serious consideration—we may be able to provide a number of posts better paid than they are at present. I am going into this matter very carefully, and when the House meets again it is just possible that in some respects, at any rate, the position may be improved.

I want to invite the attention of the Minister to the point raised by the hon. member for East London (Brig.-Gen. Byron), namely, the amount of work which is demanded of magistrates especially on the countryside. It is of such amount and quantity that if he wants to do his duty properly he cannot possibly keep up his legal knowledge and remain properly in touch with the changes and developments in legal matters. I therefore want to suggest that the Minister should make a change in this connection, that, e.g., he should appoint a man in every four or five districts for civil cases and serious criminal cases so that the ordinary magistrate has a chance of giving his attention to administrative work. Another point which also concerns magistrate’s courts is that the police also act as public prosecutors especially in the country. I think it wrong myself for the policeman to prosecute. There may be prosecutors who are keen on obtaining convictions. In the second place the position is unsound for the magistrates. If he eventually has to go on the bench he has not acquired the necessary experience. This occurs to-day. People are put on the bench as assistant magistrates and must sometimes deal with important cases without their having had the necessary training. I think that it is fair to the magistrates, the future magistrates, and fair to the public that the public prosecutor should be appointed from the ordinary service, in other words that he should get proper training. The magistrate requires practical training and I want to suggest to the Minister to appoint civil servants as public prosecutors so that they can acquire the necessary experience and training before they are appointed as magistrates. That will be rendering a great service to the magistrates and to the public on the countryside.

I would like to add a few words on the point raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). The nature of the Minister’s reply relieves me of the necessity of labouring the point that magistrates are underpaid. But I want to mention one or two considerations which I hope he will bear in mind when the question of rearranging the scales of remuneration, if possible, is gone into. In 1918 the Graham Commission reported that magistrates, as a whole, were insufficiently remunerated, and that the emoluments were considerably lower than was warranted by the nature and extent of their duties. Since that report the scale of remuneration, instead of being raised, has actually been reduced. It was reduced after 1923-’24 with the result that in every grade the scale of remuneration is £50 lower than it was in 1923-’24. It takes a very long period of service to reach the end of these grades. For the senior grade the average is 35 years, for grade 1, 32 years; grade 2, 28 years, and grade 3, 22 years. The magistrate in country towns should be in a position no worse than the local bank manager and the principal of the school. But in the great majority of cases he is in a worse position financially. Take the case of a bank manager. I have ascertained from one of the two large banks in this country that no manager gets less than £500 a year; and some of our magistrates get £475. The pension rights of the bank manager are at least equal to that of the magistrate; widows’ pension rights are much better, and in the great bulk of cases bank managers’ widows get £200 per annum. In the case of magistrates some of the widows get very poor pensions and others none at all. The bank manager frequently gets a house allowance. The scale of salaries of principals of high schools is £750-£900 in A group schools; £675-£875 in B group; £600-£750 in C group schools. I have in mind one town in the Cape Province where the magistrate is a man of almost 30 years’ service. He receives £600 per annum and has to pay for his residency. The bank manager in the same town, who has 25 years’ service, has a salary of £600 per annum, but he gets a bonus of £60 on that, and a house allowance of £75, or a total of £735. His income tax is paid, and when he dies his widow gets a pension of not less than £200 per annum. The school principal there, who has 18 years’ service, gets a salary of £765 per annum. So one sees the disparity, which is to the disadvantage of the magistrate. He carries out very important judicial duties. Twelve years ago the jurisdiction of magistrates of the Cape was raised, with the result that Cape magistrates, at any rate, have to deal with a large number of cases that previously went to the supreme court. Magistrates have large powers over the liberties and reputations of those residing in their districts. Not only are their judicial powers great, but in a very real sense the magistrate is the pivot around which the Government of his district revolves—he is the representative of the Government in his district. Regarding the question of cost, I submit it is the worst conceivable policy to regard it solely from the point of view of economy. Economy of course must be considered, but when applied to the administration of justice and carried further than is justified by considerations of efficiency, it is the worst policy. It is of great importance that we should be able to rely on the complete purity of the administration of justice. Our magisterial bench has administered clean justice, but we cannot be certain that will not continue unless magistrates as a body are paid a sufficient salary. There are abundant opportunities for a magistrate, if he were willing to stoop to it, to augment his salary in illegitimate ways, and it would be a sad day indeed if our magistrates were on such a footing that they should even consider augmenting their salaries in such ways. I hope that when the question of the remuneration of magistrates is taken into consideration by the Minister he will keep this in mind—that a magistrate should not be in a worse position financially than the local bank manager or school principal.

I am very glad that this serious question of seditious speeches which are being made to natives in various parts of the country has been raised here this afternoon. It will possibly look like a repetition of the facts if I give my views, but enough emphasis cannot be laid on the necessity of the Government to take steps to prevent serious conditions arising in the country, which would arise through people who apparently do not appreciate what they are doing. I know one of the I.C.U. delegates; he travels over the whole country and makes seditious speeches in every village, by which he tries to incite the coloured people and natives against the Europeans, and this may be followed by serious results if the Government does not intervene. I am very glad at what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have said about this matter, but when we think that feelings are already running very high in some villages where there are no natives but only coloured people, as in the South-Western districts, then we cannot take it amiss if we ask the Government to take strong measures to prevent such action. With reference to the magistrates, I just want to return to what the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) has said when he requested that more bilingual magistrates should be sent to the country districts, where there are people now who are not bilingual. This certainly is a very reasonable request, but I notice that there is still a shortage of bilingual magistrates. The question arises in my mind how it is possible that after 19 years since bilingualism was introduced, a complaint that there are not enough bilingual magistrates should still be possible to-day. Is it possible that such a position does actually exist? What is, moreover, very unfortunate is that the bilingual magistrates who are much better qualified than the unilingual ones should be punished for their qualifications by having to serve in the back blocks of the country, while the unilingual magistrates get the best and fattest posts in the large centres, because they are less qualified. I think that in this connection the sooner an alteration is made, the better, and if, then, as the Minister has indicated, we must have bilingual assistant magistrates, then it will be best to send those unilingual magistrates to the furthest off parts of the country. Then they will see to it that in a few years there are no longer any unilingual magistrates, and they will be fit for the work they have to do.

I think we may usefully deal this afternoon with the subject of the Communist agitation as it affects the natives in the towns. With regard to the report of the commissioner who was appointed to investigate the cause of the Durban riots, I wish to be counted amongst those who accord to that report the greatest respect—the respect due to prestige and findings of the learned judge who presided over the proceedings, but I am sorry that it was not found possible to associate jointly with him on the work of investigation some person better acquainted with the local conditions. In that respect alone are the commissioner’s findings in certain aspects open to some criticism. There is to begin with a recommendation that clemency should be shown to the whole of the natives who were imprisoned in connection with those riots. We must assume that the learned commissioner has taken it for granted that those persons who were imprisoned were of the class whom he described as “most loyal and law-abiding, hard-working and thrifty, who want chiefly to be left alone to earn as much money as they can in the shortest possible time and then to go back to their kraals. There is a large class of natives in Durban who do no work of any kind, and I believe that enquiry will satisfy the Minister that the people who were swept into gaol belonged to that class and that the exercise of clemency in any such cases would be misplaced. Another point is in regard to his references to the influence of the man Champion. Those references, I fear, will be widely exploited by Champion, who is a man of unscrupulous character. Champion, it may not be known to the commissioner, was involved in a case in which the learned judge who presided made the most severe strictures upon him, and ordered the documents in the case to be impounded presumably with a view to the prosecution of Champion on charges of misappropriation of funds. At a later stage the I.C.U. appointed auditors to investigate the accounts—the books still being in the custody of the court. The accounts were found to be in such a hopeless state that the firm of auditors were unable to give a certificate at all, and they made comments which should have resulted in the prosecution of Champion. He was not prosecuted, but he got up an agitation amongst members of his own union which resulted in their breaking away from the people who were in charge of the funds which were misappropriated. He set up an independent union hostile to the union to which he originally belonged. From the learned commissioner’s references to Champion it might be inferred that it was the unabated confidence of the people in him that led to his leaving the one union and forming another, whereas the facts are that he was distinctly under a cloud. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to-day to the question of the holding of native meetings, and I am sure I shall have with me in this matter the new Minister of Native Affairs in the view that the holding of mass meetings and the use of inflammatory language among natives in the large towns has been the source of the great part of the mischief. The people of Durban appreciated the action of the present Minister in immediately issuing a notice when the riots were at their height prohibiting under the Riotous Assemblies’ Act the holding of meetings, and if it had been possible to prohibit the holding of native meetings of an insurrectionary character for a period of two years previously I venture to say that these riots would not have occurred. I believe the evidence with regard to the Communistic activities in Durban was not collected in such a manner as to give the commissioner all the information that should have been placed before him. He says that “the Communistic agitation, although not directly being the cause of the riots, certainly contributed to the general unrest.” Now I wish to read from the document the contents of which I communicated to the Prime Minister six months ago, and nobody reading that document can come to any conclusion but that it should have served as a serious warning to the authorities of what was going to happen. One might have supposed that the writer of that document, who was a very prominent native in Durban, knew exactly what was going to happen. He said in the concluding paragraph of the document—

In the early part of this document he refers to the communists, and says—

We shall indeed admit ourselves a weak body if we allow these things to continue and confess ourselves powerless to interfere. I am encouraged to believe that the new Minister of Native Affairs, with a thorough understanding of the effect of these things upon the natives, will not permit them to continue, and that he will see that the dangerous state of affairs that exists in most of the large towns of the Union owing to Communistic influences will be brought to an end. I cannot emphasize too much the danger which the whole of this agitation portends to the Europeans. Let me say that as far as converting this body, the I.C.U., into a useful and peaceful trades union is concerned, that is an utterly hopeless proposition. I know too much of the tendencies among the natives to think that any of them—least of all the I.C.U. leaders—are capable of conducting a trades union on orthodox lines. The native has never been brought up to abuse his superiors and call them into discredit and disrepute. He understands discipline of a firm and just kind. The commissioner’s report is filled with comments upon the groundless complaints advanced by the I.C.U. and of the way in which their agents fostered unrest and indiscipline.

I see the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) is not in his place, but the matter he raised is of so much general interest that I just want to say a few words about it. He enquired whether magistrates could possibly not be appointed to do the civil and criminal work in various magisterial areas. It is just in connection with that there is a possibility of creating higher appointments in the magisterial service, which will, at the same time, meet the needs of the public for efficient magistrates for civil and criminal cases, and also give to the people in the service the prospect of subsequently occupying higher appointments than are available to-day. The hon. member also mentioned a complaint which I have myself repeatedly heard, namely, the police acting as public prosecutors. This objection is not only raised by the public, but also by the police. The police rightly object to it that persons who are trained to perform police duties should have to do the work of public prosecutors. It is a matter in which my colleagues are also concerned, but if I can manage to relieve our magistrates who have much administrative work to do for other departments, from their burden, then it will be possible to use younger magistrates or clerks are on the point of being promoted as magistrates, as public prosecutors.

† The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) who I am sorry to see is not in his seat referred to a matter that had already been raised. A very instructive list has been placed on the Table showing the various magisterial appointments and salaries attached thereto.

*In connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Wolfaard) I hope he will be satisfied with the answer that the Minister of Native Affairs and I appreciate it and that we are giving our serious attention to it. His other point about bilingual magistrates has already been raised by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) to whom I replied.

† In regard to what was said by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) the importance of a searching inquiry into the Durban riots was apparent to everybody, and this importance was appreciated by the Government, and was shown when they appointed a commission. If the investigation was not as full as certain members would have desired, it is due to the fact that the evidence was not led before the commissioner. If there are any matters touching the administration of justice in respect to which hon. members wish to make representations, I shall be glad to receive them. The hon. member spoke of the recommendation with regard to clemency being shown to those in prison. I do want to say that I have decided that, as regards white or black, the law will take its course. With reference to Champion, the Minister will raise that again when the vote for native affairs is reached.

In spite of the hard concrete facts and the clear statement of the Minister of Justice, I am not at all satisfied as yet that Zoutpansberg is getting just treatment with regard to magistrates. I imagine it is not the correct basis for magistracies to follow to be increased in status solely on the basis of statistics. In my humble opinion the responsibility should be considered when certain magistracies are raised in status and therefore I am in the strong position of being able to say that Zoutpansberg not only has its European population, but also a native population of 270,000 to deal with. It is a district which is as large as the whole of Natal, of which we hear so much. In Zoutpansberg the magistrate has a definite and great responsibility, and I consider it is not right for our magistrates to be treated on the same footing as a magistrate who is only responsible for one square mile. But for that reason I want to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that when the question of increasing the status arises, Zoutpansberg ought to be one of the first to be considered. If the Minister grants this request, then if I have a hat on my head I will immediately remove it and say thank you.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the necessity of appointing a resident magistrate to the very densely populated area of Woodstock. There are hundreds of cases being heard there in the courts, and the people are being put to great inconvenience and enormous expense. If there is one place where there should be a resident magistrate shown, it is Woodstock. It is a very cosmopolitan place, and it is absolutely essential that it should have the earnest attention of the Minister. I do not want to go into figures, but this is a preliminary to a deputation which will wait upon the Minister in a few days when certain details will be given to convince him of the necessity of action. I have heard the Minister is already converted. I hope so.

The provision for legal expenses has increased from £9,400 to £15,000. This looks as if the Minister expected the Government to be in serious trouble.

With regard to the item of £3,000 for police dogs, I may say that there is a great shortage of these dogs. When I raised this question in 1927, I was told there were only eighty police dogs in service in the whole of the Union. A number which is manifestly inadequate. The farmers in my constituency have asked me to urge that provision be made for locating police dogs in their district. I should like to call attention also to the pressing need there is for the better housing of the Ladysmith police. The present barracks were condemned in 1906 by the health authorities, but nevertheless they were occupied until 1923, when the health authorities again intervened, as a result of which plans were prepared for additions and a piece of ground was purchased on which to erect larger barracks. Notwithstanding that, however, nothing has been done. The Minister should call for a report on the condition of the barracks.

The Natal members much appreciate the courtesy expressed in the remarks of the Minister of Justice. With regard to the report on the recent riots at Durban, had the judge been a little better acquainted with local conditions, and perhaps of a little previous history of events, he would hardly have given expression to the views he did in that report and the wholesale condemnation of the action of the people of Durban would possibly not have been so sweepingly made. Now in this affair the prestige of the white man is very much at stake, and I hope the claims of the dependents of people who were murdered in cold blood during the riots will accordingly receive sympathetic consideration by the Government. Nothing will create a greater impression on the native when incidents of this sort occur and when white men are murdered in cold blood, than for us to show, and show quickly, that we value very highly indeed the life of any white man or white woman, and that such may not be murdered with impunity.

The hon. member for Zoutpansberg seems to be under the impression that a general raising of salaries and grades of magistrates is intended. I am very sorry to explain that this is not the case, but that I am only intending to give my attention to creating better appointments by reorganization and thereby improving the prospects generally. As for Zoutpansberg, I have of course some personal knowledge of the constituency and therefore I can assure the hon. member that Zoutpansberg is not at all badly served in regard to magistracies. Louis Trichardt is the chief town of the northern part of Zoutpansberg, and it already has a high grade, and I cannot make a promise that it will be raised within a particular time. As for the low veld, it was quite recently proclaimed as a separate magistracy at a time when the population and the cases pending hardly justified it. Therefore Zoutpansberg is in a very favourable position and I cannot hold out the hope that the position there will be improved within a measurable space of time.

† With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) I had better reserve my reply until I meet the deputation to which he refers. As to the increased provision made for legal costs, fortunately the Government is not expecting any particular trouble, but in past years the amount required has consistently been under-estimated. At a later stage I may be able to give exact details showing the increase. The question of police dogs is very important. At present we have 54 police dogs and in addition about 140 are being trained. Without any increase in expenditure I hope by means of an extensive use of police dogs, especially in the country districts where complaints about stock thefts are rife, to be able to meet that growing demand for more effective police protection which we are receiving from all over the countryside. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the department is convinced that the extensive use of police dogs will do a great deal to assist the farmer in connection with stock theft. As regards the buildings at Ladysmith I am afraid the position is much the same there as it is, I will not say all over the country, but in very many areas. The buildings are unsuitable, have been unsuitable for some time, but we have to take the worst cases first, and for what consolation it is worth I can assure the hon. member that there are other places where the buildings are in an infinitely worse condition.

Impossible.

I am sorry to have to dispute the hon. member, but I am afraid that unfortunately that is the case. We cannot, of course, swell the loan vote from year to year by putting up new buildings in every place where they are wanted, but gradually we are getting over these troubles. The hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) has mentioned a feature of the report on which I do not think I am called upon to express any opinion. As I have indicated, it is possible that evidence might have been available to the commissioner which was not actually led. If it is so, it is regrettable but it is probably due to circumstances, some of which I have already indicated. As regards the dependents of the unfortunate people who were killed, one has, of course, the greatest sympathy with them, but I do not know that it is really a matter in which the department of justice can interfere. No doubt—I am expressing my personal private opinion—at a later stage if this question is raised in the House, the House will give it sympathetic consideration, but that, of course, is a matter for the Government as a whole and for the Minister of Finance.

I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he intends to reconsider the Liquor Act which was passed last year. Since the Act was passed, the sale of liquor has much decreased, and I fear there will be a large surplus next year if the Act is not amended.

The hon. member cannot discuss an amendment of legislation.

The last Minister of Justice said that amendments would be made.

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot continue with that.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether he will introduce amendments next year?

May I ask the Minister of Justice, in view of his statement, that he is going to rebuild the worst offices first, whether that may be taken as an indication that he will start on the Pretoria magistrate’s offices very soon?

As to the question by the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) I only want to say that I intend during the recess to get information about the working of the Liquor Law. It is clear to me that certain amendments will be necessary to remove anomalies, but it is still more clear that it is impossible for any Minister to again throw into the melting pot the Liquor Act which took up so much time of the House last year. Certain amendments will possibly be necessary, but a general revision of the Act is out of the question.

† I am afraid the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) is somewhat optimistic in his interpretation of what I said. While there is no doubt that the magistrate’s court buildings in Pretoria are very unsuitable I can hold out no hope that new buildings will be put up within the next year or two. There are other centres, Johannesburg, for example, where the position is infinitely worse—centres whose claims I am afraid will have to be considered in priority.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 15, “Superior Courts”, £247,584, put and agreed to.

Vote 16, “Magistrates and District Administration ”, £599,024, put and agreed to.

On Vote 17, “Prisons and Reformatories”, £729,270,

I saw mention some time ago in the papers of a case in which a native had been convicted of housebreaking or something of the kind. The presiding judge said it had come to his notice that when natives who had been in prison were discharged at the expiration of the sentence they were simply turned out of the prison door, and no provision was made to enable them to reach their homes or their friends. The result is they simply have to commit crime to get back to prison. I think the expressions used by the judge indicated that unless conditions were improved it would be difficult for the court to send a native to prison for a considerable sentence because it was certain that on his discharge he would have to fall into crime again. I would like to know from the Minister what is actually being done in regard to that matter.

I may say that the remarks of the judge were conveyed to the department and the matter is at present receiving serious attention.

The matter to which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has referred is of very great importance indeed. There is no doubt a large number of prisoners are released from gaol and the poor beggars do not know where to go for a meal. I would like to draw attention to some of the remarks which the judge made on that occasion. He said—

I have made enquiries into this matter and I am informed that some association meets these unfortunate people when they come out of gaol, but one can well understand that these poor beggars, white or black, coming out of gaol after a long period, do not know what to do or where to go. That I commend very strongly to the Minister. The Minister has made a very good impression on the committee and on the House generally. I am indeed hopeful that under his charge the administration of justice will be improved considerably, because there is plenty of room. I do not want to blame his predecessor—far from it—but much is wanted to-day and there is scope for a young man to put his energy into the work.

I would like to ask the Minister what proportion of those who get suspended sentences for serious crimes come back to gaol. I have always been doubtful as to the policy of the suspended sentence; and at meetings of the Prisoners’ Aid Association I have heard experienced police officers express themselves strongly against the system. At least one very eminent judge has also done so as he considered it as being in favour of the worst types of criminal and giving them preference over other types. He probably has not figures available at this short notice, but it is a matter into which the Minister may be willing to go during the recess and let the House know the result and what he intends to do about it. As to the Reformatory Vote. A few years ago some of us were very much concerned about the position of the Porter Reformatory at Tokai. I have not had the opportunity of going there as often as I would like, but I have gone when I can. I was there a few weeks ago, and spent a morning going over the Reformatory. Judging as best one could from what I saw, and the way in which it is run now and the alterations made in the system during later years, the position is now a very much more satisfactory one and I was very pleased indeed with what I saw.

I think it is obvious that I cannot reply to everything the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) raised without compromising myself very considerably, I have already indicated to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that the question of post-prison care of discharged convicts is being taken up with the Prisoners’ Aid Association. There were some unsatisfactory features mentioned by the judge, and the whole matter will be gone into. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) raised a point of first-rate importance. The question of suspended sentences is one about which a great deal of difference of opinion exists, and I am enquiring into it. A similar matter, that of indeterminate sentences, is also a question which is to be very carefully gone into. Statistics on the second matter are available, but not on suspended sentences. I will endeavour to have this matter enquired into, and certainly during the recess. As regards Tokai, I am very gratified to hear the opinion expressed by the hon. member, especially in view of the attack, which is wholly unjustified, which was made on the institution by a newspaper. A report on the institution has been made, signed by the Deputy-Mayor of Cape Town and others, who pointed out that the complaint of that particular newspaper was wholly without foundation. I was aware of the fact that the hon. member has taken the time and the trouble to visit the reformatory, and for that reason I am highly gratified at the opinion he has expressed here.

What does the Minister intend to do with regard to the man from Rhodesia who was tried on a very serious charge?

I have not yet received the papers in the preparatory examination in the Vermaak case or the summing up of the magistrate, and so I cannot say anything about that case.

I would like to ask the Minister about the formation of labour colonies. Very frequently we find discharged criminals or women of a disreputable class return to their homes and their people will not have him or her, and this type drops into the villages and towns where they create an impossible state of affairs. Under the Urban Areas Act, we are unable to cope with them, and it is one of the greatest dangers we have to face. The Minister should take into consideration the establishment of labour colonies to which these people can be sent and kept under control for a period. This matter was brought up in the select committee last year when we went into the Native Urban Areas Bill. Mr. Cooke, who gave evidence, said one of these colonies had been established near Pretoria, and it had been found to be very satisfactory. The Minister might consider the establishment of these colonies in other provinces as well in order to prevent this class of people from infesting the towns and villages in native areas.

I may say that the position is being considered in conjunction with other matters in connection with the control of natives in townships. It has been discussed between the Minister of Native Affairs and myself. We hope to reach some kind of joint solution. The hon. member will appreciate this is really part of a very large problem. The lawless native in the towns is a very serious problem indeed, and that includes the native who has no previous convictions. Mr. Cooke’s evidence is borne out that a labour colony is a very good means of control.

I would like to put a question to the Minister in connection with the gaol warders. I have many of them in my constituency and they complain that warders in the Pretoria Gaol are transferred to other places because they do not belong to a tennis club or a cricket club. There is dissatisfaction among the warders and as a fair authority on prisons I know what the position is. Will the Minister investigate the system of promotion in the gaols? We often find that people are kept in the lowest posts and get no opportunity of promotion, which, of course, leads to dissatisfaction. Further, the after-care of natives discharged from gaol was referred to, but we hear many complaints about Europeans who are discharged and who often get into a very unfortunate and difficult position. Their future is usually quite gone and I want to ask the Minister to go into this also.

As for the gaol warders the hon. member will understand that every department has more or less the same difficulty, namely, that in the case of individual complaints it is unfortunately impossible for each one to see the Minister personally. It would be impossible, but if the need for closer touch with the Minister can possibly be met I have decided that I am prepared to give my personal attention at any time to written complaints by prisoners. If they are well grounded something will undoubtedly be done, but if not it will count against the person who has made the complaint. In that way there is personal touch between the person and the Minister, but it will be remembered if the complaints are unfounded. What I have said in connection with natives applies in the case of after-care of Europeans.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 18, “Police”, £2,594,770,

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the need of additional police in the areas about Durban. A great number of natives have migrated to these districts, immediately surrounding the town. There is a great deal of crime going on in these areas. Round about South Coast Junction and Jacobs large industries have grown up in recent years which employ a large number of natives. I hope the Minister will take this matter into consideration, and provide additional police. I am not complaining of the efficiency of the police at present there, but of their inadequate number. I would also like to draw attention to Wests. Formerly Wests was policed by the water police, but those police were withdrawn, and a considerable area is now unprotected. There is a native barracks at Wests, and natives are employed in that area both by night and by day. There is a certain number of Europeans there. I hope the Minister will give this matter his kind consideration.

I have repeatedly brought to the notice of the Department the fact that at Vlakpoort, about twelve miles from Amersfoort, there is a great need of police. There are about 2,000 natives living on the farms Daggakraal and Vlakplaas and the farmers on the adjoining farms are suffering much from theft. I want to ask the Minister if he will make enquiries and not to immediately accept the reply of the police at Amersfoort that it is unnecessary, because the constables there want to remain together. If only one of them goes to Vlakpoort it will assist a bit in inspiring respect among the natives.

The amount of this Vote has been going up year after year, and crime has been on the increase year after year. To what does the Minister attribute this increase of crime, especially crime of a first-class character? It does seem to me that the punishment meted out to these people is not operating as a deterrent. It cannot be adequate or crime would not be increasing as it is. It does seem to me to be an unsatisfactory policy to increase our police vote while at the same time we are not taking the necessary steps to impose penalties to act as a deterrent to criminals. I would like to know what the Minister’s opinion is as to what this enormous increase of crime is due to.

I want to ask the Minister whether amongst the many things to which he is giving his earnest consideration there will also be the question of better police provision on the countryside and whether there is any chance of improvement. I would not bring up this matter seeing we all want to get finished if it were not such a serious matter in the constituency I represent as well. It is admitted in the police report that more police are required on the countryside but that no more men are available. That is, e.g., the case at Theunissen, an important railway junction where many natives from the diamond diggings wander about. There is not a single foot policeman. Housebreaking is just as common there as, e.g., a bioscope play, i.e., every night. I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not yet come that the towns themselves should provide for certain municipal services such as the regulation of the traffic so that a few policemen can be released for the countryside. I have noticed that in Bloemfontein, e.g., they do not know what to do with the policemen there. There are not only policemen at street corners where a motor car passes now and then but they even come and worry the car owners to measure whether their cars are not standing too far from the pavement. If they do not know what to do with the police there I would suggest that some of the police be removed and transferred to the countryside where more police are required.

The point raised by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Acutt) is one which I think calls for a special police report, and I will give instructions to have a report as to what is taking place on the outskirts of Durban. The position is complicated, to some extent, by the borough police. We are responsible only for the areas outside the borough of Durban.

*The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) will have of course realised that we must be guided by the reports received from the local police. The next time an investigation is made we shall give the hon. member an opportunity of being present.

† The hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) suggested in his speech that serious crime is on the increase in the Union, but I do not think that is the case. The statistics are somewhat misleading. Serious crime is tabulated according to a list supplied to us, and trivial forms of crime are often classed with serious crimes, for statistical purposes. It is not the case. The difficulty probably is owing to our increase of population. With regard to the question of inadequate sentences, that matter has been repeatedly brought up at farmers’ congresses and other gatherings. I am not prepared to say that the sentences given are inadequate, but I admit the divergence between the various areas is rather great, and my intention is to get into touch with magistrates or chief magistrates representing certain areas and provinces, and to find out if it is not possible to get more uniformity in connection with sentences.

*The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) raised a point which is very old but still of great importance. He complains that the countryside has not enough police. We get the same complaint from the town. We have already started making more police available by means of reorganization, and they have chiefly been sent to the countryside. By reorganizing the Stores Department fifty constables have been made available, and sixty by the reorganization of the Paymaster’s Office. Moreover, we hope to consider the question of the regulation of traffic by the police. In Johannesburg automatic regulation of traffic has already had the effect of releasing quite a number of constables for ordinary duties, and I shall see how far this system can be applied in most of the large cities. Then there is something about which the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) will not be satisfied, but we were obliged to withdraw some of the water police in Durban and Cape Town. Let me, however, add that there are still a sergeant and some men, and that they have a motor-boat to perform their duty.

And the railway police?

They do not fall under me, and I am now speaking of water police. Sixty men were made available in this way, and divided up on the countryside. In addition, we hope, by the further employment of police dogs, to assist the countryside.

In connection with the amount, medical services, £32,000, I want to ask the Minister whether he knows that a part of the police force get medical attention for their families, but that those who were subsequently recruited at lower salaries are deprived of that privilege. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider the question of meeting these low-paid police, because it is very difficult for the married policemen to pay for medical attention out of their own pockets when there is sickness in the home. The old police who get higher salaries, and are better able to pay, get attendance free, but not so the younger men.

A considerable amount of hardship is entailed in urban areas in Natal, because many of the police are not acquainted with the Zulu language. Natal differs from the other provinces in that the natives speak Zulu, and, perhaps, a little pidgin English, but they do not speak Afrikaans at all.

As to the question by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Pretorius), I just want to say that the police expenditure is £2,600,000, and the Government is of opinion that is enough to spend on police services. I, therefore, fear there is no chance of our raising to any considerable extent the vote he mentioned within a measurable time. Without an increase in it we cannot grant the hon. member’s request. The position since 1923 is that the persons joining the police get free medical attention for themselves, but not for their families. Owing to the police being on a lower scale of salary the marriage of young constables is discouraged. Hon. members will know that there are often cases where constables have to leave the service because they have married without permission, but we must see that they do not have the responsibility of a family while their incomes are small. Although I sympathize with the members of the police force who have joined since 1923, who do not get free medical attention for their families, I fear that I cannot hold out a hope of granting their request.

† With regard to the need of police in Natal speaking Zulu, the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) raised exactly the same point. I am afraid it is impossible to lay down a tri-lingual qualification for every policeman in Natal, as that might deprive the public of some excellent policemen. At the same time it is a very important matter, and is taken into consideration wherever possible.

I notice that there is an increase of £3,500 in the vote medical services. I should like to know the reason.

There was more disease.

I should like to raise again the question often raised before as to the employment of constables as clerical workers. In some police branches I see on the estimates provision for clerical assistants, but not in other police branches. It seems to be a waste of public money to use trained constables for other than constabulary work. Can the Minister tell us what it costs to train a policeman, and whether he has considered the question of enhancing the value of the police by giving constables greater mobility? At night in the suburbs of Cape Town one sees a large number of policemen riding push-bicycles, but their sphere of usefulness would greatly be extended if they were mounted on motor-cycles. In Europe motor-cars are being used extensively by criminals in the carrying out of their crimes; our police should be put in a position of being able to cope with law-breakers more effectively by giving the police a larger number of motor vehicles.

It would be very interesting to know what the additional expense would be if the suggestion of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) were taken into consideration. Perhaps the Minister would enquire how many of the policemen are married, and what the expense would be.

As the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) understands Afrikaans just as well as English, I shall reply to him and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Pretorius) at the same time. The last hon. member raised the matter for the second time and received the support of the hon. member for Von Brandis, which proves how important the matter is. I cannot give the exact expenditure which will be caused by the alteration they have advocated, but I want the House to understand that it will be a large sum. I shall have it worked out, and if the hon. members will come to my office, I will explain the exact amount and the details to them.

† The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) raised the question of the use of trained police officers for clerical purposes. As I have explained, we have already released about 120 constables for ordinary police duties. They were employed before that on clerical and other work. It is impossible, of course, to eliminate clerical work entirely, but what we try and bear in mind is, that we do not keep a man there longer than is absolutely necessary. The hon. member will appreciate that in many respects it is useful experience as regards fitting a man for promotion. He acquires experience which increases his capacity for the higher work he may be called upon to do. As regards the amount of £25,365, I will very shortly give the hon. member the details. We are purchasing six motor-cars, and other twelve motor-cars, another six motor-cars, three motor-vans, four prison-vans, thirty motor-cycles and side-cars and six solo motor-cycles. I entirely agree with the hon. member as regards the desirability of making the police as mobile as possible, but he will understand that is largely a question of expense, and the House will agree, this amount for one year represents a very reasonable total.

I should like to say a few words about the annual police dances. Although the Dutch church has not yet put dances under the category of innocent amusements, it is particularly the fact that canteens and bars are usually customary at dances, which gives offence in church circles, and I should like to ask the Minister if it is not possible to, at any rate, get rid of the bars at those dances.

I fear I cannot tell the hon. member that there is a chance of our taking that step. Dances are held under all circumstances and attended even by persons with strong religious feeling. As regards the canteen, I do not know that there has been any criticism. If complaints about unseemly behaviour are made, or that too much drink is taken, we shall certainly consider cutting them out the next year, but as long as moderation prevails, I fear there is no chance of getting rid of the bars.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 19, “Defence,” £943,051,

The training generally of the defence force bears little relation to future war as far as we know. I think the Minister must admit that is the case to a very large extent, and my suggestion is that he should concentrate more on the extension of the cadet system, and that it should be more thorough in order that these boys may receive military instruction at the adaptable age, and thus be saved a great deal of inconvenience in their future career. Why could not the Minister adopt a system of senior cadets who have attained a prescribed efficiency being excused a portion of their training in the active citizen force? We know that a great deal of interruption is caused to their studies and their apprenticeships being interfered with by their training in that force. If you have your cadets trained in certain military essentials, it is easier for them to adapt themselves to the system later on which is more generally adapted for war. We find that the health of the citizens of this force as disclosed by the medical returns is still very unsatisfactory, and that at least slightly over 50 per cent. of those who are medically examined for the permanent force were rejected. No doubt a considerable standard of physical efficiency is expected in that force but when we come to the figures we find that the active citizen force returns are very disquieting indeed. To begin with, the standard required is very low indeed, and the percentage of rejections very high. Only 68 per cent. were found to be fit. The Cape Town district is very unsatisfactory, and pre-eminently so, in that area only 43.9 per cent. were found to be fit for the very limited requirements. My suggestion is that the cadet training should be more thorough and their medical inspection carried out so efficiently that defects could be discoursed and remedial measures taken where desirable and possible to develop sounder physique. I think that would be a wise move, not only with regard to the future prospects of the boys, but that it would be very much appreciated by the people of this country. When the Minister replies I would ask him if he has ever worked out what our defence force is designed for. Is it clear what the defence force will be called upon to do? It is noticeable how rigidly we stick to the mounted troops. Yet the horse is disappearing almost entirely from ordinary life. I observed that according to the experience of the purchasing board only 7 per cent. of the horses inspected were found to be suitable for military purposes. I think the department should take serious notice of that state of things. The function of the horse is to provide mobility for the fighting man; the useful limit of the horse is about 20 miles per day. Even with regard to our mobile artillery the Minister should take into serious consideration the desirability of providing other means of traction and transport. With regard to the cadet corps, if hon. members will turn to page 11 they will find that not only have the numbers of the force increased, but when they have been brought into competition with other cadet units of the empire they have maintained a very proud place. They occupied over one-third of the unit lists of honour. We may believe that these young men will eventually be found to be the most efficient of our active citizen force units should they, unfortunately, have to be mobilized for the purposes of war. I would like to see a much greater expansion of our air force.

I agree to a great extent with the last speaker in connection with the training of the defence force. I am very glad that all debates on defence in this House are kept above party politics and also that the Minister of Defence also receives criticism well even when hon. members of the House find it necessary to criticize, a little unfavourably at times. After speaking on this subject last year when I thought I was expressing the opinion of the public and when I made certain suggestions in connection with the defence force and its reorganization I am sorry that although we are again debating the matter we have as yet seen no alteration. We feel somewhat disappointed because the changes have not yet been effected and that no satisfactory reason has been given why they have not been made, or why they are not considered desirable. Sometimes we hesitate a little to speak about defence because one of my friends said last time that it might be encouraging too much militarism and that it might in future become one of the chief characteristics of our people; but then I want to say at once that although I do speak about defence every year it is not in the least my intention to encourage militarism. We welcome anything which is intended to promote world peace because a great deal depends on it in our case; our whole existence, the existence of the commonwealth of nations, everything depends on it. We also welcome the permanent Court of International Justice and hope that it will contribute to the passing of world laws which will take the place of the present inhuman force of arms which is employed to settle differences between nations. But while we are waiting for the appearance of the dawn of such a millenium we cannot sit still as a nation and allow things to drift. We feel that something must be done for our self-defence and we hope that in this respect some alteration will be made and that in the near future those who ask for them as well as the public will be satisfied. When I spoke about defence last year the Minister mentioned two points and they were the same quoted every year. The first was that it was not necessary for us to develop an organization for any war of great importance and the second was that it was not necessary for us to worry so much about defence because we had a big friend who protected us. I am a little afraid that we are wandering about in the old school when we use such arguments and so I have looked up a rather authoritative writer on the point and found that we must be prepared any time to stand up for our rights and privileges as a sovereign free nation.

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

Evening Sitting.

When proceedings were adjourned I was just dealing with a remark by the Minister about our defence organization that it was not necessary for us at the moment to prepare for any great war in the future. I said that my own opinion would possibly not have too much weight and that therefore I would quote from a few authorities in the matter, because they differ from the Minister’s view. I do not know whether this year he has a different opinion to what he expressed in the past. I want to quote from what was said about the next war at a lecture by Mr. J. H. Morgan, K.C., professor of jurisprudence in the University of London—

He goes further by making it clear that while it is still being considered by the Governments of the dominions and of Great Britain whether they shall begin a war or not, the war may possibly be over. We must therefore take precautionary measures to prepare, so as to be ready as much as possible. It may also be said that we can safely leave our protection to the British fleet, but we must remember that the British fleet is no longer what it was. Again I do not want to say it myself because then my words might be doubted, so I will quote an authority whom I know very well and for whose opinion I have much respect, namely, General Sir George Aston, who comes to the following conclusion in his book on the defence problem—

That is the opinion of one who writes with authority on defence matters. Now I come to land defence and here I will also quote an authority, namely, Maj.-Gen. Sir Edmund Ironside. [Time limit.]

In the annual report of the Defence Department it is pointed out quite correctly that our defence expenditure is a sort of insurance premium. My trouble is that we have no definite information as to what we are insuring against. What calamity do we expect and what form do we expect it to take? I think the time is overdue when the conditions under which the Defence Force is intended to be used should be laid down. It is only when we have definite views for the purpose for which it is intended that we can shape the weapon. As we know, we cannot be self-contained in defence matters. We must take cognizance of what is going on in the world, first of all as to the likelihood of any war. In all other countries I think you will find there is a special department of the general staff devoting their whole time practically to the study of these matters. On the conclusions that arose from such a study we would make our plans and arrangements. I do not notice that we are making a systematic study in any shape or form. I do not think it can be completely done in this country, and I think we should arrange for a portion of our staff to go to other parts of the world and see what they are doing there. We are spending a very large sum of money indeed on defence, but I am not sure that any hon. member would give a reasoned reply if he were asked what exact purpose does this large expenditure cover. I do not know if the question of disarmament has been considered to any extent. Undoubtedly the arrangements which other countries are making must be of considerable interest and importance to us. We do not know of any step taken in that matter in South Africa. It is not simply a South African matter—it is a matter of worldwide importance, and I hope it will receive more attention than it has in the past. The defence force will not be satisfactory unless it is founded solidly on a basis of sufficient information. The Minister might tell us how far he has studied these problems. This country is eminently suitable for motor transport of all kinds. I do not know of any country in which the conditions are more favourable. We have a large proportion of motor vehicles, I think one to every fifteen of the European population. That ensures a very large number of vehicles of all sorts that could be registered now for use in time of need. That has all to be taken into consideration. There is no doubt whatever that the mobility of armies is as important now as it ever was. I should like to refer to the disappointment one feels at the very inadequate amount of camp experience that is provided for. We suffer from the fact that brigadiers and other senior officers have not the opportunity of handling large numbers of troops. Why should not the Minister arrange to give brigadiers the opportunity to learn to carry out those duties which they would be called upon to perform in the event of war? I would suggest they should be given the opportunity of visiting large camps in India and elsewhere and seeing how troops are handled. If cadets were assembled in fairly large camps it would have a double advantage—it would provide the personnel for senior officers to handle troops and it would provide experience in the food supply of troops. It has been said that an army is in motion and has to be fed 100 days in time of war for every day that it fights. The Minister will remember how terribly the army suffered in East Africa for want of an experienced staff to supply the troops and to move them with the efficiency which is called for. No money could be better spent than on arranging camps on this large scale. Above all, it will inspire confidence among the men if they felt that their commanding officers are qualified to lead them. [Time limit.]

When my time expired I was about to quote the opinion of Sir Edmund Ironside about land forces. He writes—

I have quoted it to show that not only I feel we should be prepared in time of peace to defend our rights and privileges but also that men of very high authority, of experience and learning hold that view. General Ironside is not only thinking of what takes place in Great Britain but he expects that each of the dominions will also be a strong and healthy chain in the British commonwealth of nations if a time of danger comes. As for our military training and organization South Africa is one of the weakest chains in the commonwealth, and it will not even need a good pull to break this chain. We know anyhow that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. I think that possibly too much time is given to our political affairs. We have sovereign independence and the privileges accompanying it and we are developing in all directions to indicate that we are a self-dependent and proud people but the pride of a nation is the force which is behind its self-dependence. The power of all nations comes from the inspiration they get from their defence forces and every country looks to those forces as the national kernel from which it derives inspiration and strength. In our country we are developing right and left and in every direction and we talk quite big about freedom and independence. We however never think that coupled with the rights and privileges there are very great responsibilities, and we must see to it that the people obtain the protection which is their due. In my opinion we have done very little to guard our boundaries. Take, e.g., Cape Town one of the chief cities. Quite superficially when you look at the defences of Cape Town you get the impression that Cape Town is not defended by its coastal garrison but by its suburbs. Any enemy that comes here, however civilized or uncivilized he may be, will say that he cannot allow himself to be fired at from the town and he will therefore destroy the town. The Signal Hill battery is really the greatest danger to Cape Town. We have a Heligoland not far from here. I mean Robben Island, but instead of having put a fortress there we have sent insane people there. We must commence to think from what side we can defend Cape Town. If we go to the other large coastal towns, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban—and also Swakopmund—we see that they are exposed. Any submarine can go there, destroy the towns and go away unharmed. It is time that we should more seriously take up the question of defence than in the past. We do not merely want to see tin soldiers in South Africa. No, we want something born of the people, of which the people can be proud so that we need not look abroad if we want to see armies which compel our admiration. When we have reached that stage then all the talk in Parliament about conciliation and co-operation will be solved because it is only when you have had the various white races behind the same guns that you will make a united people of them and will make them proud of what they are and what they ought to be. No, I think that our political development is going so fast that we are being left in the lurch in military matters. I therefore appeal to the Minister to give very serious attention to the matter in future. In March there was a wapenskou in Marico and I took the trouble of going to it from Pretoria. I must say that I did not stay long—about an hour—when I had had enough of it. I went away annoyed because it was sad to see men from sixteen to sixty years of age mixed up in all sorts of ways in the same ranks.

Mr. Chairman I have just noticed in the Rules of Order something that makes me ask whether the hon. member is entitled to stand and speak in the gangway.

The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) may proceed.

He is one of the little tin soldiers. If we had had an army and the hon. member was a member of it, he would have been able to do more useful work in the House than what he has just done. Now I just want to return to wapenskous. I really cannot understand what the intention is regarding such wapenskous. I have attended them before and was myself responsible for many but I always felt that when they were held it should be for some purpose or other. It should not as someone openly said in the House the other day for a picnic. They must in the first place be held to give the officers an opportunity to learn how they must act if subsequently they are called upon to lead a commando. [Time limit.]

I think I might assist by saying a few words so that the hon. member might continue.

Many thanks.

I do not think I can allow the hon. member to continue his speech in the circumstances. The Minister made no speech but merely an interruption.

It is rather a pity that one of the hon. members opposite who has spoken on this vote did not move a reduction in my salary so that they might not have been restricted. I have made certain remarks explaining what the Government’s policy is with regard to defence—

We cannot hear a word.

It is very difficult with the House in this shape to speak so as to be heard by all hon. members. I made it fairly clear what the Government’s policy was on the last occasion when the defence estimates were under discussion. I have listened to the two hon. members and their criticisms, with regard to a certain portion of which I quite agree, that there has been improvement and that we should go on improving, but I think I might leave a more detailed answer to those hon. members until they have finished their discussion.

My complaint of the defence vote in the past is that there has been very little time to take hold of the bigger matters underlying our whole system of defence. We have discussed details rather than those larger questions. Before I decide whether to move the reduction of the Minister’s salary, I would like to formulate exactly what, from my point of view, is required. Perhaps this will enable the Minister to reply. I submit, in view of the changes that have taken place recently, and are taking place, in world conditions, that the time has arrived for a thorough investigation into the whole matter of defence. We want to know what the conditions are that necessitate a defence force. We are spending more than ever on our defence arrangements, and that hardly seems right. Other countries are rapidly reducing their military expenditure. I am not complaining of the amount of the vote, but we have reason to demand that we should be told why this amount is being spent, and whether it is being spent to the best advantage. Let us, as far as possible, arrange it that, this investigation should take place by qualified and representative men, not in a spirit of criticism of the Government or the department, but to take note of this large and increasing expenditure, and whether it is justified in view of world conditions. This investigation should be comprehensive, and I am quite sure that if it is carried out thoroughly we will be able to confer very great advantages on the youth of South Africa. I think we shall find that a reduction of our expenditure will be justified, and that a reorganization of our defence arrangements will follow such an investigation. The old adage that the way to preserve peace is to prepare for war can no longer be accepted without qualification. We must be guided by the experience of history, and at no time were preparations for war more extensive than for forty or fifty years prior to 1914. We know that preparation for war has precipitated war, but we have to recognize how far this affects us in the Union, and what other nations are doing in the direction of perpetuating peace. I suppose we will stand for the principle that we do not desire war, and that we maintain a defence force so, if war may not break out, we shall not be utterly unprepared. There are many matters on which it is obvious that we must recast the whole of our organization. It would take a very long time for me to explain my views with regard to the development of the air force. I hope that with civil aviation coming into this country to a greater extent every year, the department will take the fullest advantage of that in order to build up the necessary reserve of pilots and artificers should we have to employ our air force in time of war. I wonder if we are content to remain behind the rest of the world who are now preparing to send their troops into action, protected as far as possible by armoured tanks and other means? I do not know how far we are prepared to go in that direction, and whether we may expect to meet a civilized enemy. We do not know whether our defence department has taken cognizance of the great advance in machinegun fire and automatic rifles. There are many other matters in which the world is moving, and there is no evidence whether we are moving, or whether it is intended for us to move. I am not for a moment approaching these matters in a critical spirit as to details. I am quite sure that, from the Minister downwards, loyal service is being rendered by the department, but we want to ensure that these efforts are being well directed, and that the penalty of their not being well organized and directed will not be paid by unfortunate citizens being compelled to wage war under conditions which should not obtain, and with no hope of success. Well, I think the Minister has got to the position where he relies on the fact that all is for the best in the best of all possible departments, that we cannot learn anything from anybody else. We can learn something from those who may be our possible enemies at some future time. I hope the Minister will give his serious attention to these matters. It is desirous above all for the Minister to see that the force on which we have to rely in the future for safety is equipped in the best way and that we may be satisfied that the preparations for our safety are reasonably good, and as far as funds permit, the army upon which we depend is efficient. We ought to lay a good deal of stress on following the lead of much more powerful nations than we are. We can also insure our future safety by developing our younger men. I do not see why we insist on our young men passing the high standard of education without insisting also on a high standard of efficiency in case they have to take their place in defending us. These are my suggestions and I hope the Minister will receive them in the spirit in which they are offered. I think the Minister will be well advised to take stock of the situation in South Africa and elsewhere and say in what way he can modify the existing condition of things.

I should also like to say a few words about defence. There is a grievance we have in the country, namely, that we are not sufficiently encouraged. I see the vote amounts to about £900,000 and I do not for a moment want to say that it is too high for our defence. I know the present Minister has economised on the vote, but yet I want to warn him against too much economy as there is the danger of our possibly suffering through it later. Defence in South Africa is not based on the idea of a permanent defence force but of the citizen force on the countryside and they must be ready if anything happens in the future. If we, however, enquire what the position is in connection with rifle associations and training we find it is deplorable. The young men have to undergo training to prepare themselves if danger should threaten their country and its people, but they have to pay for everything themselves because the Defence Force provides practically nothing. We cannot expect, in such circumstances, that proper training will take place. No proper arms are supplied and I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to train the boys gradually and to provide a little money for arms. I see that £35,000 is provided on the Estimates for the whole Union. The Minister is surely not afraid to supply our own people with arms? If that is the case then the position is particularly sad. No one knows what the future will bring. When we are at peace we must be prepared for war and when at war we must strive for peace. It deprives the people of their courage if they get no proper chance of training. We find that the rifles they are issued now and then are useless, and now and then they get a few cartridges for shooting. Such training is useless. The Minister ought to spend a little more on equipping the Defence Force if he expects anything of it.

I know more or less what is the complaint of my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Alberts). The Minister is correct in spending a large sum of money on the air force. I also agree that we should have a very efficient artillery force. Also cadets and the active citizen force. I think it is a mistake, however, that so little is to be spent in connection with the defence rifle associations, for in case of trouble, they are the men upon whom we rely to do the job. These men are used to doing things all their lives, to have their own horses, but I am sorry to see the commando system is failing in this country. The Government is not even giving them ammunition to assist them. When these people are keep it is right to give them some assistance. We do not ask that all these commandoes should be armed, but the question has been put to me on several occasions that the reasonable thing is to supply a certain number of rifles, so that when they go to the butts to shoot they can have a decent rifle to shoot with. The rifles will be looked after. If, say, a dozen rifles were given to each rifle association, the members would be encouraged. I am surprised at times at the interest they take in their shooting, seeing the little encouragement they are given, and remembering all the jobs they are called upon to do. It is this arm of the service that will have to do the biggest work in the case of trouble.

I should like to remind the Minister of Defence of the promise he made when the matter was debated last year namely that the young Afrikaners of the countryside who live close together will be given the opportunity of forming corps. Has the promise been kept? The Minister gave the expectation that the people at Scheerpoort, e.g., would get horses so that they could be trained. What the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) said is quite true, our young people on the countryside are hardly able to ride or shoot any longer. The opportunity given them is very small and we feel the matter must be attended to. Very little money is spent on Rifle Associations and we cannot understand it. We who come into touch with the countryside cannot understand the position. They get a little ammunition and fire a few shots, and the training is futile. There are possibly five or at most ten rifles for a hundred men and the men subsequently lose interest. The Minister must tackle the matter and see that the young fellows are given a chance. The boys in the country, the members of the rifle association will be the first to be called up for the defence of the country. It seems to me that the Defence Force is top-heavy. Most of the expenditure disappears at Headquarters and we think an alteration should be made. This is a national, not a party question and the Minister must discuss matters with his staff and alter things. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood) advocated the combination of the police and the defence forces the other day and I should like to know if that cannot be given effect to. We have the Police Commissariat and the Defence Commissariat which agree to a great extent. Both cost a lot of money. The Commandant of Police invited me recently to attend the taking over by the police of a number of people from the Defence Force. The men were quite unsuitable and it took three months to train them and teach them what was required. Why are they not taught it in the Defence Force? We feel that the Air Force is very important as well as the Artillery and everyone is satisfied about every penny spent on them. There is another point of importance to Pretoria South. I understand that Captain Geldenhuys has been appointed as the new commandant there. I have absolutely nothing against him, but he is a townsman and lives in Pretoria. We have hitherto had Commandant van der Walt and we feel that it is not right to appoint some one from the town. The people outside would like a local commandant who knows the farmers and the conditions in the district.

Who recommended him?

I don’t know, but I know the conditions in Pretoria South, hence I am drawing the Minister’s attention to them.

The Minister must remember that when mounted men are required, they are wanted in a hurry.

Will you speak a little louder?

It is very gratifying to find the number of mounted men who attend the annual training camps, but the weak point is the saddlery of their horses. It would he a good thing for the country if they could be supplied with saddles by Government on condition that they repaid the expense involved, the repayments to be spread over a number of years.

I notice that provision is made for the appointment, for the first time, of two midshipmen in our naval service. This is a step in the right direction, although the initial move may seem a very small one. Does the Minister think he is providing possibilities for a permanent career for these two lads? Have they been appointed from the “Botha”? and does he think there is any possibility of affording more openings for young, fellows who enter our naval service? I believe that sooner or later South Africa will have to play a much greater part than she does at present in the way of naval defence, either by paying for it or else by supplying it herself, and naturally as a South African, I would like to see it supplied by ourselves as far as possible. Therefore, I am quite sure we should all welcome a little information on this point.

I would like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) who, I understood, objected to the appointment of Captain Geldenhuys to command the Pretoria Central commando on the ground that he was from the town and not from the country. I take it we are entitled to assume that this gentleman was appointed to the command on the ground of merit and because he was considered the most efficient person for it. I hope it is not going to be supposed that the country has the monopoly of military genius and skill. I hope there will be no tendency to exclude any gentleman on the ground that he lives in the town. I submit that the only consideration should be that of efficiency. The hon. member said he had nothing against Captain Geldenhuys, and I take it he brings nothing against him on the score of efficiency. I hope the Minister will not give attention to any consideration, but that of efficiency, and I hope this appointment will not be interfered with. I also want to refer briefly to the question of naval defence, and I welcome the statement by an hon. member opposite to the effect that our new status, carrying with it privileges, also carries responsibilities, and we must face that fact and remember that, among those responsibilities, is that of bearing our share of the common burden of naval defence. That is a question that must be faced. I do not say we can afford to bear such a proportion of the burden as our trade warrants, but we can bear a more considerable portion than at present. The South African naval forces are efficient no doubt, but they are small, and I wish to add my voice in support of what has been said to the effect that we must consider our responsibilities and see that our development in the direction of defence is commensurate with our development in commerce and industry and without political development.

I just want to say that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) apparently does not understand Afrikaans. I merely said that the farmers would much like to have a local man. If the hon. member practises as an advocate in Cape Town and I brought someone from Johannesburg he would take exception to it. On the countryside there are people who are just as capable, and perhaps more so, and it is desired that such a person should be appointed. They have always had their own commandant and do not see why someone from the towns should now be appointed. I think the people from outside have proved they are competent. Does the hon. member think that the people in the towns who wear nice uniforms and whose competency consists in strutting about the streets in uniform are the only possible commandants? If there are competent people in the districts they ought to be appointed.

I must say that as a man of peace I do not know very much about military affairs, but I have just looked through the estimates and listened to the speeches this evening in the hope that I would learn a bit more. It reminded me of a picture which I saw a few weeks ago of an army in the Transvaal, consisting of one general, two colonels and one man. The general was the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the two colonels were the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz), and Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), and the man was the hon. member for Johannesburg North (Mr. L. Geldenhuys). Then I read once that the army of Haiti consisted of 7,000 officers and 3,000 men. Now I noticed on page 60 of the Estimates that one division consists of a quartermaster-general, two staff officers, one chief clerk, one senior clerk, nine clerical assistants, an adjutant, one non-commissioned officer, one staff sergeant, two sergeants and one man. Is that a kind of Haiti army? On page 24 there is a still more inexplicable list, one lieutenant, two chaplains (temporary), and two partial chaplains, two sergeants, four corporals, one lance-corporal and three men. Do the chaplains preach to the corporals and three men alternately, or has the lieutenant also to attend the service? To one unacquainted with military matters it looks a little funy.

I would like to answer my hon. friend. These figures, of course, relate to the staff. I would reply to my hon. friend on the right. The people of Pretoria (South) showed a very wise discretion in the last Parliament in having a member from the town to represent them when they elected him, so why should the hon. member quarrel with the appointment to this commando?

On a point of order, I have a farm in Pretoria (South).

I can only say in reply to the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) that we are acting on the very best advice we can get. The hon. member, and the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) both expressed their views as to the extent to which our arrangements require recasting. Obviously hon. members know very well there are documents which in the public interest I cannot quote, but so far as we can anticipate these things we believe we are acting quite safely in acting on the general programme which we have laid down, to aim at putting ten thousand in the field in four or five days, backed up by a force of fifteen thousand within a week or two. We believe that will give us sufficient time to develop the other military strength we may require.

Is it to be an army of ten thousand men, or just ten thousand men?

As the hon. member knows very well, the whole basis of our defence is defence by citizen soldiers, and we cannot have a large standing army. The whole of our arrangements are devoted to training our young men in units which can be extended in time of emergency. I entirely agree that these defence matters should be entirely divorced from party. I made a full statement in introducing these estimates last year, and in reading over my remarks I find nothing to add to them except this: I am conscious of the fact that since the Defence Act was passed in 1912 in many respects conditions in the country have so materially altered that we shall have to amend the Act in certain respects. We first of all have to consider the question of the training of our young men. Let me say in reply to hon. members behind me who made criticisms with regard to the differences of training given in town and country, that when we took office the amount of training in the country districts, apart from the four Natal mounted regiments, was just nothing. We are now training, not by any means in a satisfactory manner, seven thousand or eight thousand young men under the Defence Act, and we are spending a considerable amount. I must express my agreement as to what was said by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood) and other hon. members that the Wapenskou system is largely getting out of date. We have reduced the number very much, and substituted a six days’ camp for officers and non-commissioned officers. We have also 40 training squadrons, and have made a commencement—and a very imperfect one in training them. We give them five days’ training per annum.

It is too little.

Ten days would be too little. When discussing the budget hon. members accused the Government of continually adding to the expenditure, but when you come to the estimates you ask us usually to spend more money. I hope we may be able to extend that in the country districts, and my aim is to get them up to the same training as, and better than, the active citizen force, so that these young men, when they have been trained and are called out, will have a good ground work and fall into their place better than those who are untrained. Let me say to my hon. friend behind me that if we are going to do that satisfactorily we must realize that the greater part of the money we are spending should be concentrated on training young men between 18 and 21. The older men when they have been trained will always be there, and will always be ready to get into their places. But these things have got to be done gradually. Every time when we have the September course with the commandants and commanders of forces, we have the complaint that in this loose organisation there is not the possibility of enforcing discipline, and we always have a demand for the power of compulsion. The Defence Act does not permit of any compulsion until men are called out except in so far as the training of young men is concerned, and if you are going to have compulsion you have to compensate men for the expense they are put to when you enforce that compulsion. I still think that the basis of the Defence Act is suitable to our circumstances, though there are things which have changed very much since the Defence Act was passed. To-day with technical training and the Apprenticeship Act we are finding more and more that the two duties of technical training and defence training are coming into conflict in our large towns. We find too in the country districts that we have got to get the young men between 18 and 21. My mind tends in the direction of making more use of our cadet organisation. I am glad the hon. member paid a tribute to our cadets. They won the King’s Trophy for, I think, the fourth time. The cadet training in drill is a very necessary foundation. If you get that well developed and thoroughly drilled into the boys, they will not forget it. I want to increase the continuous training, and to rely for drill, much more on the development of our cadets’ training. I continually have letters from people, for whose opinions I have the profoundest respect, asking me not to accede to the request for the development of our cadet system, on the ground that it teaches boys that war is an inevitable thing. I do not agree with them. The days of war. I would like to hope, are past, but we have to make up our minds that we have not yet arrived at the millenium. I am perfectly certain that training is a very excellent thing for a youngster. It makes him smart and teaches him how to move smartly. My mind runs in the direction of increasing continuous training, and of decreasing the non-continuous training—that barrack square hour or hour-and-a-half’s drill. My hon. friend asked whether we are doing anything in the direction of mechanisation. I rather hesitate to jump in while other people are experimenting, who are in a much better position to experiment than we are. We are watching carefully. I know that in Maritzburg we have a very difficult position in connection with the citizen battery there. It was quite an easy thing in former days to make contracts with cartage contractors for battery training and so on, but to-day you cannot. In the meantime I consider that our present position is to get our horses for our permanent batteries, and in an emergency we should be able to man other batteries. My hon. friend from Magaliesburg (Mr. Alberts) spoke of the rifle clubs. Well, the Government long ago had this matter under consideration, the demands from every part of the country for the arming of the burghers. I need not assure my hon. friend that there is no fear of want of arms. But are we going to have the whole of the country standing to arms the whole time? The expense would be enormous, and we do not think any danger the country is under justifies the expense of giving rifles to all men who belong to the rifle associations. There are 10 per cent, of the men in the rifle associations supplied on loan. I am given to understand that 10 rifles per 100 men on loan meets the case. As to there being bad rifles, and corroded rifles and things of that sort, all they have to do is to send them to headquarters. We are continually re-barrelling rifles. With regard to the saddles, I think saddles can be obtained on rebate from the arsenals.

A complaint has been received from one of the officers.

In reply to the question asked by the member for Peninsula (South) (Mr. Waterson), it is for the purpose of training our own officers we are taking some of the boys from the “General Botha” and putting them on same of His Majesty’s ships.

The Minister does not disclose if he intends to improve the conditions of the training of officers. I would like to see a scheme whereby the officers would have an opportunity of increasing their skill. As far as I understand the Minister, he based his arguments on the scarcity of finding horses, on the difficulty of finding remounts. I think it is time the Minister recognized that the day of the horse in modern warfare is passed, and I will give the House a few facts about it. The supremacy of the horse commenced 378 A.D. That was the first case in which cavalry was used successfully, to meet the trained Roman legions. From that date dates the supremacy of the horse, and that state of things existed for nearly 1,000 years, until the improvement in firearms rectified the difference between the men on horses and those on foot. The advantage of the horse was his great mobility which enabled troops to be moved rapidly, but the cavalry of to-day has legs of steel; instead of a lance, it has a levelled machine gun; and what is the good of opposing our troops with horse against an enemy with machine guns in armoured cars or tanks? I think that time has fully arrived, indeed, we are past the stage of “keeping an eye” on replacing horse transport. The Minister is wise not to go to much expense. The country has an ideal surface for road transport, and cars can go further than horses. The military authorities surely are aware that motor vehicles to-day travel Africa from north to south. In a recent expedition in Mongolia, where roads scarcely exist, 10,000 miles were travelled very successfully by motor-cars, and at the end of the journey they were in such good condition, after travelling 10,000 miles, over rough country, that they were sold for more than they cost. We have every reason to use motor transport, as our country is most suitable, and in addition to that, a large number of the citizens of the Union are accustomed to the management of motor transport. I suggest that the Minister should go on the lines of recognizing that the transport of the future will not be animal transport, but mechanical.

I notice that 395 natives are employed in the Defence Department; is that necessary? I think it is a mistake to employ so great a number of natives in this department. Will the Minister apply the colour bar and reduce the native personnel. Surely it is a new idea for an officer to have a native batman? Then why are native police employed in the department? Do any of these natives carry arms and are they drilled?

I could not hear a word that the Minister said in reply to my remarks.

I am very sorry, but the point escaped me. It is a little bit difficult to be audible both in front and at the back of one. We give a certain amount of free ammunition and men are able to buy additional supplies at a little below cost price. They can also buy a rifle from us for something like £6, which is something like 60 per cent, of the amount they would have to pay outside. As to the employment of natives in the department, I will give the matter my close attention.

Reduce their number altogether.

I do not think we can reduce the number entirely; it is a matter of expense. As to the point raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) it would not be much use for brigadiers to watch other officers handling large numbers of men. I Would prefer to concentrate all our forces in one camp every few years.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 20, “Interior,” £244,261,

I am rather struck by the item “parliamentary election expenses, 1929-1930, £15,500.” I am wondering if that adumbrates another General Election. It struck me that the Government, seeing that more votes were polled at the General Election for us than for them, now realise that they are sitting there under false pretences, and that as an act of tardy justice the Minister is making provision for another General Election. It must be a very important General Election as it is to cost £15,000 more than the amount set down for last year. There is another item “Repatriation of, and expenses in connection with, free and destitute Asiatics, £70,000.” Last year, the Government took £85,000 for this purpose. Does this reduction in the vote mean that the Asiatic policy of the Government is a failure, and that the repatriation of Asiatics is declining, for I presume that a reduction of 20 per cent, in the vote means that 20 per cent, fewer Asiatics are to be repatriated? The time evidently has come to revise this policy, which we reluctantly accepted on the assurance that, if it were not successful, the Government would review it and would take steps to lessen the Asiatic menace in Natal. Is the Minister satisfied that this policy will eventually enable us to get a grip of the Indian position in the Transvaal and Natal? There is one other point. I understand that the Senate elections are not covered by the Electoral Act. In that case, it may be possible for Government to enable us to vote for the election of Senators by proxy as it will be frightfully inconvenient for us to return to Cape Town in a fortnight’s time to vote for the new Senators. To some of us it means a six days’ journey. I only throw it out as a suggestion, but if it were possible to apply some regulation by which the absent voter could vote by proxy it would be a tremendous convenience to a great many of us. I hope the Minister will give that his consideration.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the very few successes in Afrikaans in the public service examinations in Natal. As hon. members know, Afrikaans is spoken very little in Natal and it is a serious handicap to our young fellows there. They have only a book knowledge of the language which is difficult to a daily speaking knowledge. All these lads have matriculated. Under the circumstances may I appeal to the Minister to modify the examinations. If these lads were transferred to some district after passing where they would come into daily contact with the language I am sure they would be just as proficient as any other young South Africans. If the Minister would do this it would bring a ray of sunshine and hope in the hearts of these lads. Many of them are bitterly disappointed. They are doing their best. I know of cases where young men have failed and are leaving the Union to find employment for their qualifications I am sure the Minister will deplore that position. The examinations should be modified. The standard is too high in regard to Natal, where the knowledge of the language is only book knowledge.

There are one or two matters I want to bring to the attention of the Minister in connection with various votes under his control. The first is with regard to the report which has come into our hands recently—the report of the commission for mental hygiene. I want to know what action the Minister is taking with regard to that report because there is a great deal in it of a very disquieting character in regard to the prevalence of feeble-mindedness and mental disorder in our population. There is one sentence that struck me very much in connection with the criticism we have had of the present budget. The first sentence under the head of mental hygiene reads—

Financial stringency! I thought we were living in a time of overflowing surpluses, that we had more money than we knew what to do with. We can send ambassadors to Rome and Washington, but we cannot provide for the unfortunate mental patients and the feebleminded owing to financial stringency. It seems to me rather a jarring note in the orchestra of congratulations as to the flourishing finances of the Union.

Did you do it in your time?

We did not live in a time of everflowing revenue and we did not spend £20,000 a year on sending ambassadors to Rome and Washington.

So you left them on the streets?

No, we did not leave them on the streets. I know perfectly well that in our time the mental hospitals were not adequate for the number we had to provide for, but we had the excuse of financial stringency, and this Government has not that excuse.

Whose excuse is it—the Government’s or theirs?

Well, this report is published under the authority of the Minister, so I take it is his excuse.

Did he write it?

I do not suppose he did, but it is published under his authority and I take it he is responsible for what it contains. If we are not to accept these reports given under the authority of Ministers as expressing the opinion of the Government, what is the use of spending this money? When we read a sentence like this we are entitled to assume that it is the opinion of the department. If we are not to regard this as a responsible document expressing the opinion of the Minister responsible to Parliament it is a waste of money. I can only take this document for what it says. Another point is in connection with maintenance grants for children under the child welfare department. I know that that vote has been increasing very rapidly in past years, and that an attempt was made last year to curtail the expenditure under that head, but fortunately that has not been continued. In my opinion that expenditure, if it is carefully administered, can be most valuable for the country, but it has to be carefully administered; if it is not I quite admit it can be wasted. With careful administration, and if the Minister will work in conjunction with the various societies and agencies, that vote can be one of the most valuable classes of expenditure in the whole of these estimates. I want to know from the Minister whether it is a fact that a circular has been sent round to the effect that when a mother comes before the magistrate and applies for a maintenance grant for her children she is required to sign an undertaking that if required by the department she will hand over her children to an industrial school or some other public institution. I know that undertaking has been insisted upon in certain cases in Johannesburg. Now that, I think, is imposing a condition on these grants which is entirely contrary to the whole object with which they are given, which is the maintenance of homes. Where a woman can maintain a decent home she should not be compelled to send her children to some institution. I know cases where women have refused these grants and have rather gone back to poverty than part with their children, except under the absolute pressure of starvation, and these are the women who ought to be helped, for whom these maintenance grants were intended. This provision defeats the whole object.

Do you not think it will be abused?

With proper supervision there need be no serious abuse. It has never before been thought necessary to introduce a provision of this kind. Various child welfare societies assist the Minister in supervision, to inspect the homes and see that the money is properly used. I hope that it is not the Minister’s intention to enforce this provision. Then I want to ask the Minister what is the position in regard to plague. We hear from time to time rather alarming accounts of the advance of plague, and how it is gradually coming up and across the Vaal. (Time Limit.)

I should like to discuss for a few moments with the Minister his housing policy. There seem to be doubt in the minds of the people, particularly in Natal, what his policy is going to be. There is a rumour going about that the Minister was so displeased with the policy followed in Durban with regard to their housing work, that he contemplates withdrawing his vote. I do not suppose the Minister ever expressed this view or contemplated this, because if he considers there has been a failure on the part of the Durban corporation to make proper provision for housing, and he still has that doubt, it might perhaps be as well to enlighten him as to what has taken place there during the past three years. If he will consider these figures he will see that the record of Durban will stand as high as that of probably any other city in the Union. It has completed ten schemes, consisting of 399 dwellings, and has now in hand schemes for housing the poorer Europeans, coloured and Indians. It has borrowed from the Housing Board £399,219 of which it has expended £446,976 which necessitated drawing on their sinking fund £15,000 to make up the difference. During the past three years Durban has also spent £49,879 to improve Indian housing. This the Minister will admit is a most necessary development in a town with a sub-tropical climate. It has spent £17,538 on land for Indians in Cato Manor just beyond the borough. It is interesting to note Durban proposes to utilise the £120,000 because this has a direct bearing on the policy of the Government. There is a large population which is not actually a Durban population. There is the Indian population, which cannot be ignored, and there is an increasing population coming there in connection with the white labour policy instituted by the Government on the railways which has thrown a responsibility on Durban which it is going to face. A sum of £70,000 is utilized for housing Europeans and £50,000 for the Indians on the new lands, and the only matter of delay is that of laying out the necessary lands. Perhaps these figures will give the Minister cause to think, and that, although the money may not have been spent as quickly and as rashly as in other parts of South Africa, it is going to be spent. These figures have been supplied by the Mayor of Durban, so may be accepted as authentic.

I should like to say something about the Vote, “Hospitals for Mental Defectives and Institutions for Weak-minded Persons.” I see that of the eleven institutions mentioned here three are finally institutions for weakminded namely, Alexandria, Fort Napier and Witrand at Potchefstroom. The other institutions are all for mental defectives. I want to ask the Minister whether a change cannot be made at Witrand because there is still a considerable mixture of mental defectives and the weak-minded there. We have both there, but the institution is intended for weak-minded. I do not say this to criticise bitterly but in order to point out the desirability of ‘keeping Witrand exclusively for weak-minded. There is a great need of such an institution in the North. Here in the Cape Province in the South there are two institutions, Alexandria and Fort Napier. There is certainly not enough being done in this respect. I know it will cost a lot of money to establish a big institution, but as we have the building and everything is ready at Witrand I cannot see why the mental defectives should not be removed from there somewhere else. Why should it not be purely an educational institution for hundreds of weak-minded children. Many more children ought to be taken into it. They cannot be dealt with at the ordinary schools, they require special study, and they could easily learn something so that in after life they can look after themselves. I think we ought to do more in that direction. As for the institution—which I am well, acquainted with—I want to say that it is fitted up in an entirely exemplary way, good outstanding work is being done there. There is however some dissatisfaction among the tradesmen who are working there. They complain that their pay is not the same as that of men in the Public Works Department. The latter is merely another Government institution at the same place, but the people at Witrand do not get the same pay as the others do under trade union rule. This they cannot understand even if the pay is only a little less. Then they would also like a little recreation. They want a little time off from the hard work they do in this institution. There is a letter on the matter at the Minister’s office and I shall be glad if he will see that the people who work at Witrand get the same pay as those in the Public Works Department, who do the same work under the same circumstances. There is another point I should like to discuss. I think I may venture to speak about it because otherwise I do not know when to do so. I say this with reference to what I wrote recently to the department with regard to the admission of two deformed children in one of the institutions which I wrote to the Minister of the Interior. The reply was that there was no provision at present for such people. There is a private institution for them near Cape Town but it is quite inadequate. Can we not spend a little money and aid such private institutions by a grant as is done in the case of the Blind Institution at Worcester. These deformed persons constitute an unfortunate part of society, and to-day they are excluded. These young people can still be taught something useful to them. They are now practically left to themselves, and I should like the Minister to give his attention to the matter. It is a thing that people expect, and I promised to raise the matter and I hope the Minister will give a favourable reply.

I want to know from the Minister whether anything has been done in the direction of making the services of the district surgeons in the remote parts of the country available for ordinary medical attendance on the people living there. I know that the Minister got approval for this last year or the year before, and that provision was to be made for meeting the people of the remote districts in this respect, by the district surgeons attending certain centres, and thereby relieving people they attended of the large cost of transport; that is to say that the cost of transport to a particular centre would be paid for by the Government, and the cost from that particular centre to the homes of the people would be paid for by the people. I want to know what use is being made of this. I also want to know what is being done in regard to medical services in the native territories. This matter was gone into when a commission sat, and it was agreed that provision should be made by training persons—they would not be doctors—who would be able to meet certain elementary requirements in the way of medical attention. Has anything been done?

I am glad that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has raised the question of District Surgeons, because I represent a district 250 miles in diameter, in which the need for more district surgeons is very great. I want to ask if it is not possible to appoint assistants. It has been said that the district surgeons periodically visit certain parts, but I want to remind members that that is only once in 14 days. It therefore happens that people who live 120 or 150 miles from the village are only visited once in fourteen days, which is not enough especially in the malaria parts where the people live away from civilisation and without conveniences. We hope that the Minister will come to our help by providing for this in order to assist the people who did pioneer work in opening up the country. The visits of the district surgeon are not always very sympathetic because he arrives in a hurry and leaves the scene again as quickly as possible. There is a hospital at Bochem where Mr. Frans is doing noble work. This hospital comes under Vote Ml, and the superintendent and the nurse are doing very good work. I have looked at the votes and proceedings for 1922, and I find that the Minister for Public Health said to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) that 22,152 patients, white and coloured, were treated per annum. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, that more than 22,000 patients are treated there by a hospital with only one superintendent and one matron! And what pay do they get? The nurse is on the £180 scale, and the superintendent on £280. I think the Minister should seriously consider increasing the salary of the superintendent and the nurse. They are doing excellent work, and people come from far and wide, Potgietersrust, Waterberg and Zoutpansberg, for medical help. They are doing a great work there and I sincerely hope the Minister will deal sympathetically with my request and increase the salaries referred to.

I would like to endorse the views expressed by the hon. member for Mowbray, who previously addressed this House in regard to the Tokai Reformatory. I was struck by the scientific way in which every individual case is examined from a mental point of view. As you know, every boy who is committed to a reformatory is mentally examined by a specialist. The majority are found to be normal, some are mentally deficient. The latter are committed to a special hospital where they are treated (whilst the former are suitable subjects for treatment in the Reformatory). But there are a number of lads who do not come under either of these headings. On the one hand they are not sufficiently mentally deficient to be incapable of looking after themselves, but they are definitely not capable of being trained to take part in the battle of life when they leave the Reformatory. I want to refer to the method of dealing with these boys when they are examined. I want to deal with this intermediate class—

That cannot be discussed now.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. Mr. Naudé) said, and I should be glad if the Minister saw his way to pay a visit at a later date to the northern districts of the Transvaal, Waterberg, Zoutpansberg and Potgietersrust. If the Minister does that he will find that a large part of the European population are living in extremely difficult circumstances. As the hon. member for Potgietersrust has said, the people possibly live up to 150 miles from the nearest doctor, and if they suddenly become ill it amounts practically to the father of the family being financially ruined or he must see his wife or child die. If we look at the hundreds and thousands of pounds spent on preventing stock diseases we can say with justice that the interests of the white population demand that more shall be spent on public health than is done at present, especially in the extended districts I have mentioned. I am glad the Minister has arranged for district surgeons to visit these far off places at certain fixed times, but he should realise that the people cannot so arrange matters to be sick just when the doctor happens to be on a visit. Better medical treatment is especially necessary in the areas where the people suffer from red-water and malaria. I want to urge the Minister to consider whether it will not be possible to appoint more than one district surgeon—say three or four—in various large districts such as Waterberg and Potgietersrust. It will not be necessary to pay each one £700 or £800 a year. Their salaries can be £300, £400 or £500 a year. As our Universities now produce our own doctors some of them will be glad if they could be assured of a fixed allowance of between £300 and £500, if they should start a practice in the far distant places. If we can get the Government to contribute to bring medical treatment nearer to the population in those districts it will be a forward step not only as regards public health, but to encourage the people to remain on their farms. At the moment it is a riddle to me how they can go and live in those parts with their families. When they talk of land settlement and sending people back to the land we should first of all see that it is made possible for the people from a health point of view to make a decent living there. I am afraid that the health of the men as well as of the women and children is being undermined now. Therefore I want to ask the Minister to consider the matter seriously to see if he cannot carry out my suggestion of appointing more district surgeons.

I hope that the hon. Minister will tell us something about what is being done to prevent malaria. I do not want to go as far as a well-known Transvaal writer, Dr. Engelenberg, who says that the restlessness and turbulance of the Transvaalers must be ascribed to malaria, but there is no doubt that this disease has a psychological effect on the people suffering from it. To-day the people find, in the malaria districts, difficulty in getting quinine, and in Barberton, where malaria is very bad, there are complaints that they cannot get enough quinine. It is the poor people who cannot build expensive houses who suffer most from malaria, and especially the children, who are very injuriously infected by it. I think that the Minister will admit that the psychological effect on the children stops both their physical and mental development. The expenditure for the prevention of malaria may possibly be concealed under some other vote, but I cannot find a single penny allocated to it. I learn that quinine can be got from the magistrate, but the supply is not sufficient and it is also very difficult for the people in those rainy districts and long distances to go to the magistrate. I want the Minister to inform us about the way in which quinine is distributed; apparently it is not adequate in the low veld, especially during the summer months when malaria is very bad. I want again to emphasise that malaria is one of the most dangerous diseases we have because the effect is psychological. I talk from experience because I have often suffered from it. It not only attacks the body but also the spirit. Now I am not talking about myself and I say this before some hon. member possibly comments on it. In the low veld it is sad to visit the schools and see the yellow faces and thin appearance of the children, and how as a result of malaria they are in general backward. It is in my opinion the most serious problem the Minister has in the Transvaal. And it also deserves his careful attention in Natal and especially in Zululand.

I want to support the remarks of the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. Mr. Naudé). He has very clearly put before the Minister the conditions we are suffering from in the North. What he did not point out was that the Health Officer who is appointed with the honourable nome of “District Surgeon” gets the famous salary of £200 a year, and those officials are chiefly used by magistrates for inquests on natives who have killed each other after a beer-drink, while there is a great amount of disease and some of the patients are unable to be moved. Take blackwater fever. I experienced one of the saddest things during the recent election. We were meeting at a certain place quite happily for a Nationalist party bazaar, and there was a noble lady who was enthusiastically doing all she could to assist in making the affair a great success. Three days later she died from blackwater fever. A patient like that cannot be moved. I know the Chairman will possibly rule me out of order if I say that some of the people often live 100 miles from the nearest telephone. That is the treatment we get in the far North. It costs at least £60 to get a doctor there, a ruinous amount for a farmer, meanwhile before the farmer has got to the telephone the blackwater fever has already claimed its victim as in the case of the lady at Swartruggens. So I could go on giving instances for hours and they are the result of the negligence on the countryside, primarily with regard to telephones and next as a result of the system of district surgeon with the famous title and no salary. Let me give one illustration. When recently applications were invited for the post of district surgeon, only one application was received for the famous appointment and that was from a worthy afrikaner in the North who has already had 20 years practical experience there. He was appointed, because apparently there was no option, because no one else could be found Let me however assure the Minister that he will not long keep that gentleman, Dr. Heys, at that tremendous salary, because it is impossible for any man, who has had the expense of qualifying, to work at that great salary, doing all the native work and then still having to treat the Europeans. Zoutpansberg is now the meeting place of all the poor people of the country, because we have succeeded there with the Minister’s help to get a reduction in the valuation of land, and our land is now sold cheaply, with the result of a stream of poor people there, with the result that a doctor gets nothing from his private practice. That tremendous salary must ruin a man, and the brave Afrikaners there are in consequence dying as the result of the system. I appeal to the Minister of Public Health to increase the salary and to see that we have more doctors. If the Minister of Agriculture can spend £400,000 we can spend a little more on this service. I am a cattle farmer but I must say that the life of one European is worth much more to me than a number of cattle. I can stand the loss of many cattle but not of one child, because my children are worth much more to me. I thank the Minister for instructing the magistrates in the North that quinine is to be supplied gratis to the people needing it by the schools and police, but more attention to and facilities for the district surgeon are necessary, so that he shall not go away, and that we may get more doctors.

Will the Minister accept a motion for adjournment?

Yes.

On the motion of Col.-Cdt. Collins it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

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