I move as an unopposed motion—

Mr. PEARCE seconded.

Agreed to.

On a point of information, may I ask why the third report is being taken, as there are two other reports? What has happened to the first and second reports?

The question can be raised later—it is on the Order Paper.

House in Committee.

Col. D. REITZ. May I ask again the Minister of Finance why the third report is taken before the other two, because it seems an extraordinary procedure, although it might be conceivable to discuss the third report without discussing the other two. The first and second reports are both on the paper. I am not objecting, but I would like some information as to the procedure adopted.

I am asking the House to adopt this report now, because if this report is adopted it will require a Bill; the other reports do not require legislation.

The question of the consideration of the first report (on Old Age Pensions) may have a turning upon these reports—specific reports. If the House adopts the proposals of the Pensions Committee that old age pensions shall be considered during the recess, it may have some turning upon particular recommendations of the Committee. I would suggest that the Minister allows the recommendations to be considered first. They are of considerable importance.

moved: This Committee recommends the following proposals contained in Treasury memoranda:

1. (1) The substitution of the word “Maart”for “April” in item 32 of the Dutch version of Act No. 39 of 1922.
2. (2) The award to Philip F. Blaauw, Christian P. Carstens, Sarel J. J. du Plessis, John H. Flanagan, Carl Gielnik, Johannes Louw, Gert C. Olivier, Adriana C. Steyn and Dirk J. van den Berg of such compensation as would have been awarded to them had the provisions of Chapter VI of Act No. 42 of 1919 been applicable to their cases.
3. (3) The pensions on retirement of John W. Dibben, Harry B. Harris, Evan Mac-Andrew and John J. Dibben, formerly members of the Natal Police Force, to be computed as if the whole of their service had fallen under the provisions governing members of the Natal Police Superannuation Fund.
4. (4) The refund, on resignation, to the following members of the Union Services Pension Fund of the contributions paid by them to the Fund, as specified against their names:

1. (5) The case of Probationary Nurse H. K. Lambart to be regarded as complying with the provisions of the War Special Pensions Act.
2. (6) The cancellation of item No. 55 of the Schedule to Act No. 33 of 1923 and the substitution therefor of the following item:
   The award to Thomas Hay of a gratuity of £177 3s. 10d. representing the cash value of six months’ vacation leave standing to his credit at the time of his retirement, payment to be made to his wife in view of his mental condition.
3. (7) The addition of five years to the actual pensionable service of S. J. H. Brink, formerly Chief Detective Inspector.
4. (8) The substitution of the words “Cape Mounted Reflomen” for “Natal Police” in Item No. 50 of the Schedule to Act No. 39 of 1922.

On recommendation (3),

Will the Chairman give us some information about this case? It is a matter of considerable moment.

I am sorry I cannot give any information.

I am referring to the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. McMenamin).

I regret that it is impossible to hear the hon. member at this end of the House. If he will repeat his question I will try to answer him.

I would like to ask some information about this case. On what grounds is this pension recommended?

This award is given in accordance with the recommendation of the Treasury.

I am sorry that this explanation does not seem to me at all satisfactory. It does not amount to an explanation. When a Committee proposes a reward, it seems to me the grounds which weigh with the Committee should be available to us.

The reply of the Chairman of the Committee is not very illuminating. Let us have some particulars. What are the grounds for recommending the pension?

I think it is always a rule to accept what the Treasury recommends.

Oh!

Hon. members say “Oh” and that is due largely to want of knowledge on their part. Hon. members who have said “oh” have never sat on the Pensions Committee, and their want of knowledge is not to be blamed; but they want an opportunity to get that information. Members of the House can take it for granted that if the Treasury recommend pensions we can recommend it with safety. They never recommend anything where they can get out of it. This is a sheer act of justice, and from my long experience on the Pensions Committee, which now extends to 9 years, we recommend them and they give nothing; and we reject the Treasury report sometimes whey they do not give anything. I always thought that this is a Committee where reasons cannot be given. I have always been told it.

Well, I must say this is rather news to me.

I may be permitted to say that we are merely carrying out the promise which was granted made to them at the time, and the Treasury did not object to the grants. We were rectifying an injustice and carrying out a promise made by the previous Government.

That is all right; I accept that. But I must protest against what has been said by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown). In my long experience of receiving these reports I have never heard it said that, because it has been accepted by the Treasury, it has been accepted without explanation here. As a rule, the Chairman of the Committee gives an explanation asked for about a particular case. To say that it has been accepted by the Treasury and to give no further explanation is a new departure, and I hope it will not be accepted at all.

May we have the recommendation of the Treasury read?

I would commend to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that he goes on the Pensions Committee next year seeing that he is not so busy just now, and see that the proper procedure is adopted to put this Committee right.

Recommendations agreed to.

moved: This Committee recommends:

1. (1) The award to J. H. White, formerly a detective head constable, South African Police, of a pension of £200 per annum, with effect from 1st September, 1924.
2. (2) The award to Margaret Nesbitt, widow of Captain N. Nesbitt, of a pension of £56 5s. per annum, with effect from 28th August, 1923: such pension to cease on re-marriage.
3. (3) The award to M. Mabaso, formerly a native messenger, Department of Justice, of a pension of 20s. per annum for each year of continuous service, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
4. (4) The award to J. McLaren, formerly a teacher, of a pension of £49 per annum, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
5. (5) The award to H. B. Otzen, formerly a teacher, of a pension of £24 per annum, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
6. (6) The award to Sophia D. le Roux, formerly a teacher, Cape Education Department, of a pension of £80 10s. 11d. per annum, with effect from date of retirement and chargeable against the Cape Teachers Pension Fund.
7. (7) Subject to the payment of all contributions required under Ordinance No. 23 of 1917 (Cape), or any amendment thereof, Florence M. Every, a teacher, Cape Education Department, to be paid the pension to which she would have been entitled had she elected to contribute as required by law, with effect from date of retirement.
8. (8) The award to J. E. Douwes, formerly a constable, South African Police, of an additional pension of £60 per annum, with effect from 1st April, 1924
9. (9) The award to Anna S. Hanekom, widow of P. A. Hanekom, of a pension of £90 per annum, with effect from 1st April, 1924; such pension to cease on remarriage, whereupon an award of £30 per annum shall be paid for and on behalf of each of her two children and her adopted child who are then under the age of 16 years until they respectively attain the age of 16 years.
10. (10) The pension of J. Connolly, formerly a member of the South African Mounted Rifles, on final retirement, to be computed as if the whole of his service had fallen under the provisions governing members of the Natal Police Superannuation Fund.
11. (11) The award to M. L. J. van Rensburg, who was wounded during the Anglo-Boer war, of such compensation as would have been awarded to him had the provisions of Chapter VI of Act No. 42 of 1919 been applicable to his case.
12. (12) The award to Annie Corrigan, whose brother was killed during the industrial disturbances on the Witwatersrand in 1922, of a gratuity of £136 15s. 0d.
13. (13) The award to Mary L. Norris, widow of A. J. Norris, formerly of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, of a gratuity of £583 3s. 4d.
14. (14) The award to T. W. Ross, formerly a draughtsman, Department of Irrigation, of a gratuity of £78 5s. 7d.
15. (15) The award to T. W. Stainthorpe, formerly of the Department of Irrigation, of a gratuity of £172 7s. 11d.

On Recommendation No. 5,

What is the reason for this? Is this under the Natal Teachers Law?

The petitioner is 84 years of age.

This is not a Natal case. The pension is granted solely out of compassion.

Recommendation agreed to.

On recommendation No. 9,

I would like to ask the Chairman of the Pensions Committee for some information about this. I hesitate to raise any debate on this question, but I would like to know what are the grounds upon which the committee went.

This is the petition of Mrs. Hanekom, whose husband was shot during the industrial disturbances on the Rand. The official explanation is, “Shot while attempting to escape from the police.” Our committee on investigating the case came to the conclusion that in the circumstances they were justified in making this award. We have ex parte statements from the police regarding the alleged misdeeds of petitioner’s husband, but there was nothing definite before the committee. Petitioner’s husband was, in the circumstances, never tried for what was alleged against him, and, therefore, we considered that he had not been proved guilty, and in the circumstances the committee considered that, as he was killed, rightly or wrongly, by the Government forces, it was only justice that his widow and dependents should receive consideration at the hands of this House.

I entirely demur from the report just given by the chairman of the committee. What we felt—and I appeal to the members of the committee who were present—was that we were most definite in laying it down that we did not enter into the question as to whether anything took place in connection with the disturbances at all. I submit that that is the case. I moved an amendment and voted alone that the petition be referred to the Government for their consideration. What we did grant the award for, and what my notes show, was because petitioner’s husband had been a soldier in the great war and had got a splendid discharge, and we gave the grant to the three children of the widow of a soldier. If we are to go into these enquiries and sit in judgment on the finding of commissions, I would like to know what is the good of commissions? I hope this question of the Hanekoms is not going to be raised on that ground at all. I submit that we granted this award, and granted it rightly, because petitioner was the widow of an ex-soldier who had done good service in the great war.

I rise to express the hope that we shall not debate this recommendation. I hope that the principle will be accepted that the Select Committee’s judgment shall be trusted. I do not wish to discuss on the floor of this House the details of any case which has caused grave anxiety in committee, and no case more than this. I would implore the House not to discuss this matter at all.

As a member of the committee, I gave my vote entirely on the grounds mentioned by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown), and that was that we would not discuss or take into consideration, even in our minds, the question of this man’s record or the manner in which he met with his death. All we were concerned about was that petitioner was the widow of a man who had served his country and who had put up a good record, and that is the policy we had followed in previous cases.

I do not wish to discuss this matter, and I hope the incident will now be closed.

On recommendation No. 11,

I would like to know whether the pensioner lives in Rhodesia. Last year I presented a petition on behalf of M. L. J. van Rensburg, who was severely wounded in the Anglo-Boer war.

It is the same man.

I am very grateful to hear that, because a great injustice was done to him.

Paragraph (1), which has been agreed to, laid down the principle that all those concerned fall under the pension regulations, no matter where they live.

The committee has already decided that the place where one lives is no consideration in regard to the granting of pensions. The Treasury agreed to it, and I am sorry that it is necessary now to present petitions from citizens living in Rhodesia or elsewhere.

Was he only granted £18 according to the law? That will mean nothing, and I would like to have more information.

The Treasury does not refuse payment of pensions in cases falling under this category. It is essential, however, to do it in this way so as to be fully protected by the law.

Recommendation agreed to.

Remaining recommendations agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends:

1. (16) The award to W. Pennel, formerly in the service of the South African Railways, of a gratuity of £147 5s. 2d.

I am afraid this payment is going to cause a lot of trouble. The person was in the service of the railways and met with a bad accident for which he was really to blame himself. He was in the hospital and his full salary was paid him all that time. After that he could not be taken into the service again and he was fully paid out under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. From his compensation was deducted his hospital expenses, namely £147, now he is refunded that amount. If that is granted, all the other people under similar circumstances will also ask to be refunded. I move as an amendment: To omit all the words after “recommends” and to substitute “that the petition of W. Pennel be referred to the Government for consideration.”

It is laying down a very dangerous precedent. This man was himself to blame to some degree for the accident. He had to go to hospital and the railway department paid expenses while he was there, and also no doubt the expenses of his treatment. That would be deducted from what was due under workmen’s compensation. Now he has appealed to the House to refund him that. If that is done a good many cases will come to this House of a similar kind. I shall support the hon. member’s amendment.

I would like to support what has been said by the hon. member opposite. The point taken by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is not, I think, quite the point that is involved in the proposal to refer this matter back. On the Pensions Committee for a number of years past we have made a practice of never allowing these repayments of salary which are deducted from the men during the period they are in hospital. The present Pensions Committee is practically a new committee and not altogether conversant with what has been going on for some years. I do not think they quite realize what they are doing in recommending this refund. It is going to open the door to hundreds of similar cases and is entirely contrary to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. What has influenced the previous committees has always been this. Where you have an Act of Parliament laying down a particular procedure or practice it should not be competent for the Pensions Committee to override that. If it is desired that there should be some other policy adopted, what it really amounts to is that this House should pass a special Act dealing with all cases. Surely it is not competent for a Pensions Committee, as such in a case like this to override the Act of Parliament. So far as many of us are concerned, we would like to See this recommendation done away with, but so long as these deductions are made under that Act of Parliament, we feel that the Pensions Committee should not override that Act.

The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) did not state the case quite clearly. The Speaker granted £375 to this person, although he was only technically responsible for the accident. If he was really the cause of it, he would not have got a grant. The grant was made because he was looked upon as partly incapacitated, otherwise he would have got £750. The fact is he was totally disabled for service. He lost one leg and is quite deaf. Under the circumstances the committee recommend that the £147 which was deducted for hospital charges, be refunded. The recommendation is based on the principle of fairness, and I would have liked to see him get the whole £750.

It is perfectly true as was said by one who is a colleague on the Pensions Committee that some members of that committee are unused to its procedure. The new members have a keen sense of justice, I believe, and they feel strongly that a man who has lost his leg in the service of the country should not be mulcted of this sum. That is what animated us

The hon. member is giving us the benefit of his wisdom, but the unfortunate thing was that when this case was discussed the hon. member was not present to give us his wisdom in committee. The Minister of Railways and Harbours is present, and I will put this position to him. If this man had got better he would have got his money. What is the logic of the position? Get better and you get your money; do not get better and you get these deductions. We exist not only for the purpose of carrying out Acts of Parliament; we exist also to carry out the dictates of humanity. This man has been granted compensation for the loss of a limb. The man is almost stone deaf, and we considered the compensation was much too low, and I certainly hope the House will pass this. You are laying down no principle because you pass this. You will get other applications of course, but if they are all as just as this one, I hope there will not be found a man on the Pensions Committee to refuse them. This recommendation was made by the committee almost unanimously. Surely those of us who have heard the facts of the case are better able to judge than members who have merely three lines of print before them, and have listened to an ex parte speech.

I sympathize with the poor man as much as anybody in this House, but I can see that the recommendation is going to cause difficulty. The man did not complain that he received too little, but only asked that the money, which, under the regulations, is deducted in such cases, should be refunded to him. All cases which are referred back are deserving •ones, but we have to consider the finances of the country. If the pension is granted, many others in similar circumstances will come forward and point to this precedent. I look upon it merely as a matter of principle.

As the member who presented this petition I would like to say one or two words regarding this case. As one hon. member has already said, this man has lost a leg and lost his hearing in an accident on the railway. If he had been entirely responsible for it, surely he has been very badly punished already. Though technically he was the senior man present, he was not actually responsible for the accident. He was not even on his own trolley. Now I cannot quite follow the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson). My view of the functions of this committee is that they are intended to deal with cases which have to be dealt with outside the law. If the law gave this man certain compensation, he would have no right to come to the Pensions Committee. He comes to the committee as a committee which is above the law, and which committee is going to deal with cases from a compassionate point of view. If any case should be dealt with from a compassionate point of view, this is such a case. I am perfectly certain if any private employer had treated any man in this way, after such a serious accident, for which he was not responsible, that private employer would be held up to obloquy by every decent man. I feel that the committee has dealt fairly and certainly not over generously with this man.

We are not discussing what would happen with a private employer. It is perfectly true a private concern could do just what it liked and if the employer was inclined to be generous he would be perfectly entitled to be generous. But this is a Government concern. A thing of this kind will be quoted in scores of cases in future. What we are afraid of is that if this is agreed to, it will be held up as a leading case in future and will be followed in scores of cases.

The Select Committee found that the man was not responsible for the accident, as another man made the mistake which caused the injury to Pennel. The Railway Administration maintained that Pennel should have foreseen the accident. He is now quite incapacitated for any work. It is absurd to say that we open the door to a large number of similar cases, as these accidents happen but seldom.

I rise to protest against the statement of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson). I think I am correct in stating that it is not the law that these cases should not be considered by the Pensions Committee; but the majority of the members on the committee generally carry the day against granting relief. I congratulate the Pensions Committee on its sense of justice and for playing the game.

I hope hon. members will not consider that my feelings of compassion are any less than those of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) or any other member, especially when we are spending other peoples’ money. The Pensions Committee is not a body that gives money out of compassion, and if it does it will develop into a charitable organization, and there will be no end to the demands made upon it. The principle I have always endeavoured to go on is that where there has been a miscarriage of justice, or a technical difficulty, which has deprived a man of his pension or gratuity, that is a matter essentially for relief by the committee. In this case it has been asserted that there has been a miscarriage of justice; if that is so the man has his remedy at law. We never grant pensions or gratuities until a man has exhausted his whole claim at law. If it is true that this man is not responsible for the accident then he has a legal remedy. It is an extremely hard case, and personally I would be glad if the man could be compensated, but if you grant this pension you will create a precedent. There must be a very large number of cases, on the railway especially, where these demands have been made, and it is an extremely difficult position to place the members in to ask them to decide on such points. Your heart prompts you in one direction and your judgment in another. Personally, I am not averse to the man getting relief. If the House desired that these demands should not be made that should be done by direct legislation.

I see some difficulty in allowing this recommendation to go through, as it may create a very undesirable precedent and is interfering with direct statutory enactments. At the same time it does seem that the man has not got what he should have got. The railway department have awarded him compensation under the Workmens’ Compensation Act, on the basis of partial disablement. But if the facts we have heard are correct, it should have been dealt with on a basis of total disablement. The hon. member for Durban Central (Mr. Robinson) says the man can go to the courts, but for a man of that kind it is a very serious matter to go to law, and if there is a possible defence that technically he was responsible, he might be defeated on a purely technical point. We should not drive him to seek the remedy of the court, but I would suggest the Minister giving us an undertaking that the matter will be carefully gone into, with a view to seeing that the man be awarded compensation for total instead of partial disablement.

There must be some misunderstanding in regard to this matter. This is a case by itself. The man was declared by the railway administration to be technically guilty, only, as he was a senior officer on the portion of the line in which the accident occurred, and as senior officer he travelled on the trolley of a junior officer as a passenger. There was a collision in which the applicant lost his leg and became stone deaf—practically totally incapacitated, but because he was the senior officer on that line, the railway administration declared him technically the guilty person, and therefore he has no redress in the courts. Consequently he comes to the Pensions Committee, because that committee is appointed to deal with cases which cannot be met with by the ordinary law, otherwise the committee is not necessary. The railway administration admitted very definitely that the man was not actually guilty and paid him full compensation for permanent partial disablement under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The applicant came before the committee with the request that he be refunded £147, and we should be thankful that he did not ask for £750.

I hope this committee will award the man £147. I cannot agree that this will form a precedent. I have served on the Pensions Committee for five years, and can say that the committee is not actuated by precedents, but considers each case on its merits I think this man is totally disabled, and I do not think he can earn a single shilling. There is no question of compassion at all in this matter.

This is really a railway ease, and the Treasury is not acquainted with the full facts of the matter, but I think there is a great deal to be said on the point that we must be very careful not to establish awkward and dangerous precedents. If the committee feels that there is a good deal of difficulty about the case, we might accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), and I will ask the Minister of Railways to go personally into the case. If the department has not treated the man properly this is eminently a case to be dealt with by the railway department and not by the committee. I suggest that the matter be not dealt with further by the committee, but that the railway administration should be asked to consider it.

Meanwhile what is to happen to the man?

I hope the House will stand by the committee. All these questions raised are beside the question. It is impossible to give thousands of cases where a man has lost a leg and is stone deaf. I at once disclaim the suggestion that the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) lacks heart; I know that he does not lack heart, and he is in full sympathy; but when it comes to a question of heart and a question of law, he drops the heart and takes up the law. I am glad the member of the Government got up and explained the position, because it is difficult for us sometimes to explain to our constituents the mental attitude of some of our friends. There are 11 on the committee, and with a minority of 1 we were in favour of this pension. I hope the House will stand by the committee.

I hope the committee will pass this vote. It was quite news to me when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) suggested that a Government employee expected to be treated worse than a private employee. I have always understood that a Government employee was on velvet, and got treated better than a private employee. I do feel, as far as the Treasury is concerned, that if the railway treats this case with any heart at all they are likely to give him more than the £147 that the committee has given him. As regards the question of precedent, I say this: If any man in Government employ loses his leg and hearing and is totally disabled in doing the work of the country, and you intend to treat him fairly, there will not be many precedents, because there are not many men who have suffered as this man has; and there is going to be no inroad on the funds of the Government if you are going to treat a case of this kind generously. As regards the Workmen’s Compensation Act, this man was practically delirious for three months, and I think the time in that direction had legally lapsed. But the railway agreed to treat him as if he had given them the requisite notice. I do submit that it is better for this House to deal with this case than to remit it again to the railway to handle, and I do hope this House will pass this vote.

The sole desire of the majority of members in this House is to see that justice is done to the petitioner. The ethics of the Pensions Committee seem to me to be rather strange, from what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Hattingh) has said. He practically said that they thanked God that a man did not put in a claim for the full amount, as they might have had to award it him. If the Minister’s suggestion is adopted, I think substantial justice would be done, and it satisfies the majority on this side of the House.

On behalf of the Pensions Committee, I appeal to the House to vote down the amendment of the hon. member, and no to listen to the blandishments of the Minister. In this particular case we are indebted to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) for his suggestion, and no doubt we will take it into consideration later. Any alteration which is made must be to the advantage of this poor man, and therefore if afterwards, after the negotiations between the two Ministers, it is found that he should get a higher pension, an adjustment will be made I hope. Sometimes an award is made subject to a gratuity being repaid, and this precedent can be followed. This man at middle life and totally incapacitated gets a pension of £4 19s.—upon which it is absolutely impossible for him to maintain himself decently, while the Ministers decide what to do regarding him. Rather let us grant what the man asks; and later on, if necessary, an adjustment can quite easily be made.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Rev. Mr. Hattingh) created a wrong impression. The report about the petitioner stated that he rode into a tunnel without taking the necessary precautions required by the regulations, consequently he was fully responsible for the accident, but the Railway Department was charitable enough to pay out to him the whole amount which would have been due under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and only deducted the amount which in all similar cases would have been deducted.

It is very difficult for members in this House to decide on a question like this. From what we have heard, some members of the Pensions Committee are of the opinion that an injustice was done to this man, but other members are of the opinion that no injustice was done, and that he was treated very favourably. We are asked to decide whether £147 odd, hospital expenses, which I understand are always deducted in these cases should be granted to this man, and if we do, I consider we will be creating a very dangerous precedent. If anything can be done for that man, I agree with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) that the great majority of us are in favour of doing all we can in favour of that man; but we must be very careful, and I hope members of the committee will not press this, and to ask us to stand by them. I hope they will accept the announcement made by the Minister of Finance. I am sure if the Minister of Railways and Harbours should decide to grant any further compensation it will be gladly supported by the House.

I think hon. members speaking on creating precedents are just going the wrong way. The Pensions Committee cannot create a precedent. But the Railway Administration can very well create precedents in they act, because they act under the law. The Pensions Committee is above the law, and treats cases only on their merits. There is only one principle applied there, and that is the principle of justice. It is not all compassion or something of that kind, but the principle of justice. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) has done a very good turn in reading the official report, which stated that the Railway Administration decided to treat the man under the Workmen’s Compensation Act without any reservation, and did so. He was declared to be partially incapacitated, but the Committee found that the man is totally incapacitated after having had officials before it. The man petitioned only for £147. It is not in the power of the committee, and it would not be right for any committee to exceed the demands of a person. Even if the committee thinks—and I personally do not think—that it fully meets the justice of the case, he only requests £147, and the committee decided to grant him that not under the law, but as an act of grace. I hope the members of this House will trust the committee. The committee specially went into this case, they had railway officials there, and they had Pennel himself there, and they had the reports before them. They discussed the case from every point of view and practically came to a unanimous decision that £147 will partially, at any rate, meet the justice of the case.

In case No. (16) is thrown out, Mr. Chairman, does it mean that the proposal of the Minister is accepted, and that be will refer it back to the Minister of Railways, and ask the Minister of Railways to go into it again?

Yes.

Question put that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the recommendation; and the Rev. Mr. Rider called for a division, upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—39.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Brown, D. M.

Brown, G.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Louw, E. H.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Nel, O. R.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rood, W. H.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuttaford, R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Madeley, W. B.; Nathan, Emile.

Noes—44.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy. E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J G.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smit, J. S.

Smuts, J. C.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Niekerk, C. A.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

The words proposed to be substituted were put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. (16), as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. McMENAMIN moved: This committee recommends:

1. (17) The award to A. A. Davies, formerly in the service of the South African Railways, of a gratuity of £50.

I am sorry to have to object to this. The petitioner was a cook on the railways, and after 11 years’ service he became deaf and left. He never contributed to the pension fund, as he was always a temporary hand. There are hundreds of similar cases of men who have asked for pensions and gratuities. Many applications from such people have been refused and we cannot discriminate between these people. I therefore move: To omit all the words after “recommends and to substitute “that the petition of A. A. Davies be referred to the Government for consideration.—

In this case the petitioner is a chef on the S.A.R. trains. He is a servant of ten years’ standing and his slight deafness seemed to have been caused by his work. He is in very bad circumstances and the committee have granted this small gratuity as a matter of compassion.

What is the matter with him?

Deafness.

The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) has a queer conception of the case, but he wants to do injustice to a person because injustice was done in similar cases in the past. The man concerned was a temporary hand for years, and because he was a temporary employee, could get no gratuity. If he had been on the fixed establishment for the same period, he would have got a gratuity of £50. It is unfair to differentiate in that way.

After all is said and done, you are not dealing with your own money. You are dealing with public or trust money. In those cases you have to give the matter far more careful consideration. Now, as far as regards the department it was the policy in the department not to put these people on the permanent staff. Waiters come and go with almost every train. If we are going to give everybody who has been with us ten years in temporary service some gratuity, we shall have hundreds of applications on the same grounds. What reason have you to give this man a special gratuity?

He has served the State for ten years.

In that case you want another Pensions Act. That is a new departure. I think it should be laid down by law and not done at the suggestion of the pensions committee. I think the hon. member has done a duty in calling attention to this. Simply because a man has been ten years in the service of the State and a temporary official, to grant him a gratuity means that you will have thousands of others coming along on the same plea.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) actually informs this House that it is possible for a man to be a temporary servant for ten years. Surely something is wrong. That in itself proves that this man should have consideration from the State.

That very man was quite willing to become a permanent servant, but he was not allowed to become a permanent servant for 11 full years, but was reappointed from time to time. If he had become a permanent servant he would have had a pension. In other cases where they were permanent servants but did not contribute to the pension fund, they got a gratuity. We were informed by officials of the department that this was the amount usually allotted to officials in such cases: Well, more than 10 years’ temporary service shows that something is wrong somewhere. We got certificates from the department certifying to this nan’s very good work, all those years.

I hope if this precedent is accepted by the Government, that they will realize with their new scheme of civilized labour, they will have a large number of petitions in the future, and I hope the Government will recognize that it will have a duty to those persons too.

I would like to mention that in the railway service there are men who have up to 20 years’ service and yet are not permanent servants. There must be some very strong reason why they are not permanent servants. I would suggest that there should be some alteration of the law before we can pass a recommendation of this sort. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said, we are dealing with public money. If there is a case for granting a pension then let us alter the law. Surely it is not for the Pensions Committee to override decisions of this House.

The public desire that justice be done.

Then if we want to help these people, we must amend the law.

One hears some curious arguments. In the first place I understand this is not a pension at all but is a gratuity. In the second place I always understood the Pensions Committee existed to make legal what otherwise would be illegal. In other words the Pensions Committee deals with cases outside the law.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the recommendation; and Mr. McMenamin called for a division.

The Committee divided:

Ayes—28.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Boydell. T.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, D. M.

Brown, G.

Conradie, J, H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mullineux, J.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Snow, W. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Madeley, W. B.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—41.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Marwick, J. S.

Muller, C. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smit, J. S.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, C. A.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

I move the insertion of the word “favourable” before “considered.” (Cries of dissent.) I am not going to be put down.

The motion is out of order.

I appeal to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) not to press his motion because it is illogical.

As it is contrary to the practice of the House to refer matters to the Government for “favourable” consideration, I am unable to put this amendment.

The words proposed to be substituted were then put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. (17), as amended, put and agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends:

1. (18) The award to R. F. Rattray, formerly a teacher, of a gratuity of £25; such gratuity to be paid to the magistrate of Potchefstroom and to be expended by him on behalf of Mr. Rattray in such manner as he deems fit.
2. (19) The award to R. E. Hardwich, formerly a sheep inspector, Department of Agriculture, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the pension fund.
3. (20) The award to A. Patience, formerly a postman, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the pension fund.
4. (21) The award to J. Acton, formerly a gaoler, Department of Prisons, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund.
5. (22) The award to Susannah Brown of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by her former husband, H. G. Atkinson, to the Public Service Pension Fund; such gratuity to be paid to the Master of the Supreme Court, Pretoria, and to be expended by him for the education and support of her daughter by the first marriage in such manner as he may deem fit.
6. (23) The award to J. Price, formerly a warder, Department of Prisons, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Union Defence, Police and Prisons Pension Fund; such gratuity to be paid to the magistrate of Johannesburg and to be expended by him on behalf of Mrs. Price and her children in such manner as he may deem fit and at the rate of £5 per month, with effect from 1st April, 1924.

Recommendations put and agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends:

1. (24) The award to T. G. Macfie, formerly chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, of a gratuity of £500, and that he be permitted to commute one-third of his pension.

I don’t want to question the recommendation of the committee in regard to the gratuity. I presume the committee has gone carefully into that part of the case and had good reasons for recommending it, but I would implore the House not to accept the second portion, which recommends the commutation of a part of a pension. That is likely to lead to endless complications. Quite a large number of public servants have been retired owing to reorganization, and the past Government and the present Government have been continually pressed to allow commutation of portions of pensions. I am told that if this principle is accepted it will mean that the Treasury will have to face a burden in one year of something like £300,000 to allow pensioners to commute a portion of their pensions. Obviously it is impossible for us to do that. It is a big question of policy which the previous and present Government have not seen fit to agree to, and if the principle is accepted of commutation the country will find itself in a position which it is not possible to face.

I move, as an amendment: To omit all the words after “£500”.

I will move that the whole of this recommendation be deleted.

The hon. member cannot do that, but he can vote against the recommendation.

Is it not competent to refer this matter back to the Committee for further consideration?

But the Committee has brought in its final report, and has finished its labours for this session.

I should like to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee to give the grounds on which the award to Mr. Macfie is recommended. His petition was only presented to the House on August 22 last. Ï am aware of petitions that were presented two years ago but which have not yet been considered. Will the Chairman of the Select Committee explain how it comes about that Mr. Macfie, who is in receipt of a pension of £444 per pear, can get his petition considered over the heads of hundreds of people who are receiving no pension whatsoever. In this very report it appears that 300 petitions standing over from last session have not yet been considered. The facts of Mr. Macfie’s case merit a little mention. Mr. Macfie has prominently declared his intention to leave South Africa for certain reasons. On July 13 last a letter over his signature appeared in the Cape Times which concluded “I should prefer a country where there is less official encouragement of corruption, less penalisation of attempts at honest administration, and less bleeding of an impoverished people by unnecessary and increasing officialdom and red tape.” In his petition to the House he makes use of the statement “as a matter of self respect I wish to sever my connection with this country.”

South Africa first!

But not before he gets the gratuity of £500. Are we seriously to consider the question of paying £500 to Mr. Macfie to go to America to disseminate those views that this is a country where there is so much “official encouragement of corruption”? Is that the sort of stigma that a suppliant for favours from this House is to use?

The Committee will resume at 2.15 p.m.

Business was suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.25 p.m.

When the Committee rose for luncheon I was about to deal with some of the reasons alleged by the petitioner for his sense of dissatisfaction and the reasons for his appeal to this House. In Clause nine of his petition he says: “A very grave stigma having thus been placed publicly upon your petitioner for which the Courts have held that they have no power to afford redress, he has naturally decided, as a matter of self-respect, to sever his connection with this country and he desires therefore to commute his pension rights either wholly if possible, or, if that is not possible, then to the extent of one-third under the provisions of section 60 of Act 27, 1923.” I am glad the Minister of Finance has decided to advise this committee not to accede to the proposal of the Select Committee in regard to the commutation of the pension, but I should like to draw attention again to the treatment of this case by the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities. I think this Committee should let us know how it comes about that a petitioner can have a whole day set apart for the treatment of his case, as must have been done, in taking the evidence of this gentleman on August 28, 1924. I know of cases and some of these cases have been held over of people who have been bedridden for years and who are unable to get any form of assistance from this House, although their petitions are before the House and this gentleman, who is in receipt of a substantial pension, is able to get consideration of his case within a fortnight. I have mentioned the fact that the petitioner has stated his intention of leaving the country. He was examined on this point by the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers). The hon. member asked: “If your case is put right by this committee, don’t you think you should remain in South Africa?” The reply was: “I think you had better ask my wife to give evidence of that point. As a matter of fact, my wife is stronger on this point than I am myself. I think a thing of this sort, if you will forgive me, it ought to be impossible for a Government to act in this way and for an action such as this to be tolerated. This view my wife also takes.” I think the facts of his retirement are of considerable interest in connection with this petition. Let me say, to begin with, that the petitioner is 58 years of age, that when he was pensioned off two years ago he must have reached the recognized pensionable age, which I think is 55 years, and on the ground of premature retirement he can scarcely have any very great cause for complaint. He was appointed an August 1, 1919, to the position of chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board for three years, but at the time of his appointment it was made perfectly clear that the appointment was terminable within the three years for good cause shown, and he was also informed in writing of the possibility of his being pensioned at the end of the period if the Department of Justice could find no other suitable appointment for him. Now, when he had served two years and four months as chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, it became evident that there were certain scandals in connection with the purchase of farms and these scandals dealt with transactions that had taken place during his regime as chairman of the board. Matters were brought to a head by an anonymous letter, making accusations against all the prominent members of the board, including the chairman himself, and Mr. Macfie took the eminently proper course of demanding an enquiry. He pressed for an enquiry into all the circumstances in that connection, and showed himself to be acting with a proper attitude towards the allegations against the board. I have nothing but praise for his action in having demanded an enquiry. The enquiry was held into those transactions and the result was published in the report of the commission. The report of the commission acknowledged that Mr. Macfie’s demand for the enquiry was a right and proper one, and the result had more than vindicated his demand. In the course of the enquiry the commission came to certain conclusions, and I should like to refer to one which dealt with a transaction of the Miners’ Phthisis Board of a very important kind. Certain farms had been bought by the board. Summing up the whole position, the commissioner said each member of the board must be held responsible for a vote registered in favour of purchasing farms unsuited for closer settlement at prices inflated by speculation and upon inadequate information and with titles unexamined. These were serious points brought home to the commission, and the commissioner went on to say that while Mr. Macfie and others could not be relieved of all responsibility they could reasonably expect that full consideration would be given to the circumstances of the mistake. This was a serious matter but the Commissioner did not suggest that there was anything in the nature of bad faith in connection with the people connected with this transaction. A perusal of this report will show that other members of the board were not altogether free from blame of a more serious kind. That in itself goes far enough to show that the administration of the board under Mr. Macfie left a good deal to be desired. It may well be asked who should have seen that the titles were examined, who should have seen that information before the board was adequate and who should have seen to safeguards against purchase at inflated prices? It is proved by this report that there was not only speculation but that land was offered to the board which was not the property of the people offering it.

I do not intend to go into all the merits of this particular case as we all know all these questions affecting petitions for pensions are considered on a non-party basis and from a non-party point of view, and are considered without prejudice. We all know that all the representatives of this House on that particular committee deal with each petition from the point of view of the justice of the case. My objection is to the fact that there are many people in South Africa who put in petitions to the Pensions Committee and the whole lot were put on one side while this particular petition has been selected and given favoured treatment above everybody else who came before the committee this particular session. I want to know why and what is the reason for this favoured treatment of any individual. There are many people who put in petitions to this committee who are in poor circumstances and who cannot afford to wait for another session as much as the gentleman in this case. As far as my information goes, and I am open to correction, this is the only petition that has been put in that has been selected to be dealt with this session. While I am prepared to at all times support this committee in its actions and decisions, I say it will lose the confidence of this House and the support of its members who have been prepared to support the committee if this sort of thing is carried on. It will cause us to look with grave suspicion on the actions of the committee if it is open to any influence, direct or indirect, to give particular consideration to any case or any recommendations that may be brought before this House. I hope this is the first and last time that this committee is going to allow anything in the way of influence to obtain preference to this or that individual, no matter who they may be.

I may say that a number of red herrings have been allowed to creep into this discussion. The reason why this particular application was granted early consideration is very simple. Mr. Macfie had openly stated that he was leaving the country and he put in an application to the pensions committee that his statement might be taken before he left. Despite the remarks of the other side, the pensions committee and previous pensions committees had made a principle of hearing everybody where possible. Mr. Macfie’s suggestion was brought before the committee. The committee was hard pressed for time and was holding three meetings a week, but it was decided that if members were prepared to have a special sitting the committee would hear his statements. A special sitting was accordingly held, and Mr. Macfie was heard. At the next meeting of the committee, which I believe was on the following day, I think I myself suggested to the members that as the facts of the case were still fresh in our minds it would be a suitable opportunity to vote on it. The members agreed to this, and we did so. Objection has been taken by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) that Mr. Macfie, through certain remarks which he has made and articles he had written, is not a fit subject for the sympathy of this House. I would like to suggest that if everyone in this House who made foolish remarks were debarred from membership there would not be anybody sitting here. If Mr. Macfie made a few remarks while smarting under a sense of injustice he might be forgiven. It is suggested that because he has a pension he has no right to other consideration, and that is a foolish contention. If he has earned a pension he is entitled to it. There is another contention that he intends to spend his pension abroad. There is a lot to be said against this, but until the law is altered there is no reason why he should be singled out for special consideration. Let us get to the main facts. When Mr. Macfie, who had over 20 years’ service in this country and who was chief magistrate at Johannesburg at a salary of £1,100, was appointed, the Government no doubt knew of his capabilities, his integrity and age, and they were satisfied to appoint him as chairman of the Phthisis Board at a commencing salary of £1,850 a year, and which salary was raised to £2,050 in view of the importance of the office. When Mr. Macfie took office he found that things were by no means pleasant in the service he had taken and almost straightaway, or within the year, he applied to the Minister to hold an enquiry into the maladministration of the board. To prove that it was not entirely an idea of Mr. Macfie’s, that he was not suffering from any hallucination, I will quote from the report of the commissioner who subsequently held an enquiry. The report reads: If you read pages 149 and 150 of the report, it will be gathered that directly Mr. Macfie became chairman of the board in 1919 he was warned by the secretary of rumours that money as commission was being accepted by members and that corruption was spoken of. Mr. Macfie said in evidence that the moment he entered the board he lived in an atmosphere of corruption until he made up his mind to get rid of it. In the enquiry every witness testified to the foul atmosphere surrounding the board. Here you have an official acting as chairman of this board, and he was asked to share the odium of the board, and quite rightly he said “no” It was a long time before his request for an enquiry was granted. I now come to the remarks of the Commissioner. Regarding the enquiry, in the terms of reference the Commissioner says: “The enquiry might have been restricted but for certain statements of the chairman of the board … those statements raised the question as to whether there had been anything in the nature of malpractices … the public has the right to know whether there is truth or otherwise in the rumours that are being circulated.” Then the Commissioner states: “In these circumstances your Commissioner feels that he is fully justified in submitting the necessity for an enquiry has been completely established … Mr. Macfie’s action deserves notice and commendation. It would have been an easy matter for the chairman to have resigned or taken a smoother course than the one he followed. …. In asking for a public enquiry Mr. Macfie has demonstrated his high sense of public duty.”

Is that what he is getting his gratuity for?

It is not necessary for me to give the evidence given at the enquiry, but I will say that there were questions of leakage of information from the board, and we have it here from the Commissioner: “With a view to the improvement of the methods of the board your Commissioner reports that information was undoubtedly conveyed by a member or members to persons interested in the sale of land and that fact operated against the best interests of the board. It is regretted the evidence is not sufficient to justify any individual being named.” The whole evidence at the enquiry was with regard to the purchase of land. Farms were purchased merely on verbal reports and the board in a number of cases dealt with speculators who, it is alleged, were making 100 per cent. profit by merely introducing the farms to the Government. In answer to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), I might say that before Mr. Macfie was appointed to this board practically all the purchasing of land was done. The last negotiations were concluded on the very first day that Mr. Macfie took office. That was only a very small deal. All the others had been put through before. It is stated here in the Commissioner’s conclusion that in dealing with the nine farms comprising Zandvleit settlement, the country suffered a loss of £24,000, through the farms being purchased at prices above the market value. Mr. Macfie subsequently introduced a proper system of investigation and reports with regard to land to be purchased. I think, reading the remarks of the Commissioner, it must be concluded that Mr. Macfie was personally not responsible for the land deals which received adverse criticism, but as soon as he found what was going on he brought about remedies for the abuses, I will now read from the concluding paragraphs of the Commissioner’s report: “It is not necessary to relate the circumstances that led Mr. Macfie to conclude in July, 1920, that only a public enquiry could vindicate the honour of the board. Your Commissioner found that Mr. Macfie’s application for an enquiry was justified, because of the rumours of corruption which were rife …… In the opinion of your Commissioner the result of the enquiry has also justified the application of Mr. Macfie in that irregularities of a serious character have been revealed in connection with the purchase of farms and only a public enquiry would have dispelled the rumours of bribery and corruption. Those difficulties still remain and they will doubtless receive attention as a result of this report.” In order to get the enquiry, Mr. Macfie had quite a lot of consultation with the Minister, and he volunteered to provide legal services in order that witnesses should be properly examined. Mr. Macfie was willing to conduct the legal procedure himself, but the Commissioner thought as Mr. Macfie was a vital witness it would be far better if some independent solicitor were employed. To that Mr. Macfie agreed. The enquiry lasted twenty-seven days and the costs amounted to £400, included in that being a charge of £150 for shorthand notes. In order to bring about that enquiry, Mr. Macfie paid that £400 himself. The Commissioner, in his report, pays a tribute to the solicitor who was paid by Mr. Macfie, and added that some of the witnesses, who were trying to deliberately mislead the board, were skillfully examined by the solicitor. I Would like to ask members of the House to consider what the attitude of the minister and the Government was on the outcome of the enquiry. It had been proved beyond doubt—the necessity for enquiry—irregularities had been proved, and as a result of the information obtained, precautions have been taken which will probably save the country thousands of pounds. Any employer of labour who had a servant who acted as Mr. Macfie did and brought about such excellent results, would have sent him a letter of thanks, but instead of doing that the Minister sent along a letter terminating Mr. Macfie s contract some months before it was due. To put a little sugar coating on the pill the departmental secretary, who wrote this letter added this sentence: “The Minister desires me to assure you that this step does not involve your honour and he regrets the necessity the more because he recognizes that it was at your instance that the Government decided an enquiry into the transactions of the board was necessary in the public interest.” In other words, the Minister dissembled his love and kicked him downstairs. Mr. Macfie lost directly through having his contract terminated too soon, a matter of £875 made up of loss of salary and decrease of pension emoluments. That is the way the Minister treated a servant of twenty years’ service.

Who was the Minister?

The Minister was the late Minister of Mines and Industries. Now, Mr. Macfie was not going to take it lying down, and he resorted to legal proceedings. I am not a lawyer, but as a layman I would like to try to explain the legal position. Unfortunately, it seems the court ruled that the Minister was above the courts, and his decision could not be criticised. That is the reason why it is necessary for Mr. Macfie to come to this House for redress for wrongs he has suffered. Mr. Macfie went to the courts and laid a claim for wrongful dismissal, but the court ruled that the Minister’s discretion was above the courts. Mr. Macfie appealed from that judgment to the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein, where the same decision ruled. But before the case was heard at that court, there was a very interesting side light. This has got a good deal to do with the reason why the amount of £500 was fixed as gratuity. Before it came to the court there was some discussion as to whether, in the circumstances, the Government were going to raise the same plea as previously. This is a letter from the Government attorney, dated the 22nd November, 1922. It is addressed to Mr. Macfie’s attorneys. “With reference to an interview I had with Mr. Macfie a little while ago I have the honour to inform you that the Minister of Mines and Industries is prepared to agree to the suggestion put forward that the Government shall add to the plea. …. In other words, that the Minister is the sole arbiter on the merits ….. Should the plea be upheld there will be ah end of the case, but should the defendant fail the Government will pay your client a sum of £500 as a solatium, each side to pay its own costs. This proposal is entirely without prejudice.” This shows conclusively that rather than face an investigation of the facts the Government were quite prepared to grant this man £500.

Without prejudice.

I have shown that Mr. Macfie through loss of salary and so on, was put to a direct loss of £875, in addition to the £400 he expended for the legal assistance at the enquiry. Although he may not have legal rights, morally on these figures he is entitled to £1,275—leaving out of account the amount of damages he is entitled to for being dismissed from the service in the ignominious way in which he was. The Pensions Committee regard this gratuity as a vindication of the action of Mr. Macfie. A very important principle is involved. If you are going to admit the principle that when an official calls attention to corruption and irregularity and they are proved up to the hilt, and then instead of thanking him you say “We are going to kick you out” there is going to be very little incentive to any official to do his duty. I trust the House will support the action of the Pensions Committee in this matter. Seeing that Mr. Macfie has served a very useful service, and has been discharged without a stain on his character, the gratuity should be granted.

I do not propose to attack the integrity of Mr. Macfie, but I object to the propriety of awarding him £500. We are indebted to Mr. Marwick for bringing the facts before us. Three or four hundred petitions are standing over, but the Select Committee finds time to give a special day to consider Mr. Macfie’s case. That is grossly unjust and unfair to other petitioners. I daresay Mr. Macfie is in a very great hurry to get away, but there are many other people who are equally in a hurry. One of our difficulties has been removed by the action of the Minister of Finance. We have been told by the chairman of the Select Committee that the reason for arriving at the figure of £500 was because that amount was mentioned in a letter written by the Government solicitors to Mr. Macfie. What was that money expended for? Mr. Macfie thought fit to be represented at an enquiry by his solicitor. He asked for that enquiry to be held, and therefore he should not have expected to conduct the enquiry. Accusations were made all round against members of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, and Mr. Macfie was one of the members. The enquiry was held to exonerate Mr. Macfie, and I am very glad that he has been exonerated. If the enquiry was held at the behest of the Government, the costs would be borne by the Government, and Mr. Macfie’s legal representation was quite unnecessary. Mr. Macfie was the principal witness, and at an enquiry you do not expect the principal witness to lead evidence. I consider that the £500 was entirely wasted, and on that ground I propose to vote against the grant.

I had no intention of intervening while the discussion was one upon the question of whether it was desirable to create a precedent by commuting a pension, but the discussion has gone beyond that. When the 1918 Miners’ Phthisis Commission was sitting it was overwhelmed with a number of complaints from previous beneficiaries as to bribes having been taken from widows and others by members of the board for giving priority to their cases. The commission attempted to make some investigation, but as the witnesses were very nervous about disclosing who the members were, the commission decided not to listen to ex parte statements. While the commission was engaged upstairs forming the miners’ phthisis law Mr. Buckle, the chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, acted as its advisor. During July, Mr. Buckle told me that he was having wires every day from the board, who wanted to terminate certain land transactions, but could not do so until he returned to Johannesburg. We kept Mr. Buckle a very long time in Cape Town, and towards the end he had either to allow the option over these properties to expire, or else to give his blind sanction to the recommendations of a sub-committee of the Miners’ Phthisis Board to close the negotiations. In the end I believe he did the latter. At that time Mr. Buckle had no intention whatever of accepting the post of chairman to the Miners’ Phthisis Board again. He had accepted the position of chairman of the Chamber of Mines. This created a vacancy, and subsequently Mr. Macfie became chairman of the board, although it required the persuasion of a good many people to induce him to accept it. Shortly after his acceptance, the 1920 commission was appointed. Mr. Macfie was appointed advisor to it, and as soon as we started work he told us that ever since he had been in the office there had been constant assertions of bribery and corruption in regard to the granting of benefits and the land transactions of the former board. He told us that naturally he had to sign the cheques in payment for the obligations entered into by the previous board.

He did much more than that.

I see the inference. He came straight to the commission and asked the commission to enquire into the matter, and this at a time when there would have been no difficulty whatever in getting the fullest evidence. However, the commission was pressed to proceed with its enquiries into the existing miners’ phthisis laws, and decided that Mr. Macfie’s best course was to ask for a separate enquiry into the Charges of bribery and corruption. This he did, but the enquiry could not be held for a considerable time as our commission was still sitting with Mr. Macfie as its advisor. In asking for a commission Mr. Macfie made out a prima facie case to present to the commission. When I read the commissioner’s report on this matter I must say I could not make head or tail of it. When he was speaking of the chairman I never knew which chairman he meant. When he was speaking of members of the board I did not know whether he meant the members of the old board or members of the new board. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is quite justified in his mistake. The old board had been reappointed but they had a new chairman, and when he speaks of the members of the board they are the same members who existed prior to 1919. He does not exonerate the chairman from that blame, he does not mention his name in connection with the matter at all. It is sufficiently evident from the commissioner’s report that there had been a prima facie case made out that certain persons connected with the board had been guilty of corruption. The Minister had sufficient indication from that report to entitle him to judge who the persons were. The Minister went to the board and said: “I want you all to hand in your resignations.”

The hon. member’s time has expired.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has suggested that the extract which I gave a little while ago from this report was susceptible of some misconstruction, and in order to make the minds of the committee clear on that point I wish to repeat the quotation I made from the Commissioner’s report. First of all, on page 44, he deals with personal responsibility. He says: “Was it the duty of those who inspected the properties to have ascertained the names of the registered owners of the properties or to have discovered and revealed the fact that the board was dealing with a middleman, a speculator? If not the duty of the inspectors to institute a full enquiry, upon whom did that duty rest? Did the members of the board, through inaction or failure to exercise ordinary business prudence, permit themselves to be exploited?” He refers to the fact that on August 1 this transaction was approved of, at that time Mr. Macfie being chairman of the board. In summarising his conclusions he says that he comes to the conclusion that each member of the board must be held responsible. He says: “The opinions formed by your Commissioner are now submitted for consideration. Conclusions: Each member of the board must be held responsible for the vote he registered in purchasing farms unsuited for closer settlement at prices inflated by speculation, upon inadequate information with titles unexamined in the case of A.” In the case of B, he mentions Mr. T. G. Macfie, Mr. du Toit and others. He goes on to say that “your Commissioner thinks that Messrs. Macfie, van Rooyen and Williams cannot be relieved of all responsibility.” I think we are all prepared to give full consideration to the circumstances, but we still remain unconvinced as to why a man of the experience of Mr. Macfie and his legal knowledge could not foresee the danger of assenting to a transaction of this sort without having made the enquiry which is indicated by the Commissioner as desirable. The question of the preference which has been given to this petition is a matter of very great moment to the work of this House. I am assured by a member of this committee who has probably had as long service as anybody on this particular Select Committee that the rule has been in the past to take these petitions by strict rotation, and I would like to know from the chairman by whose authority it was decided that Mr. Macfie’s petition be given precedence over the others and on whose authority an entire day was set apart for the consideration of Mr. Macfie’s evidence and what notice was given to other members of the committee that procedure was going to take place? We have at the head of the evidence that was taken the names of the members who were present when Mr. Macfie was heard. The chairman (Mr. McMenamin) was present, the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé), the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown), the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) and the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Fick). There were six altogether and five constitute a quorum. It seems to me that this in itself is a very unfortunate circumstance. We have here a committee which is down almost to quorum level considering a very important case, and a case on which they have advised a totally new departure. One would like to know if the Government was represented in any way on this committee. It does not appear so from the proceedings, and it seems to me a very far-reaching recommendation for the committee to have made without any member of the Government either being consulted or being present during the deliberations of the committee. I fail to understand from the chairman’s statement why this £500 has been granted. I think the committee will agree with me that the chairman did not make clear to us why this £500 had been awarded. He read from a certain letter from the Government attorney, a letter which was written to Mr. Macfie or to his legal representative, suggesting that if the plea of the Government was not upheld—that was that the Minister had a right to dismiss Mr. Macfie in the circumstances—the Government would pay £500, each party to pay its own costs. This has no relation whatsoever to the £400 which Mr. Macfie is said to have expended on legal expenses in connection with the enquiry and no reference in any shape or form to that particular item.

One of the great grievances of hon. members opposite is that this petition was given priority. The Select Committee sits three times a week. At one of the usual sittings the chairman announced that there was a petition from Mr. Macfie, who was on the point of leaving for America. Most of the members did not know that the petition was presented, but it is customary that petitions should be dealt with in the order in which they had been presented. The chairman suggested that as many members as could conveniently attend, should assemble after the usual meeting to hear Mr. Macfie’s evidence on the petition. It was open to all the members, and all who could do so could come. I know nothing about the man nor the whole procedure. I asked him jocularly whether he would not rather stay in the country if he could get the money. I never ask when a petition was presented. I thought the clerk of the committee brought it up before the committee according to the order in which it was handed in. The whole committee voted unanimously for the payment of the £500. I was not in favour of the second part and would have moved its deletion if the Minister had not done so. I think the matter has been fully discussed and the committee ought to be able to take a vote now.

Several hon. members have referred to previous petitions. This is a petition to give relief to Mr. Macfie owing to his dismissal as a member of the Miners’ Phthisis Board. Last year we had an almost similar petition from a certain de Witt Hamer whose services as secretary of that board were dispensed with in 1922. In 1924 there was a similar petition from a previous secretary and a member of the Miners’ Phthisis Board. In both cases the Select Committee refused the petition, and stated that it could not be recommended. It was then decided that no discrimination could be made. The secretary, Mr. de Witt Hamer, had a record of 40 years’ service behind him. His petition was refused twice notwithstanding the fact that he was secretary to the board for 12 years. Now the petition of the late chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board is granted and he is given a gratuity, whilst the secretary could get neither pension nor gratuity. This difference of treatment is hard to understand.

The hon. member for Illovot (Mr. Marwick) has tried to prove to the House that the commission’s report gave sufficient reason to justify the late Minister of Mines in dismissing Mr. Macfie from the chairmanship of the board under terms of sub-section 5 of sub-section 3. I want to put it to the House that if the Minister had considered that the commission’s report justified him in dismissing Mr. Macfie he would have said so but there is no cause whatever given for the dismissal. He called on members of the board to resign the members of the old board, the members of the new board—members of the board whose names had been discussed in connection with these charges. The names were handed in without question but Mr. Macfie said “no,” he had little to do with this matter and had been chairman only since the new Act came into force whereupon the Minister dismissed him. He brought an action against the Minister and ultimately lost his case on a technicality—on the grounds that the Minister was the sole judicial authority anyone who looks at the judge will find that such are the facts. I think if we allow political bias to be put aside on the matter we should give him this due that he had the courage to come into the open and expose certain matters of bribery and corruption most necessary to this country and in the course of doing so he had to suffer. Probably if he had kept his mouth shut he would now have been in his office to-day a much honoured man.

I have listened with interest to the speech of the chairman of the committee because a doctrine has been enunciated to-day that this House must have the utmost confidence in the decisions of the committee. We regard with interest what the Minister had to say on this recommendation of £500. I protest in the strongest manner at this matter being given priority. I have one case myself where the petitioner is in urgent need of relief if such relief can be given. The petition came up before Parliament last year and again this year and yet we have this priority given to this case. Not alone is priority given but a special day set aside for the committee to meet. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) said all he knew about the matter was that the chairman mentioned it at the committee, and I want to know what induced the chairman to put it before the committee.

I can tell you.

I do not know if the hon. member who has just spoken is a member of the committee.

He is not.

That makes it all the more interesting. There are members on the committee in this House who do not know why it came before the committee for priority and the explanation is now proposed to be given by somebody outside that committee. The reason given for the priority proves a most unfortunate one. It was said that Mr. Macfie was going to America when we all know that Mr. Macfie has been about this House to-day. When we come to the actual decision by the committee it is clear from the facts before the House that Mr. Macfie had no legal grounds for claiming and the chairman of the committee puts his decision as far as he was concerned on moral grounds. He had no legal claim and I would like to know what this moral claim is. It is said that he spent a considerable sum of money in connection with the investigation into the charges of corruption, but I am informed that there were other people who had their honour impugned and who wanted to clear it and had to go to considerable expense. Have their expenses been paid? There are members of this House who know that considerable expenses were incurred by these other people in protecting their honour. If it is a ground that Mr. Macfie spent money, which he would have spent in any case, to protect himself against charges not made by the Government but by people outside I should like to know why the Government should he responsible for the payment of these expenses. Of course the matter is one of legal or moral right. The court found that the Minister was the sole arbiter as to whether Mr. Macfie was to be dismissed or retained in the service. It was not a question of technicality, it was entirely a question of the terms of engagement, and there was no legal right for Mr. Macfie to found on. If it was a question merely of giving him money because it was a moral claim did the chairman of the Committee consider it necessary to hear both sides or did he sit ex-parte and hear one side only? While the court found the legal claim failed it was also held that he was not morally responsible for any offence. The purchasing of the farms took place in his time because I understand the previous board had turned it down. I understand the report will show that the previous board had already turned it down and it was not until the board of which Mr. Macfie was the Chairman came into force that the transaction was closed.

That is all wrong.

Now I want to get to this. Why did not the chairman take the trouble to hear the other side of the question as well, instead of deciding, ex parte in the way he did, that Mr. Macfie has a moral claim, when he does not know the whole case? I regretted one feature in the hon. chairman’s speech. That was the way in which he made assumptions against the late Government in the spirit in which he did. I am sorry to say it, but I do feel that the speech of the hon. chairman showed a certain amount of feeling which looked more like partisan feeling than what we are accustomed to from the members and chairman of the Select Committee on Pensions. That, I say deliberately. The hon. chairman of the committee drew the conclusion that the Government recognized they were wrong, because they made the offer they did in that letter “without prejudice.” If the hon. member had looked into this he would have found that this is very often done in these cases. What is the offer about costs? That is what is always looked at in these matters. Each side was to pay its own costs, and unless they offered to pay costs you have no right to judge that the party making the offer admits wrong.

It may not be known to the House, that I, perhaps, am the indirect cause of all this trouble, as it was I who presented this petition. Let me appeal to hon. members to approach this subject, if possible, without prejudice. Let us approach it calmly. I wish to appeal to the sporting instinct of this House. I do not know if I am wrong, but I gained the impression, listening to this debate, that there is an attack from that side of the House on Mr. Macfie.

No, no.

I may be wrong. It seems to me that from this side we have heard none of these vehement words that have fallen from that side. I have asked myself what is the reason, and the reason is, perhaps, that Mr. Macfie, in the last few years, has been prominently before the public and has exercised himself politically in such a way as to displease hon. members on that side of the House. I hope I am wrong, but it is strange that all this vehemence have only fallen from that side of the House. Let me again appeal to the whole of this House to deal with the subject calmly and without prejudice. There is one point I can explain at once. That is this question about the preference given to Mr. Macfie in having his petition heard. It is a very simple matter. Mr. Macfie placed the matter in my hands and in discussing it with him I learnt that he had booked his passage to America. Thereupon I suggested—I, and not Mr. Macfie—that it would be advisable if possible to get the petition heard before he left. I suggested that. Otherwise it is clear he would have had the unnecessary trouble and expense of having to come back next session for the hearing of his petition. I took it upon myself to interview members of the committee and the Clerk of the Papers, and I used what power of persuasion I had, and the committee gave Mr. Macfie this hearing.

It is not very sporting towards the other 300.

Yes, but those other 300 are staying in this country. The position of Mr. Macfie was, that if this petition did not come on now, he would have had to come back in six months’ time at his own expense. Now, lastly, the discussion here to-day has seemed to me extremely futile. We have had an impartial committee consisting of members belonging to all parties sitting and hearing the facts and yet this House wishes again to go into the facts, and to come to a conclusion on them. What is the purpose of the committee, if it is not to come to a conclusion on the facts? Unless this House now gives Mr. Macfie an opportunity to be heard at the Bar of this House, how can it come to a conclusion on this matter. I appeal to members of this House to leave the facts alone. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has been quoting from various reports and so on. Let me suggest to him not to prejudge Mr. Macfie’s case unless he has heard his evidence personally. I have personally great pleasure in supporting the first portion of the recommendation of the committee, that a gratuity of £500 should be given to Mr. Macfie.

I do not quite understand this appeal that has been made by the hon. member opposite to cut out the facts, to cut out the findings of the Commission of Inquiry that sat in 1922. Because the grounds for granting this gratuity by the committee of this House is that it was to satisfy a moral claim, as this man had been wrongfully treated by the past Government. It was to compensate him for that this gratuity was recommended. If that is so, surely hon. members are entitled to go to this report of the Commission of Inquiry to find out on what ground the action of the late Government was taken. The hon. member says the committee found impartially, but did they hear the Treasury, or the late Government, have they heard both sides? No. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) gave this committee the impression that Mr. Macfie was merely carrying out contracts entered into by his predecessors. Well, that is not borne out by this report at all. If hon. members will look at page 13 of this report, where it is dealing with the purchase of a farm called “Morgenzon,” the commission says: “The Buckle Board considered these reports …. It resolved not to purchase, and the offer be refused.” Then paragraph 46: “In October, 1919, however, the board, with Mr. Macfie as chairman, again discussed the advisability of placing beneficiaries on the land.” In November, 1919, “resolved to give the question further consideration.” They gave it further consideration and they decided to buy the farm.

The majority of the board.

But Mr. Macfie was the chairman.

He was not in favour of that.

Then it goes on at the bottom of page 14: “Each member of the board must share the responsibility for what, in the light of subsequent events, was an un-business-like transaction.” The Commissioner places on each member of the board the responsibility for purchasing this farm. I am reading this to refute the statement of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), who told us that Mr. Macfie merely carried out transactions of the previous board. Now, I come to the next page, paragraph 58 on page 14. A resolution was passed by the board on the 15th January, Mr. Macfie being in the chair: “Resolved to complete the purchase and authorize the chairman to execute the deed of sale”; and then four, “that the land be surveyed for the board by Mr. Curlewis, of Potchefstroom …. the beacons to be ascertained before the purchase is completed.” The transfer was completed before the beacons were ascertained and the purchase price was paid on Feb. 13th, but the surveyors’ report was not received until Feb. 18th. If the chairman was not in favour of this why did he not dissociate himself from the transaction?

Read Clause 51.

That has nothing to do with the matter. Mr. Macfie, as chairman, is responsible for acting on this report, and he did not in any way dissociate himself from the resolution of the board. If he objected to that resolution he should have recorded his dissent. Although the resolution of the board said the land should be surveyed and the beacons ascertained before transfer was passed, the commissioner reports that transfer was passed and the price was paid before the completion of the survey. The chairman personally handed two cheques over for the purchase price five days before the report from the surveyor was received, although that report was to have been a condition of transfer being passed. I am not stating this to bring any charges against Mr. Macfie, but because it was alleged that he was dismissed for no grounds whatever.

Have you read the letter of dismissal of the Government?

That letter says there is nothing against his honour, and there is nothing against his honour.

It says “in the public interest.”

It is in the public interest undoubtedly.

The commission undoubtedly does find serious acts of an unbusinesslike character for a man in that position. However, I got up to refute the statement that Mr. Macfie merely carried out the details of the transactions for which he was not responsible. I deprecate the situation having arisen where a man, who has rendered long and faithful public service, has his name and reputation bandied about in the way in which Mr. Macfie’s are being bandied about now, but that cannot be avoided when the Select Committee recommends us to pay £500 to him on no other ground, apparently, except that he was unjustly treated by the late Government. He is entitled to great credit for having brought before the public notice the fact that things were not going right on the board of which he was chairman, but at the same time he must take the responsibility of those transactions which were carried on in an unbusinesslike way.

The hon. member’s ten minutes have expired.

The Opposition is being accused of passing judgment without knowing all the facts. The Select Committee acted on insufficient information, and that is wrong. I should like to know whether the Treasury recommended payment. I know the treasurer and doubt it. I would like to have a statement from the Minister of Finance. I have another objection to the recommendation. If a man speaks ill of a country and then asks it for a gratuity. I am not prepared to grant it.

His remarks apply to the late Government.

He does not speak about a Government, but about the country. If I speak ill of a country I should not have the bad taste to hold out my hand and ask it for a gift. The secretary of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, Mr. de Witt Hamer, was also dismissed at the time. He was not responsible, and two petitions from him did not succeed. Now a gratuity is promised to the chairman, who shares the responsibility. The Select Committee is responsible for the debate, because undue priority was given to this petition.

As far as I know, the position of the people whose petitions have been held over, are not like those of Mr. Macfie. It is unjust, because certain sentences in a report place a very minute portion of responsibility on Mr. Macfie, that this House should stigmatize him as a dishonourable man.

I never mentioned anything of the sort.

That is the inference I draw.

It is an unwarrantable inference.

Is the same principle applied to other commissions or has the resignation being demanded from members of the Railway Board on account of the Durban grain elevator? It is said that members of the Select Committee on Pensions were actuated by party bias in making their recommendation. I find that three members of the S.A.P. voted for this particular recommendation.

Why not?

Were they actuated by party bias? I am trying to prove there was no party bias.

Nobody has suggested it.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Rev. Mr. Rider) was a member of the committee.

I was not present when Mr. Macfie came before the committee.

I am referring to the sitting when the report was adopted.

I declined to vote not having been at the previous meeting.

It has also been said on the Opposition side of the House that only one side was heard by the Select Committee. But the Chairman of the Select Committee read the report of the Treasury on the matter. The fact is that Mr. Macfie did great public service to the country in opposing bribery and corruption, as a result of which he is money out of pocket and lost future salary and pension rights. It is only right that he should be compensated.

I wanted to avoid saying anything more this afternoon about pensions, but I must differ from the way in which the Chairman of the Committee has presented this case to the House. I cannot understand my hon. friend, the member for East London (city) (Rev. Mr. Rider), saying that he did not vote for this recommendation. It is true that he said that he did not know anything about the case, but he was in the committee room when the vote was taken, and I certainly took it that he was favourable. He was like Mr. Macfie—he did not dissent. It is said that favouritism has been shown in this case. The day before the case was taken the Chairman said that Mr. Macfie was leaving on September 10 or thereabouts for America or some other place, and that he would like to be heard before he went. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is under a misapprehension when he says that this is the only case that we dealt with.

I did not say so; I knew nothing about it.

I understood you to say that this case was singled out, and you wanted to know why.

For priority.

That is what I am trying to say. Now that is not the case. There was another case which also got priority simply because the person was said to be leaving the country. It is not the first time in my experience that we have taken evidence so as to allow a person to go away. Now let us come to the facts of this case. I never heard a question raised as to the late Government being brought in any way. No word about the late Government being to blame in any way was ever mentioned. Do you think that we, as a committee, would have given a vote which in any way would have censured the late Government? What was presented to us was this. First of all we had the Treasury report. That is the case, as I understand it, for the Government. Then we had Mr. Macfie’s statement. What weighed with me was this, that he stated that he wanted to conduct his own case. He was informed that he could not be a witness and conduct his own case, and he was then compelled to bring in an attorney. His legal expenses amounted to between £400 and £500. He made a claim for other things as well. Personally, I am opposed to his getting anything more than the money that he was out of pocket. We were informed that in the original Commissioner’s report it was recommended that Mr. Macfie should be paid his out-of-pocket expenses. It was not in the printed report. Hon. members will remember his having stated that. A statement of that kind leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth and one does not like it. I ask the House why should Mr. Macfie be censured? There is no doubt he did a wrong thing in signing, but you must remember that he was only two months in the board when he signed that thing. He signed it, as he believed, on the report of competent men that the thing was valid. Having signed it, didn’t he pay the penalty sufficiently when he was asked to resign? I do not think that anybody who knows Mr. Macfie’s public services and has heard him give his evidence on that phase of the case can impugn his honour in any way. Why not accept the proposal of the committee? The committee have in no way sat upon the question of his honour; they simply propose to pay back to Mr. Macfie the expense he was put to in connection with an enquiry which he demanded. Having committed an error by signing that report, is he now to be censured?

The committee will agree that after the full discussion, not much more can be said on the subject. I would like to meet the Select Committee as far as possible. I presume they investigated the matter well and came to the conclusion that £500 should be paid, and consequently I wish to support the recommendation, but feel that, as regards the capitalization of a part of the pension, we should think well what the results of such an action might be. If that part of the recommendation is endorsed, we take on a greater responsibility than we should do. The Select Committee did not sufficiently consider the possible consequences of the recommendation. We should be able now to come to a vote on the matter. I cannot agree to the capitalization of a part of the pension.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister has taken up the attitude that we should now agree to vote for this £500. As regards the commutation question, I do not think there can possibly be any dispute about that, but I must say that I do not feel at all convinced that the case for the payment of this £500 has been made out. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) has very properly shown that this matter should not be and, he says, was not in the Select Committee, treated as a political matter. I have no bias in the matter one way or another. As far as Mr. Macfie is concerned, I have only met him once when he gave evidence some ten years ago before a Select Committee of which I was a member. After all, what has happened? This gentleman, who had filled a high magisterial office, was made chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board. When he got on to the board he found that there were floating about in the air various accusations of dishonesty and corrupt practices. He certainly took no part in such practices and he did two things, one of which he should not have done and one of which it was perfectly right for him to do. The thing which he should not have done was to agree without proper investigation to the purchase of some land which had been rejected by the board before he joined. The mere fact that it had been rejected by the board and the mere fact that there were all these rumours of corruption floating about, one would have thought, would have put Mr. Macfie on his guard and would have prevented him from agreeing to the purchase of this land without more investigation than it is quite apparent that he gave to it. The thing he was quite right in doing was to ask for an enquiry. I must say that I cannot see that there is any very great merit in that. He had been a magistrate for a considerable number of years, he came on to the board fresh and he found these charges floating about, and he very naturally thought that should not be allowed to go on. Therefore, he very properly said: “Let us have an enquiry,” and he told the Government that he thought an enquiry was desirable. Well, the enquiry resulted as we have seen in a finding that there was a certain amount of malpractices, that there was nothing against Mr. Macfie’s honour, but it is perfectly plain from what has been read out by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that the board considered that he himself had not exercised sufficient caution. Then the Government, finding the whole position so unsatisfactory, decided to make an end of the whole board. All things considered, it seems from what we have heard that they probably acted quite wisely.

They reappointed some of the members.

Exactly. They got rid of the old board and made a fresh start. As far as I know, there has been no accusation of any sort of dishonesty ever since. The stables were cleaned. Now Mr. Macfie feels aggrieved. He brings an action against the Government. If the Treasury had thought he had a good case they would have come to some arrangement with him and not resisted his action. They did resist the action, and Mr. Macfie lost. He now says that he wants to throw the dust of South Africa off his boots and he wishes to avail himself of the assistance of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Te Water), who comes best out of all this business. His persuasiveness induced the committee to take the matter into consideration, and the committee somewhat soft-heartedly agreed to recommend the payment of this money. I cannot see that the payment would be justified, and I do not think that Mr. Macfie was hardly treated under the circumstances. I cannot see that he is entitled to any particular credit in asking for a commission, because for a man in his position it was the natural thing for him to do. If we vote money in this particular case we shall be setting up a dangerous precedent. With regard to solicitors’ costs, a great many people have in similar circumstances employed solicitors to protect their interests and may even have had proceedings taken against them which are entirely undeserved, but that is no reason why we should make a payment like the one we are now called upon to make.

I submit to the House that the ratio on which we can consider this case is that the Government attorney in consultation with the Minister at the time offered £500 to Mr. Macfie if the question of ministerial discretion, then before courts, went against the Government. The Government attorney suggested to Mr. Macfie in effect that if he won on this point, he should accept £500 and that would be the end of the case. That is not an offer to stifle litigation. I have never in my experience seen so high an offer made for that purpose alone. It was an offer to compromise and we should take that £500 as the ratio of the damage done to Mr. Macfie by his dismissal. Why should the House go behind the decision of the Government on that point. Mr. Macfie having no remedy now comes to us and I contend that £500 is the correct sum to offer him in final settlement of his claim, and I ask the House to come to a vote on this question. No good can come from further discussion. Let us accordingly eliminate all prejudice and bring the matter to finality.

We are still in a cloud as to how the £500 was arrived at—what is it for? Is it compensation for the expenses which Mr. Macfie was put to in employing counsel to represent him before the Commission? I would like to refer to the report made by the Secretary for Finance to the Select Committee which said that the treasury was not in a position to offer any comments under paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition, but was not able to recommend the commutation of the petitioner’s pension either in whole or in part. The Secretary for Industries in his letter has also stated that he had heard that it cost Mr. Macfie £400 for the employment of a solicitor. He goes on to say in his report that he did not think it necessary nor did the department think it necessary nor did it approve or agree to expenditure of this kind. That letter was written on August 28, 1924. It seems to me from the evidence before the Pensions Special Committee and the Secretary of Mines makes it clear, that the department did not approve of the appointment of counsel by Mr. Macfie. With regard to this amount of £500 how is it made up? Is it compensation for expenses he was put to in employment of counsel or is it in connection with his claim for damages which the courts did not allow? Before we are asked to vote we are entitled to know under which heading the Pensions Committee recommended this payment of £500. There was no unconditional offer of £500 given. It was held by the courts that the Minister was the sole arbiter on the merits of Mr. Macfie’s case and his decision was final. The facts are quite clear. The offer made by the Government attorney was that in case the courts should hold that the Minister had not the sole right to decide whether or not there was good cause shown for the cancellation of Mr. Macfie’s appointment the Government were then prepared to pay £500 to save a long law suit and very great costs. The Chairman of the Pensions Committee should inform us exactly how this £500 was made up and what it was for. Until we have that information we are still in the dark.

The debate has worn the subject under discussion threadbare, and there is no possibility of obtaining fresh information. What remains for the House to decide is, whether it is going to set up a precedent that a public servant should suffer censure, or have his action vindicated by the House concurring in the repayment of certain costs which he incurred in clearing up a public scandal. I am surprised at the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin)—who has held a very responsible position—trying to belittle the services rendered by Mr. Macfie, yet later on he admitted that the stables are clean. To minimise services, and at the same time to write a testimonial, is rather inconsistent. One wonders where such an action gets its impetus from. If the House decides to turn down the Select Committee’s representations, it will go forth as the attitude of the representatives of the country, irrespective of party, that they do not value the services of a public official who wishes to see that his department is conducted on clean lines. If the opposition to the grant is successful, I am afraid the members who have opposed it will find that it is a boomerang on themselves, because it is impossible that instances may arise in which they will indulge in special pleading for the House to alter the decision of the Government. There are numerous cases in which public servants and dependents of people in public positions have been compensated by way of gratuities when they have done—as Mr. Macfie has done—their duty. If the decision goes against the recommendation of the committee, it will, in the hands of a party press, be blazoned forth as an act of merited censure on a gentleman who, it happens, is opposed to a policy for which a section of the press stands. It is unfortunate for the country that Mr. Macfie is leaving South Africa, but he should do so without a stigma being placed on his name.

I have been trying the whole day to find out on what ground this £500 is to be granted.

Obstruction!

The hon. member calls it obstruction if we try to exercise control over the taxpayers’ money. I was a member of the Pensions Committee and have never heard of such a recommendation.

Then vote against it.

Yes, I shall vote against it, a hundred times if necessary. I know Mr. Macfie and have no personal feeling against him. It now appears that the £500 is to cover the costs of the enquiry, namely, attorneys’ fees. There are also other members of the board who employed counsel. Mr. Macfie said he would either leave the board or the other members must go. Thus there was an enquiry in connection with the difference which arose between the different members of the board, and I do not see why the expenses of one of the parties should be borne by the State. I would like to know what the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) will say about it. Will he agree to the country’s money being spent in that way? If we grant this petition, others also will come to the House and ask for compensation. Several hon. members said that this was the work of the late Government. Well, if that is so, the matter should be referred back to the Select Committee, so that the previous Minister of Mines can also have an opportunity of giving evidence before them.

The hon. member a few minutes ago appealed to the sporting instincts of this House. I cannot allow an appeal like that in connection with money that does not belong to us personally. Here we have a very serious position for the country. A man who is a public servant comes forward, he does his duty for which he is paid, as everyone in this country expects him to do, and by reason of his having done his duty we are now asked to reward him for doing his duty. We have many public servants in this country who have exposed things that should not have gone on, I have been looking at the thing from a purely legal point of view and I do not know why the Committee are asking us to pass this recommendation. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Te Water) said that the amount was due for damages which this man had incurred. Another hon. member said it was a solatium; a third claimed that it was for legal costs incurred. I suggest the Committee has not gone into this matter thoroughly. The first objection was that taken by the Minister of Finance on the recommendation for commutation of Mr. Macfie’s pension and it is therefore quite clear that the matter has not had that serious consideration it deserves. I take it Mr. Macfie can put forward a petition again next year if he wishes and I think that seeing this Committee is controlling public money the House must feel that this particular matter has been unduly rushed by the Pensions Committee. I feel that the recommendation should go back to the Committee and be considered again. It is clear that the Treasurer has not recommended this. It is extremely dangerous to lay down principles of this kind because in future any public servant who exposes wrongdoing will come forward and say “I want a reward.” That will be an extremely bad principle and this committee should beware of setting up a precedent.

In view of the statement the hon. member has just made, I move the previous question, that the recommendation be not made.

The hon. member cannot move the previous question in Committee.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Recommendation, No. (24), as amended, put and Dr. de Jager called for a division, whereupon the Commitee divided:

Ayes—55.

Alexander, M.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Bremer, K.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, D. M.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Hugo, D.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Niekerk, C. A.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—33.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Marwick, J. S.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Watt, T.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Recommendation No. (24), as amended, accordingly agreed to.

moved: This Committee recommends:

1. (25) The award to M. Adelaar, formerly a constable, South African Police, of a gratuity equal to the cash value of the 96 days’ leave standing to his credit at the time of retirement.
2. (26) The grant to Helen Seton-Tait, formerly a typiste, Department of Mines and Industries, of an award under Act No. 29 of 1912 as if her membership of the Fund established thereunder conformed to the requirements of section 21 of the said Act.
3. (27) Subject to the payment of all contributions due to the proper pension fund, Katharine F. M. Kirsch, Jessie F. Field and Zenobia Buchanan to be granted, on retirement, such retirement benefits as would have been payable had they been eligible to contribute under section 21 of Act No. 29 of 1912.

Agreed to.

moved: This Committee recommends:

1. (28) The award to May E. E. Evans, widow of L. Evans, formerly a military pensioner, for and on behalf of her two minor children, of £24 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1923.

I move that the grant of £24 be altered to £12. Usually the Select Committee gives grants to children of deceased officials to the extent of £1 per month. In 1922, 1923 and the beginning of 1924 £1 per month was granted to them, and now it is proposed to increase it to £2. It has been said that a mother cannot maintain a child on £1 per month, but neither can she do it on £2 a month. There is no reason for discrimination. We should spend the money of the taxpayers carefully.

Agreed to.

Recommendaton No. (28), as amended, put and agreed to.

moved: This Committee recommends:

1. (29) The award to Jessie S. Goddard, widow of J. Goddard, formerly a machinist, South African Railways, for and on behalf of her three children, of £24 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1924.

Mr. CILLIERS moved, as an amendment: To omit “£24” and to substitute “£12”.

I hope that the committee will not agree to the proposal made in regard to the reduction in this particular case. As the committee will no doubt remember this was the case I was successful in getting referred back to the committee, and under the circumstances, the amount of £2 a month to assist this widow is not by any means generous.

It is generous for this committee.

Then I am pleased to congratulate the committee on its generosity which is not very great. In this case the father of the children was killed after being transferred from Pietermaritzburg to Salt River. He was coming from Mowbray and had occasion to cross the main line and was knocked down by a train and killed. This young woman is doing her utmost to provide for these three children that have been left. Under all the circumstances, I think the committee should agree to this recommendation.

Most of the opposition to these recommendations of £2 per child is based on the fact that it is creating a new precedent. Who creates these precedents, when were they laid down and by whom were they laid down? Why should not another precedent be laid down now? Surely this House is going to take a different view of these matters from what it has done in the past. If anything has been demonstrated by the operations of this Pensions Committee, it is that it is entirely inadequate to deal with the matters which come before it in a just fashion. I would not like the House to be led now into turning down these recommendations simply because it has not been done before. The cases in which these grants have been recommended do not require any argument to substantiate their necessity.

I also trust that this recommendation will be passed. Something has been said about precedents. Why not take the original precedent? The original precedent is that we used to give 30s. a month for each child and that was at a time when things were very much cheaper than they are now. This £1 per month means ninepence a day for a woman to bring up and educate her child. I hope the House is going to stand by giving something more than ninepence a day to a widow. We have spent a whole day, it seems to me, trying to make the poor poorer by our proceedings. The majority of us are of opinion that £1 a month is too little, and I hope this House will assist us in reaching the position that we ought to give much more than £1 a month.

I am afraid that when the last vote was put half the members of the House did not grasp what was being done. The thing was done so quickly that I am sure many members did not realize what was at stake. I would like to support hon. members who have risen in connection with this £2 a month. I would put it to hon. members on both sides of the House that you can have such a thing as false economy which is very dear in the long run. After all, we are not now dealing with the widows or the children of those widows; we are dealing with the future of South Africa. Under-feeding, bad housing and insufficient clothing will all affect the future of South Africa. Every member of this House knows that it is impossible to feed, clothe and shelter a child on £1 a month. When the bread-winner is taken away and the widow is left to struggle on with the children, she has to go out and work Very often, if her health fails, she cannot work and then she has to struggle along on this allowance. I ask any hon. member of this House to get up and say that £2 a month is anything in the nature of a luxury.

My own opinion is that if the Committee had to recommend such a grant in such a case as this £2 is about the lowest sum that could be recommended so as to be of any use to the family. The objection of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) is that in some cases they have given £2 and in some cases only £1, but I think we would be making a greater mistake if we now tried to reduce the £2 to £1. For a grant to a widow with two children, £2 is the absolute minimum.

On a point of order do I understand you passed No. 28?

Yes.

What I want to do is this. The House has agreed to a reduction in No. 28 and now is dealing with No. 29, and I am prepared to divide the House so far as No. 29 is concerned. In regard to the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) he desires to deal with three cases and at that rate I think the matter can be dealt with.

I am sorry. What is passed is passed, and I cannot go back.

I am not prepared to vote for the proposal of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), but I think he should give the House an explanation as to what induced him to make this proposal. Neither he nor I do think that £1 a month is sufficient nor do I think that £2 is sufficient. There are two ways of making proper provision for widows. We can do it either by a voluntary scheme of widows pensions or by a system of social insurance. We cannot allow ourselves to be merely a charitable institution. For a long time, in extreme cases like the present, we have always voted £1 per child until they were sixteen. That was actuated simply by the desire to give something. If the House desires to make it £2 I shall not vote against it. But I ask the committee to refer to the hon. gentleman—he does not suggest that £2 is ample for the widow, but the better way to meet these cases is as I have already suggested. The sooner the House takes up the whole question of pensions to be paid to the people of South Africa either in unemployment, health or accident insurance, the better it will be for South Africa.

I put it to the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), does he really want to deprive a widow of a miserable £1 per month? I know he does not really want to; he is merely registering a protest as to the method of relief adopted, but he is registering his protest by robbing a widow.

The amendment was negatived.

Recommendation agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends:

1. (30) The award to Wilhelmina F. Nicholas, widow of F. Nicholas, formerly a constable, South African Police, for and on behalf of her five minor children, of £12 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
2. (31) The award to A. M. de Kock, formerly a constable, South African Police, now a leper on Robben Island, for and on behalf of his two children, of £12 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
3. (32) I. Ayres, clerk, Department of Finance, to be permitted to contribute to the Transvaal Administrative and Clerical Division Pension Fund in respect of his service prior to 1st January, 1909.
4. (33) Hilda Turner, a teacher, Cape Education Department, to be permitted to contribute to the Cape Teachers’ Pension Fund as if election had been made within the time stipulated in section 228 (iv) of Ordinance No. 5 of 1921 (Cape).
5. (34) The break in the service of C. F. A. Oberlander, medical inspector of schools, Orange Free State Education Department, from 1st April, 1919, to 28th July, 1920, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes: Provided all contributions are duly paid and the gratuity already paid is refunded by him.
6. (35) The break in the service of E. G. Polden, constable, South African Police, from 1st April, 1912, to 2nd April, 1912 to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes: Provided the gratuity of £100 paid to him on retrenchment is refunded.
7. (36) The break in the service of F. G. W. Taylor, clerk, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, from 1st October, 1899, to 19th December, 1899, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes.
8. (37) The break in the service of J. Leneapa, a native constable, South African Police, from 31st August, 1908, to 12th December, 1910, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes.
9. (38) The break in the service of Maggie J. Heath, a matron, Department of Prisons, from 11th March, 1916, to 31st August, 1917, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to her the benefit of her previous service for pension purposes.
10. (39) The break in the service of J. C. Barnard, a detective, Criminal Investigation Department, from 15th August, 1922, to 31st October, 1923, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes: The pension on final retirement to be computed under the provisions of Act No. 27 of 1923.
11. (40) The break in the service of Jessie J. C. McLaggan, a teacher, Cape Education Department, from 1st December, 1900, to 31st March, 1916, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to her the benefits of five years of her previous service for pension purposes.
12. (41) That the petition of N. Mills be referred to the Government for consideration.
13. (42) That the petition of W. Dufton be referred to the Cape Provincial Administration with a view to his being assisted with board and lodging.

On recommendation (30),

We have just made a grant of £24 per annum to a widow, and now we are granting £12, also to a widow with three children. Is such a thing reasonable? Hon. members will hear more about this later.

A great deal has been said, and I trust there is no truth in it, that members in the House have no sense of compassion. Another faculty that might be added to that is logic. Here we have on one recommendation the giving of £1 and in another £2. Where is the method?

We know there are cases of widows who receive a maintenance allowance from the Education Department. Then the matter comes before the magistrate and £1 per month per child is granted. The Select Committee now recommends £2 or £1 per month per child. Why the difference? I should like to have more information.

The different cases are treated on their merits. The pension which the deceased would have got is taken into consideration. If the deceased has 20 years’ service, his widow gets a larger pension than an official who had only ten years to go, and also the financial position of the petitioners is taken into consideration. The Select Committee receives all kinds of reports and is in a much better position to judge than this House. All the reports and recommendations are considered before a recommendation is made. Under these circumstances it is wrong for hon. members to express an opinion without the necessary information.

I understand the hon. member who has just sat down is a member of the committee and he said that they had all the information supplied to the committee. That is what we want to know. The chairman of the committee should have given us all the information when the first reduction was moved. He should have told us why the recommendation was in one case £2 and in another case £1.

I would only be too delighted to give the facts in every case, and in this particular case I would reiterate that it was treated on its merits. The petitioner owns her own house. She has three children aged 19, 17 and 16, and it might be reasonable to expect that they contribute to the maintenance of the home.

Recommendation agreed to.

On recommendation (40),

We have a case here where a break of 18 years in the service is condoned. I would like to know what the special circumstances are for condoning such a long breach of continuity of service.

In this case it was not a break; although it has to be put in that way it does not mean that. It is recommended by the Education Department. This lady has been a teacher in Britain, and she came out here as a widow, and was engaged as a widow, and they allowed her to contribute on the condition that she would come and teach for them. It is not a break in her service. It is simply taking over previous service for which the lady has already paid to the pension fund.

Recommendations put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and considered.

I move—

Mr. VERMOOTEN seconded.

I move, as an amendment—

The sum as printed was passed by the Committee through a misunderstanding.

Rev. Mr. RIDER seconded.

This creates a position which will give us a lot of trouble in time to come. Because one wrong step was taken, is that a justification for taking another? It is a bad precedent.

Amendment agreed to.

I want to say something about No. 11 of the petitions that have been refused.

That does not appear in the report of the Committee, and the hon. member should have discussed it in Committee.

Report adopted.

I would ask the Minister of Finance what this surplus is. The clause states “such sum as the Controller and Auditor-General may certify as the excess of the current revenues for the financial year ended March 31, 1924, over the expenditure charges against such revenue”. I understand from my hon. friend that there was no surplus. Perhaps he will explain how he gets this.

I don’t know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) has put that question sarcastically. I think the whole position has been discussed in this House. I gave it in my Budget statement. The unaudited figure is about £227,000.

Does that include the transfer of moneys which should have gone to loan account?

Yes, the whole £525,000. If you don’t take the moneys that went to loan account there would not have been a surplus.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

It is rather strange that this clause should have been put in here. This matter has been before the House and has been discussed for a considerable time. I notice that it was brought up last year when the Public Service Pensions Bill was under discussion, and it was then stated that a letter had been received from the Treasury in which they stated that the Treasury refused to agree to it, in fact they point blank refused. Now I would like to ask my hon. friend if the Treasury has agreed to this. In this regard I would like to call his attention to the fact that when this matter was being discussed in Select Committee the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover St.) (Mr. Alexander) moved a resolution that the cases in the Free State laid before this committee should be met by a suitable amendment of the Act. On being put to the vote, there were two for and five against this. The hon. member who is now Minister of the Interior voted against this very proposal. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Smit) also voted against this very proposal which is now embodied in this clause. I would ask the Minister for Finance what is the reason for this entire change of front. The whole case was gone into by the Select Committee of Parliament upon an application made by the chief warder of Kroonstad. This man gave evidence and yet, in face of that, the large majority refused to entertain the proposal.

This is a matter the Government has gone into very carefully, and it has come to the conclusion that we must rectify this anomaly. There can be no doubt that there is no justification for putting these people into a worse position than their colleagues, the members of the police force, in the Free State. The Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Justice, could give no reason why these men were omitted at the time from being put into practically the same position. It must have been due to inadvertence. No case can be made out for differentiation, and the Government has come to the conclusion that it would be no more than right that this anomaly should be rectified. It is a matter of policy. The Government has considered the whole question, and it considers that these men should be treated in the same way as the Transvaal officials were treated.

The only reason is, why did not the same argument apply before? I would also like to know whether the Minister of Finance has the concurrence of the Minister of Justice in this proposal.

I do not know why I should say whether I have got the concurrence of the Minister of Justice. This is a proposal put forward by the Government.

I may just say that for years past this question has been brought forward, and as far as I am concerned I can recollect nothing except this, that almost from the start off I always felt that this was something that was wrong and that it ought to be put straight. They came to me very often to ask me to make a definite statement on the one side or the other. I always said “No, I don’t want to make any declaration as to what I do not know,” but I must say I have always felt that there was something wrong which should be put straight.

I would like to know, if this matter was so clearly a matter of obvious justice, why the question has not been raised in the House.

There was a petition formerly.

I would like to know what is going to be the financial burden involved in the event of this clause being passed. I rather think it will be very considerable.

There are about 20 officers involved

Twenty-two, I think.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I would like to know from the Minister of Finance what the reason for this amendment is. I think it is undesirable on the face of it, unless there are some urgent reasons to justify it, to amend a statute like the Public Service and Pensions Statute by a Bill such as this, which is a sort of omnibus Bill.

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

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to one or two facts. I am pleased to see that he has increased the rate from 4 to 41/2 per cent., but I would like to ask the Minister if he cannot credit the Railways and Harbours Pension Fund at the rate of 5 per cent. I believe they are paying at a rate of 5 per cent. on loans raised, so I do not see why we cannot give the same rate to that pensions fund. I find there are a large number of pensioners who have served 20 to 25 years and who have been pensioned off with just over £4 per month, and I feel that they are entitled to a greater pension. In the meantime I ask the Minister if it would not be possible this year or next year to give them the advantage of the 5 per cent. on all monies invested.

In reply to the hon. member I may say that, as he knows, there is a deficit in the superannuation fund, and in consideration of that the Administration has agreed to pay 41/2 per cent. The whole question is being gone into. As he knows an actuarial valuation is now taking place made by an actuary of the Administration, and one appointed by the elected men on the Superannuation Fund Board. When that is dealt with the whole question of the superannuation fund will have to be dealt with.

Clause put and agreed to.

The remaining clause and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported without amendment, and read a third time.

I move: In line 18, after “repealed” to insert “as from the first day of November, 1924”; in lines 20 and 21, to omit “commencement of the Miners’ Phthisis Act Amendment Act” and to substitute “first day of November”; in lines 56 and 57, on page 6, to omit “Government Mining Engineer” and to substitute “Minister”; and certain amendments in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English version.

Are you taking this section by section?

It is all one clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Before you put the clause I would like to know from the Minister why this clause is brought in now. It is a clause that makes quite a serious alteration in the existing method of levying the assessment which the board has to make upon the various mining companies. Now in the Act of 1919 for the first time an attempt was made to base the levy to a certain extent on what is called the “silicosis rate”, that is to say, an attempt was made to arrive at some kind of method to assess the liability of the various mines to contribute to this board according to the extent to which silicosis was actually being caused in these mines. The idea was that it would be an additional incentive to the mines to get them cleaned up and reduce the amount of silicosis produced in these mines. Now that, of course, is all very well in theory, and if we were starting with a clean sheet that would be an excellent thing, but we are not starting with a clean sheet, and the fact of bringing in a silicosis rate as a determining factor for contribution to the fund is to throw the burden on the older mines, which have grown up under conditions not so well regulated as they are now. Now the Minister is going one step further and increasing the levy based on the silicosis rate. It throws the main burden of an enormous levy on the older mines, and releases the newer mines, which are better able to bear the burden. Scientifically, I admit, it may be good, but you have to deal with these matters as you find them. If the burden which the older mines are bearing already, is not enough to clean up the mines and reduce the silicosis rate, nothing you can put on will be enough. What I am afraid of is that before very long the board will be faced with the position that a number of mines contributing to this rate will have dropped out of action, and who is to carry the burden then?

It does not interfere with the proportion.

Yes, because under the existing law 35 per cent. is based on the silicosis rate, and now it is to be 50 per cent. The Minister told us that in a new Bill coming in next year possibly the whole rate may be on the silicosis rate. I am only warning him that some day this enormous burden may be left for the taxpayer to put up. I would only urge him, when a Bill is brought in the last days of an expiring session, and we are practically in the dark, not to make too comprehensive a change. It is going to do nobody any harm, if the old assessment remains.

I must say I was very much surprised to hear the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). There was a Bill introduced last year by his own Government, and the percentages were exactly the same as those proposed here; does he mean to tell me that the Government of that day did not make full enquiries?

I am talking to the House as it is now. What do they know about it?

Things are exactly the same in this Bill as in the 1923 Act. The amount of the levy that each individual mine pays are assessed firstly on the basis of the average earnings of the men, and there was a time in the history of this legislation when the whole basis was on the individual, and a very bad thing, because the amount a man earns is no reflection of the responsibility of the mine in regard to this disease. The second factor was the silicosis rate, which was introduced in 1919, and under which some of the responsibility for the causation of the disease was thrown on the mines. The next 20 per cent. is levied on profits, which again has no bearing on the working conditions of a mine. In 1919, to let down as easily as possible what are known as the “low grade mines”, 20 per cent. of the burden was shifted to the paying mines. There are two purposes which this legislation serves; firstly, to assist the sufferers. But it serves another purpose. The Act is a constant reminder to the employers that it would pay them to pay a little more attention to trying to prevent Miners’ Phthisis. If you simply put the levy on a basis which has no reflection whatever on the responsibility for the causation of the disease, you miss that second purpose altogether. It was agreed by the Commission that by 1924 we could put the whole upon the silicosis rate. It is now advised that we should go easily for a while. We can understand that there are not many members who have had an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with all these matters, and if we give them another twelve months to study them they would not be in a better position than they are to-day to discuss them. The present proposals are not going a bit further than those of the late Government, and I do not see the objection which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has.

I am only warning you that you will not get your money.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move in lines 1 to 4, on page 10, to omit all the words after “underground” to the end of sub-section (1).

Agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move in lines 24, 26 and 37, respectively, after “disablement” to insert “or aggravation thereof”; in lines 38 to 40, to omit “claim compensation for such disablement under the provisions and subject to the conditions” and to substitute “such an allowance and upon such conditions as are contained in paragraph (c) of section 25”; and in line 41, to omit “of” where it occurs for the first time and to substitute “to the benefits prescribed by”.

What is the exact effect of this? I do not quite follow it, and it seems to me—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong,—that the effect will be that if this joint medical board that is going to be appointed to deal with these cases decides that a man suffering from a disablement which will entitle him to claim under the Miners’ Phthisis Act whatever that disablement may be, even if it is only a disablement under the Miners’ Phthisis laws is primary, he is entitled to the higher compensation, and he is to be rewarded as if he is in the secondary stage? I do not know on what grounds it is justified.

I do not think the hon. member understands the position very well about miners’ phthisis. It is a most difficult and intricate subject, and I may perhaps enlighten the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). A man may go to Europe and fight there, and this man has what we call closed tuberculosis. He may have very little miners’ phthisis or silicosis, and the board might pass him “more fibrosis than usual.” In the trenches he may develop active tuberculosis and he comes back to South Africa. The bureau says to him: “You have tuberculosis, but you have not worked twelve months in the mines, therefore you cannot get compensation.” This poor fellow is between the devil and the deep blue sea. It does not say that if a man has ante-primary silicosis he will be put in the secondary stage. If closed tuberculosis develops and becomes active tuberculosis that man should be put in the secondary stage. It is only that the disease is aggravated. I think the Minister’s amendment is only right, and I hope that he will insist upon that amendment going through. I do not think that there will be much result from this joint medical board; still, give it a trial and let an attempt be made to determine which board has to pay compensation, i.e., the miners’ phthisis board or the military pension board.

I admit I have not the intelligence of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. T. C. Visser) to grapple with these complicated matters. However, I am not dealing with the matter he was talking about. Where the man is suffering from tuberculosis I have no objection to the clause. I have no objection to the word “aggravated.” There is not a word in this section about tuberculosis. There are a large number of men who have come back from the war suffering from tuberculosis, and they are between two stools, and they should be provided for. But in that Bill men who are suffering from the secondary, primary or anything else is going to be treated as if it was the secondary stage.

What is natural aggravation?

The point I am putting to the Minister is this: Is this clause intended to apply to men in the secondary stage or to all disablement?

It is absurd to talk about any development. This is dealing with any development affecting a man’s lungs.

If hon. members will look at the clause as it is now, they will see not limited to any definite disease. It can be improved by putting in after the words “aggravated by” the word “tuberculosis”. As the clause stands at present the man is to receive benefits in accordance with the provisions and conditions of the principal Act. There is only one clause in the Miners’ Phthisis Act which deals with tuberculosis, that is Clause 26. It deals with tuberculosis in two stages, uncomplicated tuberculosis and tuberculosis complicated by silicosis. If the silicosis is not complicated there can be no ground for saying that the tuberculosis is due to the man’s underground work, and he would be awarded compensation under the Military Pensions Act. The second sub-section deals with tuberculosis complicated by silicosis as defined by that Act. They would have already been compensated under the Miners’ Phthisis Act. As a matter of fact, the man we are dealing with here is the man who falls between these two classes. Let me illustrate. On an average a man has to work ten years before he reaches a definite stage of silicosis. Let us take the case of a man who had worked for nine years underground and then joined the army. He had progressed ninetenths towards a definite stage of silicosis. He afterwards contracted tuberculosis and then applied to the Military Pensions Committee for a pension. They said “no, your tuberculosis is the result of silicosis, so you will have to go to the Miners’ Phthisis Board.” Then the latter refused to certify him as tuberculosis and silicosis. Now, Sir, that man has complicated tuberculosis, and there is no reason why we should give him less benefit than the secondary stage man.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move in lines 51 to 53, to omit “make or have made application within one year from the date of death of the miner and satisfy or have satisfied” and to substitute “satisfy”.

Agreed to.

The Minister in charge of the Bill stated a few days ago that it was a non-contentious Bill, but in this Clause 11, subsection (2) is most contentious matter. It is introducing a new principle altogether and gives without any opportunity to people interested to appeal to this committee, to this House, anything up to a couple of million pounds. I would ask the Minister to agree to the deletion of the sub-section and bring it up in the consolidated Act which he proposes to bring before the House next year. I accordingly beg to move the deletion of sub-section. 2, Clause II.

In the sense in which the hon. member has used the word contentious, the whole Miners’ Phthisis Act is contentious. I know of no clause that has not at some time or other been considered highly contentious. The sense in which he uses the word is no reason as to why we should not pass sub-section (2). We are dealing here with a man who is suffering from miners’ phthisis in the primary stage and who, afterwards, dies of a disease of which miners’ phthisis was a contributory or predisposing cause. At this stage let me say a few words to those members whose minds may be travelling along the lines of workmen’s compensation acts and acts of that kind. In workmen’s compensation acts compensation is based upon the degree of disablement, but in the Miners’ Phthisis Act the basis is the degree of the disease. The reason for this is that in the one case a man can return to his usual work without danger of growing worse, but a man who has miners’ phthisis will inevitably grow worse if he returns to his usual work. It has been contended to me outside the House that this is a new matter, a very contentious matter, something we are trying to introduce into this legislation for the first time. I shall try to prove that such is not the case. Since the Act of 1919 was passed there have been 40 cases who have received benefits under that Act. If, as the hon. member says, this is going to cost millions, I do not know why. We have had only 40 of these cases within the last five years. Section 27 (a) of the Commission’s Draft Bill, too, provides for the very same class of person that we are providing for here.

If there had been only 40 cases, why the hurry to get the Bill through The real reason for introducing this Bill at practically the last stage of the session is to correct certain anomalies which exist in the principal Act, and not to bring in contentious matters. The Minister practically said as much in introducing the measure. Surely the few months which will elapse before the Minister brings in his consolidating measure next session will be time enough in which to deal with this point. How many members of the House recognize what they are going to vote for to-night? The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) knows more about miners’ phthisis than any other member of the House, but he is very sympathetically inclined. This is one of the most important subjects we have to deal with, and it is not right that such a complicated matter should be brought up in the dying days of the session. The Minister said this was an agreed Bill, but I wish to say that it is not an agreed Bill, and I appeal to the Minister not to proceed with the clause.

After the speech of the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) I hope the Minister will insist on the clause going through. It is very true that very few members understand miners’ phthisis. Great suffering has been entailed through this clause not appearing in existing Acts. A man has silicosis, he dies, and the medical bureau states that silicosis was not a contributory cause, and then his dependents receive no pension. But if it is certified that silicosis was a contributory cause of death his dependents are given compensation. It has taken me five years to convince the most important members of the medical bureau as to the necessity of the clause. The hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) suggests that the clause should be withdrawn until next session. In the meantime they wish to frighten the Minister as to the terrible results that will happen and that the mines will close down. If the clause does not go through I can tell the Minister of Mines that his name is mud. The name of the late Minister of Mines (Mr. F. S. Malan) has been mud on the Witwatersrand for years. There must be a change of policy in this miners’ phthisis business, and we don’t want the name of the Minister of Mines put in the place of Mr. F. S. Malan with the same policy. This policy has to be carried out and this clause is one of the definite things we have laid down on the Rand.

Who are “we”?

The Nationalist party on the Rand assisted by the Labour party. The elections have been fought three times on this subject, and I beg the Minister not to show the slightest wavering but to force the clause through.

We have just heard a most illuminating address from the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). He says you must not put off this clause until next session as by that time that would give time for information to be spread as to what the consequences will be. The hon. members says “we put a pistol to the Minister’s head and if he does not pass the clause his name will be mud.” Surely we are here to-night to discuss these things in a calm and deliberative manner. Surely one must try to realize what the consequences of the clause will be. The money has to be found, and if the burden is too great for the mines to bear it will have to come on the State. There is a great deal to be said for and against the clause. Under the existing law, if a man is in the secondary stage of phthisis he gets a pension, and when he dies his pension goes to his dependents. So long as he is in the primary stage, however, he receives a lump sum. The clause, however, is going to provide that if a man dies, no matter whether he is in the primary or secondary stage, if he has phthisis his dependents are to receive compensation just as if he were in the secondary stage. It is expressly stipulated in the existing law that these allowances should be made only if application is made within a year.

That was an error—it is common cause.

No, it is not common cause. The error was not there, but in section 27. I agree that where a man dies from miners’ phthisis his dependents should receive an allowance, but in the case of men who have phthisis in a minor degree and phthisis was only a contributory factor, medical men might say that it was a predisposing factor, however slight the disease was. I want to know whether you can’t put some check on cases of that sort.

When the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) had the ear of the Government these people had to wait some 3½ years for relief to be granted. I said there had only been 40 cases in which compensation was paid so far, but I did not say that that was the total number of such cases. There is nothing provided for in this clause which is not already provided for under 29 (b). The board misinterpreted Clause 27.

The clause was wrongly drafted.

Anyway, we had no intention in 1919 of taking away a benefit which had existed since the introduction of miners’ phthisis legislation. Early in the administration of the 1919 Act it was noticed that section 29 could not apply to dependents of men who died after the first 12 months of the Act being in force, and since then we have been in difficulty. I cannot understand the objection to this subsection.

It was never the intention, and can never be, to say a man dies from contributory causes, if he dies from an accident. No medical man will say that man died and miners’ phthisis is a contributory cause if he dies from an abscess of the liver. There was a man named Joubert whose case I referred to last year, working for 12 years on the mines and he died during the influenza period and he had miners’ phthisis. It was certified to the bureau that miners’ phthisis was not a contributory cause of the man’s death, and the result was that the man’s widow and his six children were left starving. If a man has pulmonary disease and gets miners’ phthisis, he will be put into the secondary stage. The bureau have agreed, and this clause will make provision for it, it is only applicable to a man who has pulmonary disease when he has miners’ phthisis.

This Bill is dealing with 40 cases and the amount involved will not be a twentieth or a fiftieth of the amount given by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) when he signed the minority report. Here we have again the voice of Maritzburg (South), but the hand of the Chamber of Mines, in these errors that they are trying to put on. Clause 20 is put in to give the bureau no discretion.

It is very fit that it should be left to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) to insinuate that the Medical Bureau are in the pay of the Chamber of Mines. It is what you expect from him. I should like to ask the Minister: in the administrative application of compensation which has been going on since 1919—outside the law—is this class of cases included? Has the board been making awards at the cost of the treasury, not merely in cases where a man dies of miners’ phthisis, but where it is certified that miners’ phthisis was a contributory or a predisposing cause of death? If that is so, we shall have some idea of how our liability will be increased by passing this clause.

I am afraid I must plead guilty to being the cause of that impression. About 18 months ago I wrote a memorandum in which I pointed out that the board were misinterpreting Clauses 27 and 29. This Clause 11 (2) is now putting the matter straight. 29 (a) clearly deals with dependents of miners who died before the commencement of the Act. I was under the impression at one time that this paragraph had been extended for four years longer than was our intention, and a number of persons benefitted under it who were not entitled to do so. I have made enquiries, and find this is not so.

Can the Minister tell us whether under Clause 29 (b) he or his predecessor has been compensating where a man dies from disease to which miners’ phthisis was a contributory cause?

On the second reading I admitted I expected opposition, but I did not admit that Clause 11 (2) was contentious. The principle has already been recognized in Act 29 of 1914, Act 44 of 1916, and I believe Act 24 of 1918, and it is recognized in the present Act. The reason why sub-clause 2 appears here is because of Clauses 12 and 13, and I cannot for a moment assent to the assertion of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that the proviso of Clause 29 of the present Act was not a palpable error. It was a palpable error. The objection of my friend, the member for Pietersmaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) as to millions applies to sub-section 1 of Clause 11, on which there is no dispute. It applies to this sort of case. A man suffering from silicosis is killed by a motor car, and according to the strict letter of the Act, he cannot be compensated. It is admitted that was an error. That falls also under the proviso of section 29 of the Act, limiting the time to twelve months from a certain date. I want to point out to my friend that the Judge de Villiers Commission of 1920 made certain observations on its draft Bill. These are not new at all, and they are recognized in the present Act. Clause 29, sub-section B, contains the very words which I have just recited. The hon. member has also said that this was a contentious sub-clause, and why should we hurry the matter forward for the sake of a few months? He will recollect that I said that if I have to bring in a Consolidating Measure that it would not operate until nearly twelve months from now, and I think, in these cases where you have numbers of suffering humanity, it is a dreadful state of things. When the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) speaks of the liability of £9,000,000, I would remind him of the heavy toll of human lives, and I say our policy should lean in favour of those poor sufferers. I hope there will not be any further opposition to this sub-clause, and that it will be allowed to pass. I might also mention that there were 40 widows who could get a maximum of £1,500 compensation. It worked out in many cases at less each, and the total maximum cost was the comparatively small sum of £60,000. It is obvious from past experiences that there cannot be anything in the millions mentioned by my hon. friend for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien).

I would like to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson)—I did not refer to 5,000 cases on page 66 of the de Villiers report. I still maintain that it is quite impossible to say what the actual amount is, and I say my figures are not alone fair but moderate. I maintain that there are 5,000 beneficiary miners. I will stand by that and I believe it is correct. With regard to the action of the Minister, he said he did not mention when he brought in the Bill that it was a contentious Bill. Surely it is a contentious matter, and one in the few days since this Bill was introduced, that is since yesterday morning and has now reached the committee stage. It is seen how contentious it is. It involves tremendous changes and imposes further heavy burdens without due examination. I have no desire to say anything about the dirty inneundo of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) but treat it with the contempt it deserves. I have every desire to meet the Minister, and I think we should have an agreed Bill. Surely he sees by now that it is far from being an agreed Bill; he has decided not to accept this amendment, and I am afraid the opposition will go further. He referred to suffering humanity and the sum of nine millions outstanding liability which is quite correct. I assure him that not one on this side of the House desires to be anything but most sympathetic with a subject so grave as this. I would point out that there is no country in the wide world which gives such liberal compensation in connection with this disease as the Union of South Africa.

Does the hon. member withdraw his amendment?

I think it should be put.

The amendment was negatived.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move—In lines 17 and 18 to omit “commencement” and to substitute “promulgation”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—To omit sub-section (2).

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move—In line 41, after “widow”, to insert “and/or children”.

I would point out that this is going a good deal further than any other allowances. Now you are going to give allowances to children for life. If you put in children you must alter the words “for life”.

It is laid down in the principal Act that the allowances to children are only up to the age of 16.

I move the omission of the words “during life”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—In line 28, to omit “and” and to substitute “or”; in line 38, after “illegitimate child” to insert “born before”; and in the same line, after “a child” to insert “born”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I move—In line 46, after “shall” to insert, “excepting as provided in section 3,”

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Title was agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

objected.

Amendments to be considered 4th September.

When progress was reported I said I wanted to consider the amendment of the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. Van Zyl). It is advisable that Parliament should get all the information that can possibly be given, but the amendment is rather involved, and I have drawn up an amendment which I hope will be accepted by the hon. member. The amendment is as follows—

1. (a) a statement of the expenditure on the respective areas under each of the paragraphs of this sub-section; and
2. (b) a list of the staff employed under paragraph (f) of this sub-section with rates of pay
   shall, within one month after the commencement of each ordinary session of Parliament, be laid upon the Tables of both Houses.”

As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), I am sorry I cannot accept it, because if these people know beforehand that they will remain lessees perpetually and never become owners, you will take away from them an incentive which one must always take into consideration. There is, however, a great deal in what the hon. member has said that these men shall not be allowed to sell land as soon as they get it. This privilege has not been abused to a very great extent, but it may be. In small holdings, there is a condition of the lease stating that the land or any portion of it shall not be sold, assigned, donated, transferred, leased, mortgaged or otherwise alienated or encumbered by the grantee or his successors in title unless consent in writing of the Minister is first obtained. Next year I shall bring in a more comprehensive Bill on land settlement, and we could not put in such a condition in this Bill. When I amend the principal Act I will consider the advisability of putting in a clause to the effect that creditors will not be able to attach the lease. This should be a sufficient safeguard.

I think the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is a very important and far-reaching one. I am not going to say that I will vote for it, but I am pleased he has moved it, because it shows a change of heart. It shows that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has taken fright. I welcome the conversion, which only bears out our contention that the powers conferred on the Minister are far too extensive. I do not think I shall vote for the amendment as I have always favoured freehold title, as that suits the genius of the people of this country, who are individualists. There is always this land hunger which is not satisfied by a species of serfdom, such as the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) wishes to impose. Without a freehold title a man feels that he is being kept in subjection. None the less, the only other body which has tried to deal with probationers of this type is the Dutch-Reformed Church, which has set its face very strongly against giving freehold title. I am very glad that the Minister of Railways and Harbours is not here to-day or he would go into another histrionic fit when he hears the Church’s definition of poor white—“helpless,” “cannot help themselves,” “sunk in the social scale,” “too helpless and too poor.” When I, in all pity, gave a definition that suited the case, I had to submit to a dramatic harrangue on the point from the Minister. With regard to granting these men freehold, the Church said “no.” In many cases “men have proved their worth and certain people are deserving of freehold title, but it must be all or nothing.” “If you discriminate there is bad blood and ill-feeling.” This very subject, I may point out, has formed the subject matter of two Select Committees of this House which have sat and discussed the matter, and attempted to come to some decision. In 1919 the committee reported, and it was accepted by the House, that they did not recommend that these people should obtain title. The Minister of Lands will admit that the Bill leaves a great deal unsaid, and there is no limit to the amount which may be lent to these people.

I hope the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) will forgive me when I say his was the finest example of a lot of language and saying nothing.

A very useful accomplishment sometimes!

“In vain is the net spread in the sight of the bird.” He is not going to draw me in his obstructive tactics. He is like the boatman—steering a little to port and a little to starboard, but let me ask him in all seriousness to stop this obstruction. I entirely agree with him that they should fight for a point up to a point. I have listened to the remarks of the Minister and although he does not go all the way with me, I must confess there is something in what he said, and I agree it is repugnant to national citizens of South Africa to have anything else but leasehold. I do not want to help my friend down there (Col. D. Reitz) to hold up this Bill, we want it to be passed because the concessions made by the Minister have reassured me to a large extent. If my hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) were Minister, I would not give him the powers which I have helped to give the present Minister. I am quite delighted that I have filled my little part in giving him complete and absolute power in this matter. I think the Minister has so arranged matters that he, at all events, is going to protect the individual. With regard to the other matter the substitution of the amendment of the member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I quite agree with him what we can expect in the way of information is precisely what the amendment is prepared to give in his Bill. I hope the member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) will, through a proxy—through me—accept the amendment. For once I find myself on all fours with the Minister.

My hon. friend the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has quoted a saying, perhaps I may be permitted to quote one as well. “He who fights and runs away thinks he may fight much harder on another day.” The hon. member put forward an amendment for which I have little hope and on which I was in entire sympathy with him. Not for the reason he says, because I am doubtful if he has any reasons at all. He puts it forward one day and withdraws it most apologetically the next. Here we have the Minister prepared to give away the national assets to anyone whom he thinks fit. Personally, I am in favour of the form of Kakamas settlement for the class of people with whom the Minister is going to deal. As it is he can put on the land people of any age. He can distribute land to comparative boys, boys of 10 or 11 years, if he wishes to.

Do not talk nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. In the old Act under the age of 18 could not get land, but the Minister says that is not going to apply any longer. The Minister says he has protected these people by a clause which prevents the alienation of the land. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) swallows that, and runs away from his principles. There is no doubt that some of these men will be most successful, but to grant title to those who make good and to withhold it from those who do not will cause trouble.

I am glad to hear the very pregnant remarks of the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), because I shall ask him to remember them next year. I shall expect his support when we have this comprehensive Land Act next session, when I shall ask for the nationalization of land, and I shall ask the Minister to insert a clause having particular reference to the land of the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards).

I agreed with the hon. member’s amendment, but not for the reasons that he put forward.

I would advise the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) to study the Bill. Where does he get the statement that I can allot land to boys of ten or twelve? The principal Act prevents me giving land to anyone under the age of eighteen.

The Bill says: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, the Minister may grant title of temporary occupation.”

I wish to move: In line 58, after “sub-section” to insert: “Provided that the moneys advanced to and spent in respect of each probationary lessee under paragraphs (b) to (e) inclusive shall not exceed in all the sum of £500”. It is very necessary that there should be some restriction in regard to the amount that is spent on these probationary lessees. There is no provision that a man shall occupy his holding, nor does the Bill prevent a large landowner becoming a probationary lessee, neither is he bound to occupy the land.

May I point out, as I have done before, that there is a somewhat important element lacking in sub-section (3). In the Principal Bill the maximum the Government may advance to any settler is £750. Here we are obviously dealing with a sunken class, some of whom may not be of good character—for the Minister has cancelled section 19 saying that only men of good character shall get land. It is therefore desirable that there should be some sort of maximum. There is absolutely no limit in the Bill. I would have preferred to leave it to the Minister to say what the maximum should be. We have been trying with this closer settlement to be as helpful as we can, and we have been very sympathetic. The hon. member over there (Mr. Madeley) has accused us of obstruction in discussing an amendment from a member on the other side; and surely that is unreasonable. No Government is, and could be, responsible for this running sore and this disastrous state of affairs we are discussing. So long as the poor white question is approached in a party spirit it will never be solved. I give the Minister of Lands credit that he is doing his best to help that class, and I think he will give us the credit that we are doing our best, too.

In the hope that this discussion will not go on interminably I will tell the hon. member what is intended. Not a penny will be spent on an individual probationer under A, B, D, E, and F—only C. The money under A is to buy stock, implements, level land and so forth.

“B” is just the same, and there is only “E”, and I do not contemplate that that will ever exceed the sum of £100 in each individual case.

Don’t you agree there should be some limitation in the Bill?

In his own Bill my hon. friend did the same thing practically, so I do not see why he should want to make that provision here. I have practically copied the clauses from his Bill. Then with regard to “C,” you will have to take the erection of buildings which the Minister might deal with. At Hartebeestpoort I will have to build a store for the storage of tobacco, a ginnery will have to be erected, but they will be for use by all the settlers. Another thing is the hospital accommodation and things like that, so there only remains “C”, paying maintenance allowances, but everyone can understand that some of these people may have nothing on which to live, and if I do not employ them I may have to give them something to keep them alive until they can get in a crop. Therefore I cannot see any necessity for this amendment. As my hon. friend will see, I have to do all this after consultation with the Treasury, and he knows that to get money out of the Treasury is not an easy matter.

A very elegant simile. The hon. member has referred to a draft Bill which I left in my office. There was no mention of this maximum and which was purely a preliminary sketch.

It was certified by the leading advisers.

We do not wish to prevent the Minister giving freehold to these people. I do not think there is a single other Act which allows the Minister to lend a man an unlimited sum of money. As the Minister says, it is not likely that more than £100 will be spent on one man; he should accept the amendment.

As the Minister can spend any amount of money—

With the consent of the Treasury.

The Bill does not say with the consent of the Treasury at all. We know how good the Minister’s intentions are, then why on earth cannot he accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel)?

With reference to the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) I would point out that the type of settlers we should have to deal with under the Bill are referred to in the report of Kakamas, which was established in 1897, by the Dutch Reformed Church, with a view to reclaiming poor whites. Before a Select Committee on Kakamas, a witness stated that the settlers were instigated to ask for transfer by people who had an eye on the acquisition of the ground. Although I do not favour leasehold titles, with regard to the class of person to be dealt with under this Bill I think the proposal of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has everything to recommend it. The point of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is another one I want to impress upon the Minister.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed.

Progress reported; to resume in Committee 4th September.