moved: “That this House urges upon the Government the necessity of introducing during the present session legislation dealing with factories, including a fair wage clause on the lines of the Bill introduced during the session of the late Cape Parliament in 1907.” He said that in all communities and in South Africa to-day, they had the humane employer and the inhumane employer. Fortunately, the humane employer placed the interests of health and general well-being of his employees in conjunction with his own prosperity. The inhumane employer, however, sacrificed the health, comfort, and well-being of his employees for the sake of commercial gain. Factory and workshops legislation was introduced for the purpose of not allowing the inhumane employer to get an advantage over the humane employer. Factory laws did not deal only with the health and prosperity of the workers, but also with the question of industrial efficiency. Employers, in order to get the full working power out of their staffs, had to place them under the best sanitary and health conditions. On the other hand, the unscrupulous employer not only sweated his staff, but made them labour under insanitary conditions. What chance had the manufacturer who considered the health of his employees against another manufacturer who paid no heed to these things? The inhumane employer should not be allowed to get an advantage over his humane competitor, and to obtain prosperity at the expense of the health of his servants. The English Factory Act was an excellent one, and was very strictly carried out. Among other things that measure did not allow the employment of children under twelve years of age, women were not permitted to work after 6 p.m., nor at running machinery, or participating in certain dangerous trades, while women and children were not allowed to do skilled men’s work—a thing which was permitted in this country to the detriment of the skilled man, who often found that his work was being carried out by an apprentice. The English Act also safeguarded the health life, and limb of the factory workers. Then all the States in America had labour laws all aiming at the protection of the worker. In 1906 the old Cape House of Assembly appointed a Select Committee, of which he (Dr. Hewat) was chairman, to consider this subject. It was only when one went intodetails that one realised the absolute necessity of having a Factory Act in Cape Town. According to the evidence submitted to that committee, some trades were carried on in bedrooms, clothing in process of manufacture being used in the place of blankets, and bakers made bread under insanitary surroundings, while some other industries were conducted under conditions which were absolutely dangerous, in one case clothing was made in a bedroom in which was lying a person who was dying from consumption. He went on to read the recommendations of the committee. Following the report of the committee a Bill was framed which give general satisfaction, hut owing to the Government going out at that time it was not passed. That was an excellent Bill which give satistion to the workers and to the just employer, though he would like to have seen it go further and deal with the iniquitous truck system. But, of course, they must creep before they walked, and he thought that there should be something done immediately on the lines of that Bill. It was provided there that the Bill should only operate in districts where it was proclaimed, so that it would not necessarily deal with mines, with agricultural workers, and so on, though personally he did not care to see its operations so restricted. The Bill would in no way interfere with the freedom of the honest, just employer. He would like to see a Bill introduced this session if possible. A young country like this needed such legislation. They should not wait until the factories grew up. He hoped the motion would be adopted, and that it would be recognised that something should be done in the direction indicated as soon as possible.

in seconding the motion, said that there was abundant evidence to show the absolute necessity for such legislation as this. To begin with, there was now no definite legislation regulating the age at which children could be employed in factories. The former Bill laid down the age of 12, but he would prefer to see that raised. Then there was no adequate provision at present for the inspection of factories. The motion must not be taken as antagonistic to the establishment of factories; personally, he would welcome well-conducted, well-regulated factories. This country was backward in regard to ensuring the safety of workers. For example, the regulations regarding the inspection and guarding of machinery were lax, and the workers were exposed to grave dangers. Then, men who were not competent were put in charge of dangerous machinery such as boilers. They should ensure that only competent men were placed in charge of such machinery. With regard to sanitation the powers given to the local authorities were inadequate; it must be left to the central authority. Again, clothes were often made under such conditions that a man would decline to wear them if he only knew how they were made. The hon. member alluded to the way in which tuberculosis might be spread owing to the manner in which these clothes were manufactured. He went on to say that another improvement with which the Bill would deal would be as regards “sweating,” so that a man would be prevented from giving a wage on which it was impossible for the workman to keep body and soul together. It had been suggested in that Bill, not that the Government should fix a fair wage, but to have Wages Boards on which both the employers and the men would be represented. No one suggested that these Boards would solve all the disputes between capital and labour, but there was no doubt that the provision for such Boards worked for industrial peace. They fixed the lowest wages which might be paid to workmen; not the highest prices. At the present moment employers who dealt fairly with their employees were at a distinct disadvantage compared with the unscrupulous employer who “sweated” his employees. If there were such a Wages Board, although somewhat higher prices might have to he paid for an article, still one would know that the workmen were getting a fair wage, and that the articles were manufactured under sanitary conditions, which was not now always the case. Dealing with the building trade, he said that owing to the agreement between the representatives of the workmen, who had their union, and the master builders, a fair wage clause was in operation, and had been in operation for a number of years. It had worked satisfactorily. The reason why a fair wage clause was not in operation in other trades was because the workmen in the building trade were better organised than the workmen in other tirades. It might be said that the principle could be carried too far, but in the building trade, where it had been, and was, in operation, no hardship had been inflicted; and it was a matter of experience that where that fair wage clause was in operation the workmen produced fair better work than those who were not bound by such a clause. He hoped that the Government would accept the motion.

said that those who represented the Labour party fully sympathised with the motion before the House. The extracts which hon. members had read dealt with the Cape, but there were similar things to complain of with regard to the whole of the Union. In some of the tailoring “dens” he had visited—he could not call them shops—65 to 70 hours per week were worked. Such a thing was quite common, and the limit of the hours of labour was practically the limit of the endurance of the workmen. A large number of children also worked in these dens, and although it might be said that there was compulsory education, that would not work until factory legislation was passed, so that an inspection could be made of the workshops and the children put into school. In this country where rents were so high, the tendency was to crowd machinery together into, the smallest space, and things were seen which would make anybody gasp who was acquainted with a country in which a Factory Act was in operation. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Sir D. P. Graaff) had said some time ago that he was not in sympathy with the fair wage clause; what he must have meant was that it was impossible to fix one rate of wage where there were so many different rates of wages in the country; but if they had Wages Boards a fair rate of wage could be fixed, for the Board would be impartial. He thought that some provision for the inspection of machinery was made in the Bill which the Minister of the Interior had introduced, so that he thought that the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) was wrong when he said that there was no such provision.

was understood to reply that the Bill had not yet become law.

said that he wished to add his quota as to the necessity of a Factory and Workshops Act in this country. He spoke of the conditions under which white girls had been employed at a clothing factory in Natal, the state of the dairies in Durban formerly, and other industries. He next referred to a large store in Johannesburg, where the assistants were given a half-holiday, and afterwards compelled to work extra hours in order to make up for it. There was, he urged, need, from a sanitary point of view, and many other points of view, for this legislation, and there was need for it now. He was sorry to say that when it came to sweating, the Government was the biggest sinner they could find anywhere in this country. He did not say “this Government,” because this Government was not responsible for the system which had been established. It had been established in days gone by, and he had faith in the gentlemen who formed the Government that when they saw what was wrong they would put their shoulders to the collar, and quietly, but thoroughly, revolutionise the whole system.

said that if the hon. member for Woodstock wanted to stop sweating he wished he would begin in that House. They had about 65 or 75 Bills to pass, and they had got to work night and day, and then his hon. friend, in the name of the sacred cause of stopping sweating, said they were not working hard enough, and they must pass 76 Bills instead of 75. It seemed to him that the hon. member was weakening his own case if he insisted upon such unwonted expedition in this matter. As to the general case, it seemed to him (Mr. Fremantle) that when it came to a question of the inspection of boilers, protection of machinery, and child labour, they must all be at one—all sides of the House. He thought this reform was certainly overdue in the Cape. He could not speak for the rest of the country. When it came to other questions, he thought they had better go a step at a time. As to conciliation, it would be an excellent thing if the Government created machinery for conciliation in industrial disputes, but he did not think the time had arrived in South Africa for compulsory conciliation. In regard to fair wages he personally was in favour of a fair wage, and he thought something should, be done in that way, but he would rather shrink from attracting the shillelagh of his hon. friend the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) on this subject. He should be rather slow to identify himself with this particular Bill. Surely that was not the last word of wisdom—the Bill that was introduced by hon. gentlemen opposite. It was five years since the committee sat. Surely there must be something in the legislation of the Transval and other Provinces. He was confident that the Minister of the Interior could produce a better Bill than was produced five years ago in the Cape. He thought that a moderate reform dealing with the Conditions in factories and workshops, and creating machinery for optional conciliation, might well engage the attention of the Government in the near future. He moved, as an amendment, to omit the words “during the present session,” land substitute “as soon as possible,” and omit all the words after “factories” for the purpose of inserting “and workshops.”

seconded the amendment.

said he was in favour of a Factory Dill, but thought there was plenty of room for more in formation from the other Provinces They should not rush a measure through the present session. It would be a great mistake to do any such thing. Dealing with the general question, he regretted that hon. members should make reckless statements without considering the facts of the various cases.

said that there was plenty of room for investigation. He went on to refer to the factery in Natal to which attention had been drawn, and said he hoped that a measure dealing with the question would be brought forward.

said that generally the Government was in agreement with the policy which underlay this motion. But when it came to the matter of immediate action, then he did not think it was possible to agree with his hon. friend opposite. It would not be possible to get such a measure through this session. One of the most contentious measures they could introduce would be a general Factory Act, and he pointed out that the conditions of labour in the Provinces being so diverse, made the subject much more difficult. A portion of the ground covered by the motion had beer dealt with in the Mines Bill. But he considered the whole question of factory legislation, such points as female labour, child labour, inspection of sanitary conditions, and so on, would have to be left over for a comprehensive factory measure which he hoped to introduce next session. He thought that the time was opportune, because if they laid down sound principles the effect on the industrial future of the country would be most beneficial. He went on to show that the Transvaal mining industry had been built up on sound principles so far as legislation was concerned, and now they had the most perfect system of regulations to be found anywhere on earth. Any mining engineer would tell them that the Transvaal Government had a, better grip of such matters than any other Government in the world. While he did not believe in over-regulation, they must necessarily have a certain amount of regulation, and he hoped to lay down such lines, so far as this class of legislation was concerned, so that there would be no thwarting effect on the country’s future industrial career. If the hon. member (Dr. Hewat) would withdraw his motion—he had no objection to the amendment—he would go carefully into the question. He hoped it would be possible for the House to put on the Statute Book next session a comprehensive measure dealing with factories and workshops.

said that the amendment cut out what he considered to be one of the most important parts of the motion, namely, the necessity of a fair-wage clause, which he believed would solve the whole question of the black man competing in handicrafts with the white man. He proposed a further amendment, that the words “during the present session’’ be deleted, and the words “during the next session” inserted, and that instead of accepting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Uitenhag (Mr. Fremantle), all the words after the word “clause” be deleted, making the motion read: “That this House urges upon the Government the necessity of introducing during the next session legislation dealing with factories, including a fair-wage clause.”

seconded the amendment.

said he could not imagine that the hon. member for Uitenhage who spoke to-day was the same hon. member for Uitenhage who spoke when the report of the committee in 1S06 was before the old Cape Parliament. Then he said he represented one of the most important industrial centres of South Africa, and he (the speaker) did not think there was anybody who spoke with such pronounced views than the hon. member for Uitenhage. To-day, however, his remarks were lukewarm. He admitted that one could hardly expect such an important measure as he proposed to be hurried through, and for that reason he would withdraw his motion, and support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler).

moved a further amendment, that after the word “clause” the following be inserted, “and provisions against sweating.”

seconded the amendment.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Fremantle was agreed to.

Mr. Meyler’s amendment and the amendments proposed by Mr. Creswell accordingly dropped.

The amended motion was then agreed to.

moved that all papers and contracts having reference to the erection of the Union buildings in Pretoria be laid on the table of this House. The mover said that when the matter was last before the House, which was prior to the recess, the Prime Minister then tried to divert the question from the true issue—the unauthorised expenditure of money—by saying that he saw behind the raising of the question the subject of the capital. In other words, the Prime Minister tried to mix up the question of the capital with this extremely important matter. The question of the capital had absolutely nothing to do with this matter at all, for the former was settled by the Convention. (Hear, hear.) When that agreement was come to, at the same time an understanding was arrived at between the delegates of the Transvaal and the Cape that no attempt should be made on the part of either to upset the arrangement then arrived at. He (Mr. Jagger) was a parity to that agreement, and he would consider that if any attempt were made to disturb the agreement regarding the capital, he would feel himself called upon to resist it. The question of the Union Buildings was a far more important one than any question of the capital. The question at issue was a breach of Constitutional law on the part of the late Transvaal Government. That law was that no money should be spent by Government without the sanction of Parliament. That law was broken. Just prior to Union the Transvaal Government entered into contracts for the erection of buildings at Pretoria, amounting to over a million. No competitive plans were asked for from architects. A million of money was not a small sum, even for the late Transvaal Government, or even the Union Government, to spend without Parliamentary sanction. Through the signing of those contracts the late Transvaal Government committed the people of this country to this large expenditure without asking any Parliament for the necessary authority. It was said that the Transvaal brought a large sum of money into Union. As a matter of fact the Transvaal brought in a revenue balance of £871,000. Against that there were large authorised commitments, amounting altogether to something like £696,000, leaving a balance of £175,000, which was the real balance the Transvaal brought into Union. The people of South Africa generally would have to make provision for the payment for the construction of these buildings. Consequently the Union Parliament had a perfect right to discuss the whole matter. It had been said that time did not allow of Parliamentary sanction being asked. He thought it would have been far better and fairer, considering that the people of the Union would have to bear the whole burden of the expenditure, that the Transvaal should have waited for the consent of the Union Parliament. Even granted that there was not time enough to wait for the sanction of the Union Parliament, there was another Constitutional method which the late Transvaal Government could have taken, and that was: to apply to the late Transvaal Parliament for sanction. The Transvaal Government would then have been compelled to make provision for the expenditure. The South Africa Act definitely said where the administrative capital was to be. The late Transvaal Parliament met on April 6 last —which was after the Act of Union was passed—and adjourned on April 28. He would like to ask the Treasurer why was not authority for this expenditure asked from the Transvaal Parliament? Between April 28 and May 30, when Union came into operation, the contracts for the Union buildings were signed. There was no reason why a Bill could not have been brought before the Transvaal Parliament asking for the necessary sanction, for there was ample time in which to do that. Some of them might think that it would have been far better and fairer, and more in accordance with the understanding arrived at at the Convention, if the sanction of the Union Parliament had been obtained. It was understood at the National Convention that beyond the five-million loan the Transvaal Government had power to raise, no further borrowing should take place. But the Transvaal had since committed the Union to another million for the construction of the Union buildings. Apart from that, supposing it had been so extremely urgent, the Transvaal Government could have obtained the sanction of the Transvaal Parliament. But the Transvaal Government signed the contracts without obtaining the consent of its Parliament. He believed he was correct in saying that there was no more important or better-established principle in Constitutional Government than this: that Government should not spend money without the sanction of Parliament. In fact, this principle had been in operation in the Cape Parliament, In 1907 the Cape Parliament refused to vote the then Government financial grants, with the consequence that the Ministry of the right hon. member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson ) was compelled to go to the country. Hon. members would see the supreme importance of safeguarding a principle of this kind, and it was the duty of both sides of the House to safeguard It, because there was no party question about it at all. It was a cheek which the people of the country had on the Government of the country, when the people could say, “We will not give you any more money,” and then Government had to leave office. A disregard of this principle could lead only to extravagance. In the signing of the Union Buildings contracts, there was a very grave breach of this Constitutional rule. He was not going to mix up in that matter any discussion as to the scale on which the buildings were planned. The breach of Constitutional law would have been the same if his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) at the end of May last year had given authority for the building of a line from, say, Caledon to Swellendam. If the late Cape Government had signed a contract for the building of that line without the sanction of Parliament, what would the Minister of Finance have said about the Cape Government under such circumstances? He (Mr. Jagger) was absolutely certain that no Language would have been too strong for the hon. member in which to condemn such conduct. Yet both cases were exactly on the same footing. This matter had been taken up by the people of the country, who felt keenly on the matter of the unauthorised expenditure on these buildings. If these papers were laid on the table, he proposed to adopt the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Victoria West, and to move that they be referred to a Select Committee, so that the whole matter should be thoroughly gone into. He imputed no personal blame; he looked at the matter purely from a Constitutional point of view, and it was with that in his mind that he wished the matter to be thoroughly investigated.

seconded.

said that there was not the slightest objection to laying the papers on the table. He would point out, however, that the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) bad made this same speech three times. The hon. member was trying to slaughter a Government that died on May 31. There were many things done by the late Governments of the former colonies which hon. members objected to, but it served no good purpose to rake up these matters, and to castigate these dead Governments. If they were to go on criticising all they did not like in the actions of the former Governments they would have no time to do anything else in that House. Now, there was nothing to hide in this matter. There may have been blundering and mistakes, but they were not so bad as the hon. member would lead them to infer. The facts were that the late Transvaal Government, after consultation with the other Governments of the late colonies, decided to take the preliminary steps for the erection, of the Union buildings, but it was an enormous undertaking, and the preliminary preparations took a very long time. Specifications had to be drafted, and they were carried on to a date beyond the duration of the Transvaal Parliament. The Government could not ask the Parliament to vote a sum of money, because the specifications were not ready, and the matter was not therefore brought before the Transvaal Parliament. The Government, however, did the next thing possible under the circumstances, and consulted the leaders of the Opposition in the Transvaal as to whether they were not acting in pursuance of the wishes of the people. It was, perhaps, a mistake that the Government did not call a special session of Parliament, but instead they took the bull by the horns and signed the contracts. He did not think there was anything reprehensible in the matter, though, if the hon. member wanted an admission, he would admit that there had been some departure from the recognised constitutional practice in not calling the Transvaal Parliament together. Short of that, however, the Government did everything possible by way of consulting the wishes of the people and their representatives, and he was convinced that if Parliament had been called together not a single member would have raised his voice or recorded he vote against it.

I can quite understand that.

Yes; that shows great intelligence, sir. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said it served no good purpose to have speeches like that of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). It only irritated people, and while the hon. member did not intend it, it would have the effect of making people think there was something wrong behind all this continual talk that was being indulged in about the erection of these Union buildings at Pretoria. The result would be that instead of having peace and harmony there would be a continual state of strife.

said he only rose to say that, so far as concerned the statement of the Minister, that there had been consultation with the other late Governments in the matter, all he (Mr. Merriman) recollected was that a communication was made to him that it would be necessary to provide for the Civil Servants to be transferred to Pretoria. As far as his recollection served, he replied that he thought the proper course was first to state what the requirements were, how many Civil Servants were to be housed, the departments it was necessary to take there, and what provision it was necessary to make, and that he thought it0 would be desirable to have a consultation on those points. There the matter stopped. He never heard that there was going to be this pretentious amount spent on the housing of the Civil Servants. Of course, they all agreed as to the constitutional procedure. As to what the Minister had said about fighting a dead Government, that was quite true, but at the same time he thought the Union Parliament, who had to provide the money for this enterprise, had the right to inquire into what had been spent, and the necessity there was for spending such a huge sum of money. He calculated that the expenditure was at the ‘ate of £1,000 per Civil Servant housed. This was not to come out of the Transvaal balance: it had to came out of the Union funds. That he did not abject to, but he contended that the expenditure should be in accordance with some decent, recognised scale. Whoever heard of spending a Thousand pounds a head on housing Civil Servants? It would ruin the richest country in the world. Therefore, he thought some inquiry was necessary. He did not think they need pursue the matter further, Last time he spoke on this matter the Prime Minister indulged in some playful bluster which did not in the least deter him (Mr. Merriman) from doing what he considered his duty. At the same time, he was the last person in the world who wanted to do anything to unset the equilibrium of the Government, but in this matter of the spending of public funds he had a duty to the taxpayers of this country, and that duty he would perform to the best of his ability, so long as he had a seat in that House. (Hear, hear.)

said he would just say to the Minister of the Interior that his protest against the vigour of the statement of his hon. friend might be justifiable, but that vigorous statement need not have been made if the Minister had placed the statement on the table. As the Minister had told them-, three times had the hon. member made a speech on that subject, and he (Sir Starr) must say that he had a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. member (Mr. Jagger), and the least the Government could have done was to place some information before the House as to the Union buildings. Once these papers had been put on the table, he thought that the Government would be most anxious, seeing that there had been a good deal of criticism of the Government, to court the fullest inquiry into the subject, and be hoped that the Government would accent that position.

said that he did not want to labour the point, and he did not want the Government to go away with the idea that they were satisfied with the explanation. The dead horse which the Minister objected to being slaughtered was being “continued” in that House. It was now nearly 112 months ago since that unlawful act had been committed by the Transvaal Ministry, which (had forced the Union Ministry into continuing that enormous extravagance, as had been pointed out but the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). The Minister had admitted that the act was unlawful, and during the HO months which had elapsed he had not yet come to Parliament to ask for the ratification of the conduct of the Transvaal Ministry, or for the continuing of that unlawful act. It was no defence to say that the Transvaal Government had consulted the Opposition of the Transvaal. Continuing, the hon. member said that the Minister had scored very well off him when he had interrupted—(laughter)—but the argument was not finished. The Union was, he understood, responsible for the liabilities incurred by the different colonies up to a certain date: and not beyond. The question he asked was whether the Transvaal Government was entitled to place that liability of a million on the Union.

said that as to the Minister’s complaint that that matter had been brought up three times, what could the hon. member have done?

Bring it up five times. (Laughter.)

said shat the Government had not taken the steps which it should have taken; it had not asked Parliament for authority: and they had acted on Governor-General’s warrants. It was because the Government had evaded constitutional practice in not applying to Parliament before the money was spent that his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) had been compelled to come to the House in that way. The Government was going on— they had now nearly passed a month of the second session—and the position was absolutely wrong, for the Government every day was committing an illegal act. Parliament was sitting; the money was being spent, and authority had not been given.

said that be thought it was the duty of the Government to have made some statement as to that expenditure, and to give the fullest information. He thought that the suggestion of the right hon. member for Albany (Sir Starr Jameson) was a very good one, and that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee. In regard to what had been said about the Opposition in the Transvaal, they had been consulted in regard to the purchase of the land, and they knew that in the last session of the Transvaal Parliament the Treasurer had made a statement to the House to the effect that the Transvaal Government would hand over some £300,000 or £400,000 to the Union, but that there would be a Liability of three quarters of a million. The position was a difficult one, owing to the purchase of land, but he knew that the Government had consulted the leader of the Opposition, and that it was a confidential matter. He thought they had given fair and reasonable information to the House. He would say this on behalf of the Transvaal: he did not think any hon. member would have voted against it. (Hear, hear.) On May 31, however, there was a difference: that expenditure and liability was thrown on the whole of the Union, and he thought that the Government would be wise to lay these papers on the table, and to prevent that question being raised for the fifth time, as the Treasurer had suggested, or even the seventieth time.

said that he could corroborate what the hon. member had just said. They on the Opposition in the Transvaal knew that a large sum was to be spent, and that if the matter was put to the vote not a member would have voted against it. They had understood informally that the other colonies had been consulted as to that considerable expenditure, although he did not think the Government intended any details to be given: but he was under the distinct impression that the other colonies bad been consulted. He was, therefore, surprised at the attitude taken up by the right hon. member for Victoria, West (Mr. Merriman) at the early part of the session; and (he would like to know whether the heads of the other Governments were of the same opinion as the right hon. gentleman.

said that he had entered the House intending to support the Government if it carried, out the programme which the Prime Minister had laid down at Pretoria. It some what staggered one, and put one to a severe test when they found out that the Government would not lay before Parliament the papers dealing with that huge sum—

The hon. member is labouring under a misunderstanding. I will see that the papers are laid on the table.

Oh, I did not understand that. Then I will sit down.

asked how was the money procured from day to day to carry on those works? They had heard that the action was an unconstitutional one, but had been justified by the Government, owing to the special circumstances at the time. The money could only be found by Governor-General’s warrants, and he thought his hon. friend could only get that by saying that it was for services unforeseen by Parliament. He thought it ill became the Minister to rebuke his hon. friend the member for Gape Town, Central, for only doing his duty to that House and to the country in calling attention to irregular expenditure of this character. The Minister had stated that the other Administrations had agreed to this expenditure. The hon. member for Victoria West said that he never intended to agree to expenditure of this huge character. He (Sir Thomas Smartt) would like to ask the Minister of Lands whether, while he was Prime Minister of the Orange Free State, he ever intended to agree to such expenditure? He recognised that the Civil Servants should be thoroughly and efficiently housed, but he saw no necessity for such great expenditure as this, equivalent, as he believed it would be, to something like £1,000 for every Civil Servant for whom accommodation was provided. He thought that the country and the House agreed that in a country requiring development as this did, it was a wicked thing to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds upon bricks and mortar, that might be utilised with advantage in securing the development of the country. (Opposition cheers.)

said that he had not intended to take part in this discussion again. He agreed with the hon. member who at in front of him that he did not think any good purpose was served by repeatedly referring to this matter, but there were a few things that he wished to say in connection with this matter, and one was that the previous charges which were made against the members of the old Transvaal Government—charges of concealment and secrecy, charges that they heard at street corners in Cape Town, that no proper plans and specifications, and so on, were got out—were not upheld. If hon. members would only wait a few minutes, and the motion was accepted, they would see from the papers laid on the table that very exhaustive plans and specification were prepared and signed before the contracts were entered into. The objection seemed to him rather to be twofold—an objection, first of all, on the constitutional ground; and then there seemed to be a subsidiary objection, which seemed to be that they did not so much mind the Government entering into the contract, but that the contract was for too large a sum. Hear, hear.) Was he to understand that there would not have been a constitutional question if they had only spent half-a-million?

What I did say was: that, even after entering into an unconstitutional act, they entered into contracts for an enormously excessive sum of money to carry out the works.

Does my hon. friend know what the Durban Corporation spent upon buildings? (Opposition laughter.) Proceeding, he said that the constitutional question had been dealt with. The hon. member now asked did they pay from day to day for this expenditure? Of course, they did not pay from day to day. He (Sir T. Smartt) knew that that was merely a figure of speech.

How do you pay less?

I may remind my hon. friend that the Act of Union authorised the Union Government to spend whatever money it chooses up to the end of December.

Which is past.

So that on expenditure up to the end of December there can be no constitutional question.

And January?

For January we are entitled under the various Audit Acts of each of the Provinces, which are still in existence, to draw by means of special warrants to meet extraordinary expenditure. And that is the simple story.

While Parliament sits?

We are spending to-day from time to time upon extraordinary expenditure not foreseen by Parliament.

It is foreseen now.

We are told by my hon. friend the member for Victoria West that we, who provide the money—I Should like to ask him who are the “we”?

South Africa.

said that the Transvaal Government would have had the money collected from their own taxpayers enough to pay for this Union building twice over.

said that his position would be seen when the papers were laid upon the table.

in replying on the debate, said that hon. members on the other side, in taking up the position they did, were stretching the Constitution and the law a little bit too far. It was all very well in the case of unforeseen expenditure, but in the case before the House at the present time the circumstances were entirely different. The duty of the Government was to have brought the whole matter before Parliament as soon as the House met.

No.

Most assuredly; for the reason that you have been acting in an unconstitutional manner. Continuing, he said that he thought the Minister who had spoken on the other side had made a very lame explanation. The matter would never have been discussed at all had it not been brought up by hon. members on that side of the House. In spite of all that had been said before, Parliament had been in session nearly a month, and still no explanation had been forthcoming. No explanation had yet been given, land the position was worse now, because, though the Government had authority up to December 31, it bad no authority to spend money at the present time. And yet the Government wanted hon. members on that side of the House to sit still and take things quietly. So far as he was concerned he had only tried to do his duty by bringing this matter forward. So long as the Government deferred asking for confirmation by bringing in a Loan Bill, so long would be protest against the House being subjected to this sort of thing.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: “That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when the whole question of the future system of defence for the Union, including the affiliation of the Boy Scouts and the appointment of a Commandant-General should be considered by the Government.” The mover said he had acquired the name in his own country of being an extremist, and he supposed that in bringing forward this matter that name would stick to him. He went on to urge upon the House the necessity of seriously debating the question of defence in South Africa. There was no young country in this world where it was more necessary that there should be united action in the matter of defence than in South Africa. Probably he would be met with the retort that in a matter of such magnitude there was the greatest need for the fullest consideration. But such consideration necessarily meant time, and he thought it was their duty to see that they did not lose any time. It was a national and not a party question, and at this stage no good purpose would be served by recrimination. Any practical form of defence must be by the co-operation of the two races of the country, and a great deal depended upon the rising generation. Proceeding, the speaker went on to refer to the Boy Scout movement initiated in Great Britain, which had spread to the colonies. He was well aware that this movement did not come within the present scope of defence, but he thought that the organisation would serve as an admirable training ground for the future defenders of this country. The principles of honour and truth were inculcated by the movement, and the habit of obedience instilled into the boys. The mover then went on to refer to the training which was given the Boy Scouts, their powers of observation, and the duties which they were called upon to perform. By these means they hoped in the future to turn out these boys as men and gentlemen. In some quarters objection was raisad to this very serviceable movement. He wished to mention that it was entirely undenominational, and that parents and members of religious bodies were fully justified to frame their own regulations for Sunday observance. He concluded that hon. members were anxious to learn how the boy scout would become serviceable in the defence of his country in the future. Well, he would tell them that there was sufficient of the glamour of military glory associated with the training of the boy scouts to fire the imagination of any boy, and to create in him a lasting reverence for his country and his King. The Boy Scout movement in the Transvaal bad failed to secure the approbation of the authorities, and perhaps the Minister of the Interior had very cogent reasons for his apathy. As regarded the cadets, he said that hitherto boys’ brigades had been the result of private enterprise, but the time had now come when the fiat should go forth to compel everybody in South Africa, at a suitable age, to serve in some military capacity or other. It was generally conceded that any effective scheme or defence must include compulsory military service. In fact, State education and State defence should become synonymous terms, and if it were wise to expend large sums of public money for the purpose of converting the youth of the country into serviceable members of society, then it was equally imperative that the youth of the country should be fully qualified to defend the State in its hour of need. The establishment of the Ethiopian Church, whose watch ward was “Africa for the African,” was a solemn warning to them to put their house in order, and the Government should not relax its efforts until every boy of a suitable age had undergone some form of military training. He would like to tell the House that while in command of the Boy Scouts in the Transvaal, it was represented to him by several families that they would not permit their sons to join the Scouts until they got an assurance that no military training would be added to their exercises. He could not give a due explanation of such a request in that House, because it would necessitate the using of unparliamentary language. (Laughter.) He would say, however, that the Government should say to such people, in no unmeasured terms, “He who cannot defend the land of his birth or adoption should be forcibly instructed; and he who will not should be relegated to the sphere of an undesirable alien.” If there was one person who deserved more at the hands of his fellow-countrymen than another it was the individual who volunteered to undergo every kind of inconvenience to qualify as a soldier, and whenever the State was menaced willingly submitted himself to privations, and cheerfully faced many dangers for the honour of his country. That man was called a Volunteer, and for him he must express unqualified admiration. He regretted that that was not the view entertained by the authorities in the Transvaal. The vote for the Volunteers had been gradually decreased, and quite recently all recruiting had been prohibited. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the extreme importance of a reliable Intelligence Department, insisting that it was of paramount urgency to carry out a military survey elf the Native Territories. An Intelligence Department, to be of any intrinsic value, should reach its highest standard of efficiency at the beginning, (Cheers.) It should be the Christian duty of every form of government to endeavour to avert and not to encourage warfare. There were no surer means of reaching this end than by a full acquaintance with al that transpired in the Territories, Reserves, and Protectorates, where danger might more reasonably be apprehended. He had had charge of an Intelligence Bureau, and during the last six months he had had reports of unrest and seditious talk from Basutoland. Reports had been made on the subject to the various Governments, and he did not ask that this information should be accepted without reservation, but he did claim that it should form the basis of inquiry, and if it were found that there was justifiable cause for the complaints which had been, received from the Native Territories, then it was the duty of the Government to remedy the matters complained of by a more acceptable form of administration. But if it were a recrudescence of the old rebellious spirit, it should be nipped in the bud. Lord Milner recognised the defenceless condition of the people occupying districts adjacent to the disturbed localities during the late war, and he decided that it was far more humane to arm white men who might possibly become our enemies than to leave white women and children at the mercy of savages. If that great statesman—(hear, hear)—had remained in this country, he had no doubt that depots of arm would have been established ready for instant distribution. The adoption of some such wise precautionary measure should receive the favourable consideration of the Government. What we needed at the present-juncture and until any scheme of military defence could be put into operation, was a first line of defence available for instant use. (Cheers.) Such a force should comprise at least five or six thousand men, with a full complement of artillery, etc., and carefully prepared mobilisation plans should be drawn up. Fortunately, we bad the nucleus of such a force to hand in the C.M.R. and the Natal Police—(hear, hear) —in both of which forces he had served. Their efficiency for South African purposes was of a very superior order, and they would never fail to maintain the highest and best traditions of such forces. (Cheers.) He must say that, on first consideration, He appointment of an Imperial officer as Commandant-General appealed to him strongly, but when the issues involved by such an appointment were carefully analysed, he came to the conclusion that the only safe course was to select an officer born in the country or one affiliated to the country by long residence and experience. Hear, hear.) The country people must play an important part in any scheme of defence, and some consideration must be paid to their language prejudices if they were to succeed in making these people serviceable and obedient irregulars. He could not believe that there was no man in South Africa qualified for the position. Rather he thought that there were many such, but he contended that their favour should fall on one who would study the welfare of the country first, and who would relegate party and racial feelings to the second place. He believed in South Africa, he believed in her destiny, and he believed that only by the self-sacrifice and unswerving devotion to duty of such an officer could they raise an army that would stand to the glory of the country and the lasting security of the State. He would say, lastly, to the whole country, that only by making preparations and sacrifices in times of peace could they hope to achieve success in war. Let them never forget they were surrounded by hordes of natives—people who, his experience taught him, would only give their allegiance so long as the white man retained his superiority as belonging to the dominant race. And to the end of securing peace, the white people of this country must unite, not only for the general advantage of the country, but for what was far more important, and that was their mutual support and protection. And that, before God, was the first and last duty of that House, of that Government, and of every true man who exercised the least authority in South Africa to-day. (Loud cheers.)

seconded the motion.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until March 1.