asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether a special rate not disclosed in the Tariff Book is given for coal carried from Breyten, Carolina, and Ermelo to the Witwatersrand; (2) what is the rate per ton from the Breyten Colliery to Germiston and to Krugersdorp respectively; (3) what is the ordinary tariff rate for coal for the same distance; and (4) what is the reason for the grant of a special undisclosed rate for this particular colliery?

answered the first question in the negative, and gave the particulars asked for in the other questions.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it was a fact that on the suburban line (Cape Peninsula) certain men were kept at work for 12 hours a day without a break for meals, and if so, whether he would give instructions for such excessive hours of work to be put a stop to?

said it was a fact that certain men were engaged for 12 hours without a break. He particularised the men so engaged, such as gatekeepers, a night foreman, and two porters, adding that the work performed by them was very light, and; half the time they were not busy.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether his attention had been called to certain correspondence in the Johannesburg press, complaining of the constant infringement by certain employers of section 13 of the Transvaal Shop Hours Act (1908); (2) what machinery exists to secure that the provisions of that section are duly observed; (3) whether he will cause inquiry to be made: and(4) if the facts are as alleged, whether he will see that the offending parties are prosecuted?

said the attention of the police had been called to the complaint, as it was a matter entirely for police supervision.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether it is a fact that a convict named Twyman, in the Breakwater Prison, was discharged from hospital and returned to hard labour before he was sufficiently recovered from illness; (2) did this convict die shortly after such return to hard labour; and, if so, (3) Whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the circumstances of this man’s illness and death with a view to ascertaining: (a) Whether the illness from which he was suffering when he first went into hospital was the one which ultimately caused his death; (b) whether death was directly or indirectly caused or accelerated by the interval of hard labour; and (c) the facts, in order to fix the responsibility and to mete out punishment for the treatment this man received?

said the concert arrived at the Breakwater from Port Elizabeth on November 7, 1910, with a clean bill of health, and certified as fit for labour. On November 14 he complained and was treated by the medical officer and put on light work. On November 19 he again complained, and was detained in hospital until December 5, when he was again discharged for work. On December 9 be made further complaints, and was treated and returned, to work. On December 19, upon again complaining, he was detained in, the hospital. Symptoms of cerebral trouble developing, he was treated in consultation with Dr. Wood, the eye specialist, on December 22 and 29. An operation was deemed necessary, and on January 9 he was taken to the New Somerset Hospital. There the operation was performed, with his consent, on January 14, but on the next day he died. The cause of death was certified, after a post-mortem, as a tumour of the left cerebellar hemisphere. The answer to the second part of the question was in the negative. Under the circumstances set forth it was not proposed to cause further investigations to be instituted.

asked the Minister of Commerce and Industries: (1) Whether it is necessary for an importer in the Cape Colony to pay an importer’s licence on, goods imported from Durban on which import duty has already been paid; and, if so, (2) whether he will endeavour to have this remedied at as early a date as possible so as to put all parts of the Union on a basis of equality?

said that under the law of the Cape Colony, which had not yet been repealed, it was necessary to take out such a licence.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether arrangements could be made to allow letters by the English mail to be delivered in Johannesburg on Wednesday night instead of Thursday morning, as at present, and if not, why not?

said that it was quite impracticable to have the correspondence delivered on Wednesday nights.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether his attention had been directed to a case heard before the Resident Magistrate of Kroonstad, whore, because he knew no English and the Public Prosecutor knew no Dutch, a certain witness, by name Joubert, was told to leave the witness-box before he had given his evidence; (2) whether the cause of justice has not in consequence suffered; (3) whether he intends to make provision for interpreters in all courts where necessary; and (4) whether he will in future see to it that no unilingual officer is appointed by his department to an office where both languages are required?

asked that the question should be allowed to stand over for a few days.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the decision of the Government entirely to close the main road between Umtata and the Bashee Bridge to ox wagon traffic, owing to the outbreak of East Coast fever within a few miles of that road, and having regard to the trade necessities of Umtata, he would permit such traffic to be carried on along the upper road from Umtata through Baseya and Engcobo district, which was far removed from the seat of the outbreak?

replied that the position that had now arisen in the Transkei in connection with the suspension of transport, was one which he predicted on the occasion of his visit to the Transkeian Territories over a year ago, when he urged upon the residents the necessity of equine transport. He fully realised that the residents of Umtata had now, through the action of the Government, been placed in a position whereby they were likely to be subjected to great inconvenience, but the discovery of the outbreak of East Coast fever, to which the hon. member had referred, had been followed by the discovery of three other outbreaks in the same locality, and of an extensive centre of infection in Pondoland East near Bizana, which must have been concealed by natives for many weeks. He felt that, in the present uncertain position of affairs, he would not be justified in opening any alternative route through any portion of the Umtata district, as the upper portion of that district was most densely stocked with cattle, and movements through it would certainly favour the extension of disease towards the Colony proper.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) Whether his attention had been drawn to the Union Auditor-General’s report for the Transvaal Colony, period 1stof July, 1909, to 30th May, 1910; on item seven of Vote 27, page 173 of the report, and whether he can give any explanation as to how it was that General Botha’s private expenses at Kissingen, Berlin, and other places, were paid for by the Government, and that the vouchers for expenses incurred were incomplete; and (2) whether his attention had also been drawn to the Auditor General’s report on the finance accounts of the Orange River Colony, from which it appears that the expenses of President Steyn at Bad Oeyenhausen were paid out of public funds, and whether he has any statement to make on these matters?

My attention has been drawn to the paragraph referred to in the Auditor-General’s report. Some of the places mentioned there in I never visited at all, and at the places which I did visit I paid all my private expenses out of my own pocket. The Minister of Finance yesterday afternoon received a letter from the Auditor-General, admitting that his statement in his report is inaccurate and misleading. All vouchers, except for tips and cabs, and similar trivial expenditure, were handed over to the Transvaal Treasury on my return in 1909. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the reference to the expenses of President Steyn, I wish to point out that President Steyn, as a delegate from the National Convention to the British Government, was housed at public expense at the Hyde Park Hotel. The British Government desired the delegates to remain in London until the Act of Union had passed through Parliament, and as some delay was anticipated before this could take place, and the health of President Steyn was not satisfactory, he proceeded, at the request of his colleagues, to Had Oeyenhausen, at the public expense, in lieu of the expense which would have been incurred during his stay at the Hyde Park Hotel, London. The statement in the Auditor-General’s report is, therefore, misleading, and I can only express my profound regret that the name of one who has deserved so well of South Africa should have so unnecessarily been dragged into this matter. (Ministerial cheers.)

Can we have the Auditor-General’s letter?

I will send for it.

asked the Minister of Lands what was the reason of the delay in granting the Duivenhoeks River loan?

replied that there had been no undue delay, and that the matter was now under consideration.

moved; that Messrs. P. J. G. Theron and T. C.M. Wiloocks be members of the Select Committee on Irrigation Bill.

seconded. Agreed to.

moved that the papers relating to the proposed Union buildings in Pretoria, laid on the table of the House on February 23, 1911, be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

speaking to the motion, said he thought hon. members who took the trouble to read the papers, which were placed on the table some time ago, in consequence of his notice of motion, would agree that that motion on his part was amply justified. New facts had been brought to light—facts which, he ventured to think, they would not otherwise have obtained, and facts which he did not think accorded with the explanations offered by Ministers in that House. In the explanation given by Ministers stress was laid on the fact that the other Governments of South Africa—the Cape Colony, Free State, and Natal—had all been consulted with regard to the matter of these Union buildings. It was stated that they were in accord with the policy that was adopted. What were the facts? The first letter, dated October 21, 1909, came from the Prime Minister of the Transvaal. He mentioned that ‘Pretoria was not well equipped with suitable public buildings so as to house the Union Civil Servants. He proposed to take immediate steps to provide that building. He mentioned a sum of £150,000, which had been allocated by the Transvaal Parliament for public buildings, and he proposed to re-allocate that sum to the new Union buildings. No mention at all was made in the letter of the enormous expenditure which afterwards accrued, viz., £1,100,000. The Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, in his reply, did not commit himself in any shape or form. He admitted the necessity of something being done, but he said that before they did anything at all, they Should have a Commission to inquire as to what the requirements really were. The reply of the Prime Minister of the Free State was a thoroughly common-sense one. As far as Natal was concerned, no reply appeared to have been made, except an inquiry as to whether this £150,000, which was mentioned in the correspondence, was to be debited to the Union or not. The reply of the Prime Minister of the Transvaal was that it was not to be debited to the Union, but that it had been taken from the Transvaal funds. On November 1, the Prime Minister of the Transvaal again addressed the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, and he agreed to the hon. member for George going up there. That was the end of the correspondence. Evidently the hon. member for George never went to Pretoria. Evidently the Ministers of the Transvaal realised perfectly clearly that the Ministers of the Gape and Free State were not in accord with their views, and, therefore, they were quietly put on one side. That was the inference that he (Mr. Jagger) drew from the correspondence. All this consultation, on which so much stress was laid, amounted to this, that they were in formed in a general way as to the requirements of Pretoria, and the only sum mentioned in the whole of the correspondence was £150,000, and that was to come out of the Transvaal funds. The sum which was now in question—£1,100,000—never appeared in the correspondence at all He pointed out, when he moved for the papers, that if the Ministers in the Transvaal could not have waited for the sanction of the Union Parliament they could have taken the sanction of the Transvaal Parliament. That could have been done; at any rate, it would have been a perfectly constitutional course to have taken. The Minister of the Interior replied that specifications had to be drafted, and they were carried on to a date beyond the duration of the Transvaal Parliament. The Transvaal Parliament had been in session from April 6 to 28. He had got the specifications as printed. The first specification he had was that of the east block, dated February 8, and the specification for the west block was also dated February 8.In fact, the specifications of the two outer blocks, the biggest part, were all ready and printed, and in the bands of the Government in February, prior to the meeting of the Transvaal Parliament. He had also the contracts for the building of the blocks; and the articles of agreement for the eastern and western blocks were signed on April 15, 1910, by Mr. E. P. Solomon, acting on behalf of the Transvaal Government. A contract was entered into for the sum of £622,500. How could Ministers, in face of that, say that they did not know the cost? Then, as regards the centre block, tenders had already been called for, and he found that a letter dated April 14, which was written to the Secretary of the Treasury, stated that Mr. Solomon had signed the document in connection with the contract for the Union buildings at Pretoria. How could the Minister of Finance plead ignorance in face of that? Then another contract for £250,000 was signed on May 21. In face of that it was incorrect, to say the least of it, to say that Ministers did not have some idea—a fairly accurate idea—of the cost these buildings were going to be. Both defences raised by Ministers in that regard had fallen to pieces, and had been shown to be absolutely incorrect. But what, to his mind, was the most disquieting fact about the whole of that business, and what created such a bad impression about it, and made it so difficult to understand the position of his hon. friend (the Minister of Railways and Harbours), was this: the insolent defiance of Parliament on the part of the Government.

Hear, hear.

They had been in session since November—pretty well five months—land yet no official information had been given to Parliament as to what these buildings were going to cost, except an allusion made by the Minister of Finance in the course of his Budget speech the other day. What ought to have been done if the Minister had been thoroughly in earnest about that matter was that these contracts should have been laid on the table of the House as soon as Parliament met, with a full explanation why these contracts had been entered into. Then Parliament could have taken a lenient view of the matter. Up to the present, with the exception of the allusion in the Treasurer’ speech the other day, no official information had been put before the House; and they had never even been asked to sanction that expenditure, or, after that five months’ delay, to vote the money required for the carrying on of those works. He wanted to know where the money was to come from; and he said advisedly that the Government were doing an unconstitutional thing in spending money on these buildings; and they had no right and no power to go on spending that money illegally on these buildings. They must be taking the money which had been Voted by Parliament for some other purpose, and applied it to the Union buildings —a most illegal act on the part of Ministers. Dealing with the plans of the buildings, which he advised hon. members to look at, he said that there was a place for archives, which, he had been told, was big enough to hold the whole of the British Museum. There was also a garage, 115 feet long by 60 feet broad, for motors. They had to pay Civil Servants so high now that they kept motorcars, and so they needed a garage.

It’s for the Ministers.

There was a room for bicycles, big enough, he thought, to hold all the bicycles of Pretoria. (Laughter.) There was a restaurant the same size as the restaurant here, and that was not enough for the Ministers, who must have a luncheon-room for themselves. (Laughter.)Then there was a library three times the size of their library here. They were going to spend £20,000 on sculpture alone, such as lions, and so forth. (Laughter.) All these were serious things, because the money was spent without the consent of Parliament. He had not been able to ascertain how many clerks would be housed there; he thought it was 1,000, and that would mean £1,100 per clerk! He had made some inquiries, and he had been told by some one who knew about these matters that a sum of £250,000 would be liberal, or £25 per clerk. That, to his mind, was a very fair estimate. The hon. member referred to the overcrowding of certain schools, and the fact that some pupils were housed in tin Shanties. He asked whether hon, members knew that with that money 550 schools could be built, to hold 100 pupils each? He had the figures from the department. The money would build 514 miles of railway at £3,500 a mile, or a line extending from the north to the south of the Orange Free State, or from Cape Town to Beaufort West nearly. And yet all that money had been devoted to un reproductive work, which would return not a cent to the country.

Hear, hear.

These buildings, he thought, would stand as a monument of the reckless extravagance of the last Transvaal Government and of the first Union Government. In conclusion, he said that the members of the House, in justice to their constituents, should refer the papers to a Select Committee, and have the matter thoroughly gone into.

said that this was the fourth time the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. J. W. Jagger) had discussed this matter, and he was afraid that it would not be the last time

Certainly not, so long as things go on as they are going at present.

I suppose the matter will be getting more serious as it goes on. Proceeding, he said that when last he spoke on this matter, in reply to the hon. member (Mr. Jagger), he said that before the late Transvaal Government took action in this matter they consulted other Governments in South Africa. He did not go so far as the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had inferred, that an agreement was arrived at between the various Governments. He knew that there had been correspondence, and that a consultation had taken place, and he guarded himself by using the word “consultation.” Now, it appeared from the correspondence that there was no agreement arrived at between the Governments. The correspondence broke off before an agreement was arrived at. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) inferred that when he (the speaker) made his statement last time he misled the House, or intended to mislead the House. It was nothing of the kind. He only wanted to make clear that before the late Transvaal Government took action they consulted the other Governments, though in the end they did not get the consent of these Governments. In the second place, he said that there was no time to have the matter voted upon by the late Transvaal Government, and he was borne out by the facts which the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had stated to the House. It was quite true that the specifications were completed before the late Transvaal Parliament adjourned, but it was clear that in regard to one block of buildings there was no definite conclusion arrived at; no definite sum was arrived at until after Parliament had adjourned. The result would have been this, that it would have been necessary for the Government to have brought the matter before the late Transvaal Parliament at a time when they were not in a position to state the definite sum. The third course followed by the late Transvaal Government was to consult their friends on the opposite side of the Transvaal House. They consulted their Opposition, and after consultation, proceeded with the work. Now, some of the facts which his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) had adduced to show that the action of the late Transvaal Government was unfair, wrongful, and unreasonable, were not correct. He took, for instance, the matter of the cost of the buildings. The hon. member said that the buildings were to provide accommodation for some 1,000 clerks; that the cost would be more than one million pounds; and that the cost per clerk would be £1,100. He (the speaker) was informed, however, that that was not so; that accommodation was to be provided for1,500 men, and that, therefore, he thought it would work out at about £600 per clerk, Now, these figures compared very favourably with other similar buildings. He took the case of the Supreme Court buildings which were going up in Cape Town. He was told that these buildings would accommodate 200 men, and that the cost worked out at £1,000 per head. Then they had the question raised as to luncheon rooms for Civil Servants. He thought these were most proper. He had seen in this town since he had taken up office here, public servants leaving their offices a little before one o’clock in order to take their meals elsewhere. If they had accommodation in the building and provided meals for Civil Servants, it would be possible to economise time. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) went on to say that not only had the late Transvaal Government acted unconstitutionally, but the Union Government had done likewise. Today he (the speaker) must go further; he must really bring the thing to a head. The hon. member said that this Government (the Union Government) was responsible, because they had not brought the matter before the House. Well, his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) stated in his Budget speech last November, and again this time, that the Government would have to bring the matter before the House in their loan proposals, which would make provision for part of the cost of the buildings. It would be necessary for the House to go into committee, not a Select Committee, but the committee of the whole House, and that would be the proper occasion for Parliament to no into the matter fully. That would be the fifth occasion on which the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) would have an opportunity of speaking. (Laughter.) Well, he thought, that should satisfy justice. He knew the hon. member went much further. He intended this as an attack upon the late Transvaal Government, three members of whom were sitting there to-day. Well, he was prepared to accept that attack, and if the House decided that this matter should go to a Select Committee, then he would consider that he was not fit to sit any longer as a Minister of the Government. That was his position. In this matter they had done their best to act in the widest interests of South Africa. He thought the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) tried to attack three members of the old Transvaal Government, but he would find in attacking them he was attacking the Transvaal, and behind the Transvaal the Union of South Africa. Well, that being so, they must bring the matter to a conclusion. If hon. members thought that three members of the present Government, who were members of the late Transvaal Government, had acted in such a way that their conduct must he inquired into by a Select Committee, he should consider himself unworthy to occupy the position which he now occupied. He did not think he could say more, and he would leave the matter in the hands of the House.

said that he was extremely sorry to hear the character of the reply given by the Hon. the Minister. A more damaging reply in the interests of his own Government it would have been impossible for him to have given. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) had moved in the interest of good government in the future for the appointment of a committee to inquire into certain unconstitutional practices which he thought his hon. friend (General Smuts) himself had recognised as having taken place. During several discussions in the House, various accusations had been made in connection with these unconstitutional practices. A short time ago, in reply to a statement by his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), she Hon. the Minister (General Smuts) excused the action of the Transvaal Government in not consulting the Transvaal Parliament on the ground that the Transvaal Parliament was not in session, and they had no opportunity of consulting it. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger), having had the papers placed on the table, went into them very carefully, and brought forward some very important points which he had laid before the House that day, and he had asked, as anybody would be entitled to ask, that the matter should be cleared up by the appointment of a Select Committee, not for the purpose, however, of levelling an attack at the late Transvaal Government. His hon. friend (General Smuts) knew that that was not the object of the motion. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) moved for the appointment of a Select Committee in the first session of the Union Parliament in order that it might bring up a report making it impossible for any Government in the future to do what had been done. That was the honest intention of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). What was the defence? Having no case, they (the Government) appealed to their supporters, to their party, rightly or wrongly, to defend their position. If that were the manner in which the Government of this country was going to be conducted, those who followed the Government into the lobby would live to regret how they had voted. That, he believed, would be the judgment not only of a large number of hon. members on his aide of the House, but of a large number of than, members on the other side of the House. The members on has side of the House his no objection to the establishment in Pretoria of suitable buildings for the housing of the Civil Servants. They had no objection either to the establishment of buildings on a suitable scale.

Who is going to be judge?

The Parliament of the country. Proceeding, he said that after January 4 every payment that took place in connection with these buildings was an absolutely illegal and unconstitutional one. The committee should inquire into the system under which the Government had financed these payments. Government could only do so by drawing warrants, and he would like to see the declarations it made in applying for those warrants. Under these circumstances he thought General Smuts had taken a very regrettable course, and he hoped that even now, in the general interest of the country, the Prime Minister would be prepared to go back upon the decision of the Minister of the Interior and accept Mr. Jagger’s motion If the Prime Minister were not prepared to do that, although he might for a moment have a majority behind him, the feeling of the majority of the people in the country would not support the action taken up by the Government, and Would believe that there was something at the back of the matter which made it impossible for Government to accept the fair and reasonable proposal of the hon. member for Gape Town. (Opposition cheers.)

said most of them agreed that the old Transvaal Government and the present Government had not acted as wisely or as constitutionally as they should have, but what he wished to know was what was the object of the committee? Was it supposed that in addition to all these irregularities there was some deep-laid scheme of swindling?

Rot.

Some of the remarks meant either that or nothing. He knew that there was some vague understanding with regard to the erection of the Union buildings on the part of the leaders of the Opposition in the Hate Transvaal Parliament and the Transvaal Government, and he must confess that be was lax in not inquiring into the matter. Was the Select Committee to bring about Chaos and confusion, or to turn out the Government, or to undo what had been done? Was it possible for any Select Committee to do that? Ought the House not to be satisfied with expressing its utter disapproval of the methods adopted by the Government? If he were asked to go beyond that he would refuse to do so. He regretted all these irregularities very much indeed; but if he were asked to believe that in addition to that there had been same jobbery and something improper, that the people concerned were afraid of being brought to light, he did not believe it. (Ministerial cheers.)He honed the House would be very careful what it did, but he was sorry that General Smuts did not take up a more dignified position, because if he (Mr. Quinn) felt inclined to vote for a Select Committee he would, do so, notwithstanding that threat, much as he would dislike to see the Minister’s disappearance from the House. For Heaven’s sake, however, let them come to an end of that business.

said he did not know what Mr. Quinn meant by having on end of this question, We had never had a beginning yet. The Minister of the Interior had put some of them in a most painful and awkward position. They had now to draw the Line between their personal attachment to General Smuts, their love and reverence for him, and their duty to their constituents, and to the country and to, the Parliament, and the oath they had taken to do their duty there. It was a most painful position to put them in. For himself, he had no hesitation. As he had said, he loved, revered, and esteemed the Minister of the Interior, but still he had his duty to do to his country and constituents, and that was to take the only proper Parliamentary course with regard to that question, and he would do it. He would do his duty to his constituents, because he knew what the country thought of this expenditure. It thought it wanton and wasteful. The country was crying out for a hundred things, and it saw vast sums being squandered where there was no need. What was their plain duty? To inquire into it. It must be a nasty mind that could read into that any insinuation of unworthy motives—(cheers) —or to think Parliament could not institute an inquiry without at once raising imputations of dishonesty. That Government had acted wrongly he had not the slightest hesitation in saying, from a Parliamentary point of view. If he thought they could read into the proposal for the appointment of a Select Committee the insinuation that had been thrown out by Mir. Quinn that there was some underhand jobbery in that matter, much as he desired the committee, he would not vote for it—(cheers)—because (he would not be a party to making any insinuations of that kind, and he was sure Mir. Jagger would be the fast person to make an insinuation of that kind if he did not say openly what was in his mind. He (Mr. Merriman) regretted the heat that had been shown over the matter in certain quarters. The Minister of the Interior had not done himself justice, because the last time he made a very dear and distinct statement. General Smuts said that the other Governments had been consulted, and it was impossible to bring the matter before the Transvaal Parliament, as a vote could not be asked for, because the amount of money that would be required was not known. It was known, however, that work to the amount of £660,000 had actually been contracted for, and tenders had been called for work estimated at £220,000. How much further than that did they go when they asked Parliament for a loan for railway purposes? Once a famous English statesman, in explaining his attitude on a certain matter in the British Parliament, observed: “I never said I would—I said I could.” That was very much like the explanation of the Minister of the Interior. He never said he would—he said he could. Plain men could not understand these nice distinctions and the Minister did not do himself justice. General Smute blamed the hon. member for Cape Town for asking for a Select Committee. Surely Mr. Jagger had the night to do that. Who was going to pay this money? The hon. member for Cape Town would pay a good share, and he had a right to know what the circumstances concerning the matter were, and what the need for it was. They would be called upon to pass a heavy Loan Bill, and they would have to justify to their constituents the maintenance of heavy taxation for the purpose of paying for things like that. Let no one think that the sums so far mentioned meant the end of the expenditure, for they were for the plain buildings only. Did these sums include the statues—laughter)—the mosaic floor in the Ministers’ dining-room, for the garage and bicycle-room for the thousand young gentlemen who were to be housed there? He gathered, looking at the English Law Courts, that the furniture, fittings, etc., would amount to about a third more. That would allow them about a million and a quarter. He was told that the specifications were so badly drawn up that really the contractors had carte blanche, and we might find that the complete buildings would cost from £1,500,000 to £1,800,000. Well, we should be lucky, he thought, if we got off with £1,500,000, including fittings: and then we should be run into a pretty expense with these clerks. Do not let us have any mare tall talk about attacking the Union, because we would have to attack things on Parliamentary lines. He would tell them who were attacking the Union of South Africa—those who were wishing to encourage Parliament to (go on unconstitutional lines. These were the true enemies of the Constitution and South Africa. “Be the consequences what they may,” continued Mr. Merriman, “I shall do my duty to my constituents and the country by voting for a Committee of Inquiry just in order that we may have the plain facts of the case put before us.” It was, he proceeded, quite sufficient for him to know that the buildings were being erected without Parliamentary authority. What were the words of Mr. Gladstone? He said: “The Executive has no constitutional authority to make a contract binding upon the House of Commons.” No matter how powerful a Government might be, it had no constitutional right to make a contract binding upon that House, and upon the Union. Continuing, the right hon. gentleman said he wanted to know how many clerks there were to be housed, and what was likely to be the expense of these buildings when they were completed? They would not, be doing their duty to their constituents if they voted these moneys for dining rooms, libraries, mosaic floors, and garage, without demanding an inquiry as to the actual cost. For these reasons he would support the motion of his hon. friend the member for Gape Town, Central.(Cheers.)

said he understood that the motion was to get at the facts. Well, as he understood it, a member had only got to consult the papers laid upon the table if he wanted to get at the facts. If the object were to discredit the Government upon this matter, he thought they ought to oppose it. They all knew that Union buildings were necessary for the housing of Civil Servants at Pretoria. The Government of the day prepared the plans and specifications, and they communicated with the other Provinces. It was too late in the day to open up the question again. It might be that the buildings were more expensive than some members would like to see. It might be that wooden floors would have done quite as well as mosaic floors; but he could not see that any good end could he obtained by reopening the matter and producing further irritation.

said he did not think the hon. member for Dundee was quite as innocent as he would like the House to believe, when he said that if they wanted the facts they had (but to consult the papers on the table of the House. Papers were often submitted to Select Committees for inspection. After what the member for Victoria West had said, it was difficult to say anything more upon this motion for a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister for the Interior had supplied the most remarkable utterance he had ever heard. He had threatened that if the House divided, and the motion was carried, he would leave the Ministry. “If the same Ministry was to remain in power,” continued Mr. Botha, “I would rather see him there than anybody else.” (Hear, hear.) What, after all, were they asking? Merely for an inquiry into the circumstances of the buildings at Pretoria. Were these enormous sums of money justified or not, and was it not possible to reduce the expenditure? Was it not possible to leave out the mosaic floors, the dining rooms, or the motor garage?

Your leader spoke about a reduction of a million.

I don’t know what leader you refer to—(laughter) —but I think the reduction should be very substantial. Continuing, the hon. member said they were going to give the Ministers a place to dine; surely in a small place like Pretoria Ministers could go home in their motorcars. (Laughter.) So far as he was concerned, he believed he spoke for the people of the Free State in this matter—he would ask to know who gave the Government the right to spend this money? There were many wants in the Free State with regard to buildings and other things, and the people there would realise that they could not get them because of this excessive expenditure.

said, as a member of the last Transvaal Parliament, he had been referred to in this connection. He certainly did not want to get out of any responsibility for what had taken place, but he certainly regretted that the Minister of the Interior should have made the speech that he did. (Hear, hear.) The Hon. the Minister had said that this was an attack upon the integrity of the Transvaal and the Union of South Africa. He could not accept that line of argument. What they had all to do was to abide by the will of the people’s representatives in Parliament. What he would say was that the Government, in this expenditure as in other expenditure, in the early days of Parliament, should have come to Parliament and have asked its sanction. (Hear, hear.) He remembered that in the Transvaal they were consulted about the purchase of land in Pretoria, and it was then stated that a million of money would be spent, so that there had been no secret, but in view of the fact that the Transvaal Parliament was not consulted, it was the duty of the present. Government to get authority from the Union Parliament before committing themselves to such expenditure. There was one other thing which the Opposition in the Transvaal certainly understood, and that was that the other Governments were to be consulted, but they had never seen the correspondence between the other Governments, so, of course, they did not know the result. Now, he did not agree with the Minister of the Interior that this was a matter which could be discussed in Committee of the whole House; they would be unable to go into all the details of this large expenditure in Committee of the whole House in the time which would be at their disposal. He regretted that the hon. member for Troveville (Mr. Quinn) had spoken in the way he did about, jobbery, because he (Sir G. Farrar) believed —he knew—that the whole of the Transvaal Government had acted in the matter bona fide, and in what they believed to be in the interests of the Union. (Hear, hear.) It had been asked when this matter would come to an end? Well, he believed that the whole Question would only come to an end when the Government had brought it fully before the House. (Hear, hear.) He did not accept the argument of the Minister that this was a direct vote of censure on the Transvaal Government. As far as he (Sir G. Ferrar was concerned, he would vote for the Select Committee, because he believed this expenditure, though very large, would when it was gone into, be fully justified. It would also give the House an opportunity of having a Select Committee going through the plans, and of making alterations, if necessary. He might say he had never seen any of the plans, nor was he ever consulted as to them. He was going to vote for this for a further reason, and that was because he thought it might lead to the appointment of another Select Committee—a Select Committee to inquire into what railways had been built by the Minister of Railways. He believed that railways were being built all over the country. He admitted they might be sanctioned by Parliament, but he remembered what happened at the Convention in this connection. It was made clear at the Convention that, although certain railways had been sanctioned by the Cape Parliament, no provision had been made for the borrowing of the money, and it was an honourable understanding at the Convention that no State should borrow money unless it had a surplus. Well, he understood that the Railway Administration was calling on the Treasury for over a million for railways that were being constructed in the Cape Province.

I do not think the hon. member is quite in order in referring to that.

Well, I was giving my reasons. Anyway, I was finishing. I shall vote for the Select Committee for the reasons I have given.

said that, after listening to very much the same sort of speech on four distinct occasions, he was not much the wiser. The question what the committee was expected to accomplish had not been answered, though hon. members had admitted there was no suspicion of a job. Now, that being so, he must say that he thought there was something more behind that motion than appeared on the surface, viz., the desire for economy. No more illogical speech than that of Mr. Merriman had he heard. He spoke of the desirability of Parliamentary practice being carried out. But what Parliament did he refer to? The Union Parliament? That could not be, because it was too young to have established any practice, so far. The Transvaal Parliament? It was no more. Why should they appoint a Select Committee to deal with what the late Transvaal Parliament had done? What good would it do now? It would probably be found that the Transvaal had not acted on what the right hon. gentleman called “Cape lines,” but that discovery could hardly justify the appointment of a committee. He did not think it would be any use appointing that Select Committee, and he would vote against the motion. If they once went about appointing Select Committees to go into the acts of past Parliaments, where would it end? What would the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) think if they wanted a committee appointed to go into the procedure of the Cape Parliament of eight or nine years ago? (Laughter.) They would open up very unpleasant matters, and no good would come of it if they did. He was speaking on that matter as one who was quite impartial. It was a question which did not affect the Orange Free State at all, nor did it affect him as an ex-Minister of the Orange Free State. There seemed to be something behind the motion, and the reasons given in support of the motion, although he did not accuse Mr. Jagger of any personal motives, He did not know whether it was so much an attack on the present Ministry as it was on those members of the Ministry who had once been members of the Transvaal Ministry. Was the erection of the Union buildings such a wasteful, sinful, wanton under taking as Mr. Merriman had said? They must consider that they must have a Union building which would be worthy of South Africa; and he would like to impress upon the House that if it did cost that sum the people of South Africa would be glad, to pay for it. They wanted a Union building which would be considered worthy of South Africa by every son of South Africa. When it had been resolved erect such buildings, had those responsible for that decision not been animated with the desire of having a building of which the Union of South Africa could well be proud? Carping criticism the lavishness of the undertaking came more fitly from people who looked on South Africa as a large plantation than from hon. gentlemen who regarded the country as their permanent home. His conviction was that the cause of all this opposition was the jealousy which had existed, ever since the Convention had sat, between the two capitals, and perhaps it was this which unconsciously influenced the hon. member.

No, no.

I said unconsciously. He went on to say that now that these Union buildings were being constructed the desire on the part of some that Cape Town would ultimately become the capital of the Union was for ever shattered; just as the construction of the Union House of Parliament had done away with the feelings on the part of some Pretorians that Pretoria might ultimately become the capital. Whatever he might have thought of the manner in which the Union buildings came to be constructed, or the scale on which the plans were carried out, nothing had pleased him more than that the administrative capital had now been firmly secured at Pretoria, just as the legislative capital had been firmly secured at Cape Town, because now they had for ever done away with the feelings of suspicion on the part of one capital that the other might later become “the” capital. On that ground alone, even if the buildings cost two millions, he would be in favour of their construction, knowing what a good and lasting effect it would have on the feeling between the Provinces, the unity of the people, and the dignity of the Union. He thought that there would have been more justification for either of the other Provinces (the Orange Free State and Natal) to have said something about the matter, but he did not think that there was any on the part of the Cape Province. He hoped that Mr. Jagger would not think that he was accusing him of a malicious attack, but it was curious that that matter should be raised by one of the most prominent representatives of Cape Town, and not by another member. Unless it could be clearly shown that a committee would be the means of attaining something which could not fee attained in any other way, he, as a disinterested party, would oppose it.

said he could not see precisely what use this committee was going to be. He could not congratulate the Minister upon the friends he placed reliance upon. He understood that these Union buildings were entered upon only after consultation with the leader of the Opposition in the Transvaal Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He could not congratulate the Minister upon the support he had received. (Ministerial cheers.)—(A VOICE: Same old game.)—He said that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had spoken in very impressive tones of their duty in that Parliament to their constituents. He naturally paid profound respect to any words which the right hon. gentleman uttered on matters of Parliamentary practice, but he could not see that over this matter Parliament had any power whatever to alter these contracts which had been entered into. He could not see how anything they did would be of any use to safeguard the constitutional position, that over the expenditure of public money this Parliament should have full control. The Minister of the Interior, he understood, said that he did not claim that it was constitutional. He admitted that it was unconstitutional, that it was altogether in exceptional circumstances, and it was in no sort of way to form a precedent for any future action. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Creswell) very much regretted that the Government at the opening of this Parliament did not come to them in that mood, and state their position, and say, “We have erred, and we ask you to whitewash us.” It appeared to him that to pursue the subject any further was rather in the nature of rubbing it in. He did not think it was fair or reasonable to go and use what was purely an act of Ministers before they became Ministers of the Union Parliament in order to move what was practically a vote of censure from that Parliament upon those actions.

said that he was not going to deal with the constitutional aspect of this question. When he had been fighting hon. members opposite he had never failed to do them justice when the occasion offered, and now that they were a united people he felt more disposed to do so, because to did not think the members there to-day who were members of the old Transvaal Parliament had been sufficiently just to the Government in this connection. (Ministerial cheers.) When this financial question was originally debated in the Transvaal, friction arose between the hon. member for Georgetown and the present Minister of Finance and himself, and that friction had not since been allayed. He took exception to the Union on the matter of the native franchise, but a good many of his supporters objected to going into Union unless they were given the fullest information as to the probable financial position of the various colonies when Union had been constituted. He approached the hon. member for Georgetown and the hon. member who now represented the Treasury. With such scanty information as he got, he tried to satisfy his constituents. They went so far as to say that the Transvaal was united with a number of colonies that were on the verge of bankruptcy, and they said that unless some compensation came they would not go into Union. The compensation came in the shape of Pretoria going to be the capital, but they were told subsequently that Pretoria was only going to be the administrative capital. A very great amount of dissatisfaction arose among his own people, and that was only allayed when they were able to be informed that Pretoria would be embellished as far as possible, and that large some of money would be spent on public buildings there, and that every penny of the surplus money in the Treasury would be expended in Pretoria, rather than that it should be handed over to the Government. (Hear, hear.) That information given to him by his leader he also heard on the other side of the House, from the Government members. They were told clearly that something like a million or more was to be spent. They were also told that there was going to be further expenditure for purposes unknown to members who sat on their side of the House. He must say that his constituents asked him to fight in every way to secure Pretoria as the capital of the Union. They went there with the fullest knowledge that the money was to be spent, and he was quite confident that if the Government had approached them in a constitutional form and asked Sanction for that expenditure, it would unanimously have been granted by members on their side of the House. He had always been an extremist, and no body had been more opposed to the people on the other side than he had been, but he liked justice to be meted out, and he thought it was only fair to say that they knew what was going on, and if it had been brought forward it would have been sanctioned. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that if this motion for a Select Committee had been made under other circumstances, he would have felt bound to ask what it was going to inquire into—was it going to inquire into some alleged unconstitutional conduct on the part of the late Government of the Transvaal? If that were so, he did not think that many members would have been found to support it. Was it going to inquire into other allegations, about which some vague suspicions had been thrown out? He said, therefore, that, if the matter of the Union buildings had been brought into Parliament’ by the Government in the way they should have brought it in, then very few of them would have had any hesitation in voting against the motion that was before them now. The way in which the Government had handled the matter, however, had absolutely driven him to vote for the motion, because he thought that nobody who respected the Parliamentary institutions of this country could do otherwise. It did not seem to be a question whether the Opposition in the Transvaal Parliament was or was not consulted in the matter. He could not see that the ground brought forward by the last speaker was relevant to the case. If the erection of the buildings had been a matter between the Transvaal Government and the Transvaal Parliament, then things would have been entirely different. The matter would then have begun and ended between the Transvaal Government and Parliament. But they knew perfectly well that the buildings were going to be built out of the funds of the Union. A Bill was to be introduced to authorise the raising of the money, and in view of that, the Ministry had gone on, and were going on now, spending the moneys of the Union without legal sanction, in anticipation that the loan would be granted by Parliament. He had not the least doubt that the loan would be granted, but he did think that if the Ministry had desired to treat the House with the respect which ought to be shown to it, then one of the first things they would have done would have been to put a statement before the House to the effect that they were proposing to incur this expenditure as being necessary in the interests of the country, and that they were going to take a vote in order to carry on the expenditure in a legal manner. If the Government had come with that statement, very few would have been found to object to their proposals. Now he knew the buildings had been criticised on the grounds of extravagance, and he thought there was a great deal in that, but there was also a great deal in other considerations. As had been said, the buildings were going to commemorate the Union of South Africa, and they were going to be worthy of that great occasion On these grounds, he did not believe the House, in spite of the large amount of money which was going to be spent, would have voted against the proposal of the Government to have the money voted in anticipation of it being raised by loan. But nothing of the sort was done. The Minister of Finance, so far from coming before the House with a clear statement of liability, had said nothing until it was dragged out of him and when anything was dragged out of him, the information which he gave was given in a mariner which seemed to imply that he regarded it as an insult that they should ask any questions on a matter of this sort, and he regretted that that was the attitude the Government had adopted all through the matter. The Minister of the Interior had taken up that attitude. He looked upon the motion as having been brought forward as a motion of censure upon the Government, an a motion of want of confidence, but he (the speaker) did not regard it as having been brought forward in that sense, although he must say that there was a good deal in what the Government had done in regard to this matter which justified such an attitude.

thought that the reason for the opposition to the construction of the Union buildings was really due to jealousy of Pretoria; and he could not see what good it would do to appoint a Select Committee. It had been alleged that no vote of censure on the Government was meant, but in view of what the press had said, the Minister was quite justified in taking up the attitude he did on that point. The proposed committee could only cause ill-feeling, because the contracts having been signed, no economy could be effected. The buildings, moreover, would have to outlast several centuries. If Union buildings were erected at all they should be worthy of the South African nation, and they must also look to the future, so that, if certain parts of the proposed building seemed too large now, they would not prove too big in the future. If everyone had been so economical as Mr. Jagger wished the Government to be, there would have been very few beautiful structures in the world, and the human race would have been the poorer. He could not vote for the motion.

said that this was a question for the Union Parliament. It had been admitted that an unconstitutional act had been performed, and that it had been performed by the late Transvaal Government, but the Government had intentionally and continually shelved the question whenever it was brought forward. It was never brought forward by the Government on their own initiative. They had to be pressed, and he was very much surprised to hear the Minister of the Interior’s speech. He thought the House only asked for information. Mr. Jagger was doing this for the purest of motives, and for the benefit of the country. (Opposition cheers.) Anyone who knew Mr. Jagger would say that there was no party motive in the matter, and no desire to disgrace the Government, but only to get at the actual facts. Ministers should accept that position, and he (Mr. Henderson) was surprised that they did not say: “We have nothing to hide, and will give you all the facts, and we feel sure you will absolve us in the end.” He was amazed when he saw the plans of the buildings. If one of the richest countries in Europe wanted to erect a building as a, memorial to its greatness and wealth for all time, it could not have gone in for a more expensive scheme. It seemed absurd for a young country like South Africa to commit itself to such enormous expenditure for the housing of Civil Servants; it was absolutely preposterous. The Select Committee might be able to point out a way in which the expenditure could be curtailed, land he hoped Government would withdraw from the untenable position it had taken up. (Opposition cheers.)

said that at first he had thought that it would have been best to get the Select Committee appointed; but now, after what they had heard, he thought that the motion was not quite so innocent as it appeared on the face of it. He thought, however, that there was nothing wrong in getting all the possible details in regard to the matter, because the expenditure was heavy, and the country would have to bear further expenditure in connection with the Union buildings. He would like very much to know from Ministers what was the exact reason why a Select Committee could not be appointed, for he understood, from what the Minister of the Interior had said, that there was a very serious objection against that course being adopted, and this placed him in a dilemma, because he wished to be able to explain the huge expenditure to his constituents, if called upon.

said he was exceedingly sorry that the Minister should look at the matter from the point of view in which the (General Smuts) regarded it. The Minister should give more attention to what many hon. members thought. Surely they were all old enough to know that the best way to turn aside anything din the nature of a censure was to give a little whiff of publicity to it. (Hear, hear. If General Smuts had been courageous enough, he would have said; “Certainly, let the House have a Select Committee, and it will agree with us that the buildings are necessary.” He (Sir Risset) was a, little bit disappointed with General Hortzog, who looked at the motion as another outcome of the jealousy between Cape Town and Pretoria. But they had all got over that. This was a matter for Parliamentary inquiry, and there was no other way in which Parliament could make an inquiry, except by having a Select Committee. He did not think the Opposition could have done anything but ask for a Select Committee, and if the motion were withdrawn now it would look like cowardice.

said that, after the previous debate on the subject, he had imagined that relations between the two capitals would henceforth be characterised by nothing but peace and friendship. It appeared, however, that two hon. members had made it their special object in life to fan the embers, and keep alive the controversy. He was sorry to note from the speech made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that he had moved his resolution with an ulterior object in view. The hon. member was one of the leaders of his party, and the organ of that party had explained that the motion was tantamount to a vote of no confidence. In the circumstances, he, the speaker, had no option but to accept that version, especially in view of the present attitude of the hon. member for Georgetown, who had been consulted on all the points at issue. Did they want another Commission to sit like a Star Chamber? It seemed that, in the shadow of Table Mountain, people became so narrow-minded that they were ready to grasp at anything. Not that he had expected a different attitude from the right hon. member for Victoria West, because no hon. member had opposed the Government so vigorously, ever since the first day of the session, as the right hon. member had done. Why did not the right, hon. gentleman take his seat on the opposite side of the House? His actions breathed far more antagonism to the Government than did those of the Opposition. When he (the speaker) said the other day that there was more behind the Union buildings agitation than met the eye, the right hon. member had accused him of “playful bluster.” The right hon. gentleman should recognise, however, that whatever his personal opinion might be, the Transvaal Government had intended to act in the best interests of the Union, without any ulterior motives. Hence he felt particularly sorry at the constant nagging, the endless insinuations, and the position taken up as if the question were one for parties to form themselves upon. If that happened, Union would be a huge failure; party lines of that nature would shake the country to its foundations. It would be difficult to get a compact majority, and people would continue to grasp at shadows, as the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, were doing even now. If the buildings had been planned at Cape Town, instead of Pretoria, would the outcry have been raised? Certainly not. Let them, therefore, be honest towards the country as a whole. The right hon. gentleman was inclined to make a good deal of his (Mr. Merriman’s) duty to his constituents. By all means let them consider those duties, but it was possible to mislead one’s constituents, and that was being done at the present moment. The Transvaal Government consulted the then Opposition to such an extent that the hon. member for Georgetown to-day had all his work out out in explaining away his position. He (Sir G. Farrar) had admitted that he knew the expenditure would be something like £1,000,000, and yet he advocated a committee of inquiry What was there to inquire about? All the correspondence, contracts, plans, and specifications had been tabled. The Government had kept back nothing, and hon. members were engaged in a wild-goose chase if they looked for more. Did the mover think that Transvaal Ministers had an interest in the contract?

Oh, no.

said that if the hon. member had no such suspicion, he should accept what the Government had said. It was a pity that the hon. member was not very happy in the choice of his words, because on every occasion he had conveyed the impression that he suspected some deep-laid plot. He regretted that the hon. member, as well as the right hon. member for Victoria west, had stirred up feeling on the matter. Would the proposed committee go to the Transvaal? He challenged anyone to prove that the papers tabled did not supply all the information. By next week the Loan Bill would be introduced, and on that occasion the House could discuss the amount of money to be voted for the buildings to their hearts’ content. That being so, how could one avoid imputing motives to hon. gentlemen who were in such a hurry to raise the matter? The hon. member for Queenstown had said that the motion could not be withdrawn? Why could it not, in view of what he had just said? It would be no more than manly to withdraw a premature motion. Hon. members had referred to the buildings as a “monument to the folly of the late Transvaal Government.” Well, he thought that only narrow minded people would take that view. The edifice would accomplish the noble purpose of crowning the hill as a monument to the honest union of a nation which had been impossible up till then, and which no one had expected at so early a period. It might be an expensive undertaking, but it was a national; affair, and he for one did not intend to obtain cheapness at the expense of Shoddiness. They should not make South Africa into a country to be left at the earliest opportunity. It should be a permanent home to its people, a country of prominence and stability, qualities justifying the erection of monuments towards which the people would feel drawn. If friendly arguments had been adduced in favour of the motion, the position would have been different, but as it was the debate was instinct with bitterness. Hon. members were continually harping on the one string, for no other purpose than to divide the people to an extent hitherto unknown. He trusted, however, that there would be co-operation in order to frustrate those attempts. If any further information were wanted, the Government would be glad to supply it, though he confessed himself unable to see what more could be wanted. The Government had acted honestly, and though their procedure might, strictly speaking, have been unconstitutional, they had wished to do what was right, without causing inter-town jealousy. If the hon. member who had brought forward the resolution thought he was going to accomplish something great on behalf of Cape Town, he would, find out his mistake! If the motion were pressed to a division, the mover would much regret his action in time to come. As to the right hon. member for Victoria West, he (the speaker) thought the right hon. gentleman was a far better hand at using playful bluster than he (the speaker) was. The motion could only be looked upon as a vote of no confidence in the Government, and for that reason he could not accept it. (Cheers.)

said that this matter had been discussed many times, and he only wished the Government, in the first instance, had put the matter fully before Parliament. If they did not do so, this was not the last time it would be discussed. Now, when the discussion first arose, he got the most absolute assurance from the Cape members of the Opposition that there was nothing whatever in this hostility on the part of the Cape towards the Transvaal, or on the part of Gape Town towards Pretoria. He earnestly wished that the Government had conceded that point, because it was going to clear the Transvaal. There was nothing to hide. (Hear, hear.) There was nothing they need be ashamed of in the position of the Transvaal. He quite admitted that the procedure had been unconstitutional, but he could not understand why an inquiry was resisted. There was, he repeated, nothing behind it.

A MINISTERIALIST was understood to interject: “The Times.”

Oh, is that it? I am thankful for the reminder, because I understood the Prime Minister to say that the mouthpiece of this party had explained that this was a vote of censure. Well, the first I heard of it was when the Right Hon. the Prime Minister spoke. I did not know that, distinguished as that paper is, it is the mouthpiece of the party. I did not know the matter had been discussed even. I did not know there was to be a vote of no confidence at all. Proceeding, Sir Percy said the point seemed to him to be why the Government should take up an attitude antagonistic to Parliament. He happened to represent a constituency in the town in which this expenditure had taken place. Very thankful the people there were for the expenditure, and very sorry he (Sir Percy) would be to see anything done to take away or reduce a building which, he thought, was going to be an ornament and a memorial to the Union, and something of which the country would be proud. But, at the same time, he thought they were entitled to claim that Parliamentary procedure should be observed. He had stated last April or May what he had understood to be the position in regard to these buildings, and he thought that what he then stated would be found to be much in agree most with what appeared in Hansard when, the Minister and the leader of the Opposition in the Transvaal spoke of the position of the matter. He (Sir Percy) said, at that time, that the Transvaal had paid, as they then, thought, half the cost of these buildings, leaving the other half to be paid after Union. He thought the Transvaal Government had acted in a very good spirit in doing that, and in making a start with Transvaal money at a time when no one else could do anything towards making the necessary provision. He understood at the time that the £377,000 mentioned by the Treasurer of the Transvaal and by the Leader of the Transvaal Opposition was, roughly, about half the liability—that the Transvaal was paying one-half and the rest of South Africa the other half. He also said at that time that the cither Governments had been consulted, and that their approval had been obtained. Well, in saying that their approval had been obtained, he found he was wrong, and that he had misinterpreted what had been said, but he did not suggest for a moment that the Minister had given him that assurance. Well, that being the position of affairs, he would say that if the Transvaal Government had put the matter before Parliament, they would have had his vote. Now that the price was so much bigger, it was, of course, a more serious matter, but there was nothing wrong in it. He had also understood that the price had not then been fixed, though he now saw that the estimates were out at the time. Well, that was not a very, very important point. They all accepted responsibility in the Transvaal on the facts as he took them to be. But now what was the objection to putting the facts before the Union Parliament? The Union Parliament was surely entitled to make any examination of the matter it liked to make? There was nothing to be concealed. On the other hand, what sort of a reputation were they going to get up-country if they refused an inquiry? He was perfectly certain that the Minister for the Interior would sincerely and deeply regret having made the stand he did against this. No one wanted to single him out to turn out of office, and no one wanted to pick out the Transvaal members. There was no such thing as a design to attack the Minister of the Interior. Why not have an inquiry? Why start Union with this idea, that the Government wanted to preserve the power to do high-handed things and unconstitutional things? Now, hon. members’ memories might be short, but they must surely remember the way Parliament was treated in the Transvaal when the railways were taken out of their hands, and they were never allowed to discuss the matter at all, except as a favour. The rights of Parliament were taken away in a most arbitrary fashion. These things were brought against the Transvaal Government, and would be brought against the Union Government, if they were allowed to go on. He would go one step further. He did not want to see this resolve itself into a question between Pretoria and Cape Town, or the Transvaal and the Cape Colony. (Hear, hear.) There was a good reason in this matter why the residents of Cape Town should realise that there was not that hostility. The suggestion came from the Ministers of the Transvaal. The first proposals were smaller than this. Extravagance it might be, they took the risk, and, at any rate, if they were wrong in one thing, in an extravagant notion in attempting to do something worthy of the country, they were also wrong here. They urged greater extensions here.

said he could not imagine why there should be an inquiry, after the speeches of the hon. member for Pretoria East and the leader of the Opposition. They could not have an inquiry into every proposal for expenditure. No special reason had been shown for an inquiry. There were two reasons why they might have an inquiry. One was because of the extravagance of this proposal, and the other was because of the constitutional position. As far as the extravagance was concerned, surely it would be a remarkable proposal as coming from the other side, because they had heard from the Prime Minister that the hon. member for Georgetown was consulted all through. It appeared to him that it would not be a want of confidence in the Prime Minister alone, but also in the hon. member for Georgetown. As far as the extravagance went, he wished they could have a certain amount of extravagance of this kind in Cape Town, where they were spending a large sum of money on rent, and had even to rent an office for the Prime Minister. On the ground of extravagance, it seemed to him that there was no case at all. All the heat that had been engendered had to do with the constitutional position. The hon. member had entirely forgotten that this was an exceptional period through which the had been, passing, and that the matter could not be said to be a dangerous precedent.

said he would like to correct the hon. member on an important point. He was consulted; by the Prime Minister on the purchase of the land. He was never consulted in any way as to the expenditure or the cost of the building. If the Prime Minister said that he was consulted from stage to stage, he must differ from him on that statement. He had not been consulted on the Estimates or up to the present.

said that his authority for the statement he made was not the Prime Minister, but the hon. member opposite. He was in the House, and he (Sir G. Farrar) said he knew that one million was to be spent. In further remarks, Mr. Fremantle submitted that this motion had been introduced in order to embarrass the Government.

said he did not suppose many members would be influenced by the arguments of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), just placed before the House. He, as a member of the late Transvaal Parliament, knew then, as most of them knew, that ground had been purchased, and that there was going to be very considerable expenditure, and he thought that the figure which was most in their minds was about three-quarters of a million, and, with the knowledge that they had of Estimates, he dared say some of them expected that the expenditure was going to be a million. But, beyond that, they knew nothing. They assumed that the administrations of the other colonies had been consulted, and assumed that they had agreed, and that in due course they would furnish their portion of the expenditure. The Treasurer, in the statement just quoted, said they were handing over in the Transvaal £377,000 as their share of the expenditure. They agreed to that. He did not think they could be accused of not acting up to any professions they made then. They had no desire to shirk any responsibility. At the same time, he did not think it was fair to put upon them a responsibility which they were never asked to take. If they had known the contract had been made, they would have approved of it. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. member for Pretoria East, when he said that the whole of the trouble was due to the fact that the Minister of Finance did not at the first stage of this Parliament take the House into his full confidence, and tell them what had happened, and ask them to see him through. The Government did not take that course. Now, because the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) asked for this committee, the Minister of the Interior got on his high horse, and said he would treat this as a vote of no confidence. He thought the Minister was attaching a great deal too much importance to this matter. Surely it would have saved all this discussion if the Minister had said: By all means, there was nothing to hide; let them have the committee, and finish with the matter. Surely the Government would have suffered no loss of dignity whatever. As to the argument of his hon. friend (Mr. Fremantle), that there was nothing to gain by having this committee, he would ask: Well, what was there to lose? There was nothing to lose. There was so much misconception, and so many mis-statements, that it would be in the interest of everyone if the motion of inquiry were granted, and everyone had an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the position. He was confident that no one wanted to raise the question of the dual capital. He supported the motion for the Committee of Inquiry. (Cheers.)

said that he supported the motion for the committee, because he thought there was a possibility of a considerable saving in the cost of the buildings—a saving of £100,000. He entirely deprecated the political aspect introduced into the discussion, and supported the motion on the ground of economy.

in replying to the debate, said that some hon. members thought that he (the speaker) had seen, or hinted at, acts of swindling. He had never made any mention of swindling, or of anything improper; nor did he believe that there had been anything improper. As regarded the dual capital question, he said that he was bound by the decision of the Convention and if a motion were brought forward to remove the administrative capital from Pretoria to Cape Town, he would vote against it. The Prime Minister had also inferred that this was a party question. He denied that. He had never counselled the party. It was far more important than a party question, and he left the matter entirely to the common sense and duty of the House to do what was right in the matter. He denied that there had been any attack on the Transvaal Government in this matter, or on the three Ministers referred to by the Minister of the Interior. He had attacked their methods, and that was all. He promised that he would continue to bring the matter before Parliament until Government put things right. If there were any blame attaching for the matter coining up so often, the blame lay on the shoulders of the Government, and not on him. The Ministry had got upon their high horse, but he could not understand why. This was never a party question. He was absolutely certain that if members voted according to their convictions, they would vote for the motion. (Cheers.)

put the question, and declared the “Noes” had it.

Called for a division, which was taken with the following result: