, from C. R. Hudson, of Ficksburg, formerly a member of the 3rd Cape Mounted Yeomanry Regiment, who in 1907, when an inmate of the Bloemfontein Lunatic Asylum, refused his share of certain “loot moneys” which were then being paid to the officers and men of the Yeomanry Regiment, praying for consideration and relief.

, from J. Pattison, a teacher under the Education Department, praying for the condonation of certain breaks in his service, or for other relief.

, from P. G. Theron and five others, inhabitants of the district of Winburg, praying that gates may be erected at certain railway crossings, or for other relief.

, a similar petition from F. P. Nel and 31 others, inhabitants of the district of Winburg.

, from J. F. Koekemoer, a teacher in the Ryno Poor School, district of Elliot, praying for the condonation of certain breaks in his service, or for other relief.

, from P. Quinn, formerly a sergeant in the Rural Police, Moorreesburg, who was retired owing to injuries sustained by him in the execution of his duty, praying for an increase of pension, or for other relief.

announced that the Governor-General, having been informed of the subject matter of clause 3, sub-section (a), of the Bill, providing for the disposal of immovable property, gives his consent that, in so far as His Majesty’s interest is concerned, this House may do therein as it shall deem fit.

asked the Minister of Public Works:

What steps, if any, have been taken to give effect to the decision of Parliament in regard to the item “Government House, Gape Town,” as set forth in Loan Vote B, in the schedule to Act No. 24 of 1912?

replied: The Government has resolved to erect the new Government House at West-brooke without further delay.

asked the Minister of the Interior: Whether, in view of the rapid increase of the European population in Zululand during the past few years, he will take the necessary steps to appoint Licensing Boards in the European centres, where applicants are now subject to the sole decision of magistrates, and thus bring Zululand into line with the rest of the Province of Natal?

: I am causing enquiries to be made into the matter, so that the question raised by the hon. member may receive the most careful consideration of the Government.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: Whether, in view of the discussion which took place in this House on the 28th May, 1912, the Railway Board has during the recess taken into consideration the desirability of making a cleansing and demurrage charge on trucks carrying coal similar to the cleansing and demurrage charge now made on trucks carrying live stock; and, if the matter has not yet been considered by the Board, whether he is prepared to submit it to the Board without delay and to report the decision of the Board to the House?

said: The reply to this question is in the negative. Conditions applicable to and rates chargeable for conveyance of coal and livestock are entirely different, and uniformity of treatment in respect of these two classes of traffic is neither practicable nor desirable.

asked the Minister of Public Works: (1) Whether application has been made by the Defence Department for the use of the buildings at Fort Durnford, Estcourt, for a squadron headquarters of the South Africa Mounted Riflemen; (2) whether the application has been refused; and, if so, on what grounds; and (3) whether it is intended that the Prisons Department shall utilise these buildings; and, if so, for what purpose, and when?

replied: (1) The Defence Department is desirous of establishing the headquarters of a squadron of the South Africa Mounted Riflemen at Fort Durnford. (2) The existing buildings were reserved by the late Natal Government for the purposes of a Reformatory, and there is a proposal to establish a Girls’ Reformatory there in the course of the next few months. (3) The matter is receiving consideration.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) How many “Barbary” ostriches were landed, within the Union, for the Government; (2) what has been the total outlay to date; (3) how many of the birds have died; and (4) as to the remainder, have any been disposed of or sold, if so, to whom and at what prices?

(1) One hundred and forty ostriches from North Africa were landed in the Union. (2) The total outlay to 28th February last is £8,238. (3) Thirty-four birds have died, twelve from exhaustion and twenty-two from accidents. (4) None have been disposed of.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Press that a certain Dr. Robertson has discovered a remedy for gal-lamziekte; (2) that about a hundred head of cattle belonging to Mr. W. Hunt, of Doornbult, near Vrvburg, were inoculated with the said remedy; and (3) whether he has any information as to whether that inoculation was a success?

replied: (1) Mr. W. Robertson, Assistant Director of Veterinary Research, is investigating gal-lamziekte, and the results of some of his experiments are promising. Further tests will be required before the success or otherwise of the experiments can be definitely ascertained. (2) Some three weeks ago 100 head of cattle, belonging to Mr. Hunt, of Doornbult, Vryburg, were inoculated by Robertson as an experiment only. (3) For the reasons stated, it is impossible to express any opinion on the merits of the inoculation at present.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether, in the Transvaal, any particular system is followed in allocating judicial work to advocates and attorneys; and, if so, what is that system; (2) what official is entrusted with the allocation; and (3) whether he is prepared to lay a statement before this House, giving the names of those advocates and attorneys in the Transvaal who have, since the establishment of Union, obtained Government work, indicating also the fees paid to each of them during that period?

replied that he would give the information later.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing the Transvaal is far behind in the matter of boring for water, although the prospect of finding water is very promising, he is prepared to lower the rent, which is charged farmers for the use of Government bores, to £2 per day, as was previously the case?

replied: It cannot be maintained that the Transvaal is behind other parts of the Union in the matter of boring for water, and there would be no justification for reintroducing the system of subsidised boring in that Province. The Government cannot, therefore, lower the regulation charges as requested by the hon. member.

asked the Minister of the Interior: Who is responsible for the maintenance of the road from the Main-road at Retreat, leading to Tokai, and the High Level-road above the Groote Schuur Estate, and whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the dilapidated condition of the said roads?

The attention of the Government has not hitherto been directed to the matter, which, I would like to point out to the hon. member, is one falling under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Administration.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether, in view of the great inconvenience occasioned by it being impossible to procure a map of the Union of South Africa, showing the various constituencies as delimitated in 1910, the Government will take steps to have a map prepared, to be available for public issue, showing the constituencies of the Union as delimitated in 1913?

: The several Surveyors-General are being consulted as to the expense involved in the preparation of such a map as that to which the hon. member refers, and, if it is found possible to produce one at a reasonable cost, the necessary steps will be taken.

the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether he is aware that the Van Ryn Deep and Geduld Mines on the East Rand are causing miners to remain underground for excessive periods of time, varying from 10 to 16 hours daily and, if so, what action he proposes to take; (2) if it is a fact that on at least one of these mines two skipmen only are employed per shaft per day, working twelve hours each, and men and materials are being hauled on Sundays without a skipman being on duty, such treatment does not constitute a contravention of the Mines and Works Act, 1911; and (3) does the Mines Department intend to proceed against the owners or management?

replied: (1) In the Van Ryn Deep and the Geduld, I find that a number of men are working more than eight hours per day, but in such cases they are working five shifts only, and do not exceed the statutory 48 hours per week; (2) At one of the mines in question I find that two skipmen were being employed 11 hours per shift. These hours seem to me unnecessarily long, and further inquiry is being made into the matter Such men are exempted from the statutory limitation of hours by sub-section (2) (b) of section 9 of the Mines and Works Act. (3) It is evident that under the circumstances mentioned above, no action is called for beyond the inquiry which I am having made.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in accordance with the notice in the “Union Gazette” of the 18th instant in regard to simultaneous dipping, scab-inspectors will be authorised to issue permits for the removal of slaughter-sheep from a district to which simultaneous dipping is not applicable, provided that scab-inspectors declare the said slaughter-sheep to be clean.

replied: Sheep inspectors are authorised to issue permits for slaughter sheep to move from areas in which the period for simultaneous dipping has been extended provided the sheep have been free from scab for twelve months or have been dipped twice.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether the return laid on the Table of the House on the 24th February, 1913, and purporting to be a return of land acquired through purchase by natives in the Transvaal since Union is not incorrect in so far as it refers to the farms Mara and Buisplaats in Zoutpansberg, in that (a) it was not a sale at all, but a grant by the Government to the coloured tribe named Buys; (b) the amount stated in the return was not the purchase price, but a valuation fixed by the Government for revenue purposes; and (c) the Government was obliged to issue the grants by reason of an undertaking given by the Government of the South African Republic; and, if so (2) whether he will lay an amended return upon the Table?

replied: (1) and (2) The return in question did not purport to be a return of land acquired through purchase by natives in the Transvaal since Union, but of land registered during the last three years in the names of natives, and, as no purchase price or valuation was quoted against the farms Mara and Buis-plaats, there is no necessity to amend the return. The statements made in (1) (a) and (c) of the hon. member’s question are substantially correct.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:(1) Whether thirty temporary outdoor clerks are employed at the Cape Town Docks; (2) whether they are expected to attend every morning at 7 a.m. at the Docks to ascertain whether they are required; (3) whether they are paid 6s. to 7s. per day; (4) whether they average about three days’ work per week, and, if not, how many; and (5) whether he will arrange for these men being employed regularly through the week?

replied: (1) Twenty-five to thirty men are given employment at Table Bay Docks as casual tally clerks, the number engaged each day being dependent upon the shipping work to be performed. (2) No; Administration has no such claim upon the men. Every effort is made to advise them the night before should their services be required in the morning, but as the work depends entirely upon the arrival of vessels it is not always possible to let them know in advance. If they are not warned the night before that their services may be required they invariably put in an appearance in the morning, in their own interests, in case there should be work for them consequent upon the unexpected arrival of a vessel not reported on their departure the previous night. (3) The reply is in the affirmative. (4) When shipping is brisk these men are found employment about five days per week, on an average, but when there is a falling off in traffic the average is less. (5) No; the work on which these men are engaged is of such a fluctuating and spasmodic nature that it is impossible to engage the men as permanent employees.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether ex-officials of the late Republics as also officials at the present moment in the public service are exempted from passing an examination as is required by the regulations published in the “Union Gazette” of February 14, 1913, as far as the first-mentioned are concerned, when they desire to re-enter the service, and with regard to the last-mentioned when they are promoted in the service; and in case they are not so exempted how does that agree with the assurance given by him, when the Civil Service Act was under discussion, that ex-officials do not fall under the Act with regard to the necessity of passing an examination or an age limit?

replied: The position in regard to persons who at any time in the past held a salaried post, not of a casual or temporary nature, under the Government of any portion of South Africa now included in the Union, is governed by paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Public Service and Pensions Act, 1912. They are eligible for reappointment on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and the provisions of the law regarding entrance examinations do not apply to them. Section 7 of the same Act provides that before any officer can be promoted above the first grade of clerical assistant he shall be required to pass a qualifying examination, and there is no exemption in favour of persons now in the public service who are below the rank of senior clerk, or in favour of ex-officials who may be appointed to posts below that rank. As the hon. member will doubtless remember, the Bill as introduced last session contained no provision for a promotion examination; but the Select Committee which considered the measure was strongly of opinion that it would greatly tend to an increase of efficiency in the future if the requirement subsequently laid down in section 7 were introduced, and an amendment in the direction indicated was accepted by the House in due course without objection.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the directorate of the Premier Diamond Mining Company is about to be transferred to London; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Wagner has resigned from the chairmanship of the directorate, and that he stated (a) that it was impossible to carry on an undertaking of the importance of the Premier Company from London, (b) that the company should have responsible people on the spot, and (c) that even such a large holding as that of Barnato Brothers does not give it the right to remove the directorate that had’ carried on the concern to its present successful position; (3) whether it is in the interests of the taxpayers of the Union, who own a sixty per cent. interest, that this removal should take place; and, if not, (4) whether he has endeavoured, or is making endeavours, to prevent the removal; and (5) whether, in the event that Barnato Brothers succeed in effecting the removal, he will take adequate measures to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers of the Union?

replied: I may say generally, in reply to the hon. member, that the Government has at present no information of any intention actually to transfer the directorate of the Premier Diamond Mining Company to London, and does not anticipate that any attempt of the sort will be made. I can assure the hon. member, however, that the Government is carefully watching events, and will take all steps, which may be necessary, to safeguard the public interests.

asked the Minister of Public Works: (1) Whether in view of the large and continually increasing trade, postal and other kinds of traffic across the Vaal River, between Bloemhof and Hoopstad, he will inform the House (a) whether a proposal by the Orange Free State and Transvaal Governments for the building of a bridge was considered, (b) with what result, and (c) what is the rough estimate of the cost of construction; (2) whether it is a fact that a petition against the construction of the bridge on the most suitable spot, viz., Kolfontein No. 153, has been sent in by the owner of that farm and others; (3) whether he knows that the said person owns and works a pont; and (4) whether the Government will make the necessary provision for building this most necessary bridge, and, if so, when?

replied: (1) (a) Yes; a proposal was made by the Government of the Orange Free State shortly before Union: (b) but the Government of the Transvaal was unable to consider the proposal favourably; (c) £22,500; (2) a petition has been received from the owners of the farm Kolfontein No. 153 against the construction of the bridge on their farm; (3) I have no information as to this; (4) the Government will cause inquiry to be made. In the absence of fuller information, it is impossible to make any promise at present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether a qualified officer is in charge of the experimental station at Armoeds Vlakte, district Vryburg; (2) how many cattle have died from gall-sickness since the station was established; (3) what the result is to date of investigations made and whether the Minister is satisfied that investigations are being carried out under competent supervision; and (4) whether he is able to convey any information to the House as regards the inoculation experiments made by Dr. Robertson at Armoeds Vlakte?

replied: (1) A qualified veterinary surgeon is not resident at Armoeds Vlakte. The station is in charge of a resident lay assistant, who carries out the details of the experiments projected by the Director of Veterinary Research, who frequently visits the station to note the progress of the experiments. The Botanist also visits the station from time to time. A Government veterinary surgeon is stationed at Vryburg, who keeps in touch with the station and visits it in the event of anything of importance occurring in the absence of the director. (2) Twenty-nine head of cattle have died from gal-lamziekte at the station. (3) Owing to the plant feeding experiments being suspended on account of the drought, no definite results have yet been obtained from the experiments conducted at the station. I am satisfied that the investigations are being satisfactorily supervised. (4) No information is available at present in respect to the inoculations conducted by Mr. Robertson.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether men entitled to be placed on the fixed establishment are now being informed that they have been accorded the benefits and privileges of a Cape fixed establishment servant within the meaning of Act No. 28 of 1912, and not that they are being placed on the fixed establishment, and, if so, why?

replied: The Cape Civil Service no longer exists, and therefore the men referred to cannot be informed that they are being placed on the Cape fixed establishment, the organisation of the Union Railway and Harbour Service being governed by the Railways and Harbours Service Act, No. 28 of 1912, which secures to Cape servants, and empowers the Administration to extend to them, the rights to which they would have been entitled on admission to the fixed establishment subsequent to May 30, 1910, had not Union taken place. Consequently, the formal notification conveyed to ex-Cape servants who complete ten years’ service in conformity with the pre-Union conditions, is issued in terms of Act 28 of 1912, and is to the effect that they have been accorded the benefits and privileges of a Cape fixed establishment servant within the meaning of that Act.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What is the average number of trains • passing daily through Langlaagte and Del-more stations, respectively; (2) what number of men is employed in each grade on station duty between Randfontein and Springs, including Benoni, and the Brakpan-Geduld sections; (3) whether it is a fact that some of these men work ten, and others twelve, hours a day, and, if so, how many, respectively, work ten and twelve hours, what is the reason for this difference, and at what stations are men working twelve hours; (4) how many of each grade are employed on continuous night duty; (5) are there any instances of men working twelve hours a day without a break for seven days a week at any of the stations on these sections, and, if so, at what stations; and (6) whether he will arrange a system of reliefs whereby these men can have at least one day’s leisure per week?

replied: (1) Average number of trains daily: Langlaagte: Week-days, 86; Saturdays, 122; Sundays, 82. Delmore: Week-days, 92; Saturdays, 125; Sundays, 80. (2) Number and grades of staff at stations between Randfontein and Springs, including Benoni, and Brakpan-Geduld sections, are as follows: Stationmasters, 33; foremen, 59; inspectors, 9; clerks, 199; signalmen, 59; checkers, 102; shunters, 151; porters, 51; messengers, 9; gatekeepers, 27; total, 699. (3). Number of men working eight hours per diem, 152; ten hours, 520; twelve hours, 27; total, 699. The 27 men who work twelve hours per diem are employed as follows: Witpoortje, 1 signalman; Florida, 2 gatemen; New Clare, 1 foreman; Knights, 2 signalmen; Delmore, 2 gatekeepers, 2 foremen; Angelo, 2 foremen; East Rand, 1 learner foreman; Vogelfontein, 2 gatekeepers: Kleinfontein, 2 foremen; Apex East, 2 foremen; Modrea, 2 foremen; Geduld, 2 foremen; Brakpan, 2 foremen; Springs, 2 foremen; total, 27. Within the next few days the foremen at Delmore and Angelo and the signalmen at Knights will be placed on ten hour shifts, thus reducing the men working twelve hour shifts on the Springs-Randfontein section to 21 out of a total of 699. Day foremen at Delmore, Angelo, Kleinfontein, Modrea, Geduld, Brakpan, and Springs are relieved for their meals by the stationmasters. Ten and twelve hour shifts are regulated according to the work at the different stations. Where ten hour shifts have been instituted the work is much heavier than at stations where the men work twelve hours. When traffic at any station becomes particularly heavy and work performed by different grades is such as to justify this course, twelve hour shifts are abolished. (4) The following men are employed on continuous night duty: Wit-poortjes, 1 signalman; New Clare, 1 foreman; East Rand, 1 learner foreman. Immediately the learner foreman on day duty at New Clare is competent, the foremen at that station will take alternate day and night duty. At Witpoortje there is a stationmaster on duty by day and a signalman by night. Work at this place is very light, especially during night, and does not justify a larger staff. (5) The only men who work twelve hours a day without a break for seven days a week are the three men referred to in preceding clause. The other 24 men mentioned in clause (3) work twelve hours per diem for six days a week. On the seventh day in changing over from night to day duty, night duty man works eight hours, and day duty man 16 hours in 24, with break of eight hours, in terms of new regulation No. 140. (6) The answer to this question is in the negative, as it is impracticable to give effect to this suggestion. If one day’s leisure per week were allowed, these men would lose a day’s pay, so that the arrangement suggested is not one which would be favoured by the men any more than by the Administration. If an employee is desirous of getting a day off, and makes application therefor, every effort is made by the Administration to find the necessary relief. Station foremen invariably enjoy free quarters, and, if married, reside with their families in such quarters at the station at which they are employed, and, generally speaking, they prefer to be on duty in order to earn an extra day’s pay.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether the Municipality of Jansenville has made application to him for better police protection, and has pointed out that at present only one policeman is employed to perform both day and night duty, leaving the town quite unprotected after 11 o’clock p.m.; and (2) whether he will take the necessary steps to provide for better police protection for the community concerned?

replied: (1) Yes. (2) Yes.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether the lease of the Mara Saltpans has expired; and, if so, whether the Government does not consider that it would be wrong to again give them out under concession or contract; and (2) whether the Government will take the necessary steps to enable the public to gather salt there under licence and under Government control; and, if not, why not?

replied: (1) The old concession of the Mara Saltpans has lapsed. The Government will not grant a similar concession again; but, in view of the policy which is being adopted, for sanitary and health reasons, of leasing these saltpans under the Mineral Acts of the Union, the farm is to be proclaimed under the Precious and Base Metals Act, with a view to calling for tenders for the lease of the same. (2) A clause will be inserted in the lease providing for the supply of salt to persons living in the neighbourhood at reasonable and fair rates. The Government is not prepared to throw open the ground to general pegging, as this practice involves great danger to health as well as deterioration of the saltpans. The only satisfactory method is to have someone personally responsible for the proper working of the pan, and this can be provided by the terms of the lease.

asked the Minister of Mines whether he is aware of the fact that on the Bloemhof diamond diggings certain Europeans and natives work in partnership, whereby theft and illicit traffic are promoted; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?

replied: Representations have been made to me, and it has been reported to me by the Mining Commissioner, that certain Europeans are working on the Bloemhof Diamond Diggings in partnership with natives. I am satisfied that the practice is a most undesirable one, and am in consultation with other departments affected in regard to this matter, and the steps which may be necessary to put a stop to it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether he is aware that attempts are being made in the Transvaal to form Farming Companies on a co-operative basis; and, if so (2) whether he is in favour of the project, and whether he will give it support similar to that afforded to co-operative companies already established?

replied: (1) Accounts of projected farming companies in the Transvaal have appeared in the Press from time to time, but no definite proposals for the establishment of a co-operative farming company have been brought to my notice. (2) The only assistance rendered to Co-operative Societies in the Transvaal is that provided for in the Co-operative Agricultural Societies Act, and the granting of assistance to Co-operative Farming Associations in the Transvaal depends upon whether or not they can conform to the requirements of that Act.

asked the Minister of Public Works: (1) Whether he is aware that Bloemhof, one of the oldest villages of the Transvaal, has still to be satisfied with a corrugated-iron building—one of the worst of its class—for a magistrate’s office, and that the heat during summer is most trying for the officials and others, and (2) what he proposes to do to change this state of affairs?

replied: I am sorry to say that the building provided for the magistrate’s office at Bloemhof is a wood and iron structure, and that complaints have been made of the heat during the summer months. Certain alterations are now being carried out, which, it is hoped, will improve the existing conditions. An officer, of assistant magistrate’s grade, has only recently been stationed there, and no permanent arrangements can be made until the diamond digging carried on there proves its permanency.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to Annexure “B” sections 7 and 8 of the Public Service Examination Regulations, published in the “Union Gazette” of the 14th February, 1913; (2) whether under these sections officers of the public service who have passed certain examinations are entitled to certain exemptions; (3) whether the words “who have passed” include those who will in the future pass such examinations, in addition to those who had already passed such examinations on the 14th February, 1913; and, if so (4) whether the Government is prepared to amend the above sections by adding the words “or shall pass” to the words “who have passed” where they occur?

replied: I am afraid the reference given by the hon. member is not very clear, as I cannot discover any connection between Annexure B and sections 7 and 8 of the Promotion Examination Regulations; but if his question refers only to the language of the Regulations, then I can say that I think the meaning is quite clear and they require no amendment.

asked the Minister of Defence: (1) Whether it is a fact that firearms are issued to Cadets at annual camps for the purpose of class firing before such Cadets have been instructed in the handling and loading of firearms; and, if so (2) whether he does not consider this a dangerous practice?

said he was making inquiries and would supply the hon. member with the information he required.

asked the Minister of Railways and’ Harbours: (1) Whether it is the fact that farmers residing along the Midland Railway have had circulars delivered to them by railway gangers demanding the signatures of the owners to a concession of 200 feet of land beyond the present railway fence for the purpose of burning a firebelt, and why the old fire paths have been abandoned; and (2) what amount has been paid as compensation during the past financial year for firing the veld by railway engines throughout the Union, how many cases have been settled out of Court, and how many claimants have been refused consideration?

replied: (1) Arrangements hitherto in force in Cape Province in regard to burning of fire paths were that the Administration endeavoured to get consent of owners or occupiers to cut or burn a fire path 10 feet wide, at a distance of not less than 100 feet from the centre of the railway line. In Transvaal and Orange Free State, if owners or occupiers consent, fire paths 200 feet wide on both sides of the line, are burned by the Administration outside the railway fence. In consent papers circulated to farmers in Transvaal and Orange Free State, farmers are given option of ploughing a furrow 9 feet wide on both sides of line, at a distance of 250 feet from the track centre, and, if willing to undertake ploughing, the Administration pays them at the rate of 10s. per single mile. As arrangements in Transvaal and Orange Free State were regarded as being preferable to those in Cape, Transvaal, and Free State, procedure was extended to Cape; but, as practically all Cape farmers objected to new arrangements, pre-Union practice in Cape had to be reverted to. The Administration does not demand signature of owners or occupiers, nor is it entitled to do so. On the other hand, the Administration is under no legal obligation to burn firebelts, and action taken in this regard is as much in the farmers’ interests as the Administration’s. Locomotives are fitted with latest pattern spark arresters, and the Administration takes every reasonable precaution to guard against damage to grass and crops by fire caused by sparks from passing engines. The ground within railway boundary is kept clear of all combustible matter, as far as practicable, and as an additional safeguard, the practice already outlined as being in operation in the Transvaal and Orange Free State was adopted prior to Union, after consultation with the Agricultural Department. (2) Information in respect of (a) the amount paid as compensation for grass fires, and (b) the number of claims settled out of Court is not readily available, but particulars are being obtained, and will be furnished later. No claimants have been refused consideration. The question of liability is determined by circumstances, and where there is doubt as to proper precautions having been taken to keep land within railway boundary clear of combustible matter, and to have spark arresters in good condition, the Administration pays all reasonable claims for compensation.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Why a special Justice of the Peace, for whose salary provision was made on last year’s Estimates, has not been appointed at Excelsior, in the Winburg district; (2) what is the cause of the delay; (3) who is responsible for the delay; and (4) seeing such delay is causing the public at Excelsior great inconvenience, he will make the appointment without any further delay?

replied Considerable correspondence with five districts and the Surveyor-General has been necessary. Our friend does not know yet the methods of the Government in matters of this nature. (Laughter.) It is hoped now that the appointment will be given effect to at an early date.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours on February 25; (1) What number of meetings have been held by the Railway Board for the twelve months ended 31st December, 1912; (2) what number of meetings were attended during the above period by each Commissioner; (3) what number of inspections have been made by the Board during the above-mentioned period; (4) what number of inspections were made during the above-mentioned period by each Commissioner; (5) for what periods during the twelve months ended 31st December, 1912, were individual members of the Railway Board absent, other than on duty, from the headquarters of the Railway Administration; (6) what has been the cost to the country of each Commissioner for the twelve months ended 31st December, 1912, including salary, travelling allowance and transport, calculated at current railway rates; (7) what has been the gross cost to the country for the year ended 31st December, 1912, of the Railway Board; and (8) what railway lines have been proposed by the Railway Board since its inception, and what number have been rejected by the Government?

replied on March 4: (1) *82 meetings; (2) Sir Thomas Price attended 70, Mr. McEwen attended 77, Col. Greene attended 57; (3) 23 inspections; (4) Sir Thomas Price 18, Mr. McEwen 11, Col. Greene 9; (5) one member was absent from the 26th June to the 1st October, 1912; (6) Sir Thomas Price £2,121+, Mr. McEwen £2,650+, Col. Greene £2,624+; (7) cost of Board £13,036+; (8) proposals for new lines of railway do not originate from the Board.

* In addition to the formal meetings of the Board, consultations almost daily take place between the Commissioners and the General Manager, and also the Chairman on matters referred to them by the General Manager, and otherwise.

† This sum is exclusive of pensions.

moved: That the petition of the Geneva Association of Hotel Employees and the Helvetia Union of Hotel Employees, presented to this House on the 4th April, 1911, be laid on the Table, and, if agreed to, that the petition be referred to the Government for consideration and report.

This was agreed to.

stated that the petition was on the Table.

moved that the petition from Joseph Lampert, of Johannesburg, formerly a locksmith, who was permanently injured by a police officer during the tram strike in 1911, praying that the House may take his case into consideration and grant him relief, presented to the House on the 17th of February, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration and report.

This was agreed to.

desired to move the following motion, which stood in his name, before the next motion on the paper was proceeded with: That the Reports of the Select Committees of the late House of Assembly of the Cape of Good Hope of 1900, 1906, and 1909 on petitions from G. D. Smith, and of 1907 on Smith Land Grant Bill, be laid upon the Table, and, if agreed to, that the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Petition of G. D. Smith.

objected. He said that it would lead to discussion.

The hon. member was therefore, not allowed to move his motion at that stage.

moved that in the opinion of this House the Government should consider the advisability of submitting without delay proposals to this House for a contribution to be made annually by the Union of South Africa to the British Navy, such contribution to be commensurate with the importance of the Union. The hon. member said that, with the leave of the House, he desired to amend the motion standing to his name as originally appearing on the Paper, by deleting the last words: “and in the nature of a percentage upon the annual revenue of the Union, varying from year to year in accordance with the fluctuations of that revenue.” Proceeding, the hon. member said he hoped that no hon. member on the other side of the House would for one moment think that he had brought forward that motion with the idea of embarrassing the Government, and he thought the Government themselves were aware of that fact. He was the last man to think that in a small and young country like that a motion of such far-reaching importance could be thrust down the throats of the people. He was anxious to educate the people of that country to the importance of sea power, and educating them, or assisting in educating them, as to their dependence on sea power for their independence. During the three years of Union they had heard a great deal indeed about the new nation and about the independence of the spirit of the people. As a South African—and he trusted that he was a South African—he wished to see that independence of character carried out, and he did not wish to see the Union any longer a charity ward of the Empire, but a nation in name and in being too. There might be certain members of that House who might object to that motion being moved by an Independent. Rather than going to one of the party leaders, he had moved this because he wished to see it free from party strife. He wished to see it an absolutely non-racial question, because both the Dutchmen and Englishmen in that House were sprung from the two greatest sea Powers which the world had seen. Neither side, as far as sea power was concerned, had anything to be ashamed of. If they could only keep that question free from party strife they would be able to discuss it dispassionately and bring it to a conclusion, which would be in the interest of this country and of the Empire. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that any hon. member who might resent that he, as an Independent, had brought that matter forward, would realise his reason for doing so—he was always independent, and refused to be the pawn of any party leader. (hear, hear.) He thought that most hon. members of that House would remember that two years ago he had raised that question when the Declaration of London had been before the Home Government. He had wished the Prime Minister to instruct that House to protest against that declaration, but, unfortunately, the right hon. gentleman had not seen the same way as he (Mr. Silburn) saw; and the Prime Minister had resented it. Eventually the declaration had been rejected. At the time he had spoken on that he said that the question of the contribution of the different parts of the Empire towards the Navy would be brought very prominently before the Empire; and it had been brought prominently before the Empire by the magnificent gifts made by Canada, Australasia, and Malaya. That resolution of his had nothing to do with the future naval policy of that country, and that was one which had to be very carefully considered, with the assistance of naval experts. That resolution aimed at the immediate future, and aimed at the Union of South Africa, which they had been told by the Minister was a most important one, and aimed at bringing that country up to the importance which was claimed for it by the hon. Minister. The first time the question of contributing to the Imperial Navy had been raised was by the late J. H. Hofmeyr, a statesman whom he thought every man, whether Englishman or Dutchman, was proud of. Mr. Hofmeyr had raised it at the first Imperial Conference, held in Canada; but his resolution had not been carried. The next step had been made by Natal, in the form of an annual contribution of 12,000 tons of coal to the Royal Navy, and that had next been followed by £12,000, instead of coal. He would like to correct a statement made by the Minister of Defence the previous day. The Cape had followed with a very fine contribution, considering its revenue, of £20,000 per annum. Later on, Natal and the Cape, at a time when their revenue was not a very big one, and when they had been really hard up and had to go in for heavy taxation, had raised their contributions—from £20,000 to £35,000 in the case of Natal, and from £35,000 to £50,000 in the case of the Cape. At the same time they had also provided for their coast defence and for their external defence. But the hinterland colonies had not come forward, and had not given them assistance in that respect. When they had come to the Union that £85,000 per annum had been merged by the Union, and these two (hinterland) colonies had participated in the honour of contributing to the Navy. He must, for one, say that he had never heard a protest against that contribution, by the Cape or Natal.

The first duty of the Union Government should have been to raise South Africa’s contribution to one per cent. of the Union’s revenue. This would have worked out roughly at £164,000 a year, which, at 4 per cent., would have been the interest on two Dreadnoughts. But the Union Government refused to do so, but he could not understand why the Minister of Defence (General Smuts) yesterday indicated slightly what his reply would be to this resolution, and he remarked that this was quite a young country. But he (Mr. Silburn) would remind the Minister of Defence that he defended the magnificent salaries of £3,000 a year that the Minister and his colleagues were drawing on the ground of the importance of South Africa. He (Mr. Silburn) supported those salaries, which, however, were greater than those drawn by the Cabinet Ministers of important nations. He did not blame the Union Ministers, and he believed that they earned their salaries, but let them be fair. South Africa should make a contribution commensurate with the importance of the Union. Many hon. members believed that the proper form of contribution would be a local Navy, but they should carefully consider the physical conditions of South Africa. We were essentially a Continental people, and had a most inhospitable coast line, and the tendency would be for our sons to go on to the land instead of going to sea. On the coast line of something like 1,400 miles we had not got more than two ports, and even if we had a very large population the idea of having a local navy was absurd. There was always grave danger of small navies being beaten independently by a large Power. The Union’s existence was solely dependent on the Royal Navy. If by any ill-chance the British Navy were defeated, South Africa would be invaded within six months, and he did not think anything in this country would ever be able to keep the invaders out. (Ministerial cries of dissent.) Germany’s policy had largely been dependent on the attitude taken up by British Colonies towards the Navy, and as a result Germany’s policy had been considerably altered, for she realised that she was competing against an Empire which owned a quarter of the globe. Apart from the monetary contribution, there were the questions of coast defence, naval cadets, and the training of sailors. South Africa was not doing anything like what it should do in this respect. Mr. Silburn concluded by remarking that as he saw that Ministers were a little bit excited over other things he would formally propose his motion.

seconded the motion.

I must express my sincere disappointment that the hon. member should have thought it necessary to continue with his motion after the speeches which have been made on the subject and after it has become known what the intentions of the Government were in regard to this matter. But, Mr. Speaker, we have said that if there was one matter which was important for South Africa then it was this question. But this is a subject which it is not possible to deal with by means of a motion, or on which one can bind the people to this or that principle after a little discussion. No, Mr. Speaker, I have said, and I repeat it, that this is a question which must be carefully gone into and on which we must consult the Imperial Government. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, we had not sufficient information before us, which is clearly shown by the different ideas which are held by different people. Some of our friends in South Africa wanted an annual contribution to the Navy, while others wished to do something else. Well, I see that my hon. friend the mover of the resolution now before the House is a great champion of this annual contribution. Other people, however, have expressed the opinion that we should present ships of the Dreadnought type to the Imperial Government seeing that we constitute a part of the British Empire. Well, these divergent opinions clearly point out that proper investigations should first of all be made as to what will be the best course to follow in the interests of South Africa and of the Empire. (Hear, hear.) The question is one of principle. We must be careful that at this stage we do not go in a wrong direction, that we do not make a wrong start, because if we do, Mr. Speaker, this child will never grow up. (Hear, hear.)

Therefore my colleagues and myself made it clear that they considered that the question should be carefully gone into, and expressed the opinion that it was a matter requiring the careful attention of the people of this country and of this Parliament. (Sir T. SMARTT: Hear, hear.) We also made it quite clear that it was our opinion that at the earliest possible moment this question should be discussed with the Imperial Government; we fully realise that in the future the Union must take a greater part in this matter of the defence of South Africa at sea. I made a strong statement when I said that we must not make this a party question, and my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in the course of a speech said that he fully agreed with me. I hope in the circumstances that this House will not allow this matter to be made a party problem of, and that they will not allow the people of the country to be divided on it. Because that would not be in the interests of South Africa, and would have most detrimental effects. In the Speech from the Throne it was stated that Ministers recognised the importance of the defence of South Africa at sea. They had considered the question of taking a larger share in that defence, but before making definite proposals they wished to have further consultation with the Imperial Government. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, after all the statements made by Ministers, I must say that I feel somewhat disappointed at the motion now before the House. My colleagues and I myself fully recognise the importance of the defence of South Africa and the protection of our trade routes. I cannot understand why my hon. friend should, after all these statements, have introduced his motion, unless it was to attack Ministers’ salaries. (Laughter.) I take it, Mr. Speaker, that everyone in this House feels on this matter. In South Africa we have a most important sea-borne trade, and this trade practically is wholly protected by the British Navy. All we have done so far is to continue the contribution made in the past by the Cape and Natal. The Cape contributed £50,000 per year, and Natal £35,000 per year. That contribution of £85,000 has been voted by this Parliament every year, and has been paid out every year, but not increased. Therefore the position is still the same as it was at the commencement of Union. But, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it is not that the Government or the party which the Government represents is satisfied to continue the position of the past; we fully realise the responsibility of our position. (Hear, hear.)

We do not, however, wish to do anything by which we might go on wrong lines or lay down principles which might not prove acceptable to both sides concerned. (Hear,. hear.) We want to create something lasting for the good of South Africa and the Empire. (Cheers.) The hon. member who spoke first on this matter seems to be dissatisfied because nothing has been done since Union, but I may remind the hon. member that during the second session of this Parliament we introduced a Defence Act, which will be brought into effect this year, and that under the provisions of this Act a defence force has now been created. (Cheers.) That defence force is going to cost us half a million sterling. (An HON. MEMBER: Much more.) I maintain that with our defence force we have surpassed the anticipations of even the greatest optimist. (Hear, hear.) If there is one thing which plainly shows that we wish to assist the Imperial authorities then it is this Defence Act, because by means of that force we have created something to protect this country, while at the same time by making the British garrison superfluous we greatly relieve the British taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I fear that this motion which is now before the House will raise a discussion which I hold is in every way premature, and as a matter of fact it can lead us no further than what has been indicated in the Speech from the Throne. I think that my hon. friend would have done far better, and would have acted far wiser if he had withdrawn his motion. He speaks about an annual contribution. Well, on this point I do not agree with him. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask this House, is it possible for us to bind ourselves to an annual contribution? I do not see how we can do it. (Hear, hear.) I personally consider that an annual contribution would not be the best way to assist the British Government. (Hear, hear.) I have always had an open mind on this subject, and refused to bind myself to any particular scheme, but I wish to say emphatically that I do not see what advantage there is for this country in making an annual contribution. (Hear, hear.) I think that if we follow in the footsteps of other Dominions with long experience we shall do much better. These other Dominions have decided not to make contributions to the Navy. Look at the resolutions passed by Australia and New Zealand, for instance. They say clearly that they will not give contributions.

Our contribution would only be a drop in the ocean. Well, Mr. Speaker, what would that amount to—it would be a drop in the ocean. (Hear, hear.) We would not be able, with our small population, to give away a very large amount. No, we must do something practical, and we must assist the Imperial Navy along practical lines. (Hear, hear.) The only way is to go on in the direction we have started. In the first place, we must perfect our Defence Force. This is the first year of the existence of that, force, and a large amount will appear on the Estimates. I hope that within three years we shall see something of which we may be justly proud. (Cheers.) I am sure that every taxpayer will agree that we are proceeding in the right direction, and that we are acting in the interests of South Africa and of the British Empire. Now, what is the grievance of the hon. member who introduced this motion? I cannot see it. Time is moving fast, and so are we, and I for one, fail to see that we can go any faster. If we had left our Defence Force alone, and had done something for the Navy first, I maintain that we would have placed the cart before the horse. (Hear, hear.) We must be careful not to do anything against the feelings and sympathies of South Africa. (Cheers.) We must see to it that, whatever we decide upon, is as acceptable to South Africa as to the Empire. (Cheers.) I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we go on those lines, we shall establish something better than if we make a contribution. But I want our people to realise the importance of our sea-borne traffic. The value of our seaborne trade, Mr. Speaker, is something like one hundred million pounds sterling, and is increasing day after day. It requires the attention of every man in South Africa. I want the people of this country to realise that if they are to be responsible for the protection of their country, they must be expected to be made equally responsible for the protection of their sea-borne trade. (Loud cheers.)

Some people have expressed the opinion that we do not help the British Empire enough. Well, I think that during the last fifteen years history has been made in South Africa at a very great pace, and I do not know what we could do to make things go faster in this country. (Cheers.) One has hardly finished thinking about one matter before it is concluded, and something else crops up to occupy one’s attention. I think we have every cause to congratulate South Africa on the course of events, and to say that we are proceeding in the right direction. There are people, Mr. Speaker, who are always anxious and keen to see war and strife. I am not one of those. I am a man of peace, and I desire to see peace and progress, and I do not think we should allow feelings of panic to force us to bring into existence machinery of some kind or other which after all, may only be fit for the scrap-heap. (Cheers and laughter.) I do not want sentimentality to lead us in a wrong direction either. But if we use our common-sense, then I do not fear the future. We are grateful to the British Empire for the manner in which they maintain the standard at sea. (Cheers.) The British Empire is a great one, and its responsibilities are great and many. (Hear, hear.) But now one hears people say, “We want to have a say in Imperial affairs.” Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which we cannot possibly discuss here to-day. It would be wrong for us to try and do so. The Imperial Government itself must be held responsible for the external policy of the British Empire. The statesmen of the British Empire, and more especially of England, must be held responsible; and I, for one, am pleased that that is so. In these circumstances, the British Empire cannot, and does not, expect us to do everything in these waters. (Hear, hear.) South Africa heartily appreciates what the British Empire has done for us, and is still doing. Naturally, if we give or do anything, it will be on a small scale, seeing that the population is such a small one. It is to be hoped that it would take the form of protecting the harbours, in consultation, of course, with the Imperial Government.

Whatever we do must cost a good deal, and therefore we shall have to labour a good many years before we shall be able to see the results of our efforts. A great responsibility rests upon us. We have made one country of South Africa, and are now making one nation. (Cheers.) If we go on on those lines, finding a little less fault with each other, and showing the brother’s hand more, then I am sure that we shall achieve something even greater in the future. We must not break down things, but build up. The idea of my Government was that to-day we should not discuss the form of anything we might wish to do. The Government would like to have this question carefully gone into, so that we might see what would be the expenses connected with one or other schemes. Then we should be able to act in agreement with the Imperial Government as to the form of our contribution. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Durban Point (Mr. Silburn): To delete all words after “that,” and to insert, “This House recognises the importance of full and careful consideration being given to the question of the naval defence of South Africa, and accordingly requests the Government, in consultation with the Imperial Government, to ascertain what provision should be made for such defence, and thereafter to submit proposals to this House.” (Cheers.)

, seconded.

said his right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, had asked that this question should not be approached in a party spirit. He could only say on behalf of hon. members on his side of the House, and he hoped on all sides of the House, that this appeal would not fall on deaf ears. (Cheers.) The question was of such great importance that no greater calamity could fall upon South Africa than to have this question debated from a party point of view. The amendment that had been moved by his right hon. friend, did not go so far as perhaps he desired to see it go, but he recognised the great difficulties with which a question of that kind was beset, and he was prepared to accept the amendment. He accepted it in the fullest understanding that there would be a discussion as soon as the House rose, between his right hon. friend the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence, and the Imperial Government and the British Admiralty, to see about the best means of increasing the assistance of the Union to the upkeep of the British Navy. Whether that form of assistance should take the form as adopted by Australia, or any other form, he was prepared to recognise that all of these forms would be fully and freely discussed by the Government with the Imperial Government. He had before him the copy of a memorandum which was prepared by the British Admiralty at the request of the Canadian Government in connection with their naval defence.

Which Government?

The present Government of Canada. He found upon the last page of that memorandum—which had been most carefully prepared by the Admiralty—the following words: “The Prime Minister of the Dominion having enquired in what form any immediate aid to Canada might give would be most effective, we have no hesitation in answering, after a prolonged consideration of all the circumstances, that it is desirable that such aid should include the provision of a certain number of the largest and strongest ships of war which science can build or money can supply.” He hoped the Government would remember these words and he hoped the day would not be far distant when they would follow the magnificent example of New Zealand, and he would like to take that opportunity of tendering their thanks both to the Dominion and to the Imperial Government for the visit of the great cruiser which illustrated what had been done by New Zealand for the Empire. (Cheers.) He thought that everyone who had given attention to this subject would recognise that owing to the great increase in armaments throughout the world, that the time had come when the Dominions must come to the assistance of the Mother Country if they desired to remain part of the Empire. The people of the Union could do something to fall into rank with the other Dominions, who recognised what their obligations were and were endeavouring to meet them. He remembered when attending the Imperial Conference he moved: “That this Conference, recognising the vast importance of the services rendered by the Navy to the defence of the Empire, and the protection of its trade, and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the Navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the Dominions beyond the seas to make such contribution towards the upkeep of the Navy as may be determined by their local legislatures— the contribution to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local Naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the Admiralty, and as would best accord with their varying circumstances.” His right hon. friend had said that things moved quickly in South Africa. They had also moved quickly in Canada, because in 1912 Canada was prepared to come forward with her magnificent contribution, and a further development was likely to take place. There were certain people who could not approach this subject of the British Navy irrespective of sentiment, but the good sense of the people would recognise that, irrespective of sentiment, their material interests were bound up with the British Navy and the Empire. (Hear, hear.) Everybody recognised that were the paramountcy of the British Navy destroyed, the liberties of South Africa would not be worth three months’ purchase. With the great expanse of coast they possessed, they would be at the mercy of any large country in Europe. They must remember that their ocean-borne trade amounted to £100,000,000 per annum— nearly one-twelfth of that of Great Britain —which spent £45,000,000 on protecting its trade and the trade of its Dominions.

Was it possible for them to continue as a self-respecting nation, with a commerce of a hundred millions, under such circumstances? Were they going to stand by and see that commerce protected by the taxpayers of Great Britain, who were already groaning under the burden of taxation owing to the increase in armaments? One did not like to refer to one particular Power, but one could not shutone’s eyes to the fact that day by day, year by year, the paramountcy of the seas held by Great Britain was being threatened by one Power or a combination of Powers, and they could not fail to recognise the writing on the wall when they saw foreign Powers building outside what was required for the protection of their commerce. When they saw nations building the most scientific instruments of war, they could not but recognise that they were building more than was actually required to protect their own sea-borne traffic. He remembered the time when there were more ships of war on their coast than there were at the present time. It was at a time when the European situation was not so acute as it was at the present time. But the exigencies of the European situation were such that there had been a great deal of concentration in the North Sea, and at the present moment the commerce of South Africa was not being adequately protected. To his mind the figures were appalling. In 1885 Great Britain had a sea-borne traffic of £730,000,000. and the British taxpayers paid nine millions for the upkeep of the Navy. In 1912-13 Great Britain was paying 45 millions for exactly the same service. Trade had not doubled. The traffic had increased from 730 millions to 1,240 millions. Surely they must recognise that that could not go on. If they were not prepared to agree with the principle of rapprochement then the nations of the British Empire must rally round the Mother Country in support of a common fleet for a common Empire. It was because he believed that the principle of lending a helping hand in this matter was the feeling of the country that he accepted the amendment that had been placed before the House. Considering the history of South Africa during the last 12 or 15 years, it was wonderful how that feeling had developed in the minds of the people of the country. They recognised that they were a part of the great British Empire, and that it was in their interest and their duty to take their part in the obligations of Empire in this respect. What would have been the position of this country so far as the expenditure on defence was concerned if it had been a separate country? Let him take a country like the Argentine Republic, which has as much ocean-borne traffic as this country, and they had to pay, not £85,000 a year, but two millions a year for the upkeep of her navy. Besides that the Argentine Republic paid something like £2,600,000 for the upkeep of her standing army. If they had been an independent country they would have had to come forward with a far larger contribution than was proposed under this resolution. He hoped that the result of the negotiations between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence and the Imperial Government would be such that when the House met next year the Government would come forward with definite proposals, and those of such a character as to commend themselves to the good sense of both sides of that House and the good sense of the people of the country. If such a result came about then he felt sure that the House would not have wasted its time in discussing a matter of such vital interest to South Africa. What the scheme would be he did not know. He did not want to prejudge the situation. He thought that nothing further should be done at present, but that when the Proposals were brought before the House next year these should be discussed on their merits. He thought that in this matter they should be guided by the Admiralty, and that the naval authorities would have the fullest discussion with the Government. The people of Great Britain would never ask South Africa for an increased contribution. Their own pride and their own self-respect as a nation—and they had heard a great deal about their pride and self-respect as a new nation—should make them wish to push the matter forward, and he hoped that when the Prime Minister came forward next year he would have the support of both sides of the House and the support of the people of the country. (Cheers.)

said that they had listened to three speeches on this subject, and he felt sorry (he was understood to say) that it had been brought forward. He thought that it would have been better for this country if it had not been brought forward. They had heard a most eloquent speech from the hon. member who had just sat down— (hear, hear)—but he did not wish to hear a more dangerous speech in that House. (Ministerial cheers.) His hon. friend had talked lightly and gaily about the example of the Argentine having to pay two millions a year for her fleet—(Ministerial cheers)—and

I did not talk lightly and gaily about the matter at all. I said that the Argentine was paying two millions a year for her fleet.

said it was cited as a dangerous illustration of what they might come to in this country. Otherwise the speech meant nothing at all. Perhaps it was not intended to mean anything. (Ministerial laughter.) What he said was that that sort of speech was dangerous. (Ministerial “Hear, hear’s.”) His hon. friend had tried to carry away the House by citing the case of Canada. Did he know the feeling in Canada and what the end was going to be? He (Mr. Merriman) happened to know something about Canada. (Ministerial “Hear, hear’s.”) Nothing struck him and his colleague at the Conference more than the attitude of the then Government of Canada. The Government of Canada

There has been a change since then.

said that what struck him and his colleague most was the fact that their whole aim seemed to be to hoist their own flag and claim that independence which would come some day. The change would take place some day. They might imagine that artificial political changes could stop the course of events. But these changes could not do that

: Do you know the course of events ?

I can forecast them as well as my hon. friend. Continuing, he said it could only be forecasted by studying history, and he had studied carefully the trend of events. He might be wrong. Probably he was wrong. He supposed that his hon. friend sometimes forecasted the trend of events. He wished that his hon. friend had made better forecasts some years ago—(Ministerial laughter) —and then this would have been a happier country. (Ministerial laughter.) On this hot afternoon they were discussing a matter of very great moment indeed. He was alarmed at the speeches that had been made, because they had a tendency to drag this country into that insensate armament race that was going on. What did it mean? Money was being taken from the pockets of the poor man and put into things that would be scrap iron in five or six years. Europe had gone mad. It was for them in South Africa to keep their heads at such a period. They had a duty to perform to the people of this country. Those eloquent sentiments about mother and daughters entering into a combination—(ministerial laughter)—might be very pleasant to listen to, but they did not pan out very well. He did not want to see an Empire built up in that way. The British Empire had been built up by English ideas being, scattered about the world. He had another and a better idea of English ideals than that they rested on mere force. They had had Empires of that sort before. What did they lead to? To build up an Empire in that way was to sow the seeds of disruption. They were in danger of being dragged—in their humble way—into that questionable armament race policy.

On the other hand, they were to be dragged into a danger, which was a real danger, although it might not appear so now, when they were letting off high falutin’ speeches, of paying tribute to a Power in which they had no voice. He saw that Canada had embarked under its present Ministry on that, but how long it would last he did not know. He could not imagine a more mad or insensate policy for any country, and they must be careful when they were carried away by their feelings—their natural feelings— feelings of pride—but his feelings as an Englishman were totally different from those feelings to which expression had just been given. Continuing, he said that he thought that they now occupied a rather humiliating position—they were a very wealthy people, and were carrying on an enormous trade, and that trade was protected, certainly without their paying adequately for that protection. (Hear, hear.) They would look very foolish if three or four of their mail steamers, with a million on board were captured on the high seas. It was a plain business proposition, as far as he could make out. Were they paying sufficient insurance for what they got? He thought not. Do not call it tribute, because it was not tribute that they paid. How should that money be paid? Undoubtedly by a percentage on the trade. It was the traders who shouted for a navy contribution, and let the traders pay. (Laughter.) How would they raise it? He would say: away with preference, and devote a certain amount of that preference to increase the policy of the insurance they got from the assistance of the British fleet. That would be the rational way. Had their preference to Great Britain done them or Great Britain any good? Not a ha’penny. What it had done was to put money in the pockets of the British manufacturer, but it had not put any money into those of the consumer here. It would be better for the British manufacturer to compete with the Belgian and German on his merits, and without that 3 per cent. preference. He saw in imagination the Prime Minister falling into the trap of ordering ironclads in Great Britain. That was what Sir Joseph Ward had done, and what was the result? The stocks of New Zealand were lower now than those of this country. (An HON. MEMBER: Labour legislation.) The Labour Party unfortunately was rather more powerful before that ironclad had been given, than it was at present. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said that they must be careful with that question; the stock exchange, the armour plate gentleman, and the newspapers, had all been patting them on the back, but their stocks had been lowered. How did his right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, intend to get on with his “Klein Vlotje” (small fleet). (Laughter.) Did his hon. friend know that to get on with a fleet of that kind they needed naval lieutenants. They needed a supply of these, and how were they going to get them? If they ran a small destroyer on Robben Island, he could imagine the discussion they would have in this Parliament about it—(laughter)—but it was done every winter in England. He thought his right hon. friend had spoken rather in a hurry, and he thought that the Prime Minister should have thought once, twice and thrice before he had spoken of his “little fleet.” They were the only Responsible Government country that had British regiments kept by British taxpayers, and the sound lines to go on was to arrange matters in such a manner that they could take the troops away from Pretoria and Potchefstroom. He did not think it was a matter of pride to this country at all as a self-governing country, and they were milking the British taxpayer for the benefit of the shopkeeper. What they ought to do was to protect their sea-borne traffic, and give a reasonable percentage, and they ought to do away with that preference which had been forced on that House by one of those Conventions in which they had no say—one of those Conventions where the taxation of that country had been settled by a number of gentlemen sitting in a back room. They ought to give a more adequate contribution, and they almost felt ashamed because of their paltry contribution. (Hear, hear.) They were prepared to pay, and they were not such miserable creatures as not to pay a reasonable premium as an insurance on their trade; but let them avoid entering into questions of entering into a partnership in which they had no control. Do not let them build up a “little fleet”—a weak, imperfect, and inefficient fleet—in that country, where they had no sailors, and God knew, no men to spare, because they had no large numbers of immigrants coming in for employment. Now they wanted to take a hundred or a thousand men away, and put them in an inefficient fleet. Alluding to the visit of a Japanese ship a couple of years ago, he said that some day the Power into which they always seemed to be sticking pins, and speaking of the yellow man as if he were an inferior being who did nothing, might turn on them, and their inefficient fleet would be a very poor defence against that sort of thing. If the Prime Minister had not moved his amendment, he (Mr. Merriman) would have moved the previous question, because it was a question on which, at the present moment, they were not called upon to give decided views.

: You ought to have thought it out.

His hon. friend was not yet in a position to make a responsible proposal in that House, and it was for the Government to do so. He wished admirers of these huge armaments would reflect that it was not ships or guns that made a navy, but the men behind the latter. When they were proud of England, do let them be proud of it for something worth being proud of—the men in the past who had built up the Navy. (Hear, hear.) And do let them discredit this senseless competition with other nations, which must lead to mischief sooner or later, and might perhaps plunge us all into the very greatest disaster. (Hear, hear.)

said he would not have taken part in the debate but for the extraordinary speech of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). (Cheers.) He (Colonel Crewe) had listened with amazement to that speech, for he still had in his mind a speech which the right hon. gentleman delivered on the same subject in the Cape House of Assembly on June 2, 1897. The report of that speech in Hansard was headed “Stirring Speech by Mr. Merriman.” He now objected to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort’s excellent speech because it was “stirring,” and he further stated that people should let the Government know what was in their minds, and in order to do so announced that his intention had been to move the previous question. The House would be amazed at the change which had come over the right hon. gentleman. In 1897 the right hon. gentleman had thought out the whole Naval position, both as it affected the Cape and inland States; now, however, that the opportunity had come, the man was wanting. In 1897 the right hon. member (Mr. Merriman) was rather for a weak Navy, for he then expressed the hope that “some day they would see in the British Navy some De Ruyter or Tromp of the future commanding a fleet and coming from South Africa. That would indeed be a proud moment for South Africa. But, looking at the whole matter, he could not see how contributing to a Navy could be looked upon as being in a sort of way a badge of servitude. He maintained that a contribution to the Navy was one of the first and one of the most wholesome steps to be taken towards establishing a real national existence in this country … The Australians were proud of their contribution, which gave them a kind of national feeling. They had, as it were, an Australasian fleet, and they were proud that they could point to it, saying it was their fleet. They here protected their own borders by their land forces, and it would be a shame upon them if they did not protect them…. He would point out that a contribution to the Navy by a colony was not an unheard of thing.” In the whole course of that speech (continued Colonel Crewe) the right hon. gentleman had a perfectly definite policy, which was, as far as South Africa could be induced to contribute, it should be so induced. When a late Admiral left these shores, the right hon. gentleman made an admirable speech, totally different in tone and matter from the one he had made that afternoon. In the speech the right hon. gentleman delivered in the Cape House in 1897, he said: “If they decided that they were going to contribute to the Navy, if they said it was desirable that the Colony should contribute to the Navy, it was not going to rest upon whether the Colony was prosperous or not. They were not going to Great Britain hat in hand, to say, ‘Please excuse us, we are too poor now to fulfil the agreement we made,’” and vet to-day he suggested that the contribution, if given, should be based on the trade of the country, which, of course, fluctuated considerably. The statements the right hon. gentleman had made that afternoon were not the statements he was in the habit of making with regard to the Navy. He (Colonel Crewe) agreed with the right hon. gentleman in going against the proposals for a small Navy. There was another method, and that was, in consultation with the Imperial Government, something might be done by South Africa which would ensure us giving an adequate sum, which would be spent in the defence of our shores. There was a great deal to be said for that proposal, and the House might well take the amendment of the Prime Minister. (Hear, hear.)

said that whether South Africa wished it or not, it was affected by European complications. (Opposition cheers). But however little the influence of South Africa and the Government might be, it should be exerted in calling attention to the extreme urgency of putting a stop to this senseless competition of arms. The most hopeful possibility of bringing that competition to a close rested with the working people of the European Powers. (Labour cheers.) There was no real quarrel between the people of Europe to justify this frightful expenditure of money. (Cheers.) It might be said that South Africa ought to refuse to take any part in these armaments, but with the world in the state it was we could not refuse to face the facts of the situation, and to recognise that we might be affected and that it was right until some greater Power than ourselves solved this problem that we should be prepared to take part in our own defence.

What had they to defend in this country? Speaking from those benches, he should be utterly false to the party to which he belonged if he pretended for a moment that the idea that they had property to defend in this country was one that would appeal to the vast majority of the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) He would yield to none in his devotion to the traditions of what he preferred to call the British Commonwealth; he would yield to none in his appreciation of what he believed to be the value of the British Commonwealth as a casket for the securing of self-governing institutions to dominions spread here and there over the world. From the point of view of the value, of the help, which these dominions carrying on those traditions were to them, he considered that they had in this country institutions which, if they only used them aright, could secure their liberties and greatly expand the liberties they at present enjoyed, and those institutions were, in his opinion, worth defending. He did not feel that one was justified in exposing them to any risk. He wanted to point out to hon. members who had spoken about our taking our fair share—and he was not opposing for a moment the amendment of the Prime Minister, nor the duty of our taking some part in our own defence —he wanted to point out to hon. members who had spoken of our trade and our wealth that we had to defend, that if they were going to measure this question by our wealth this country was in a tributary position. Was it not a fact that the value of our exports greatly exceeded the value of our imports? Was it not a fact that there was a large amount of wealth in this country which went over the water? If they were merely going to talk about it from that point of view, then he eschewed that standpoint. The right hon. gentleman had poured scorn on the idea of “little Navy,” but, personally, he must say that the idea of fulfilling our national obligations by merely paying a cheque to someone else who would go and spill his blood in our defence seemed to him a mighty poor way of doing it. (Hear, hear.) Who were going to pay? Again, he would point out that under the present system an immense amount of the wealth produced in this country was paid away by the producers in what were practically private taxes paid to private individuals.

Where?

In ground rents, in the amounts taken off a man’s income by a stroke of the pen, say, by the Minister of Railways, who proposes to reduce the artisan’s income. The wage-earners, and they are the mass of the population of the country, are just as much preyed upon by the private taxpayer as was the Roman provincial of old. (Voices: “Oh.”) Proceeding, the hon. member said that on these grounds he objected to the cheap patriotism which was going to talk about contributing to the British Navy and going to take it as the Minister of Railways and Harbours did with a good deal of hypocritical talk about the burdens of the taxpayers. He hoped the Prime Minister, when he was answering these proposals, would make some direct tax, so that they would know what they were paying for defence and that no part of the financial cost of any defence scheme should fall upon persons who were receiving less than some stated figure, say £500 a year. He insisted that in any question of who was to pay for this it should be those who already took the cream off the milk of the wealth produced and not those who had to continually do work and who did not receive anything like the value of the work they did. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought the hon. member who had proposed this motion was very astute in having postponed the motion from the date when it was originally set down to the present juncture, when, owing to an important occurrence, an exceptional amount of enthusiasm had been aroused. He (Mr. Nicholson), however, thought they ought to conduct the business of the country on common sense lines and not be carried away at a moment by enthusiasm or sentiment. It was under the shadow of the German menace that Canada last year proposed a vote of 35 million dollars for the building of three Dreadnoughts. The Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) and Sir Wilfrid Laurier held to the principle of a Canadian Navy. Last year he suggested that they should earmark the three per cent. tariff rebate on goods imported from Great Britain, which amounted last year to £430,000, and take the half of it and add it to their contribution of £85,000 and pay that into the Imperial Treasury. Then their contribution would have amounted to £300,000. However, the wisdom of the House decided otherwise. He was still of that view, and believed it to be a solution if not the solution of the question, but he would not press it at the present stage. He had never regarded their present contribution in any other light than as an indication of their goodwill, yet it was sufficient to cover the interest at 3½ per cent. on the cost of a Dreadnought.

Proceeding, he said that the Press and the public men of this country had been urging the people to follow the example of Canada and Australia in the way of a contribution, and yet they were strongly opposed—

at this stage pointed out that there was not a quorum in the House. A few hon. members strolled in immediately afterwards.

continuing, said they were opposed to the very policy which had enabled Canada and Australia to contribute in the manner they were doing at the present moment, a policy which had alone made it possible for them to participate in naval defence. There was a time, not so very long ago, when these countries were as little able to contribute as South Africa is now, but by the wisdom, the patriotism, and self-reliance of their statesmen in adopting a sound national fiscal policy, they had attained a position that justified large contributions. When Canada’s people were drifting away and she was being denuded of population, patriotic, far-seeing, and self-reliant men came to the fore, and ignoring all the accepted British canons of political economy, struck out for themselves in an entirely new direction, and, unentangled, refused to be tied down to cut and dried principles, broke away, and established a sound national protective tariff, offering stability to the investor and bringing amazing prosperity to their country. South Africa would never attain to that position until the views of their statesmen were broadened and enlarged. The hon. member went into detail regarding Canada’s contribution and the obligations of that colony to Great Britain. He took Canada as an example because she had the largest population, the greatest revenue, and the biggest surplus of revenue in excess of expenditure. Canada, he said, had an immense mercantile fleet, and yet she was dependent on Great Britain for the safety of that fleet. Yet, notwithstanding the great obligations of Canada, it was not until four years ago that this question of participation in naval defence was brought forward in a positive manner in the Canadian House of Commons. Mr. Borden, then Leader of the Opposition, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister supported the local Canadian Naval Scheme in preference to a contribution, Mr. Borden at that time declaring himself in perfect agreement with Sir Wilfrid Laurier The resolution passed in the House at that time was that henceforth Canada should assume greater responsibility in the matter of naval defence, and secondly that a regular contribution would not be the most satisfactory; and, thirdly, that the speedy organisation of a local Canadian Naval Service be forthwith commenced. The principle of the local Canadian Navy scheme was brought forward in 1909, and tenders were asked for and accepted in 1911, but before action could be taken, in September, 1911, the Laurier Administration was defeated, and until 1912 nothing further was done in the matter. What he wished to emphasise was this, that in Canada in 1912, when the emergency grant was proposed by Mr. Borden in the House, three different views were held, one view was in support of the proposal of 1909, that of a local Canadian scheme; the second was the proposal for an emergency grant; and the third party was opposed to both those ideas, they maintained that Canada was not in danger of invasion, and the interests of the Dominion were not involved in the problems of the North Sea, but there was not one single proposal in Canada at the time, either inside or outside the House, in favour of an annual contribution, nobody suggested an annual contribution towards naval defence, they felt that it was not in keeping with the dignity of Canada as a nation, it was too much like a vassal paying contribution. The same when Australian Federation became an accomplished fact. From that moment they felt it more in keeping with their dignity as a nation to have their own naval organisation for coastal protection than to pay annual or periodical contributions to the Imperial Treasury. This proposal of thirty-five million dollars as an emergency grant was introduced into the House under the German menace. Mr. Borden said then that the position was sufficiently grave to demand immediate action. He was more wedded to the local Canadian Navy scheme than to any contribution, and the only dispute between the Prime Minister, Mr. Borden, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was as to whether there was an emergency or not. The hon. member referred to an amendment which had been proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Mr. Borden’s motion Lord Chas. Beresford, also speaking at the Press Conference, said that he believed that the right plan for the Colonies, including South Africa, would be for them to begin by having their own fleet, as long as there was a standardisation in every ship belonging to the whole of the five nations. He could not see why in years to come the maritime spirit would not develop in South Africa, and that it would not be possible to produce a Nelson, a Van Tromp, or a De Ruyter among their descendants. If this motion of the hon. member for Durban was carried, then the idea of organising a local South African Naval Defence Force would be destroyed. He would like to point out that Canada had a great mercantile fleet of her own, which was absolutely dependent for protection on Great Britain. She had a population of eight millions, and her annual revenue amounted to 27 millions sterling. Last year she had a surplus of eight million sterling. The question of a participation arose in Canada four years ago, but the question of a cash contribution to the Navy was only an emergency one, and was still in the form of a proposal only. The Union had only been three years in existence, and they should not attempt to do anything hasty, and which might turn out to be unwise. He intended to move an amendment to the effect that there should be no additional cash contribution to the Navy until the Government had established the future fiscal policy of the Union on a sound and permanent basis, and until the cost of fortifying our coasts and harbours and establishing our defence force on a proper footing, have been defrayed, but in view of the Prime Minister’s amendment he would withdraw it.

said he wanted to refer particularly to the remarkable change which seemed to have come over his friends on the cross benches. He recollected that when the Labour Party held a Congress some time ago in Cape Town, a few recruits came down from Durban. One of the young members from Natal proposed that definite policy should be laid down that the party should support an additional cash subsidy to the Navy, and the member for Georgetown actually moved a vote of censure upon this young man for daring to suggest that they should support such a policy. They certainly welcomed the new recruits who had come forward that afternoon. If there had been any objection to a proposal of this kind in the past it was due to the fact that the people of the country had not fully understood the question. People had begun to understand the question, and greater support was now forthcoming. He was looking forward to the day when the people of South Africa would come forward as a whole, irrespective of race, and support a contribution to the British Navy on an increased basis. He absolutely denied that the political party to which he belonged had made a catspaw out of this matter. Their actions had been perfectly genuine. In conclusion, he said he would support the amendment, as he would do nothing to embarrass the Government now that they were really tackling the question.

referring to what had been said by the right hon. the member for Victoria West, denied that this was a question of assisting the Empire. They were considering the defence of the Empire, and they were only doing their duty in making a contribution. He was not prepared to discuss at that time the form the contribution should take; he thought it best to leave that point to be debated by the Government of South Africa and the Imperial Government. He would like to point out to the right hon. the member for Victoria West that they were not discussing the question of extending the Empire, but the defence of the Empire. The right hon. gentleman had complained about their tendency to drag this country into an armament policy, but he would point out to the right hon. gentleman that they were part of the British Empire, and that if the Empire saw fit to go to war then they would be at war. They could not stand out. He was just as keen on peace as the right hon. gentleman, but he considered that in making a contribution to the Navy they were doing no more than their duty. They had arrived at nationhood, and it was only right that they should do their duty. Continuing, he pointed out to the right hon. gentleman that the Imperial Government, more than the Government of any country, had done more to maintain the peace of the world—

France.

Most certainly not.

France started it in the 16th century. (Laughter.)

Most certainly not. Continuing, the hon. member pointed out the important strategical position of South Africa. They had a magnificent supply of coal, and they must remember also that they had the biggest supply of gold in the world. So important was that part of the world in regard to the command of the sea routes, both to the East and the West, and they were in such an exposed position, that with the strong fleet of any other Power they could be starved into submission. Six millions of their 41 millions of imports were foodstuffs; and any fleet which had the command of the Southern Ocean could blockade their coasts and starve the country into submission. There could be no doubt as to what the result would be. Then there was their export trade, which last year had amounted to 38 millions. If that export were stopped they would have to close down the mines, because they would have no cash to pay them; and he instanced the slump in trade owing to the depression in the diamond market in 1907. It would simply ruin that country if a hostile fleet blockaded the South African coasts. Was the present position one of which a self-respecting country could be proud? The English people spent something like 45 millions on their fleet, which worked out at £1 per head of population, while they in South Africa only spent 1s. 4d. per head of European population, and 9d. if they took the coloured people into consideration and reckoned five coloured people as equal to one European. Besides the trade he had mentioned, there was the coastal trade, which was increasing vastly. All that was exposed to any Power which had the command of the sea. So far as he could see, the action taken by the Canadian Ministry had the support of the vast majority of the Canadian people, and what objection there was, was not against the principle, but against the manner in which that assistance should be given. Australia spent something like £4,500,000, and the annual cost of their fleet amounted to £750,000. The Imperial Government offered to pay £250,000 a year, but the Australian people refused to accept it; and it might safely be said that the Australian system had the willing support of the people of Australia, and he had seen no remonstrances against that policy at the present moment. A11 that had been paid out of revenue, and no money had been borrowed. As to South Africa, they provided for their land defence, and there was no particular credit in that for a self-respecting country, and they were also providing for the defence of Cape Town and Durban. But in Canada, Esquimault and Halifax had been taken over by the Canadian Government, while here the Imperial Government still maintained the naval harbour of Simon’s Town. The hon. member was understood to say that the £85,000 which they now contributed he took as a matter of fact to be merely the acknowledgment of their indebtedness to the British Navy, and to his mind, the time had come for an increase in that contribution. Their interests in that matter were entirely bound up with the interests of Great Britain, and her interests lay in maintaining the status quo and in the way of peace. Was that not exactly the position of South Africa? If we were going to maintain the status quo we must bear the same burden as other countries. Unfortunately might was still right. (Cheers.) In closing, Mr. Jagger announced that he was going to support the amendment of the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Jagger) did not think it right in any way to indicate in what shape we should make a naval contribution, but we should do exactly the same as Canada did, which before arriving at a decision as to what form its assistance should take, sent some of its Ministers to England, where they consulted for some weeks—not days—with the Imperial authorities. (Cheers.)

said the day of the small States was over, and recent history proved that. As far as South Africa was concerned, there could be no isolation, for the Union must belong to the British or some other Empire. Social reform and Imperialism, he Proceeded, went hand in hand. (Mr. HAGGAR: Never.) Imperialism stood for self-preservation. The fact that South Africa had the gold reserves of the world would compel us to be loyal whether we wanted to be or not. Not only should South Africa give a monetary contribution to the Imperial Navy, but it should also make a contribution in men. (Hear, hear.)

said he had intended to move an amendment, but as the Prime Minister had moved a similar one he would not do so.

A great deal of the clamour going on throughout the length and breadth of this country had been very dangerous, and had done a great deal of harm. Only yesterday he received a document from an influential gentleman telling him of the alarm which was being spread through the Native Territories, Some of them were asking why they had the Defence Act, which excluded natives, and why they were now discussing the question of the Navy. (Cries of “Oh!” and laughter.) From the behaviour of some hon. members their ancestors must have lived in trees, and not very long ago.

said that the hon. member must confine himself to the question before the House. (Hear, hear.)

said that any policy which went to increase the cost of the people’s food was a policy opposed to peace and prosperity, and to-day, in consequence of the expenditure in days past, Japan was poorer than she had been for five hundred years. The expenditure was an economic waste. The German Chancellor, speaking last year, said: “We meet England in the desire to avoid rivalry in regard to armaments.” Sir Edward Grey reciprocated the statement. The best policy for this country to adopt, here and now, and to stand by, was to resolve that, so far as the rivalry and intrigues and ambitions of Europe were concerned, the policy to be adopted was that suggested by the Prime Minister when in London, and to ask that Europe should leave us alone to carve out our own destiny and to realise our own ideals. He (Mr. Haggar) was confident that, if this new nation—the youngest of the nations—took this stand, “We will not join in this policy of murder and blood,” we should not only set the old nations an example, but set them an example which they would praise and which they would approve. Hon. members (he continued) should stick to facts. The hon. member for Victoria West had pointed to the Stock Exchange, and the newspaper Press, and many other agents. If they could close the Stock Exchange for twelve months, and shut down a large part of the newspaper Press, there would not be much war talk. All they had to do was to watch the barometer of the Stock Exchange, and it was easy to reckon when peace was threatened and war was talked of. As to this great burden that Great Britain was called upon to bear, the hon. member for Cape Town, when pleading for the interests of commerce, was pleading for his own protection. Let the merchant princes find the money for their own ships. Germany’s policy in deciding that the propertied men should pay for their ships was the right one. Some hon. members in that House who had pleaded so eloquently for these ships did their utmost to cut down the amounts to be allowed to dying men on the Rand. To-day they were pleading for something that would be on the scrap-heap in five years. This poor Great Britain which wanted the money of South Africa could afford to waste £96,445,000 in a year. As to the glorious traditions of the past, he was ashamed of them, and hon. members who read history would be ashamed of them also. In this so-called civilised world in 1911, over 68 millions were spent in armaments alone. In the British House of Commons there were members representing £22,000,000 of capital interested in Naval construction works, and these were the first men to get up and speak against any economy in the Naval Estimates. This great waste of money was ruining Europe; it was ruining the civilised world, and there were only two countries that were standing apart from this expenditure —Switzerland and Japan. Even such jingo journals as the “Daily Mail,” said that the increase in the cost of living was due to this vast expenditure. This waste of money was the great reason for the great suffering that was going on in the civilised world to-day. Australia was building her own ships because 60 per cent. of her commerce went to other countries where the routes were not protected. British commerce—he was ashamed of it to-day. Our safety lay in our men. England had gone to the dogs! (Laughter.) Hon. members refused to hear what Australia and New Zealand did for the toiling millions. But when it suited their own petty schemes they were only too eager to quote those countries. Canada owed nothing to Britain. Australia owed nothing to Britain. What had England done for South Africa that they should take a shilling away from their people for building ships? It should be their country first, and their people first. They wanted five millions for water conservation. They wanted millions for building railways. They wanted 25 millions to be invested in this country before they sent a shilling over the sea. What did they get for their expenditure on the Dreadnoughts? Not a thing. Soon the Dreadnoughts, according to some experts, would be on the scrap heap, and that the only ship worth considering would be the submarine.

The hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate at 5.57 p.m.

seconded.

The motion was negatived.

said that as the House had insisted that the debate should go on, he would go on. Proceeding, he said that the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Boydell), had been criticised for his sentiments, but they had been the same as he had previously uttered. The hon. member then quoted figures to show that Great Britain had built, or was building 536 ships against Germany’s 300. As to the latter’s future building programme Germany had said big things before. She intended to spend 175 millions, but Great Britain intended to spend 247 millions. Germany was bankrupt, however, and could not spend without the help of the financiers. In former times England spent half her time in the battlefield. The spirit of old was dead. He should like to go back to the South African war. When did the British generals fight if they could get out of it?

Traitor.

I am no traitor. I am no traitor to my conscience, to my conviction or to my fellow-men. I. don’t say they got out of it because they didn’t want to fight. Proceeding: he said, he believed it was because they wanted to spare human life as much as they could. That was a noble spirit.

at this point, said that the hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

said he was trying to prove that there was no reason for this payment.

Move the adjournment.

said it had been refused.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

informed the hon. member his motion was not in order.

then moved the adjournment of the House.

seconded.

The motion was negatived.

next moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the debate be resumed tomorrow.

There was no seconder.

Then a week to-morrow.

appealed to the Prime Minister to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter. At this point the hon. member noticed the Minister of Native Affairs showing signs of irritation, and turning to him, said he (Sir Thomas) did not care whether the hon. member had a train to catch or not. (Laughter.) He was not in charge of the House. Proceeding, Sir T. W. Smartt said the question was of great importance to the House, and they should come to a decision. If the debate were adjourned until tomorrow week it would make that impossible. Would the Prime Minister allow it to go down for the first order on Thursday on the understanding that it should not be extended over too long a period? The hon. member again addressed himself to the Minister of Native Affairs, repeating that he (the hon. Minister) was not in charge of the House. The time might come when he would be, but it would be some considerable time before that happened. He (Sir Thomas) was addressing the Prime Minister, who, he would acknowledge, had taken a great deal of interest in the question under debate.

said he had no objection, if the debate did not take too long, remembering that the mail contract had to be discussed on the same day.

accordingly moved that the debate be adjourned till Thursday, with precedence as the first order of the day.

seconded.

withdrew his motion, and it was agreed to adjourn the debate until Thursday next.