from B. J. Brummer and 72 others, registered owners of agricultural erven in Embokotwa, Elliot, praying for legislation whereby they will be enabled to obtain loans on mortgage from Land Banks.

from A. C. Rodgers and 46 others, inhabitants of Cape Town, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction, or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

a similar petition from H. W. Willmer and 126 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs.

a similar petition from G. Preston and 30 others, inhabitants of Kei-road and district.

a similar petition from J. Smithers and 48 others, inhabitants of Sea Point.

a similar petition from C. H. L. Packman and 12 others, inhabitants of Graham’s Town.

a similar petition from E. M. Firks and 16 others, inhabitants of Bloemfontein.

a similar petition from the Rev. Dr. McClure and 49 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs.

a similar petition from Captain J. A. Hayton and 34 others, inhabitants of Graham’s Town and district.

(for Mr. J. W. Jagger, Cape Town, Central), a similar petition from H. McDowell and 182 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs.

a similar petition from R. Macphail and 63 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs.

from M. J. Koets and 83 others, inhabitants of the Wodehouse Division, praying for certain amendments in the Scab Law.

from A. E. Thomson, president, and 99 others, members of the Uitenhage Women’s Enfranchisement League, praying for legislation whereby women, on attaining the prescribed qualifications, may be admitted to practise any branch of the legal profession.

from P. Johnson and 89 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs, praying for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction, or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

a similar petition from H. Astrachan and 138 others, inhabitants of the suburbs of Cape Town.

a similar petition from H. Human and 90 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs.

a similar petition from B. D. Nell and 17 others, inhabitants of Komgha.

from H. M. Thewlis and others, members of the East London Women’s Enfranchisement League, praying for legislation whereby women, on attaining the prescribed qualifications, may be admitted to practise any branch of the legal profession.

from N. de Lange and 59 others, inhabitants of Claremont, Kenilworth, and Plumstead, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction, or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

from L. M. Schulpfort, of Komgha, formerly Chief Constable for the district of Komgha, who was retired in 1912 after having been for 30 years in the Government service, praying for an increase of pension, or for other relief.

from H. J. Shaw and 15 others, inhabitants of Durban, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction, or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief; and similar petitions from W. Addison and 47 others, inhabitants of Cape Town; from A. E. Biddles and 17 others, inhabitants of Cape Town; and from T. Kennard-Abbott and 27 others, inhabitants of Cape Town.

(for Mr. J. W. Jagger, Cape Town, Central), similar petitions from M. Baker and 91 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs; and from J. Chalmers and 45 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs.

similar petitions from J. J. Bell and 9 others, inhabitants of Pietermaritzburg; and from A. Bayerstock and 67 others, inhabitants of Pietermaritzburg.

from Lily Hansen, widow of A. F. Hansen, late out-door clerk in the Department of Railways and Harbours, who died on the 26th February, 1913, praying for the consideration of her circumstances and for relief.

from D. Pugh, stationmaster of the Tulbagh-road Railway Station, who entered the service of the Cape Government Railways in 1896, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

Report by Chief Inspector of Explosives on an accident at Cape Explosives Works, Somerset West, on 3rd January, 1913; Geology of the Murchison Range; and Amendments to Regulations under Miners* Phthisis Act, 1912.

Report of Board of South African Railways and Harbours year ended 31st December, 1912.

Regulations for Boards of Visitors appointed under Act No. 13 of 1911.

continuing his speech, said that there were two points which certain of his friends had asked him to deal with. The Public Debt Commissioners in their report stated that there was about 92 millions of railway capital which they counted as reproductive expenditure. That 92 millions was taken from the report of the Railway Auditor, and, according to the report of the Railway Auditor, it included, at the time of Union, a sum of 89 millions, whereas the only amount which paid interest was 86 millions—a difference of something over three millions. Then there was also a certain amount of railway capital included in the figures of 92 millions, which had been subscribed out of railway surpluses since Union, viz., a million and a quarter in 1910-11 and £632,000 in 1911-12. He hoped that his hon. friend the member for Pretoria, North, would make quite sure that interest was not being paid on this sum, because interest ought not to be paid on it under the Act of Union. He gathered from the figures that interest was not being paid on this sum. Proceeding, the hon. member said he wished to say a few words in regard to the financial position we were in at the present moment, and especially our revenue balances. The Minister of Finance had reduced the revenue balances from £2,372,000 at the beginning of last year to £377,000, so that practically he had taken two millions out of his revenue balances. He had got to restore that in some way. Some of his hon. friends did not apparently recognise the gravity of the position in the London market. It was quite proper that this matter should not have been discussed while the loan was under negotiation, but it was now clear that we had got into a most dangerous financial predicament, and he was very much afraid, despite the excellent condition of the country, that his hon. friend would not be able to raise money in the present condition of the London market, and would be compelled to stop some of his loan expenditure, which was one of the great principles upon which the Government secured support at the elections, and secured the support of hon. members in that House. He hoped his hon. friend would be good enough to explain what he proposed to do in regard to his cash account. As to the condition of the country, he wished to say that he thought a more optimistic outlook was allowable in consequence of the policy of the Government in the last three years. The Government had been remitting taxation at a very great rate. Since the first Union Government was formed they had been expending large sums on the development of the country, and he thought it would be astonishing, and, indeed, a great disappointment, if the business of the country did not respond to this nursing policy which the Government had been carrying on. As long as they continued that policy, he should support them to the best of his ability. Six or seven years ago the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, was an optimist, and he (Mr. Fremantle) was a pessimist. Now the positions seemed to have been reversed. In 1906 we had a balance of exports over imports of £15,000,000.

In 1912 the balance was 27½ millions, and, therefore, he thought it was allowable to take an optimistic view of the situation. They were exporting a larger amount of merchandise, and it was a problem to put before the country. When they found the country exporting more than was necessary to pay its way they had good reason for looking forward to the future, and the figures appeared to him to point to an increase of prosperity. It had been said by hon. members opposite that they were at the top of the wave. He did not think so. He thought they were still rising, and had not yet reached the top. The fact that specie was coming into the country was always a good sign. They had had a severe lesson in this country of the influence of America, and he did not think that any financier could say anything about the prospects of the country without referring to America. The prospects in America were very good, and he thought the immediate effect of the new tariff would be an increase in the purchasing power. He took a very optimistic view of the prospects of the country. He would like to say one word to the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, who had compared the wool industry of this country with the industry in Australia. He would point out to the hon. member that among other things they had passed through a war, and that since that period the stock farmers of the country had made enormous strides. There was a spirit of enterprise in the country, for which he thought the Prime Minister was largely responsible, which could be compared to the spirit that had led to such happy results in Australia, and which they hoped would lead to equally happy results in this country. He did wish he could feel convinced that the Government would do what was really required with regard to education, and especially technical education. There was a great need for further technical education, and they should provide themselves with the technical education that was so urgently needed, so that they need not import people to do work which people here ought to be able to do themselves.

The Minister budgeted for a deficit of £194,000, to which must be added £30,000 for supplementary estimates, and £161,000 owing to the changes in the Financial Relations Bill—£43,000 for additional grants to the Free State and Natal, £70,000 for the Cape, which needed the money for education, and £48,000. being double the amount of the totalisator receipts, which, as he understood, were being handed over, chiefly to the Transvaal. That made a total deficit of £305,000. Nor was this all. Dealing with the bewaarplaatsen, he said he was not in favour of taking private assets, and handing them over to the State, any more than he was in favour of taking State assets and handing them over to private people. He hoped that the Finance Minister would adopt a just policy in regard to that matter. But even in regard to the one half which belonged to the Government, he would point out that his hon. friend was proceeding to devote it to the service of the present year. That was clearly unsound finance. He thought that proceeds of this character should at most only be devoted to the current expenses of the year in which it accrued. His hon. friend was taking a dangerous course, and was tampering with one of the rooks of a sound financial policy. This would increase the deficit by £157,000, being half the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen in 1911-12 and 1912-13. Finally, why had he taken £110,000 from the Free State Local Loans Fund, and used it for current expenditure? The Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury last year agreed that this sum ought not to be devoted to current expenditure. It accrued in the past, and yet his hon. friend devoted it to the current year. These were two blemishes to which he would call attention, and he hoped that the House would not allow them to go unchecked, but allow this money to be used for its rightful purpose—the extinction of debt. This would make a total deficit of £652,000. Last year the Minister saved over a million over the deficit that he had anticipated. It was perfectly safe for him to budget for a deficit of £600,000 odd. Take the Customs. Last year the revenue was £4,630,000; in 1912-13, so far as he could reckon, the amount was £4,650,000. Yet his hon. friend was budgetting for a decrease in the Customs revenue. Why? Probably he had done so for the purpose of giving the House another of those pleasant surprises at the end of the year. Then there was the Post Office. How his hon. friend could put forward such an Estimate he was at a loss to understand. Last year the Post Office revenue increased by £166,000. Every month it was increasing, and increasing at an accelerated rate. His hon. friend allowed for an increase of £24,000. Why, they got that in one month. He suggested to the Minister and the House that they should take the bold course of applying to the extinction of debt all money that should be applied to the extinction of debt. Referring to the Railway, he hoped the Minister would read the report of the Grievances Commission, and he hoped would bear in mind, after all these years of discussion, that his predecessor’s Commission had found that the trouble in the Cape, which was very acute, was due to the fact that there was no system. Whenever the question of the grievances of the men had been referred to his hon. friend had looked down from a far distant hill, and by the help of a telescope he had seen that they were dissatisfied, and he told them that if they only knew how well off they were, they would not be dissatisfied. He hoped his hon. friend would put this matter right. The Minister said that there should be a surplus of £500,000 for 1912-13. He did not know where his hon. friend got his figures from. In the first ten months this surplus, after paying interest up to date, was £627,000, and in January it was £68,000. The accounts pointed to a surplus of £750,000, and no explanation was forthcoming. What was his hon. friend going to do? According to the accounts there was a surplus of £250,000. Surely his hon. friend was not going to ignore the matter altogether and ignore the discrepancy between his speech and the accounts. Again, with regard to the giving up of revenue. They were told that revenue was being given up, but in his opinion that was not the case, because they were actually earning more money than they were before. The fact was that no notice was taken of the increase of revenue resulting from the lowering of the rates. There was no attempt to distinguish between the summer and winter months and no attempt to ascertain the amount of business that would result from the lowering of rates. Then with regard to the harbour accounts, how did it come about that there was going to be a loss upon them of £337,000. What was his hon. friend going to do. His predecessor estimated upon a loss of £386,000. As a matter of fact the loss was £291,000, but his hon. friend said it was going to be £50,000 more. Why was that? Well, it would naturally be supposed that he was going to improve matters. Proceeding, the hon. member said he wanted to add his congratulations to the General Manager for the manner in which he was nursing the railways. He was particularly glad to acknowledge the policy that had been administrated with regard to the branch lines and increased motor service. He believed also that roads should be improved and bridges built, with a view of feeding the railways, and he hoped the General Manager and the Railway Board would consider the means of improving the access to the railways and thus raising the revenue. This was a fair task to lay on the railways.

There was another matter which was of much graver moment, however, than the financial one. They were now asked to vote these Estimates, and they were asked to regard this as a vote of confidence in the Government. The Prime Minister remarked the other day that he did not gather from his (Mr. Fremantle’s) attitude that he had the same feelings towards his right hon. friend as formerly. “Allow mo to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not so,” continued the hon. member; “I trust that upon this side of the House, among our own party, it will be possible to have honourable differences, without allowing them to interfere with our personal relations.” Proceeding, the hon. member said it was a matter of the utmost grief and sorrow to himself, and he believed to many other members of the country outside, to find that there were differences between them and the Prime Minister. He wished to say—and he spoke for his constituents and himself, he did not wish to speak for hon. members whom he did not represent— that he had no confidence in the Prime Minister or the Government at the present time. He did not consider it was well for South Africa or the South African Party that his right hon. friend should continue at the head of affairs under present conditions. He associated himself with what was said by the hon. member or Barberton and the hon. member for Ladybrand, as to whom he would only say this, that he met his hon. friend, the member for Ladybrand, very soon after the war. He was sent back as a prisoner of war and regarded as a suspect and undesirable person. (Cries of “Order.”) He had also the honour of discussing matters with the late President of the Orange Free State, and he could only say that he was astonished at the speech of the hon. member for Vredefort because his remarks about Mr. Fichardt were without foundation. The hon. member for Vredefort had a distinguished record as a brave man, and he hoped it would be the last time he would hear one brave man accuse another brave man of cowardice. (Hear, hear.) Three hon. members had asked the Prime Minister to explain his action in ejecting the hon. member for Smithfield from the Ministry. But the Government had taken no notice. It was not that these hon. members desired some statement for themselves, but they represented a very large proportion of those most loyal supporters of the Prime Minister, those who stood by him at the last election and supported him through good and evil report and in bright days and dark days. They desired some explanation of the present situation and the refusal of the Government to give any such explanation seemed to be treating with scant courtesy those who had stood by the Prime Minister in the past. (Hear, hear and laughter.) Continuing, the hon. member said a now principle had been adopted. A new Government had been formed. It was not a question of only one or two new men being brought into the Ministry. It was not a (question of a change of personnel. The principle was much more than that. It was a new Government that had been formed; in fact, an entirely new principle had boon introduced. For many years he had been unable to agree with hon. members opposite. He did not wish to trouble the House with his past political feelings and actions—(laughter)—but when he found personal friends on the Government benches going about the lobbies and spreading evil reports regarding his past political career, then, he thought, he was entitled to complain. Such action was not calculated to keep the party together or to restore good feeling. (Hear, hear.) He was prepared to make Ministers a present of the fact that before the war he did not think all the rights were on one side and all the wrongs on the other side. He made them a present of the fact that he was not able to sympathise with President Kruger, because he represented the opposite principle to equal rights.

And if his right hon. friend, or any of his hon. friends there, chose to go round and tell hon. members that in those days he was not a sympathiser with President Kruger, he would do now what he had done in the past, and that was to say that it was so, because, to the best of his lights, he had always supported the principle of equal rights. For that reason he was not able to sympathise with President Kruger in the past, and for that reason he was not able to sympathise with the Prime Minister now. After the war it appeared to him there was a policy of distrust, which had grown up in the country. It appeared to him that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who, he, the hon. member, was unable to follow at the time, though he respected him—he felt that while the hon. member had no personal animus against the Dutch-speaking people in this country, he, and those with him, did not trust the Dutch-speaking people. (Opposition cries of: “Rubbish.”) He felt that. It was his honest feeling, and therefore he could not co-operate with the hon. member at that time. Gradually the affection of the Dutch-speaking people of this country came to be centred, to a very large extent, on his hon. and gallant friend the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog). (Free State cheers.) And deservedly so. The Prime Minister had published some curious correspondence in the last two days, in which he expressed pain that he was not asked to take a part, and a prominent part, in the language demonstration. It was not the effect of anyone connected with the language question, but it was the effect of the actions of the Prime Minister in the last few years. (Government and Opposition cries of: “Nonsense.”) It might be nonsense, but there had been a want of sympathy in regard to these matters, which had been plainly shown in the speech of the Minister for Railways and Harbours a day or two ago. He said he hoped that the Dutch language would be spoken for many years to come in this country. (Cheers.) If an hon. member got up and said he hoped the English language would be spoken for many years in this country, he (Mr. Fremantle) hoped and trusted he would be somewhat harshly dealt with. For he hoped that both languages would always be spoken in South Africa.

There was a growing distrust in this country. The young Dutch-speaking people felt there had been a want of sympathy on the part of the Prime Minister. He (the hon. member) hastened to say that he for one read the situation differently. He felt the great services the Prime Minister had rendered to this cause. They had in him a Dutch-speaking Prime Minister who was man enough to stand up and speak his own language in this House and out of it. Also with regard to the Prime Minister, he felt he was possessed by a longing to bring together the two races in this country, and he thought in consequence of this, and in consequence of the situation as he (the Prime Minister) had read it, he had, with the best intentions, and the desire to serve the same cause, taken certain actions which he (Mr. Fremantle) for one did not feel were well conceived, and which created the impression outside, especially among the young Dutch-speaking people, that the right hon. gentleman’s sympathies were not as strong as his supporters desired. As the result of that — he need not go beyond the right hon. gentleman’s manifesto —the hopes and affections of the Dutch-speaking people tended to a great extent to be centred on the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog). Therefore, to fling about accusations as to his loyalty and as to his goodwill towards the other section of the population at his hon. and gallant friend, had been felt to be, and had the effect of being a charge and indictment brought against, at any rate, a great section of the Dutch-speaking people. The result was that instead of the Prime Minister and his colleagues representing the principle of trust in this country they now had the Prime Minister and his colleagues tied to the principle of distrust. (Cries of “No.”) There was only one principle that had brought the present Government together. It was the principle of hostility to his hon. friend the member for Smithfield (General Hertzog).

The present Government was united by one bond. They all of them agreed to the exclusion of his hon. friend (General Hertzog), and it was on that principle that the present Government had been formed. As he (Mr. Fremantle) read the situation, the present Government represented in the country the principle of distrust and the abandonment of the principle of trust. (Free State cheers.) He could only say that that feeling was shared very widely. He would ask hon. members what was the meaning of the demonstration they had seen in this House?

Agitators. (Cheers.)

Agitators? What is the meaning of the fact that my hon. friend the member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) is answered by, of all people in the world, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha)? What is the meaning of the fact that when my hon. friend asked who it was that was responsible for the ejection of my hon. friend the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) from the Ministry, the answer came immediately from the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler): “Natal did it, and Natal is proud of it ”? Whether it sees it or not, and whether it is aware of it or not, this Government represents to me, to my constituents, and to a large portion of the people of this country the policy of distrust. (Free State cheers and cries of dissent.) I pointed to the speech of the Minister of Railways. What was that but the policy of distrust? My hon. friend has got it into his mind that the hon. member for Smithfield is the apostle of the policy of separating the two races in this country. My hon. friend is so instinct with this uneasy, angry suspicion against the hon. member for Smithfield and myself, that even on a question like the University question, his mind is not clear. It is clouded with suspicion, and takes a wrong course in this matter and other matters in consequence of the suspicion that possesses him of his old friends. (Free State cheers.)

Proceeding, Mr. Fremantle said the point from which he started was that this Government now represented the policy of distrust in this country. That policy had been many times before the people of this country. It was not new. Once in the Cape Colony that policy gained the suffrages of the people. Since then it had been rejected, once, twice, and emphatically, by the people. That was why hon. members of the Opposition sat on the other side of the House instead of on the Government side of the House. Now, they had a Government representing the South African Party, but representing a policy that had been repeatedly condemned by the people of this country. (Cries of “No.”) He did not wish to state an opinion, but wished to put facts before the House, and asked the country to judge whether he was not justified by the facts. The present situation was unconstitutional and indefensible. The Prime Minister knew that much more important men than he (Mr. Fremantle) held that view. He would like to call the attention of the House to the constitutional doctrine on this question. He took the words of a writer whom he thought the highest authority on the subject. Half a century ago it was possible for a Minister to carry on Parliament as the present Prime Minister was doing. Now it was not. “Every subsequent change of Ministry has either been the immediate consequence of a General Election, or if not the new Cabinet has kept the old Parliament together only so long as it is absolutely necessary to dispose of current business, and has then appealed to the country.” He did not know whether the Prime Minister wanted a General Election. He knew he (Mr. Fremantle) would very much regret a General Election.

Why?

For no personal reasons, but because this question of trust and distrust, which I hoped was buried for ever, is going to be fought out once more at the polls of the next election, and, unfortunately, we are going to have armies marching into the field with the Prime Minister at the head of the army of distrust. It appears to me, therefore, that there is no question that the only possible constitutional procedure is that Parliament should be dissolved.

Why?

Because a new Ministry has been formed on a new principle, and because it is the constitutional doctrine that a new Ministry formed on a new principle cannot go on in the old House without dissolution. (Free State and Labour cheers.) Proceeding, he said he would like to call attention to two instances in this country. The one was the first Rhodes Ministry. A somewhat similar event happened in regard to that Ministry, and it broke up on May 3, 1892. A session of Parliament was coming on, and it was necessary for Mr. Rhodes to go on with the work of the country. He summoned Parliament on June 16, and introduced several measures, but none of great importance. He went on with the session, which closed on September 9. Immediately after that Mr. Rhodes dissolved Parliament. Were there any instances of a different kind? Could the Prime Minister point to another instance? He thought not. There was one contrary instance in 1898, which he would commend to the notice of the Prime Minister. A Parliament was chosen to support the South African Party. In consequence of a difference of opinion in connection with the war Mr. Schreiner resigned office, and the late Sir Gordon Sprigg took office. He did not dissolve Parliament, and quite rightly. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort was a member of that Ministry. He would know the circumstances, and he (Mr. Fremantle) supposed that if it had not been impossible to dissolve Parliament it would have been a grave dereliction of duty. There was war in the country, and it was impossible at that time to have a dissolution of Parliament. After the war another situation arose. Rightly or wrongly the late Sir Gordon Sprigg parted company with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, and the great mass of the Progressive Party.

But there was no change of Ministry, though his hon. friend opposite resigned office. But there was something very significant about that Parliament which he commended to the attention of the present Prime Minister. Two Prime Ministers parted company from their followers in the country, and for both of them that was the close of their effective political careers. For a few years a Prime Minister who parted company with the sentiment of his party could carry on, but in the end it always led to the political extinction of the Prime Minister who dared to go against the constitutional doctrine of this country, and to flout the will of the people, who were the real sovereigns. That was a sound constitutional doctrine, because a House elected to deal with one set of circumstances was not fit to deal with another set of circumstances. Every member recognised that that House was not fit to deal with the political situation under the changed circumstances which had taken place. He would like to know why the hon. member for Bloemfontein District and the hon. member for Heilbron, who was not at present in his place, when they were recounting some of their experiences gained during recent visits to the Free State, why did they not give the House the benefit of the meeting which they had with the members of the Free State Provincial Council? That would have been enlightening to the House, and would have led the House to understand whether the Free State supported the half-hearted attitude of some of his hon. friends, or whether it supported the outspoken attitude of the hon. member for Ladybrand. As to this part of the world, a little meeting was arranged some time ago, at which the Prime Minister was to have been one of the speakers. It was to have been held in the chief town of the constituency of one of the Prime Minister’s colleagues, but the meeting never came off, Why? It was to have been held at Malmesbury. It did not come off, because ho (Mr. Fremantle) was told it was suggested to the hon. member for Malmesbury and the Prime Minister that if it were held, it was more than possible that a vote of want of confidence would have been passed. (Ministerial laughter and Free State cheers.) That squared with all his (Mr. Fremantle’s) information. He had been compelled to keen out of Malmesbury for the last year or two, because he was not prepared to be told that he was intriguing against his hon. friend (Mr. Malan).

The position was this. Here they had a Ministry depending on the support of the majority of the people, and it was extremely doubtful whether the Ministry could get any large section of those who voted for it last time in the Free State and the Cape to support it again. What was the result? The Ministry felt that it was without authority; it felt that it had exhausted its mandate—(hear, hear)—and that was perfectly true. The House also felt the same. (Opposition cheers.) The moment this difficulty arose, he (Mr. Fremantle) held a public meeting in his constituency. He explained exactly his views on the situation, and he was accorded a vote of confidence.

How many were present ?

Several hundred. After that, I went down a little later, and I met the Distrikts Bestuur, and they told me that those who supported me at the general election supported the view I took of the position, and that those who voted against me were now in favour of the Prime Minister. This House, I maintain, has lost authority—lost the power of dealing in a masterful way with the business of the country—and the incidents of this session show that this Ministry is not fit, and this House is not fit, to continue under existing circumstances to deal with the public affairs entrusted to it. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said he regretted with all his heart the loss of confidence which the Prime Minister had suffered with a large section of those who had most loyally supported him in the past. He (Mr. Fremantle) had always desired to follow the Prime Minister, and he desired now to follow him. (Laughter.) In fact, he would rather follow the Prime Minister than any other political leader in this country. He would rather follow him than his hon. friend here (General Hertzog), if for no other reason, for this reason: because his hon. friend did not wish to lead unless leadership was forced on him, while the Prime Minister had no such disinclination. But if he had to choose between following his right hon. friend in the wrong direction, and following his hon. friend in the right direction, he would rather go in the right direction with his hon. friend than in the wrong direction with the Prime Minister. If he supported the Prime Minister in the policy of distrust which was now associated with him, he would be a traitor to his past. He would rather go out of political life than remain in it with a dead past tied to his shoulders. He believed that people were going to see that those who supported a certain policy in the past were men enough to support it in the future. He hoped his right hon. friend was going to realise that the spirit of the constitution was more important than the constitution itself. Any constitution could be torn to tatters by the disloyal use of those who had put it into effect. (Cheers.) You must, said Mr. Fremantle in conclusion, take the spirit of the constitution, and unless you can argue away the facts I have put before the House, you are bound, in loyalty to the constitution, to appeal to those who are sovereign in this country— that is to appeal from this House to the people, who alone are our masters. (Cheers.)

said he would leave the Government to answer the hon. member who had just spoken on an interesting constitutional point. He saw Ministers busy searching for precedents, and he hoped they would find something to furnish them with an answer. (Laughter.) Whether the constitutional precedents would be in favour of Government appealing to the country now or not, there was one effective way to compel the Government to appeal to the country, and that was to leave it without a majority. (Opposition cheers.) On the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, a resolution was put forward from the Opposition side of the House—a resolution which implied a want of confidence. What support did that get from those hon. members who told the House in tragic tones that the Government had lost their confidence? The speech of the hon. member who had just spoken was one of several interesting, moving, and almost tragic speeches which had been addressed by hon. members on the Government side of the House to their friends on the Treasury benches. The speech would have been more in place at party meetings in the caucus, rather than in that House. What was the use of hon. members tearing their passions to tatters?

To advertise

Until hon. members opposite are prepared to compel the Prime Minister to resign, those speeches are more appropriate to the caucus room than to this House. We are sick of these quarrels—they are paralysing the Government. (Cheers.) We don’t even know what this difference of policy is which divides the two sections. The hon. member says it is a policy of trust against distrust. Are they going to the country on that? (Laughter.) It seems to me to be a too subtle distinction. If it is a question of trust versus distrust, on which side is the trust? (Cheers.) The hon. member told us that our minds are clouded with suspicion. I don’t want to say anything that will aggravate racial or sectional quarrels, but I do think I am justified in saying this: If those hon. members with whom the hon. member is now associated, and others working with them outside the House, wish to remove suspicion, they have a very strange way of going about it. (Opposition cheers.) Proceeding, Mr. Duncan said that the hon. member, before he went to that part of his speech, addressed a series of criticisms to the Government which he (Mr. Duncan) thought they would do very well to take carefully to heart. He hoped it would have a wholesome influence upon them, so much sound financial criticism coming from so near home. (Ministerial laughter.)

The hon. member had made a number of criticisms on the financial policy of the Government which he (Mr. Duncan) entirely agreed with and which were entirely shared on that side of the House. He hoped that if anything happened during the present Government these criticisms would be laid to heart by them. If they came back into office, or if the section that was working for the policy of trust came into office, he trusted that the views of the hon. member would be carried out. His criticisms really lent support to the view which he impressed that the Government in the present condition of affairs were not fit to deal with public business. (Hear, hear.) He was sorry to say that that was the view that had been formed on that side of the House, that they were so abstracted by the present position of affairs that they could not give attention to public business. Unless a miracle occurred, we should be in a very serious position financially, not because of the want of credit in the country—(hear, hear)—but because we had got our affairs tied into a knot, so tied into a knot that we were in the hands of the London banks, and they could do what they liked. (Hear, hear.) He must say that he thought the sooner the Government came to a decision with regard to which part of their public works programme they were going to stop the better for the country, because undoubtedly they would have to stop some part of their programme. Still, we were going gaily on; we were budgeting for a deficit. He did not altogether share the optimistic views which the hon. member put forward, but even if these were the excuse of the Minister of Finance for budgeting for a deficit, it was a bad excuse. The Minister ought to come to that House with Estimates that he was prepared to stand by. It was no use coming to that House with Estimates of revenue which would not meet expenditure and then say, “Who knows what may happen?” We had tried in the London market in regard to our loan and we had found that the Union of South Africa could not borrow money at 4 per cent. He would like to ask the Minister of Finance, if things were not going to improve—and he saw no signs that they were—was he going to finance various undertakings on borrowings at over 4 per cent.? How was he going to lend money through the Land Bank? He thought that might perhaps bring the Government to their bearings. When they had to stop constructing new railways in the country and stop further advances from the Land Bank, he hoped their friends behind them would sit down and ask them why they had got into this position.

He would like to say that he agreed with a good deal of the criticism which had been expressed by the hon. member for Uitenhage, except that he did not share his views in regard to the railway loan account. He did not think that they ought to be expected to provide a sinking fund for the railway debt so long as the railway assets were kept to a fair standard of efficiency— (hear, hear)—and especially so long as they spent out of revenue, as they were doing now, large sums upon betterment, as well as providing efficiently for maintenance. They ought to remember that a considerable part of the sinking fund was in respect of interest on railway debt—(hear, hear)—because they were compelled to make that provision in terms of the guarantee to the Imperial Government for the Transvaal Guaranteed Loan. He would like to direct some attention also to the general question of the system of taxation. He thought the system of taxation in this country was upon a bad basis, because it taxed industry more than ownership. It left ownership practically untaxed and taxed the necessaries of the people. He thought it was a serious thing to consider the burden of taxation which this country was bearing and the shoulders upon which this burden was being borne. They were told that the Government took great credit recently for having dispensed with the contribution from railway profits a year before they need have done and to that credit they were entitled, but he would like to put it to this House that this reduction which the Government had made, after all, entailed no sacrifice as far as they could see. It had not entailed any shifting of the burden, because nothing had been done which the ordinary business man, if he had the railways to manage, would not have done in order to get more traffic. But the statement of the Minister of Railways that they were not to look for further reductions in rates for some time to come was not an answer which would be accepted by the population of the inland parts of the Union as the final word on this question. What they had to watch very carefully was how the Government were going to dispose of the profits they were making and were going to make from the railway. For one thing, were they going to continue apparently financing the harbour deficits? He would like to know what excuse there was for making the losses on the Harbours a charge against railway revenue. Another matter which showed how the wind was blowing was that they had reduced the cost of the carriage of mails by railway to a figure which the General Manager, they were told, considered was not a fair charge. He thought they would find that they were doing the same thing in regard to their new construction. The Minister of Justice, the other day, told them that there were such a lot of financial pundits in that House, and, he thought, indicated that there were too many of them. When he was Minister of Railways it took all the financial pundits in that House to keep him within the four corners of his own Acts, to say nothing of the Audit Act. With all this money in their hands they were not going to reduce rates, they were going to make profits, and he said it would take more even than the financial pundits to find out what was being done with those profits. He would like to add his voice to what had been said in regard to the Government keeping back from the House the new construction programme. If there were going to be a programme of new construction, he strongly objected to its being kept back until the last days of the session. Why had the Government kept back their decision about the bewaarplaatsen? (Hear, hear.) If they did not know what they were going to do they ought to come and ask this House to decide for them.

He did not wish to express an opinion on the bewaarplaatsen question at that moment, but he would like to say that he did not agree that if it was decided that any part of that money was to come in last year it should be considered as part of the surplus and handed over to the Public Debt Commissioners under the Act. It was refreshing to hear the glowing speech of the Minister of Justice, who told them the number of sheep and goats in the country, and regretted that agricultural statistics were not available. It was interesting to hear Minister after Minister say the same thing. What was the use of Ministers coming to that House and regretting that they could not supply these statistics? As the Minister of Justice did not seem to spend much of his time listening to debates in that House, he (the speaker) hoped he would spend some of his time in getting to work and making up some of these statistics. He agreed that there had been a tremendous advance in the production of the country, but it was a pity that the Minister of Justice did not tell them how many men had gone on the land in the last ten years instead of telling them how many sheep and goats there were in the country. Perhaps they would not take such an optimistic view of the situation if they inquired into those statistics. It was rather a set-off against the glowing descriptions of the prosperity of the country which they had listened to to be told that a thousand more people went out of this country than came into this country during the last year. He did not know how they squared that off with the optimistic references that had been made to the prosperity and the future of the country. They could not count the progress of the country by sheep and goats alone. He wanted to know what the Government were doing to better the present state of affairs—not to increase the number of sheep and goats, but to induce more men to settle on the land. So far as he could understand, the Government was doing practically nothing. The hon. member for Vryburg had said that they should first settle on the land all those in the country who wanted land before they called for people from oversea, but he (the speaker) thought that the doctrine preached by the hon. member for Vryburg was one of hopelessness.

He thought it was of vital importance to the future of the country that the European population of this country should be strengthened by people from outside. The Government should do what it could to get people from oversea to come upon the land, and the only way they could induce the right people to come to the country was by the offer of land. The question of settling the indigent people of this country on the land was a long way second in importance to the question of settling effective oversea settlers. In putting indigents on the land they were only trying to cure a disease that existed in the country, but he considered that in doing so they were only dealing with the symptoms of the disease and not the real trouble. The real trouble was that the European population of this country was in a minority to the uncivilised majority. So long as this state of affairs existed they would always have a crowd of indigents. Dealing with taxation, the hon. member said that he thought the present system was unfair and unjust. They thought that the balance should be redressed and that the burden of taxation should be spread so that the ownership of land would bear its fair share of the taxation of the country. It should bear its fair share of taxation assessed on the value of the land apart from improvements. The amendment which stood on the paper did not commend itself to him. The taxation of the land should be based on increment, and not on the improvements. The taxation should take into consideration the particular circumstances of the land and the laws of the country. The amendment sought to abolish all taxation that pressed on the people, such as, he presumed, customs, etc., for the purpose of substituting a tax on the unimproved value of land, especially mineral land. He could not understand a tax on the unimproved value of mineral land? How was it going to be assessed? Under the law at the present time the Government took a share of what was gained. Whether the share taken by the State was too large or too small he could not conceive of the justice of putting additional taxation on the mineral value of the land over and above the share already taken by the State by its reservations and the profits tax.

Proceeding, the hon. member said let them take the case of diamonds. He had almost a moving appeal from the hon. member for Pretoria, North, in fact a most moving story of what the State took from the diamond company that he was interested in. In the Transvaal the State took 60 per cent, of the value of the purchased stones. (An HON. MEMBER: On the profit.) Oh, no, the State takes a 60 per cent, share of the mine, and it compels the owners to take 40 per cent, and work the mine, or if they will not do that, they will get other people to do it. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the House might think that 60 per cent, was not the highest percentage that the State should take, then in that case let them repeal this Act altogether, or increase the taxation. He did not agree at all with the appeal which the hon. member for Pretoria, North, had made on behalf of the owners of land where precious stones had been discovered. He did not agree that the proportion taken by the State was too great. They knew that in the old law before this new Ordinance was passed, the owner of the land in which precious stones were discovered, was entitled to one-eighth. It was true that he could take that one-eighth from the richest part of the mine; afterwards the other seven-eighths were thrown open to the public. That was one way of giving by chance to the public a percentage of the mineral wealth of the country, but it was an iniquitous way, because it opened up a way for speculators to buy up the claims. What the Government had said, however, was that these diamond mines should be worked as one proposition. They would give the owner a four-tenths interest in the Whole of the mine. That was considered to be a fair and equitable equivalent for what the owners’ rights had formerly been. He did not think it was not fair in taking away one-eighth and giving a man four-tenths interest in the mine. In any case it seemed to him that the Government should not go back upon that adjustment, because it was no injustice to the present shareholders. It may have been an injustice to the owner of the land who thought he ought to have a larger share, but with regard to the present company it would simply be to hand over a very large sum of money to the present shareholders in the concern. Another point was that they would have to consider not merely the improved value of land, but the burdens that were already imposed upon land for municipal and other services. It was a most healthy state of things that local services should be administered and paid for by local people. (Hear, hear.) The amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe did not take into account these burdens imposed upon land for municipal and other services, and it would not be fair in any scheme of succession not to consider the burdens imposed upon land or the share taken by the State upon the mineral value of land. That was the reason that he could not vote for the amendment which was before them. The country had been living too long upon the industry of a few. It was all very well to give statistics of other countries like Australia, but these countries had not the same state of things as they had here. For instance, the transport of coal was very dear. They had the cheapest coal in the world, but because they had the cheapest coal the Railway Department were going too far in imposing rates that were prohibitive. A policy of this kind would defeat itself. The demand for power was such that it might be that in the Witwatersrand, or other large centres, power would be generated at the mines themselves and conveyed by cable to the machinery.

They knew they had no fixed policy upon that matter. They wanted to know from the Government whether they were satisfied with the progress in this country which came from the land being in the hands of a few, exploited by cheap labour at rates on which European labourers could not live, or whether they wanted to get away from that state of things and change that into a state of things where the country was settled by Europeans who were producing what the land could produce by civilised labour. They wanted to know which of the two policies the Government was going to follow. They gathered in the House that sometimes it was one and sometimes it was another. They had other complaints against the Government. They had complaints that nothing had been done to consolidate the laws of the country. All the consolidating laws were either lying in their pigeon holes or were so low down on the paper that they had no hope of coming forward. They talked every day, but nothing was done. As far as getting on with the business of the House was concerned it seemed to him they might as well go home and leave their friends, who sat on the other side, to sit as long as they liked It seemed to him that the Government was not doing its duty.

who was received with loud Ministerial cheers, said that after the attacks which had been made upon himself and his Government it was not out of place for him to say a few words. First of all, he would deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle). That member’s remarks would have been very effective had it not been that the House knew him so well. (Hear, hear.) He had been the Mbongo to every leader in this country, and he would advise him not to continue that attitude, as it did not have any effect. In this discussion, together with the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull), and the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt), he (Mr. Fremantle) had posed as a great expert on constitutional law, but in the statement which he made to-day he had misled the House and the country. He had given out for truth what was not the truth. The facts which had been quoted by him were incorrect, especially where he had stated it was the principle of this country that when a new Government come into power there must be a dissolution of Parliament. Where, he asked, did the hon. member get that information? In the Cape Colony, for instance, so far as he could learn, there had never been such a dissolution after a change in the Cabinet unless a vote of no-confidence in the Government had been passed. He would quote three cases which the hon. member as a constitutional expert, certainly ought to have inquired into and studied. In 1881 the Sprigg Ministry was succeeded by the Scanlen Ministry without any election, and Parliament continued to sit the normal period till 1884. Only then came a general election. (Hear, hear.) In 1890 the Rhodes Ministry came into power, and trouble developed between 1892 and 1893. The members of the Cabinet were changed, but the same Parliament continued to live the normal period until 1894, when a general election was held. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member had created an impression which was misleading. He had stated that Rhodes had called a general election because a change had been made in the Cabinet, and that was not the case. The election was held because the prescribed period had passed (Hear, hear.)

In 1896, after the Jameson Raid, Rhodes resigned and the Sprigg Ministry came into power. That Ministry continued the business of the Government, and did not call for a general election until two years afterwards. How was it possible for the hon. member to overlook those facts? Even at that time he was taking part in politics.

It was clear that the hon. member had not properly examined his facts, and yet he appeared there as an expert and told them that Parliament would have to dissolve. ( Hear, hear.) If the Government were to be criticised by members of the Government party, then the criticism ought to be based on facts which could not be controverted. But when a member on that side of the House criticised the Government without basing it on facts, then it became time that such a member should not sit on that side of the House at all, but cross over to the other side. (Hear, hear.) A Government could only do its work properly when the members who sat behind it supported it. (Hear, hear.) A member should be a member either of the Government party or of the Opposition. (Hear, hear). If the hon. member had no longer confidence in the speaker and his Government, then he ought to have the courage to stand up and cross to the other side. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Uitenhage sat on the Government side of the House because his constituents had sent him to support the speaker. If the hon. member continued to sit there he ought to carry out the injunction. He (the Prime Minister) could get on well enough with a man who showed his courage, but not with one who stabbed in the back. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member had made a good deal of capital out of what had been stated by the hon. member for Weenen concerning Natal. The desire of the hon. member for Weenen was simply this, that if he could wring the neck of the Government to-day, he would not wait till to-morrow before doing it. The remark which had been made by the hon. member for Weenen was based on that idea, and it was therefore misleading to give it the significance which had been attached to it by the hon. member for Uitenhage.

The speaker continued by saying that he had received instructions from his party to continue with the work of the House, and so long as he held that instruction he intended to company with it. (Hear, hear.) Effect would have to be given to that instruction unless hon. members wanted some other course taken in conflict with it, in which event he (the speaker) would go. (Hear, hear.) He did not claim to be a constitutional expert, but read his facts in the books and felt bound to accept them. Seeing that the hon. member for Uitenhage made himself out to be a great constitutional Afrikander, why did he not explain that constitutional custom permitted a member of the Government party to express his lack of confidence in the Government without moving a vote of no confidence? The speaker had hoped that if the hon. member differed from him, he would have moved a vote of no confidence so that they could learn the feeling of the House. (Hear, hear.)

There were two points on which he had been attacked. In the first place, he had been attacked because he had not made a statement concerning the change in the Ministry, and in the second place because he had not advised the dissolution of Parliament. He had already dealt with the latter aspect of the question, and would now confine himself to the former. That complaint came from the hon. member for Barberton. The speaker was much astonished at the attitude of the hon. member. The hon. member had made a speech in which he expressed surprise at the fact that he (the Minister) had given no explanation of the change in the Cabinet. The hon. member said that when he left the Ministry the matter was at once taken up. The hon. member then went on to suggest that there was a conspiracy of silence. Now, what did the hon. member mean if he did not mean there was a conspiracy of silence between the two parties who sat opposite each other? He could not have referred to a conspiracy between the Opposition and the Labour party? The speaker had never done anything that justified the hon. member in sowing suspicion in that way and in making remarks which were totally indefensible. It was impossible that the hon. member could have had any other purpose than to create the impression that he (the Minister) was pro-English and that he went with the Opposition. The speaker deplored such such an expression, and would leave it to the Leader of the Opposition to disprove the imputation. The hon. member for Barberton ought to know better than do that. He ought to know, and did know, that such a conspiracy never could and never would exist. Then why did he say such things? He could not understand what the hon. member meant in using such an expression unless he intended to make difficulties and go fishing in troubled waters. (Hear, hear.)

The Minister continued by saying that there was no evidence to show that it was the duty of the Prime Minister, after a change had been made in the Cabinet, to give an explanation of such change unless and until such explanation had been asked for. If the hon. member for Barberton wanted to have an explanation, was it not his duty to ask for it? If such a demand had been made, an explanation would at once have been given. But it was not asked for. Last year an explanation had been asked for. If the question had been put it would have been the speaker’s duty to reply, and he would have replied immediately. The expressions which had been used by the hon. member for Barberton in connection with that matter were misleading.

If, however, the speaker had sinned, he had done it in good company. He wished to refer to a few facts relating to a much older institution, namely, to the British Parliament.

In 1903 five prominent members of the Balfour Ministry resigned, one of whom was Joseph Chamberlain. ’Chose men left the Cabinet without any explanation being asked for, and, so far as he knew, no explanation was given in the House. In 1894 Lord Rosebery followed Mr. Gladstone as Prime Minister. The Prime Minister resigned, and another man was chosen out of the party to take his place. He formed a new Government, but no explanation was made about it in Parliament, nor was it asked for. The same thing took place in 1902 when Lord Salisbury resigned and Mr. Balfour formed a new Government, and again no explanation was made. In 1908 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman resigned, whereupon Mr. Asquith took his place and formed a new Government, and once more no explanation was either given or asked for. Were those facts not a sufficient endorsement of the speaker’s standpoint?

He had been astonished at the hon. member for Barberton, a man who usually did things well, and it was to be regretted that he had not done so now. The hon. member ought not to say anything whereby the public might be brought under a wrong impression. He gave the impression that there was a conspiracy with the Opposition, whilst he knew that such was not the case. Moreover, ho exposed himself to still other remarks Should he (the Minister) now suggest that the hon. member had an object in view in making his remarks, and that he himself was concerned in a conspiracy? The hon. member knew there was not a vestige of truth in his suggestion.

The hon. member for Ladybrand had also made an attack on the Government, and the speaker in all his life had never seen such a change as that which had taken place in the views of the hon. member. When the hon. member commenced his speech it made the impression on him of the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Complaint after complaint came from his lips, and nothing in the world was right. Well, he (the Minister) knew the Free State well, had indeed grown up there, and knew that the Free Staters were far too manly to bring their complaints to Parliament day after day. They were a manly people, and the hon. member for Ladybrand had not represented them worthily. After the lamentations, it seemed that the hon. member had gone for the trumpet. He had blown the trumpet and had tried to upset the walls of Jericho. The Biblical Joshua blew the trumpet so as to make the walls fall on the opposite party, but the hon. member blew the trumpet in order that the walls would fall on his own people. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member was a false prophet. The walls were not going to fall, and the Government were going on with their work in the interests of the country. (Hear, hear.)

What had happened since a certain letter appeared in the “Friend” at Bloemfontein? He would read a little to show the change which had taken place in the hon. member. In the beginning of the present session the hon. member wrote:

It was to be hoped that the hon. member for Uitenhage would take notice of that opinion. Then the hon. member continued:

Further, it was said:

The hon. member went further, and said:

(Laughter.) What took place since that time? Did the hon. member get a telegram to speak as he did speak? The hon. member wrote the letter at his ease in his own room after carefully reflecting over the matter, and had sent it to a newspaper. That was, therefore, the hon. member’s opinion.

In connection with those two points the speaker said he had now shown that he had the right to act as he had acted.

He contended that he had recently published an explanation of the whole question, in which he had stated that the policy of the Government remained unchanged. The hon. member for Uitenhage had certainly read that explanation. It was clearly stated there that the policy of the party was the policy of the Government which the Government intended to carry out, and he denied that there had ever been any deviation from that policy.

That policy was being faithfully carried out and faithfully preserved. He had done nothing calculated to injure the rights of the public. He was a son of the people, and it was impossible for him to injure or destroy those rights. (Hear hear.) His policy was—in his view the only good one— for the country itself. The other policy was the policy supported by the hon. member for Uitenhage, namely, the policy of distrust. He had hoped that the hon. members for Uitenhage and Ladybrand would have shown where he (the speaker) had gone astray from the party principles, but not a fact had been brought forward in support of such a statement. Notwithstanding all that had been said, it was his (the Minister’s) intention to go on with his policy. (Hear, hear.) He knew the population, he knew what they wanted, and he knew also, despite what the hon. member for Uitenhage had stated, that the vast majority of the people supported that policy. It was the only sound policy that he could see for South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

He was personally responsible for his party, and if they had no confidence in him then they must show it by a vote of no confidence. If the hon. members did not wish to move a vote of no confidence and yet refused to support him, then they should not continue to sit on his side of the House. (Hear, hear.)

He concluded by stating that there must be discipline, and he would not permit anyone to disturb that discipline and that cooperation which had hitherto kept the party together. (Cheers.)

who rose amidst some cheers, said the last words of the Prime Minister must have made a deep impression. The Prime Minister seemed to think that bluff was a commodity of which others had no knowledge. After the assault which he had made that afternoon, he evidently thought that all those who differed from him would take to their heels. The speaker felt all the cooler after all that big talk in the House, and would venture the advice that if the Minister really wished to have any influence in the future, so far as he had not already forfeited it, he should adopt a more worthy attitude towards those who differed from him.

The Prime Minister had spoken as if he were the Autocrat of all the Russias, as if the party were a troop of exiles who, whenever they differed from him, would be sent to the Siberian mines.

said the hon. member had made him out to be an invertebrate (“papbroek”).

replied that the Prime Minister was quite right. The Minister knew what he (the speaker) thought on that point, though it was also true that in some respects the Prime Minister was not a “papbroek.” Where he was one was in questions of principle between his own party and the Opposition. The Prime Minister showed his weakness on those points where, being in agreement with the speaker, he did not say so in public. The country would have an opportunity of deciding whether that assertion was right. The Prime Minister was too much of an autocrat, and did not permit anybody in his party to differ from him. That was precisely the reason why the Prime Minister was bound to allow the public to decide. All that fine talking did not help the Prime Minister in the least. At present he had a majority in the House. But let him try it in the country.

The hon. member for Vrededorp seemed —to judge from his continual interruptions —to be a strong supporter of the Prime Minister. It was very clear why the hon. member did not wish to go to the country. He was anxious to see the Government in a majority because he knew he had himself a minority in his own constituency. It was very pleasant to remain in one’s position and to make out that in so doing one was representing the interests of the country, whilst in actual fact one was only advancing one’s own interests.

The Prime Minister had asked: Where has it been proved that I have deviated from the principles of my party? The speaker replied expressly and impressively that the Prime Minister was condemned out of his own mouth and from his own pen. The Prime Minister had published a so-called excusatory plea for his act of December last. The speaker regretted that he had to return to that, which he would not have done had not the Prime Minister continued to insist on his innocence. The Prime Minister had expelled him from the Ministry because he had stated: “Imperialism is good for me only so far as it is good for South Africa.” Did the Prime Minister deny that? He dared not deny it. He dared not. And if he did deny it and an opportunity to do so were given to the speaker, he would prove with witnesses, and, if need be, with the colleagues of the Prime Minister himself, for although they were no friends of his, the speaker still had sufficient confidence in the love of truth of those colleagues. But it was not necessary to go so far as that. It was merely necessary to quote the first letter, in which the Prime Minister had announced to the world that the speaker had stated at De Wildt that the British Empire was only good enough to be sucked dry and then thrown away.

That assertion, which had been made by the Prime Minister, was a lie.

The speaker was distressed to have to say that, but the Prime Minister had only himself to blame if the speaker was obliged owing to the Minister’s speech that day to say unpleasant things. It distressed him to think that the Prime Minister was responsible for it, that it had been published to the whole world on his responsibility, that the Minister’s satellites went about from one place to another repeating it, and that it had reappeared again that very morning in the “Cape Times,” and yet, notwithstanding all that, the Prime Minister had never yet had the courage to say he had published a thing to the world which was untrue.

On a certain occasion the speaker had appealed to a member of the House who was present at De Wildt, but when the member rose to speak the Prime Minister had ordered him to be silent. The member in question came to the speaker immediately afterwards and expressed regret that he had been told to sit still, but that he had already told the Prime Minister that there was no truth in what had been put in the speaker’s mouth by the Prime Minister. And still to-day that falsehood was travelling around, and the Prime Minister had not yet had the manliness to say that, either in error or otherwise, he had charged the speaker with saying something which in fact he had not said.

When the speaker had challenged the Prime Minister on the first opportunity: “Where did you get that from?” the Minister could do nothing more than quote from the newspaper the remark made by the speaker to the effect that Imperialism was good only so long as it was good for South Africa. To that opinion the speaker still adhered. With regard to the challenge to show wherein the Prime Minister’s policy was wrong, the speaker said the attitude of the Prime Minister was evidently this: If Imperialism is good for South Africa, it must be accepted, and if it is evil for South Africa, it must still be accepted. Could that be reconciled with the policy for which the Prime Minister had been sent there, and for which hon. members had been sent there? If he said that, the speaker challenged him to appeal to the people—which was indeed what the speaker desired. The Prime Minister must be kept to his word. He had said that Imperialism, good or bad, must be approved. The speaker said that Imperialism was only good so far as it was good for South Africa. Those were the words which the speaker was required to put in a different aspect, on which the question depended whether or not he should stay, and whether or not Colonel Leuchars should stay. The Prime Minister had stated: Those are the words which made the crisis inevitable. The speaker challenged him to say whether the policy concerning Imperialism as laid down by the Prime Minister was the policy for which he was elected and for which he was sent there. He desired that the Minister would follow the constitutional course in that matter.

The hon. member for Uitenhage had rightly said: It is the duty of the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament. (Hear, hear.) The speaker said the same, and before the Prime Minister could expect him and all who thought as he did to leave the Ministry and the party, the sneaker would repeat the request: Give us pleasure and go to the people. (Hear, hear.) The Prime Minister had made an appeal to hon. members in a solemn and impressive manner! His policy, said the Prime Minister, was the only one for South Africa. Might the speaker ask wherein his policy differed from that of the Prime Minister? If that difference did not lie in the already indicated difference of principle, on which the speaker’s exclusion from the Cabinet was based, where should it be sought? Might the speaker venture to ask: Did the Minister refer once more to his conciliation policy, which had been ridiculed on the Opposition benches, ridiculed by his own party, and ridiculed by a large proportion of the people outside? Had not the Minister had enough of it yet? What did he understand by conciliation? What was to be conciliated? According to his open letter he was indignant with the speaker for saying: “I have nothing to conciliate.” Well, he had nothing to conciliate. There, on the other side of the House, his political opponents were sitting. Was he to conciliate them because they were political opponents? In what way? By sacrifice of principles? The Leader of the Opposition said “Yes,” Well, perhaps he would succeed one of these days. If need be he would go to the Opposition side of the House if the Opposition succeeded in showing they were in the right. (Laughter and cheers.) The Prime Minister would be glad to see him go and sit there. But as things stood to-day it was the Prime Minister who should be conciliated, there on the other side. (Hear, hear.) The Minister wanted to have conciliation. In no single respect did the policy of the Minister differ from the policy of the Opposition. With what right, he asked, addressing the Prime Minister, did the Minister sit on the speaker’s side of the House? With what right did the Minister exclude men from the other side? His principles were in perfect agreement with those of the Opposition! The speaker thought he had found a difference of principle between the Opposition and those of the party represented by the Prime Minister. But barely had he drawn attention to that difference before the Prime Minister visited his displeasure on him. The Prime Minister knew of no difference. The Prime Minister’s programme was so broad that it might serve as a sunshade to cover both the Opposition and the members of his party. When hon. members on the speaker’s side of the House unfortunately came along and said: No, a line will have to be drawn— then it was not the other party which was asked to give way, but the Minister’s own friends were excluded. (Hear, hear.) He would again ask: What do you wish to conciliate? What is there to conciliate? Apart from the shrieking in the newspapers and the shrieking by the hon. member for Pretoria East, could they show him any racial hatred, any racialism, in South Africa? Could they point out any place where owing to racial hatred a young girl in the one camp had not married a young man in the other camp? Could they show any assault, or breach of the law, or anything of that sort caused by racial hatred? What then was to be conciliated ?

But the Prime Minister had stood up and delivered an impressive speech which was really very imposing for his supporters on that side. His policy was “the only one”! Well, what was that policy? What was the policy which the Prime Minister had put into practice? He would not trouble about the actual words, for when the Prime Minister got into a difficulty he made an appeal ad misericordiam. If he could not get enough mud to throw on his friends—his enemies got very little of it, as they knew how to work in a different manner—then he appealed to their feelings, and thought that that would put everything right. But the time for that was past. The people had already found him out. He could not continue to go on like that, and the speaker would assure him that unless he turned over a new leaf he had come to his end. The speaker felt himself banished by the Prime Minister, but he defied that order of banishment, knowing that there was an appeal to the people, and that he had the right to appeal to that court. He again challenged the Prime Minister to appeal to the people.

Well, the Prime Minister now wanted him and his friends if they differed from him to go and sit on the other side of the House. It was only the autocratic ideas of the Prime Minister which had inspired him with such an absurd idea. The speaker and his friends had their principles. Most of them, if not all, except the Minister and his colleagues, were in agreement with the speaker on all points where he and the Minister differed. The speaker had the right, therefore, to remain with his party. He adhered to that standpoint. His protest was directed only and solely against the head of that party. The Prime Minister—not the party—had lost his confidence. For that reason he said to the Prime Minister: “Do your duty; go to the people; either you are right or I am right; the people will decide; don’t be afraid.”

The Prime Minister had made an attack on the hon. member for Uitenhage, and expressed deep disappointment at the fact that they had ventured to attack him. Up to then it had been the privilege of the Opposition to do that, and not the privilege of the great party at whose head the Minister stood. The Prime Minister had quoted precedents from the past history of South Africa, or rather of the Cape. The speaker was prepared to accept the facts as correct, namely, where the Minister wished to show that new Governments were formed without proceeding to a dissolution. But why did the Minister quote cases from the Cape? The hon. member for Uitenhage had quoted the constitutional custom as applied in England during the past fifty or sixty years. The hon. member had shown that in no case was action taken other than that which he suggested, namely, that when a new Government came into power, it did nothing but the most urgent work, and immediately afterwards appealed to the people. With what right, the Minister had asked them, had the hon. member for Uitenhage tried to mislead the House? The Minister had relied on the practice of the Cape Colony. Assuming that that policy was at one time followed here, then there was no obligation resting on that House to continue the practice, but in a matter of that sort they were bound to follow the guidance of the English Parliament.

The thing to do now was to decide what was necessary under the present circumstances. Two years ago a Parliament had been elected in South Africa, and the party to which he had the honour to belong went to the people with a certain number of persons who, at that time already, formed the Government. The people had put its seal on that by giving that party the majority in Parliament, accompanied by a mandate. Three or four members of the Ministry had since then been removed or expelled, and they had formed a new Ministry, and now came to Parliament without even condescending to say: “Here is a new Government, and the policy of that Government is so and so.” The Prime Minister dare not do that! He dared not! If he had done it, he would have had to do one of two things. He would either have had to bring up the old policy again— and then there would have been no reason for excluding the speaker—or he would have had to say that the policy differs in this or that respect. And that he dared not do in that House.

To the Opposition he would say that if the Government had acted in an unconstitutional manner, in a manner which might lead to the creation of evil precedents, then they were to blame. If there was one duty which the Opposition should perform it was to see that the practice which was followed by the Government was the soundest that they could get for the future, but they had in this case permitted a road to be followed which would create a precedent for the future, which was not a sound precedent.

The Opposition ought to have asked what was the policy of the Government after the new Ministry had been formed. When the hon. member for Barberton disappeared from the Cabinet, the Leader of the Opposition had put questions, and delivered a speech, from which the speaker read extracts (see 1912 Hansard, col. 2,775), referring to the “extraordinary,” “unparliamentary,” and singular action of the Government, because they had not of their own initiative made a statement to the House. (Laughter.)

In the present case a Minister had disappeared, and a new Ministry arose. The speaker would agree that he was not as important a person as the hon. member for Barberton, but the speaker was not the only one who on this occasion had ceased to be a Minister. The whole Ministry had resigned. Was he to take it that the Opposition thought so little of the Ministry that they did not think it worth their while to invite an explanation? (Hear, hear.) If the Opposition had known what they knew to-day they might well have taken that view. The speaker would say with deep feeling that the conduct of the Ministry since the 26th of January had been of such a character that the future would be ashamed of it. Two and a half months had passed by, and the Government were making themselves not only ridiculous, but contemptible. He asked hon. members: What had the Government actually done in that time? The Senate met, and the Senate adjourned; the Senate met again and again the Senate adjourned. Was it not the duty of hon. members after what had taken place to insist that Constitutional custom should be followed, and the Parliament dissolved? (Hear, hear.) Had the Government succeeded in carrying through its legislation? They had not the courage to bring a single thing of importance before the House with vigour, and manfully see it through. Here they had the constitutional practice of the English Parliament, which was based on centuries of experience, and which had taught that it was the soundest practice. Therefore once more—dissolve!

He would give some further reasons to show the soundness of the practice of the English Parliament. The course of action which had been taken by the Prime Minister had led to division and embitterment amongst the people whom he and the speaker represented. Was it desirable that a Government which was guilty of that should continue to carry on the government, so that the people might be further divided? That division was not limited to the Dutch-speaking population, but had also extended to the English-speaking, as was shown in the attack which was made by the Prime Minister on the hon. member for Uitenhage. That was the result of the Prime Minister’s conduct, of which he would have to bear the results and the responsibility. He had risen and stated that he would bear the responsibility. He should do so by appealing to the people.

The speaker would give other reasons. They had come there to Parliament, and what did they find? How many members were there usually in the House during a debate? If they went in the lobby (and he was one of those who did), there they found slackness and impotence. (Hear, hear.)

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said “hear, hear,” but the speaker would point out that the hon. member was also one of those who had Succumbed to the sickness as much as other members. It was deplorable to see how the Opposition had been crippled. Was it a sound condition of affairs when they saw the Opposition permit the Budget debate to run to an end in one afternoon? True, it may have been a misunderstanding. But what was the reason for it, and what was the attitude of the House when an hon. member who always had the ear of the House, namely Sir Isaac Walton. (Laughter?) He meant Sir Edgar, and was thinking casually of his friend “the angler.” What happened? The hon. member had barely begun before hon. members on the Government side of the House called out, “dreary.” That was very impolite towards an hon. member who had one of the greatest tasks to fulfil. The result was that the Budget debate was finished in three hours.

said that was owing to a mistake.

said it was the result of nothing else but lassitude and lack of interest in the great matters which were before the House. The one waited for the other. That was deplorable. Had they shown that interest in the matter which its importance justified that would not have occurred. What was now taking place? Look at the Opposition. Was there any improvement there? It appeared to him that the Leader of the Opposition had actually tried to get the debate-reopened in order to get the debate which was now taking place, and not in order to devote attention to the country’s finances.

He repeated that the Opposition, the members, and the Government were so demoralised by what had taken place, and by what might still occur, that it had become the duty of the Government to dissolve the Parliament. That was evidence for the soundness of the practice to which the hon. member for Uitenhage had referred. The hon. member had alluded to the practice which was followed in England, a practice which was followed in that House, a practice which ought to be followed by the Government. At present their political life was not healthy, but demoralised.

He felt bound to urge on the Government the necessity of following the constitutional procedure, the democratic procedure, with regard to the dissolution of Parliament. The Prime Minister had compelled him to speak about some other matters, because he had made attacks on other hon. members—unfortunately not on members of the Opposition, but on members of the Government party, because they ventured to differ from him in opinion.

The Prime Minister had made quotations from an article written by the hon. member for Ladybrand. In a roundabout way he had actually tried to attain what he had not the courage to say directly— namely, to make an attack on the speaker. He regretted that. The attack which the Prime Minister had made on the hon. member for Ladybrand was based on a letter from that hon. member. It would, however, have been a more manly thing if he had personally discussed the points of attack, and adopted them as his own, and not quoted them from a newspaper. The Prime Minister could have settled the matter against the hon. member for Ladybrand much sooner. He would not claim that his only purpose was to show to the House the inconsistencies of the hon. member for Ladybrand. To refer to that point was very easy. On the other hand, the hon. member could easily defend himself by saying “February was February and April is April.” When the hon. member wrote in February last he did not then know that the Prime Minister would follow a line of conduct so cowardly, the like of which from a Minister he had never before met with. Owing to that cowardice, as a result of the contemptible conduct of the Government since February, it would some day be said in history that Dutch-speaking people were incapable of ruling the country. The sooner this page in the history of the country was turned over, the better. If the present session passed by, and there came another session of a similar character, the Dutch-speaking people would be accused of incapacity to rule the country. The Dutch-speaking people were in the first place responsible for this contempt to which Parliament was now exposed, because the Prime Minister in particular was responsible for what had happened during the past two months. He would be held responsible, and with him the whole of Dutch-speaking South Africa. The hon. member for Ladybrand had only to say “February was February and April is April.” But the hon. member would undoubtedly be able to defend his own conduct better than the speaker could do it for him.

The Prime Minister had said that the speech made by the hon. member for Ladybrand was unworthy of him. The speaker would again offer advice, and tell the Prime Minister that the Free Stater had always known how to act worthily towards the Free State and how to represent its interests worthily. It was not necessary for the Prime Minister to do that, and if he thought the speaker was wrong, then he would say to the Minister: Go to the people, dissolve Parliament, and let the people decide. The Prime Minister’s answer was simply based on the fact that the hon. member for Ladybrand had been so rude as to criticise the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister had also criticised the speech of the hon. member for Barberton. He had expressed amazement at It The Prime Minister was, however, often amazed, usually over matters which did not concern him. The Prime Minister was angry with the hon. member for Barberton for insinuating that a conspiracy existed between the Opposition and the Prime Minister. The speaker wished to ask the Prime Minister if that was not so, if they did not daily see the evidence of it in the House, the evidence in the newspapers, and did it not appear from all of it that at the same time the policy of the Opposition and that of the Prime Minister were the same? Had not hon. members the right to come to such a conclusion as was come to by the hon. member for Barberton? If it was really wrong to draw that conclusion, then it was the fault of the Prime Minister, who ought to have followed a different line of action. The Prime Minister ought to have been frank, and he ought to have done his duty. He had not done it. The hon. member for Barberton had said it there, and the speaker had said it outside the House, and would repeat it in the House. From the Prime Minister’s mouth itself they had it that he was in agreement with the Opposition. If his policy was not the policy of the Opposition, then the speaker would ask how it was possible that the newspapers which, year after year, did nothing but shriek at hon. members who sat on that side of the House, were now so unanimous in favour of the Prime Minister? How was it that the newspapers now approved every action of the Prime Minister? How came it that they so praised him? Was there no longer any difference between party and party? If that was so, then they should break up parties. And if there was a real difference between the parties, then the place of the Prime Minister was not on the right side of the House.

There were a few Ministers, he observed, who were very busy answering the speaker. He congratulated them all, and hoped their defence would be better than as it appeared in the inspired newspapers. The attitude of those papers was ridiculous. An article had been recently published representing the views of some of the Ministers. It was called “A Serious Warning.” They must not believe, according to that warning, that the Opposition gave that help out of friendship or that they agreed with the Government party. They did it to flatter General Botha. For a long time past, it went on, the Opposition had said: We must flatter the Prime Minister and attack the hon. member for Smithfield, who must go. The members of the Ministry who had so allowed themselves to be influenced, had allowed themselves to be used by the Opposition in order to get their own way. Did they know that? If the speaker’s information was correct, the article was inspired, if not written, by Ministers. If that were so, Ministers had allowed themselves knowingly to be used in order to give effect to the wishes of the Opposition.

If the articles were not inspired, were the members of the Government so ignorant and so stupid, whilst the members of the Opposition had been so busy? The newspaper editors saw everything, and it was only the members of the Government who were ignorant arid saw nothing. The speaker felt himself bound frankly to declare that he did not think much of the capacity of the members of the Government, but he had a better idea of them than that. The hon. member for Barberton had been accused and severely attacked because he had spoken of a conspiracy. The speaker would repeat that it was the Prime Minister who was responsible for that owing to his conduct. He should have adopted another line of conduct. He had not done that, and had now no right to protest against the hon. member for Barberton and the speaker.

The Prime Minister told them that the present was the same Government as that of last year. The speaker did not wish to go into that question, as it was one of those things which were so clear that if attention was drawn to it there was almost a danger of being accused of despising the intelligence of other persons. Still, they could gather from it how weak the Prime Minister’s case actually was.

He had already spoken longer than he intended. He only wanted to urge on the Government to follow the constitutional way. The Government were bound to do that, and so long as they did not do it the speaker intended to retain his seat on that side of the House with the party, and to sit with the party in order to do his duty to the party, despite the fact that his task as regards the Prime Minister might not be an agreeable one. He had the right to point out to the Prime Minister that he should follow the constitutional course, and he would not go and sit on the other side of the House because he did not belong there. Despite all that, however, it the Prime Minister did not follow the way indicated, the clear way necessary to give satisfaction to the will of the people, it was the speaker’s purpose to do everything he could to compel him. And he would do that as a loyal member of the party.

The Minister of Education (the speaker continued) smiled in a manner as if he would say: What a monster of a party man! (Laughter.) He could, however, assure the Minister of Education that long after the Minister had forgotten the principles of the party, he (the speaker) would remain a good and loyal party man and continue to sit on the side of his party. (Hear, hear.) He had the right to speak to the Prime Minister as he had done, although he was a member of the party. He knew he had the right to go to the electors and to ask them who was right. The Prime Minister would have to do that. If he did not do it now, then he would have to do it to-morrow, and the longer he postponed it the more difficult it would be for him. The reason why the Prime Minister had acted as he had acted could not be because he wished to advance the interests of the people. It was to the interest of the people that an end should be put to the bitterness and the division in the party. An end could be made to it at once by means of an appeal to the people. He hoped it was not yet too rate, and that the Prime Minister would still see wherein his duty lay, namely, to make an appeal to the people of the country (Hear, hear.)

said they had just listened to important speeches which were of the greatest interest for the country. The hon. member for Smithfield had stated that the Prime Minister should go to the people and find out whether he had still a majority at his back. Well, the Prime Minister had received directions from the public to attend to the affairs of the country, and so long as that was being done there was no need for a general election. It was certainly very strange that the hon. member for Smithfield had served so long under a Prime Minister from whom he differed, and in his opinion the Prime Minister was perfectly justified in ousting him from the Cabinet. The Prime Minister spoke in England on the possibility of farmers obtaining ground in the Union, and the hon. member at once said something different and urged that immigration would be a crime. The hon. member for Smithfield had ridiculed the policy of conciliation of the Prime Minister. It was impossible, therefore, for the hon. member for Smithfield and for the Prime Minister to be in the same Cabinet. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the speech of the hon. member for Ladybrand. From that speech he was unable to make out what was the particular grievance of the hon. member—whether it was that the Free State was neglected or that the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) was out of the Cabinet, or that the hon. member for Ladybrand was not elected to sit upon Select Committees. He would remind the hon. member for Ladybrand that it was a rule of the Government to appoint no members who sat upon the fence in the House upon Select Committees.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing with his speech, said that the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) had made himself impossible whilst still a Minister. He did not agree with the policy of the Prime Minister, yet he had remained a member of the Government, and on more than one occasion had expressed himself strongly against the policy of the Government; notwithstanding that, he had remained a member of the Ministry. He had called the Ministry names, and charged them with being people who had no principles; who did not deserve the confidence of the country. Yet for more than two and a half years the hon. member himself had remained a Minister, and, therefore, be (Mr. Neser) thought that the hon. member was entirely in the wrong, and that he should have resigned when he could no longer agree with the policy of the Prime Minister. If the hon. member had done that, there would have been no necessity for the Prime Minister to resign, and form a new Government which did not include the hon. member. Now the hon. member, and others with him, came and said that a new Ministry had been formed, and Parliament should have been dissolved. Who was responsible for all the bitterness in the country? From the beginning the hon. member for Smithfield, and those with him, had attempted to rouse the country against the Prime Minister. (Cheers and dissent.) When the time duly came, and they went to the country, they would see in whom the people of the country reposed confidence. The hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) seemed to imagine, like a French king of the olden days, “that he was the State.” (Laughter.) When one read the hon. member’s manifesto, one was reminded of the Ten Commandments: “I am the Lord your God.” (Laughter.) The difference between the former Ministry and the present one was that one Minister had been left out. The party had been chosen by the people on certain principles; the Government had been formed on these principles, and not on a question of persons; and as long as the Prime Minister remained faithful to his policy, they would support him. (Hear, hear.) He sincerely believed that, as far as he knew, all moderate persons would support the policy of the Prime Minister rather than the policy of the hon. member for Smithfield. He believed that the hon. member also had the advancement of the country at heart, as the Prime Minister had, but in order to get that advancement, he thought that all moderate people would rather follow the Prime Minister than the hon. member. From the time the hon. member had taken part in the government of South Africa, there had been unrest. He began it in the Free State, and afterwards carried it further in the Union Government. (An Hon. MEMBER: That is false.) No, it was a fact. In the O.F.S. the hon. member had begun to cause unrest and had continued it ever since he had become a member of the Union Government. (An HON. MEMBER: “That is false.”

said the hon. member was going too far.

continuing, some time ago the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had referred to the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) as a Mbongo to the Prime Minister. (Laughter.) At that time nothing could be said against the Prime Minister, without the hon. member for Uitenhage springing up to defend the right hon. gentleman. Now he attacked the Prime Minister, saying he had no longer any confidence in him, but what, had he done? He had remained faithful to his policy, (Hear, hear.) Nothing else. As to the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull), he was one of those persons who had been disappointed, and now nursed a great grievance against the Prime Minister and against the Government Parliament and the country had to be thankful to the hon. member for much which he had done, and for his peculiar and wonderful financial policy—(laughter)— and he (Mr. Neser) believed that the recent loan would have been far more successfully floated if the hon. member had not been Minister of Finance. The previous year the hon. member, with his Estate Duty Bill, had given a great shock to those who lived abroad. As to the bewaarplaatsen question, the hon. member claimed to know all about the subject and wanted the whole of the proceeds to go into the Treasury despite the fact that it had been shown to Committees of the old Volksraad in the Transvaal that the Government had not the right to all the money from them. He hoped the Government would not follow the advice of the hon. member. He (Mr. Neser) did not want to go into the whole matter now, but be believed that the Minister of Finance would lay certain proposals before the House in a short time, when they would be able to deal with the whole matter in a thorough manner, and he hoped that they would deal with it satisfactorily, and that the Minister would not follow the lead of the hon. member for Barberton, or do what had been tantamount to robbing the rightful owners, which, in his opinion, would be nothing but spoliation and confiscation. With regard to the Estimates which had been compiled by the hon. member for Barberton, as Minister of Finance, he had always adopted the policy of under-estimating the revenue and overestimating the expenditure. He did that in order to avoid a deficit and the need for fresh taxation. They had also to thank the hon. member for Barberton with the help of legal advisers, in his opinion, for the railway rates not having been further reduced, as they might otherwise have been, because of the hon. member’s financial proposals with regard to the payment of interest on capital which was itself merely an investment of accumulated profits. As long as the railway rates remained so high, they would not be able to develop the interior as they ought to No doubt it was a good thing to reduce the national debt, but they should not devote money to that purpose which was required for other purposes. He regretted that the Minister of Railways and Harbours had intimated that there would be no further reduction of railway rates that year. He could not see why the reduction could not be made, especially when they saw how the receipts were on the increase. The loss of £686,000 yearly on the branch lines had to be made good by the profits on the main lines, and yet there had been a surplus of a million pounds. As to the harbours, the losses there of £337,000 had also to be made good, arid the harbours should be so regulated that they became solvent; and if that could not be done, a tax should be levied in connection with the harbours. (Hear, hear.) As things were at present, the inhabitants of the interior did not receive fair treatment, and they could not go forward and develop industries as they should if present conditions remained as they were. He referred to the excellent results which had followed the reduction of rates in the matter of export mealies. Although the railway rates on coal had been reduced, he thought that there should be further reductions, as many mines, especially those of low grade, could not be made to pay unless there was cheap coal. If these mines closed down, many poor whites would be without employment. The hon. member for Pretoria District, North, had complained that he had to pay £14,000 to £15,000 annually on the freight of raw material required in his industry. Something more should be done to put the poor whites back on to the land. But they must see that the men so dealt with were farmers, otherwise there would be no chance for them. He regretted that notwithstanding that the Land Settlement Act had been passed last year, so little had been done in regard to settling people on the land. He regretted that in that Act had been included those provisions with regard to minerals—a provision he had opposed at the time—which might be found on such land. It seemed, with reference to all the settlements, as if they would “suffer shipwreck,” which was due, he thought, to there being no satisfactory supervision. The Government had promised to advance four-fifths of the money required if the settlers could find the remaining fifth. Why was that fact not made more generally known? It should be seen to that these settlers did not make a failure of the business. He referred to the settlement at Potchefstroom as an example, and said the people needed more advice at first, and an inspector should be sent round amongst them. The hon. member went on to deal with the Land Bank. He said that many people purchased land and did not take into account what they could make out of the land. He feared that the Act itself only made the land dearer, and that before long the Land Bank would be one of the largest owners of land. A day of reckoning would come, and they in the Transvaal had already had some experience of the land slump, after the war. He would, therefore, like to raise a warning voice against that speculative spirit. In conclusion, he hoped that those who did not have any confidence in the Government would come out into the open, and move a motion of no-confidence in the Government, so that they would all know where they were. (Hear, hear.)

said that he regretted that such an attack had been made as had been made that afternoon on the Government. He liked to speak as man to man, and not behind a man’s back, but as these hon. members who had attacked the Government were not now in the House, he could not speak to them face to face. He was speaking not only to the House, but also to the country. He could understand the Government being attacked by the Opposition, but what was one to make of an attack coming from one’s own side? What would happen to their country if that sort of thing went on? Would it be to the benefit of the people? Let them suppose for the moment that a general election took place, could that section which had attacked the Government form a Government? He thought that the Government had the confidence of the country—even more than it had had before. (Cheers.) If they had a general election, and had a Botha Party, a Hertzog Party, an Opposition Party, and a Labour Party, what a nice mixture that would be! (Laughter.) What would they be able to do for the country? What statesmanship was there in this attack on the Government? Could it lead to any good to the country? It seemed to him that there were too many aspirants for the Premiership. (Laughter.) Only one man could be Prime Minister, and they must support him. (Hear, hear.) He would like to say to the hon. member for Uitenhage, let him not think that his seat was as safe as he thought it was. (Laughter.) He must say that he regretted that such an affair had taken place, and he must express his regret at what the hon. member had said. He could have understood if the hon. member had moved a vote of no-confidence at the conclusion of his speech, but he had not done so. He could not understand his attitude. It was said that so little had been done that session, but whose fault was it? (An HON. MEMBER: “ Long speeches.”) Ah, there they had it. He regretted that the hon. member for Smithfield was no longer a member of the Cabinet, but also regretted that the hon. member had taken up a certain attitude. The hon. member for Uitenhage had spoken at great length that afternoon, and gone through all the Estimates again. With him (Mr. Schoeman) the question was not a question of Botha or Hertzog; it was a question of the good of the country. (Cheers.)

He thought that the difference was one between the two gentlemen, but on account of that, should the country have to suffer? He feared that the hon. member had got into bad company. (Laughter.) He would not attain his ends if he went in the way he was going. He challenged those who had attacked the Government to say where the Government had been untrue to their principles, not that he wanted to say that he was absolutely satisfied himself with everything the Government had done. The hon. member for Smithfield should think how much trouble it had cost them to create the South African party. Was it statesmanship to break it down? The hon. member was causing a lot of agitation and sending people around to address meetings, and’ that was wrong. The Government could not be expected to satisfy everybody, but it could not be said that they had abandoned their principles. He could not understand the attitude of the hon. member for Ladybrand, who had been a couple of months ago, a strong supporter of the Government, and now turned round on them. Such a man was politically untrustworthy. (Hear, hear.) He could understand the attitude of the Opposition, but he could not agree with flattery one day and condemnation of the Government the next day. He had risen to speak, to show the people that there was another side to that question, because if one section did not state its side of the case the public might run away with quite erroneous ideas. He challenged the hon. member for Smithfield to propose a vote of no confidence. Dealing with the hon. member for Barberton, he thought his attack had been, not on the Prime Minister, but, through him, on the Minister of Justice. Let him tell the hon. member this: that if one attacked the Minister of Justice one was on very dangerous ground. (Laughter.) It was to be hoped that the public would not allow themselves to be influenced by a wrong representation of the facts. For the present the Government must continue, and at the end of another two years—they could see. (Hear, hear.)

said that the sinking of a people could be ascribed to lack of education, and agricultural education, for they in the Orange Free State were an agricultural people. He complained that matters in connection with the agricultural school at Glen were going so slowly. The Minister of Public Works was too slow, and he thought the Government should make more progress. If due provision had been made to give young men a proper education, their people would have gone ahead much more than they had, and there would not have been that sad condition of affairs which now existed. The Free State was being neglected, and he hoped that a beginning with the school would be made this year, so that the young people could get practical education in agriculture. Australia had made fine progress in farming and that was due to the fact that they sent their boys to the agricultural schools. When a South African farmer became rich his sons generally became attorneys, or doctors, instead of being trained as farmers; and he was convinced that if they received a proper training, farming would pay them very well. The farmers in Rouxville were suffering severely from scab, which had been brought to them from Basutoland. There had been a wall between them, but that had fallen down. Some one had been sent from Pretoria to go along the border, but the man stood there like a stranger in Jerusalem. He must express his bitter regret at the way the Land Settlement Act, passed the previous year, had been carried into effect, for people did not seem to be able to get land. Money had been voted, an Act had been passed, and yet no progress seemed to be made. What was wrong? As to the harbours, he thought a change should be effected, because, as things were at present, the people of the interior had to pay for the losses incurred by the harbours, and yet the cost of living was greater in the inland districts. He hoped that the Government would deal with the matter, and put an end to the present unsatisfactory state of affairs, and make the harbours self-supporting. (Hear, hear.) They who exported mealies, would be quite prepared to pay more, at the harbours, if necessary. Why were not more poor whites employed on the railways, he asked? There was still a large number of woodcutters in the plantations, and yet in the Gape they found a lot of coloured people working on the railways, the hon. member spoke of the necessity of dealing more stringently with stock thefts which took place in the Orange Free State. If they had four policemen, he said, three had to do red tape work in an office, and only one was left to go round the district. That was how the present system struck him. The Government should also look to the matter of the post carts and the remuneration given, as it required consideration. He was glad there was no need for fresh taxation and said it was to be hoped it would not be necessary for a long time to come. Surely they did not wish to impose it until it was really needed. Dealing with the “unfortunate crisis” which had arisen, he said the whole party keenly felt that such a difference had arisen between the two generals, and he hoped that they would meet and settle their differences. He honestly believed that leaders were sometimes misled, by their advisers and they had to be on their guard against them. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that in the interests of the people an understanding would be arrived at between the two men; and if one or the other, or both, made some sacrifices, it would be to the great benefit of the people, if there came an end to that difference.

said the discussion had been far from edifying to the members on the cross benches The most painful matter in the situation, to their minds, had been that hon. members sitting behind the Prime Minister should attack the Government in the way they had. If they had the courage of their convictions they should show that they were in earnest in what they said by voting against the Government. It was a cowardly position to take up, and the sooner an understanding was arrived at the better it would be for the country. He agreed with the hon. member for Uitenhage when he said that the Government were distrusted by the country, but he did not agree with the hon. member for the same reason, but for an altogether different one. The opinion that he held was that the reason the Government was distrusted in the country was because they had sacrificed the interest of the Commonwealth to the interests of private wealth. They had pandered to the interests of the richer classes and ignored the interests of the poorer people of both races. They on the cross benches knew no racialism. When they brought forward a proposition it was calculated to improve the lot of all the people of South Africa. There was only one economic division in South Africa, that between capital and labour, and the sooner the Labour Party got on the move again, so soon would the racial question fade away, and they would have hon. members on both sides of the House in each others’ arms for the protection of their property. He regretted that the motion to go into Committee of Supply included both the Budget and the Railway Estimates. He agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg that the Government should disclose their policy with regard to bewaarplaatsen. In other countries when prosperity prevailed it was the custom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold out some hope to the unemployed, the sick, the aged, the poor. Here they were talking a great deal about the prosperity of South Africa, and the Minister of Finance came along with a Budget in which there was not one word indicating the policy which they were going to pursue in order to protect the interests of, or assist the poor workers of South Africa. They were told there was very little poverty in this country, and yet it had been stated that there were 8,000 applicants for employment on the railways. It seemed remarkable that in a country in extent 470,000 square miles, which was, in regard to its mineral and agricultural wealth, one of the richest in the world, with a white population of only 1½ millions and a large coloured population, yet more and more white people were leaving our shores every day.

The recent census showed that, as far as immigration was concerned, this country was in a serious way. From 1904 to 1911 there was an increase in the coloured male population of 337,110, while the increase in the white male population was only 50,047, giving an increase in the coloured male population of 16.47 per cent, and in the white male population of 7.88 per cent. In Natal the position was even more serious than it was in other parts of the Union. They found an increase in the coloured males of 17,984, or 26.8 per cent., while the white male population had decreased by 4,263, or 7½ per cent. The exodus from Natal was explained partly by the fact that the Indians, who had been brought into Natal to foster the sugar industry, were now replacing the white workers in the various trades. They had 145,000 Indians in Natal as against just over 100,000 white people. What benefit, he asked, had Natal or South Africa received from the sugar industry? They had an expenditure of £154,000, owing to reduced railway rates, and £137,000, duty on imported sugar, and this, for an industry which employed 636 Europeans, and 20,000 Indians and natives. He would suggest that a tax should be placed on the sugar farmers in order to pay the expenses of those Indians who wanted to go back to their own country. As to the electorate of Natal, they found a decrease in the male electors, through men leaving the country, of 3,134. If the same rate were maintained until 1920, i.e., until 10 years after Union, Natal would find itself entitled, on the Union quota of representation, not to 17 members, but to nine. Natal’s trade had been bartered away to Delagoa Bay, a Foreign Power, so that the mines on the Band might receive 100,000 cheap, semi-servile labourers, in order to increase the mining dividends. White people were leaving the shores of South Africa because avenues of employment were not available to them, not only in regard to industries, but also in regard to the land. That brought him to the question of the taxation of the site values of land. There was no doubt that the prosperity of any country depended mainly upon labour applied to land. They had heard some most grotesque and weird ideas as to what they meant by taxation of unimproved land values. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, talked wildly last year of prairie value. Now he talked about taxing unused land.

The hon. member went on to describe what was meant by the taxation of unimproved land values. Land was necessary for the well-being of the people, and consequently all the people had an interest in all the land. Such a tax would not damage the farmer, for he would be treated on an equality with the man in the town. Every man would be entitled to the frill reward of his labours, but ho would pay a ground rental. It would not only be a splendid source of revenue, but they would be able to abolish most of the taxes that pressed so heavily on the shoulders of the people. It would mean the real development of the country. At present there was a sort of land monopoly. The development of the country was the chief reason why they proposed this taxation. People went to Australia and New Zealand because there was a land tax and the land had been opened up. He thought the people of the country should be given the first opportunity of going on the land; if they had a land tax there would be room for everybody. The hon. member for George attacked the salary vote, and said it was most alarming, but he did not give one instance or explanation as to how this money had been spent, or in what direction it might have been saved. The total increase in salaries over last year was £150,582, or, if the amount saved in the Department of the Minister of Finance was taken off, a net increase of £149,336, due to the increase of staff and the increased work done. £74,000 alone was set aside for an additional staff of 416 in the Post Office due to increased work. He thought that the attack of the hon. member for George on the increased salaries of the Civil Service was uncalled for, more especially as he failed to give a word of explanation. As the country progressed, and more work had to be done, the vote for salaries would increase. The hon. member gave figures to show that farmers were well looked after. No less than £332,606 was the total amount spent in the Agricultural Department in salaries alone. He thought the farmers were doing exceedingly well. With regard to the Railway budget, he was sorry that there was nothing about any portion of the £300,000 surplus going to the betterment of those who worked the railways. One point, which to him seemed alarming, was in connection with the reduction of rates. He found there had been rate reductions to the amount of £1,300,000 since Union. All that would go to increase the ratio of working expenses. The total railway revenue for the coining year was £12,886,664, and the total ordinary expenditure £6,555,716, and the total working expenditure, including depreciation, relaying and betterment was £8,022,168. If they took the General Manager’s reports for previous years, they would find that he had made a special point of informing the Government that the ratio of working expenses to revenue on the S.A. Railways had been extremely low, as compared with similar railways in other parts of the world. In 1910 the ratio had been 54.8. in 1911 it had risen to 59.62, while, according to the Estimates, it would be 62.34 in 1913-14—so that it would not now compare so favourably with other countries. The working expenditure would have to be brought down, and he was afraid that those at the bottom of the ladder would have to suffer, in order that that ratio might be lowered. That was probably the reason for the new regulations which had been issued. The report of the Grievances Commission was an absolute justification for the unrest and uneasiness which had existed in the railways for the past few years. It was one of the most damaging indictments brought against the department, because the Grievances Commission had come to the conclusion that the men had every reason to be dissatisfied, and the report was a complete vindication of the meetings which had been held by the railway men, the protests which had been made, and what had been said by hon. members on the cross benches. The Government had issued a new code of rules and regulations, which, in many respects, violated the report of the Commission. One would have thought that the Government would have been guided by the report when they had issued the regulations to the men on January 1st, but it seemed to him that they had ridden rough-shod over the recommendations. He would like to give particulars in what respects the recommendations of the Grievances Commission were in conflict with the regulations brought into force on January 1. The hon. member went on to read clause 171 of the regulations, and said that it meant, up to the end of the previous year, those workers who were entitled in Natal to draw 14s. a day, now that they had not received their maximum, were only entitled to 13s. a day. He asked whether that was not another injustice to those already in the service? Most certainly it was an injustice, that ought to be rectified. He then went on to read Regulation 245. The regulations violated the recommendations of the Grievances Commission. It seemed to him that these regulations ought to be suspended until they knew how far the Government intended to act upon the recommendations contained in the Grievances Commission’s report. The Government, not only in their railway administration, but in many other respects, had been tried, and found wanting. Their policy had been one of muddle and make-believe. Theirs had been a policy of ignoring the poor man and pandering to the rich man on all sides, and it would result in creating millionaires on the one hand and paupers on the other. They on the cross-benches were quite willing to join forces with any other section in that House, whether it were the hands-uppers, the followers of the hon. member for Smithfield, who were afraid to do anything but shout at the Prime Minister, or whether it were the members of the Opposition. They were quite ready and prepared to face the country, and test the feeling of the country as to whether the Government had played the game in the past, or were likely to do so in the future.

said that after all the criticism which had been passed on the Government, he felt able to congratulate them on the condition of their finances. The transfer duties had been diminished, the railway tariffs reduced, no direct taxation had been introduced, and lastly the public debt had not been added to. Those were matters for which they should be grateful to the Government. There was undoubtedly a large measure of prosperity prevailing in the country, and he hoped it would continue. The Opposition had spoken a good deal about the Customs’ tariffs, but the present was not the time to decide the question of protection or free trade. That opportunity would come when a Bill dealing with the question was laid before the House. The Opposition had also spoken a good deal about agriculture, but their judgment in that matter was based in great part on hearsay. Then it seemed that in conjunction with the Labour party they wanted to tax the lands of the farmers, whilst the hon. member for Kimberley wanted to see immigrants introduced and settled in Bechuanaland. Well, they had already a sad experience connected with such immigration, the settlers knowing nothing about farming methods in South Africa. What did such people know of the breeding of horses and sheep in the dry districts such as the Karoo? Their English friends even spoke of farming with fowl, but they did better to leave that in the hands of the women, who were not asking for the franchise but merely wished to manage their own affairs. The speaker felt certain that the Minister of Railways and Harbours could take on more white men into the service of the railways. The coloured workmen enjoyed many advantages. Their children obtained their education free and could buy what they wanted cheaply on the paymaster’s train. In that way many poor whites were kept out of employment. The natives were at present too fond of staying in the locations. Those who were superfluous there should be ordered to leave, and fewer of them should be taken into the service of the railways, and then they would go and find work with the farmers as was formerly the case. Failing that, farming would be ruined. The Government should give their attention to that important question and he trusted that the present session would see a Bill introduced to settle that matter. In the public schools matters were not being conducted as they ought to be. When a child was seven years old he was required to go to school, and each year he had to go up a standard, or if he failed he had to go back for a year. But he learnt no business. The boys passed the matriculation examination, and were then unsuitable for work on a farm, to which they returned with a walking stick and gloves. The education given was not a practical one, and the fault of that lay in the curriculum. He thought that the inspection and examination system ought to be abolished. He had read in the report of a well-known school board: “There are too many examinations and inspections, the children are educated solely with a view to examinations, and they do not get a practical view of things.” In education lay the strength of the people. It was not by reason of its artillery nor because of its airships that Germany triumphed, but by personal development of the people, Germany was strong by reason of its system of education. The same with Denmark. Had the Minister ever thought of having an inquiry made into their methods? In South Africa they were paying more for education than in other countries and they got less for it in return. Also in regard to matters of public health, matters were still very unsatisfactory. He hoped the Tuberculosis Commission would soon submit its report. Then there were the questions of malaria and milk fever, the last mentioned being a very prevalent complaint which made the sufferers weak. Then there were thousands of natives suffering from syphilis and something would have to be done. He feared that something would have to be done, too, in the matter of removing the lepers. When, he asked, were the sick people to be removed from the island? Proceeding, Dr. Neethling regretted the disagreement between the two great leaders, and he hoped the two men would find a way to come to an agreement. For years they had done their utmost to make this a prosperous nation, and only if the two leaders managed to settle their differences could this country hope to prosper in the future.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Wednesday next.