presented a petition on Wednesday from J. W. Timberlake and 33 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; and similar petitions from J. Morgan and 35 others, inhabitants of Cape Town, and from Q. H. Jubber and nine others, inhabitants of Cape Town.

laid upon the Table papers relating to grants and leases of land (Nos. 37 to 52).

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

read the report.

said he would like to give a short history of the matter. In 1881-82 a state of war existed between Bechuanaland chiefs, one of whom was named Mankoroane, each of whom enlisted the services of volunteers and advisers. Mankoroane secured the services of the petitioner, and in recompense for his services and disbursements granted him two farms. During 1882 Mr. Smith was on a mission in Griqualand West, and during his absence peace was declared between the two chiefs. Mankoroane, finding he had no longer need of the services of Smith, immediately cancelled the grant of the two farms. (Laughter.) Smith meanwhile was called in by what had been called filibusters in Stellaland to assist them in organising the country. Subsequently there seemed to have been a great battle between the Transvaal Republic and the Cape Colony as to who should take the spoils of war. Smith’s services were secured by the Cape Colony, and eventually so successful were his services that Stellaland was annexed to the Cape Colony. Upon Sir Sidney Shippard being appointed agent in Bechuanaland on behalf of the Cape, Smith applied for a recompense for his services to Mankoroane, and exhausted every legal remedy without success. Eventually, in 1900, he applied to the Cape Parliament, a Select Committee of which decided he had not exhausted all his legal remedies, and hence could not appeal to Parliament, the committee being under the impression that he should have appealed to the Privy Council. In 1906 Smith again presented a petition to the Cape Parliament, and a Select Committee found in his favour The Select Committee proposed that the amount should not exceed £500 to be paid Mr. Smith for services rendered. In 1910 Mr. Smith again appealed to the Cape Parliament, whereupon the second Select Committee was appointed. It was proposed to introduce a Bill into the Cape Parliament, but nothing was done. After Union Mr. Smith entered into correspondence with the Union Ministry, and in 1911 they asked him whether he would be prepared to accept the farm Algiers in full compensation for his claim. The Minister, however, informed him that before Crown lands could be alienated a Bill would have to be introduced. A little later Mr. Smith was informed that the Ministry could not introduce this Bill, but if he could get a private member to introduce it then he would get the Government’s sanction. Mr. Smith did his best to get this done, but he was informed that it was unusual for a private member to introduce a Bill for the allocation of Crown lands. A Select Committee was appointed, and they recommended the farm Algiers should be given to Mr. Smith. He moved that the Select Committee’s report be adopted.

seconded.

said that while the Government was not going to oppose the adoption of the report, he would like to make the position clear. The Government was not opposing simply and solely upon the grounds that they did not wish to sit as a Court of Appeal on the finding of a Select Committee, and on the finding of the Cape Parliament. If the matter were new, perhaps there might have been other arguments upon the subject.

This, however, had become more or less a debt of honour. He was rather afraid, however, that others might be induced to come forward with claims belonging almost to prehistoric times. (Laughter.)

said it would be better if they had some idea of the value of the ground. He, himself, sat on a Select Committee in 1907, and they had no information about this ground. They heard it was 6,700 morgen in extent, and its value £500. It was thought it would be better to give Mr. Smith a grant in money rather than a grant of land. He thought they ought to be particularly careful before granting land to a member of the Legislature, as Mr. Smith was at that time. Did the Crown desire to reserve to itself the mineral rights upon the farm. He did not know what these might be. They might be worth a great deal, and they might be worth nothing, but before the farm was finally settled, they should see that these rights were preserved. He did not harbour any objection to his proposal as it stood, but he thought they ought to know more about the farm.

pointed out that Mr. Smith put his position before the Land Board. Now, what they wanted to do was to reverse the decision of the Land Board. If this case was granted they opened the door to any amount of similar cases. He was very much disappointed in reading the report of the Select Committee to find that these things had not been gone into.

said the proposal would be a comfort to several other gentlemen up in his direction with regard to farms, and he would now be in a position to tell them to send along their petitions, because he was quite assured that the Government would not make fish of one and flesh of another. (Hear, hear.) The whole matter, he thought, did not reflect credit on the Cape legislators, nor upon those who were in charge of these affairs.

feared that if they once opened the door, they would be inundated with petitions, which would have to be granted. A large number of persons had received promises of farms in Bechuanaland, but had not obtained the farms. He knew something about the matter, and held that there were quite a number of people whose rights were as good as those of Mr. Smith.

said that his hon. friend who had just spoken seemed to know nothing about the facts of this case. The object of the speech of the hon. member for Barkly seemed to give the House the impression that if the report were adopted and they attempted to do justice to this man, the door would be opened to other applicants. He hoped the House was not going to be frightened, either by the hon. member for Barkly or the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Since the Land Commission sat 28 years ago, only two individuals had come forward to express dissatisfaction with the way in which their claims were dealt with. They were Mr. Smith and Mr. Hayward. The old Cape House settled the claim of Mr. Hayward to his satisfaction. He thought the House would be fairly entitled to say that there were no other applicants. There was certainly a Mr. Amalsen, who claimed two farms from the Land Commission. One was granted, but the other farm happened to be in the Transvaal, and it was not, therefore, in the jurisdiction of the Land Commission. That was the case his hon. friend the member for Barkly no doubt had in view. With regard to the case of Mr. Smith, it was common cause that when these transactions took place the Chief Mankoroane was an independent chief, and it was in his power to make any grant of land that he wanted to. It could not be denied that Mr. Smith rendered him services and expended on his behalf certain moneys, for which he got certain grants of land. When his claim was brought before the Land Commission it was rejected. It was said that Mr. Smith subsequently left Mankoroane, and took the oath of allegiance to the late Republic of Stellaland. This took place six months after the war had been concluded, and six months after he had rendered services to Mankoroane, so that it was then said that the Land Commission did not do justice to Mr. Smith. The hon. member for George now raised the question of the value of the land. The land was in the Kalahari. It was still a question whether that particular individual would find water, and whether he would find sufficient water in order to carry on farming operations. In dealing with this question of land, they should not forget that every year land went up in value as the country developed. (Hear, hear.) This case had been going on for 15 years. Either Mr. Smith had established a claim or he had not. If he had established his claim, he (Mr. Wessels) hoped that the House was not going to be frightened by all the statements which were made that they would be opening the door, and that the House would be flooded with applications.

said he was surprised that the resolution of the old Cane House had not yet been carried out. It was not the fault of Mr. Smith that justice had not yet been done to him, but it was the fault of the Government. His experience of Select Committees was that they carefully went into matters submitted to them, but what was the good of such committees if their decisions were not carried out? If to-day this resolution were carried, he hoped it would be at once put into effect. He was not afraid of the bogey of the door being opened. If it was a good door, why should it not be opened? Three out of the four Select Committees appointed had reported that Mr. Smith’s claim had been proved.

said that this question was inquired into on many occasions by the old Cape House, and he must say that the committee appointed by the present House was a committee of a very impartial character, and, having gone into the whole of the question, it had come to the same conclusion as the committee appointed by the Cape House in 1906. Acting on the report of that committee, the Government of the day introduced into Parliament a Bill for the purpose of making the grant now referred to, but, owing to circumstances over which the Government had no control, the Bill was not able to go through all its stages. A new Government came into office, and in 1909 another Select Committee inquired into the same question, and that committee made recommendations of an exactly similar character, that either the farm Algiers should be given to Mr. Smith, or he should be granted an amount of £500.

Not exceeding £500.

said that on April 6, 1911, the Surveyor-General wrote to Smith, and inquired whether he was prepared to accept the grant of the farm Algiers in full settlement of all his claims against the Government, and whether he would give a written assurance to that effect. On April 11 Mr. Smith wrote to say that he was quite prepared to accept the grant of the farm, in terms of the letter. On April 22 the Acting Secretary for Lands wrote, on behalf of the Minister, to say that, as there was no provision for a case of this character in the law, a special Bill would have to be introduced, and that the Minister hoped to introduce the Bill in the next session of Parliament. He wondered if the Mr. Fischer who was mentioned in that letter was the same Mr. Fischer who occupied a distinguished position on the Treasury benches. (Laughter.) On December 9 the Minister wrote to say that the draft Bill had been prepared for submission to the next session of Parliament, but that Ministers had decided that it could not be taken up as a Government measure. These were brave words. (Laughter.) The letter went on to tell Mr. Smith that he would be at liberty to take over the Bill, and have it introduced by a private member, and that the Minister would obtain the consent of the Governor-General for the introduction of the Bill, and added that the Minister would be glad to hear what steps Mr. Smith intended to take. On the 25th of March the Minister, wrote to say that it was found impossible to take the course which was first suggested, and intimated that Mr. Smith had better follow any course which he might be advised to take. (Laughter.) He (the speaker) did not wonder that Mr. Speaker was compelled to smile. Had anybody ever heard of a more ridiculous position? Surely his right hon. friend was prepared to take that responsibility in a small matter of this kind. Everybody who knew Bechuanaland knew that the value of that land was not very great. With regard to mineral rights, alluded to by the hon. member for George, surely that hon. member knew of the Act of Annexation, and the fact that the mineral rights were reserved to the Crown? As the matter had gone so far, he hoped that his right hon. friend was not going to depart from the position which he had adopted in the first instance.

said he had a considerable amount of sympathy with the remarks of the hon. member for George, while the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort did not convince him. He was opposed to the alienation of any Crown land freehold. While the House should do justice to Mr. Smith, he did not think the House should forget that it had to deal justly by the people of the country. It was not a small matter. He hoped that the House would not grant the land freehold, and would reserve mineral rights.

held that if Mr. Smith had had any good rights he would have appealed to the High Court. They all knew that after the Imperial Government had taken over the land of Mankoroane all the land granted to individuals by Mankoroane had come into the possession of the Crown. The hon. member for Stellenbosch himself possessed such letters granting him certain lands. If Mr. Smith was now granted this land they would be flooded by similar petitions. Sir Thomas Smartt himself had had an opportunity of getting a Bill through the House, but because he could not get it through all stages he had not introduced it. It was not right to come and attack this Government now. But Sir Thomas himself was satisfied that Mr. Smith had no rights, and for that reason he had not introduced a Bill when he could do so. If a man failed to prove his claim in 28 years there must be something wrong. Failing the High Court the petitioner wanted to make the House a Court of Appeal. He, personally, would vote against the recommendation.

The motion was put and declared carried.

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

stated that when this debate was adjourned on the 14th instant, the question before the House was a motion by the Minister of Finance: That the House do now resolve itself into committee, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. Creswell: To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “this House regrets that in the financial proposals for 1913-1914 the Government have not arranged for the more equitable adjustment of the incidence of taxation by substituting a tax on the unimproved value of all land, agricultural, mineral, and urban, for taxes which are at present raised on the necessities of the people”

said that during the present session he had put several questions to the hon. gentlemen occupying the Treasury benches, and he had also submitted some motions. To several of these questions the answers which were given were most unsatisfactory, and the motions led to similarly bad results. He proposed dealing with a few of these answers and motions. He would deal first of all with the police motion which he introduced, and the extraordinary way in which the Minister had dealt with it.

The hon. member has no right to refer to past debates. This motion has already been disposed of.

I am endeavouring to show—

I have just informed the hon. member that he cannot refer to this matter again.

Has not the hon. member a perfect right to discuss the effect of his motion in a general way? They were dealing with matters that involved expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and what the hon. member wanted to know was whether he could not refer to this matter in a general way on the Budget debate.

The hon. member is not in order in referring to a debate that has already taken place in this House, and which has already been disposed of.

said he would endeavour to put before the House certain injustices which the police were labouring under at the present moment. A Bill was passed last year with the object of doing justice to those in the Service. What the Government were doing, it seemed to him, did not mete out the justice which the police were entitled to. It was distinctly stated that men who were serving in the capacity of police would receive all that they were entitled to. If the Act were put in operation it was clear to him that certain of the men would be unjustly dealt by. Some of the men were frightened to state their complaints openly for fear of dismissal. The Minister of Justice had said that the Opposition were all for increasing expenditure. He could assure them that that was not the policy of the party to which he belonged. Proceeding, the hon. member said that it was not right for the Government to use their steam-roller majority for the purpose of depriving these people of their rights. He did not think that the Government had stuck to what they said. He knew he was tackling a strong proposition when he tackled the Minister of Justice, but he asked him to reconsider this matter. It was highly necessary that a large number of men who were the servants of the country should be satisfied. The expense was of small moment. It was not a large sum which was involved. With regard to the question having reference to the appointment of Mr. Seoundus de Villiers, that was raised the other day, he received an answer to the first part, but the answer to the second part was unsatisfactory. He believed it was the custom to give full answers to all questions that were put by members, but in this case he had not received a full answer. The reason why he put this question was that many men who were in the service had in consequence of this taken a step backward instead of getting a step forward. There were complaints all round. Proceeding, Mr. Nathan referred to several oases of delay in bringing prisoners to trial, mentioning the case of Harman at Graaff-Reinet, where the accused would be nine months in prison before he was tried. That was a gross injustice, because if this man were found not guilty the Government were not going to pay him compensation. With regard to another case at Potchefstroom, Mr. Justice Ward made strong remarks upon the Attorney-General of the Transvaal wasting the time of the Court in bringing a certain case into Court. Mr. Justice Graham also declared that Graaff-Reinet seemed to be in danger of becoming a happy hunting ground for criminals, because when a man was caught there seemed to be no difficulty in his breaking gaol. He thought that after a judge had made those remarks some investigation would be made into the state of affairs. Might he ask did that investigation ever take place? Not only in criminal cases, but in civil cases as well were there crying complaints that cases had to be postponed on account of the few Judges to do the work. It was not the few hours upon a bench that represented a Judge’s work—it was constant work for them night and day. Litigants were put to enormous expense on account of these delays. Witnesses and the legal profession were also put to great inconvenience, and this state of things required looking into. Let them take the new Circuit regulations. The indignity to which the Judges were being placed was a disgrace One Judge (Mr. Justice Hopley) had gone so far as to say that now the judges had to travel in forma pauperis. These regulations should be withdrawn. Proceeding, Mr. Nathan quoted from a letter received from Mare, who complained of what he described as the “dirty treatment” he had received from the Railway Department. He added that he was lodged in gaol to answer a charge of which he was innocent and that one result of this prosecution had been that he was unable to obtain employment. He was now ruined in his own trade as a telegraphist, and he would have to make a start on some other trade. The hon. member urged that justice should be done to this man. He next dealt with the case of an immigrant named Painter, who was refused leave to land by the immigration authorities at Durban, and quoting from an affidavit of Painter he pointed out serious inconsistencies between the reply given by the Minister when he (Mr. Nathan) raised the question in the House and the particulars given by Painter in his affidavit.

Coming to what he described as legislative delays, the hon. member asked what had been done in regard to the codification of the laws? They had had only one Bill of this character introduced in the first Parliament, namely, the Marriage Bill. What had become of that Bill? What had been done with regard to codifying the company law, public health laws, criminal code, law of insurance, Magistrates’ Courts, law of prescription, and the Workmen’s Compensation Act? In regard to the last-named, he mentioned the Gaika Loop accident and the claims made by sufferers. Under the law of this Province a workman was deprived of his common law rights and confined to the Act. In the Transvaal a man had the option of proceeding under the common law or taking advantage of the Act. That ought to be the law of the Union. In the Gaika Loop case a workman who had to proceed under the Act was awarded £400, while a passenger, proceeding under the common law, got £750. Why should there be this difference? Mr. Nathan went on to say that the Government were unable to shape their own policy, and referred their measures to a Select Committee. The University Bill was a case in point. No Government that went on like that could last long, and he was afraid they were digging their own grave. (Hear, hear.) To the incapability of the Government, in many instances, was to be ascribed, he thought, the failure of our loan in London. He now wanted to deal with one or two items of extravagance. He was glad that the hon. member for Prieska had sounded a note in regard to the expenditure on defence. He (Mr. Nathan) maintained that this country had no right to spend as much as £1,245,000 upon defence. He also was of opinion that the Government had been too hasty in retrenching men from the public service. The policy of the Government was that of retrenchment and replacement on Transvaal lines. This was a very bad policy. He believed it was possible for the Government to recall these men, and he wondered whether any such action had been taken. He believed that if they paid their Civil Servants well they would do their work well, and he thought the Civil Service Board might well be employed in going round the country seeing whether offices were overstaffed, and whether work was being shirked. He thought that such a work would fall within the province of the Civil Service Board. The hon. member for George had said that they were spending less on Ministers’ salaries, but he would point out that there were four Administrations, and considerable expenditure therewith. It was absurd to say that they were saving in the direction of Ministers’ salaries. Warnings had been given by his side of the House, but they had passed unheeded, and he thought the time would come when they would have to pay for all this extravagance.

Then there was the case of the Barbary Ostrich expedition. (Laughter.) They were told at the extraordinary meeting, which was held at Middelburg, that if the expedition did not go at once the industry would be ruined. That was two years ago. The expedition cost something like £10,000. The birds had arrived in the country, and not a single application had been made for them since June last. They were told that the birds would get their feathers some day—(laughter)—but up to the present they had none. The only consolation they could derive was, perhaps, the fact that the importation of these birds had gone to prove that the industry in South Africa was the first in the world. But at whose expense had all this been done? Why should the country or he pay for helping a wealthy industry? He suggested the following inscription for the tombstones of these birds: “Bom of misconception; died in ignominy.” (Laughter.) In a speech at Johannesburg before Union, the Minister of Justice told his hearers that when South Africa was united considerable savings would be effected, and that if that did not come to pass it would be a disgrace. Was the Minister helping to effect savings? It had been shown that there had been considerable extravagance on the part of the Government. Why could not the Government follow ordinary business lines. The Government did not save the money they made in years of abundance, and it was the duty of the Government to act as though members of the Cabinet were concerned in a private business. If business men followed the lines of the Government they would all end in the Bankruptcy Court. He would again draw attention to the little clause which appeared in Appropriation Bills to the effect that savings could be devoted to some other sub-head. He hoped to see this clause deleted, because it only encouraged extravagance. He wished to know whether the Government was carrying out the provisions of clause 127 of the Act of Union. He would draw attention to one paragraph of a memorandum of the Master Builders’ Association, which showed that manufactured material was sent inland at a cheaper rate than the unmanufactured material. This was unfair to the inland districts. If that was called development of industries, it passed his understanding. And then they were told that there were no prospects of a reduction of freights. The reason was that freights must be kept up in order to pay the loss on the harbours. He thought that these losses should be equally distributed.

Let the harbours pay their own way.

I believe Port Elizabeth pays its way, but Cape Town does not.

Proceeding, Mr. Nathan observed that he wished to say a few words with regard to the interesting incidents that had taken place in the House in the last few days. It was a squabble between two Ministers, which did not concern the Opposition. He was glad to hear the Prime Minister say that he was not going to the country. There had been no change of the Ministry in the true sense of the word, and there was no necessity to go to the country on that point.

You won’t come back. (Laughter.)

I suppose the hon. member came here unopposed, but it is not so pleasant for those who have to spend their money on a contested election. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, Mr. Nathan said that with the one hand some of the supporters of the Government flattered and buttered the Prime Minister, and with the other they stabbed him. He pitied the Prime Minister, but that did not prevent him from saying that many in the country were displeased with the way in which the Government had mismanaged the business of the Union. Things were in their present chaotic condition because the members of the Ministry were too busy going about among their supporters conciliating them, and forgetting that their first duty was to look after the affairs of the country. (Opposition cheers.)

said, although the finances were in a sound condition, these finances were not so satisfactory as the public anticipated at the commencement of Union. Instead of there being a decrease in expenditure there had been an increase. He held that in many respects the expenditure of the working was far higher than it should be. Especially in regard to the salaries of high officials was this the case. They found, for instance, that many so-called experts received from £600 to £2,000. Of course, certain experts must receive large salaries; no one would deny that. Some, like Dr. Theiler, received too little. There were, however, many people who received high salaries, about whom he asked: “Do we receive value for our money?” Could the number of these people not be reduced and should they not be paid according to the services required from them? He knew of cases where people received £4,000 a year—£11 per day—who did little. But on the other hand they found people working hard for 3s. 6d. per day. Mr. Wilcocks went on to criticise the delay which was taking place in the construction of public works in the Free State. One of the reasons for this delay was that plans and specifications had to go through the Union departments, where undue delays took place. Schools and bridges were urgently required and the construction could brook of no delay. Every year money was requisitioned for these purposes, and every year the money was “saved.” In Jagersfontein the school would have to be enlarged. Last year £1,000 had been allocated for that purpose, but no tenders had been asked for as yet. The Province and the people of the Province were suffering under this state of affairs. Fifteen thousand children were going about without receiving education today. It was, he argued, useless voting money if the money was not forthcoming.

In regard to irrigation matters, Mr. Wilcocks denied that farmers were not prepared to do anything for themselves and always asked for Government assistance. The many private irrigation works in the various parts of the country testified to the energy of farmers. Along the Riet River, for instance, they found some fine works undertaken by private individuals, and the same with the Kromelleboog River. Those were small works which could be carried out by the average farmer. Of course, the larger irrigation works should be undertaken with Government help. He feared, however, that they spoke too much about these matters, but did too little. (Mr. C. A. VAN NIEKERK (Boshof): “Hear, hear.”) They should not leave it at hydrographic surveys, but should go a step further and an actual start should be made in the construction of large irrigation works, preventing the water running away to the sea. Large amounts were spent on surveys annually—£9,450 for hydrographic surveys, £6,200 for meteorological surveys, and further large sums for geological surveys, but when were they going to see the results of these surveys, and when was the actual work going to start? He feared that too much money was being spent in surveys, which were only of value when they were followed by actual work. The actual work was not being done. An amount of £34,000 appeared on the Estimates for water boring; how much of that money was going to be spent in the Free State, he asked, and where? In the Free State they always experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining a Government bore, but he urged that the Free State should receive the same benefits as the other Provinces. In Bechuanaland there were millions of acres of land suitable for settlement purposes if only watered. He hoped the Government would look carefully into this important question. Enormous losses had been suffered by farmers this year through the drought. The Government could do a great deal to prevent droughts. (Laughter.) If they would only take strong steps to prevent veld erosion (veld verspoeling) something useful would be done. The hon. member went on to urge that proper railway extension should be given to the Free State. The Minister had told them there were in the Cape 1,309 miles of branch railways, in the Transvaal 849, in Natal 734, and in the Free State 250. So even in that respect the Free State was far behind the other Provinces. Moreover, less money was lost on branch lines in the Free State than anywhere else. In the Cape the loss was £163 per mile, in the Transvaal £129, in Natal £147, and in the Free State only £80. And yet the Free State had the fewest branch lines. This was an argument in favour of further branch lines in that Province to feed the main lines.

Mr. Wilcocks regretted the absence of Ministers from the House when important matters like this were being discussed. There were at present only two Ministers in the House talking to each other, and the Minister of Railways was absent. He would wait until the Ministers had finished. What were business principles, he asked, in the working of the railways. Railway revenue had to provide for cost of maintenance, depreciation, cost of running, redemption, and interest on capital invested. Cost of working and redemption were of special interest. He held that in the cost of working was included the paying of proper wages to railway workers. Should not in these costs of working provision be made for the proper payment to those people engaged on the railways according to the values of the work done? He held that it should be realised that more and more white labourers should be employed on the railways, in the first place because by doing that, much was done towards the solution of the poor whites question. Secondly, they found that white labour was far more effective than coloured labour. In these circumstances every possible encouragement should be given to white labourers—and the best encouragement was, naturally, to pay a white labourer according to his worth. The minimum wage principle was unsound, but if they paid their labourers according to their worth they would see that the white labourer would become more and more effective. He urged that there should be a general increase in the pay of the white labourers on the railway. The people now receiving 3s. 6d. per day should be paid 4s. 6d., even though the Minister might reply that this would result in an increase of expenditure of £80,000 for 5,000 men. The men ought, however, to be paid reasonably and fairly well, and if it cost more, the principle of a general increase in pay should be accepted even though it might cost them £160,000 per year. That increase in pay should be accounted for in their railway revenue, even if the effect of that might be an increase in railway rates. These people who received 3s. 6d. per day often had wife and children to provide for. Should that man be denied the joys of life because he happened to be a labourer? Shame to them who argued thus. (Labour cheers.)

In regard to depreciation, Mr. Wilcocks pointed out that a great portion of the country’s debt was sunk in the railways, namely, £92,000,000. The Minister told them that the railways had not diminished in value because the lines and rolling material were kept in good order. At the present moment the railways were a paying proposition. This made him ask whether in twenty years their railways would still be as valuable as they were to day. Would they still be paying? He would not argue the question as to a possible change in the means of communication. The railways paid at present owing to the existence of the mining industry. They had before them the fact that some of the mines were gradually decreasing in value, and who could say that greater heat would not be met with at greater depths such as would make working impossible? If eventually the mines closed up, there would also be a decrease in railway traffic, and the railways would then cease to be worth £92,000,000. In these circumstances he urged the necessity of creating a strong sinking fund. Mr. Wilcocks went on to appeal to the Government for a special effort for the construction of further railway lines in the Free State—the State which was the least developed of the four Provinces. There was only one branch line at present in the south-west of the Free State, namely, that from Springfontein to Fauresmith and the main line from Bloemfontein to Kimberley. In the north-west there was not a single line. The Western Free State had been greatly neglected, and he urged the necessity of the building of a line from Koffyfontein to Boshof and Jacobsdal, eventually to be connected with the proposed Kroonstad-Vierfontein line. There were rich mines in these parts of the country. Rich mines usually meant markets, and he hoped the Government would recognise the fact that these mines should be well served. Although Springfontein was the principal railway junction, the buildings there were shamefully bad, The branch line from Springfontein was a very profitable one, vet it was painful to see—at, Philippolis, for example—what trouble ladies had to get in and out of carriages owing to the absence of platforms. Mr. Wilcocks urged the Government to consider the necessity of improving the passenger accommodation on various stations in the Free State. Dealing with the Free State bursaries fund, Mr. Wilcocks objected to this fund having been taken by the Government for redemption of debt, as this fund had been created by law to provide bursaries for Free State students. Seeing that this fund had been taken away in defiance of the law, it would be only fair that another fund was substituted for it. In regard to the poor white question, Mr. Wilcocks said that these people could be divided into three classes; one class wished to be helped, and another did not want to be helped. But the third class was constituted by the children of these two classes. These children—children of Dutch as well as English—should be saved, and should be prevented from sinking, because, when they remembered the numbers of coloured persons, God help the white man who sinks in this country. He had expected a good deal from the Land Settlement Act which was passed last year; but what had become of it? The poor whites should be taken back to the land as speedily as possible, and he hoped, therefore, the Act would be carried out.

In regard to what had been called the “constitutional” revolution, he hoped the Prime Minister would appreciate it if he dealt with this question in an outspoken manner. He thought every member of Parliament should ask himself where the present policy was leading to and whether they came up to the expectations with which their constituents had sent them to Parliament. Every member had a great responsibility, whilst the responsibility of Ministers was greater still, and they fully realised that there was certain work which had to be done at once; there were national questions which could not wait; there was, for instance, the native question, there were the immigration, irrigation, conservation of or boring for water, land settlement, poor whites, squatting, co-ordination of their marriage laws, labour questions, and such like. He asked whether the solution of all these questions was being simplified by leaving them over? On the contrary, they were getting more and more involved every year. They heard a lot of people talk about making this a white man’s country. How were they going to do it? How could it be done if they saw the natives everywhere getting hold of the ground? They found that the natives held land in their midst, and were continually taking more and more land away from the whites. It made him sick to hear people talking about this, and to see nothing done. Why was nothing being done? A few days ago an Immigration Bill was introduced, but would it be carried further? There was no appearance of any solution of their difficulties. Why not? There was only one answer. Why had Parliament done nothing this year? Because they were paralysed. (Hear, hear.) Why? They were paralysed because the Prime Minister had robbed the South African Party of all its strength and principle by the exclusion from the Cabinet of the ex-Minister of Justice and ex-Minister of Native Affairs. They who professed a true South African policy and tried to carry it out were now accused of being the cause of that paralysis. The Prime Minister had done something by which considerable commotion had been caused throughout the country, and he had made the Government party in that House powerless. There was a lack of principle, and the country, the people, and the Parliament were suffering from it. What had Parliament done during the past three months?

Why did the Senate keep on adjourning? Simply because that House was giving them no work. The country had its eyes upon the House and was dissatisfied. It was impossible to go on like that. Now he and his friends were accused of inciting the people. That accusation was false, because the Prime Minister himself, through his own action, had caused that dissatisfaction. Last year some contentious but useful measures had been passed, but in those days the Government had been strong. The exclusion of the Minister of Justice, however, had taken away that strength, and the Government was now suffering from absolute paralysis. The Minister of Justice of those days had influence, and still maintained that influence. By his influence the Government had been able to proceed with its work, now they lacked it. Was that state of affairs to continue? A solution of the present difficulty must be found. The Prime Minister had said that so long as he had a majority in that House so long would he continue, but how could he with all that commotion in the country? It was impossible. They did not want to sit there like a lot of dummies. Rather than that he would resign his seat. Under the present circumstances it was impossible to do any work. They did not want the solution of their difficulties to come from the cross benches or from the Opposition; they wanted it to come from the Prime Minister, who led their party. It seemed to him that the Government as well as the Opposition were afraid of the dissolution of Parliament. (Laughter.) Personally, he had taken very little trouble to win his seat. He allowed the public to select the best man, and they would do the same thing again. Proceeding, the hon. member (Mr. Wilcocks) rebuked the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha) for his attack upon the member for Ladybrand, who he said, had put his views before the House in a manly way. When he heard Mr. C.L. Botha defend the Government, and then again attack the Government, it rather reminded him of the old saying of “Satan rebuking sin.” But he wished to say that the criticism of the friends of the Government was better than the flattery and snake poison of their opponents. “Heaven spare us,” exclaimed the hon. member, “from sinking so low that we should have to depend upon the defence of our political opponents.” Mr. Botha referred to a “stab in the back” by the hon. member for Ladybrand, but the hon. member’s defence of the Government was itself a “stab in the back.” He always had a reason for what he said, and an eye to the future. Did he want the speaker to join the Opposition? No member on his (Mr. Wilcocks’) side of the House would ever join the Opposition as they had been invited to do by Mr. Botha. Mr. Wilcocks, continuing, maintained great reputations had been buried in this country through being associated with the Opposition Party, which was dying and impotent, simply because it had gone away from its principles. Perhaps the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha) had his eyes on a knighthood. (Laughter.) Hon. members spoke of racialism, but racialism only existed among those people who wished to achieve political ends and in the newspapers. He (the speaker) had been called a reactionary. (An OPPOSITION MEMBER: Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding that fact, continued Mr. Wilcocks, he could go to his hon. friend who had just said “Hear, hear,” and talk to him as friend to friend without any feeling of racialism. In the rural districts they found Dutch and English living next to each other, trusting and confiding in each other, and inter-marrying. They often saw Dutch people electing English people to represent them at congresses, simply because they acknowledged that the English people were better educated. (A MINISTERIALIST: “Oh!”) Was that, asked the hon. member, racialism. He maintained there was no such thing as racialism in this country any longer. The Dutch had respect for the English people, and similarly the Dutch knew that they enjoyed the respect and esteem of the English. The conciliation question had been given as a reason for the exclusion of the late Minister of Justice from the Cabinet. He (Mr. Wilcocks) maintained that they must live conciliation and not merely have the mouth full of it.

said that hon. members, by raising these party differences here in the presence of their political enemies the Opposition, had trampled on discipline. But more than that, it brought the party into derision and contempt. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) was the cause that this matter had been raised here. Three years ago, at Bloemfontein, they had discussed how they could best build up the party—now they were trying to tear the party to pieces. It was nonsense for hon. members to say that they did not wish to cause a split. There was a split. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Prime Minister, by remaining silent, had taken up a dignified attitude. Not a single fact had been adduced by the hon. member for Ladybrand. His speech had been full of personalities, apparently aiming at placing members on bad terms with their constituents. He (Mr. Alberts) could assure Mr. Fichardt that the eyes of the people were gradually being opened. Mr. Fichardt might think that he knew what the opinions of the people were. He might find himself to be wrong. But the gauntlet had been thrown down; well, he would take it up—the fight must be fought to a finish, and he was not afraid as to what the result would be. As regarded the demands of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) that the leader of the party should resign, he wished to remind him that he had been one of the members who had unanimously instructed the Government to carry on the business. What had happened since that date. The hon. member for Uitenhage had grown too big for his boots. Before making allegations against the leader of the party, a man highly esteemed and respected in the country, he should make a little more sure of himself—(hear, hear)—and if he went to the country with his allegations he would get into very serious difficulties. (Cheers.)

As regarded the allegation made by the hon. member for Barberton that there was a conspiracy between the Prime Minister and the Opposition, it seemed to him that Mr. Hull was like a drowning man, clutching at a straw. The hon. member practically charged the Prime Minister with treason. If he could prove this he should have done so, and the party would have dealt with the leader. But Mr. Hull was like the monkey who had put his tail into the fire and was now burning his best friends. (Laughter.)

Mr. Alberts went on to rebuke General Hertzog for his allegation that Mr. Geldenhuys was afraid to meet his constituents. As regarded the allegation that the Government was invertebrate (papbroekerig), he thought this was a serious insult. General Hertzog now went further, and in his charges included everyone supporting the Prime Minister’s policy. Why were they papbroeks? What was a papbroek? No facts had been adduced by the hon. member. The one moment the Prime Minister was an autocrat and the next a papbroek— two things which were entirely antagonistic to each other. (Hear, hear.) He could no more understand this latter allegation than the three speeches by General Hertzog at Johannesburg, Pretoria and Smithfield. In the first speech General Hertzog had said that no one had more respect for General Botha than he (General Hertzog); in Johannesburg he called General Botha the right man for the position; but at Smithfield he was a papbroek. Which statement were they to accept, he asked? Now General Hertzog, on purely personal motives, wished the Prime Minister to go to the country. Was that love of the party? He was not afraid of his constituents, but what would a general election lead to? With what programme were they to appeal to the people? Now he would ask General Hertzog whether, if General Botha’s views were upheld by the country, he would be prepared to submit to General Botha’s views? But the hon. member was not, he knew that. What was the issue on which they must go to the country? Must they have “Botha” on one paper and “Hertzog” on another? That was ridiculous. The arguments he had had to listen to were nonsensical and childish. Hon. members before breaking down the party should consider what it had cost them to build it up. (Cheers.) He could not see why, for the sake of a personal question, they were to be called on to have a general election. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the Prime Minister should repudiate with contempt the allegation that he was pro-English and had sold the rights of the people of the country. (Hear, hear.) What was the sound policy on which the hon. member for Smithfield wished to go to the country? Was it a policy based on sentimental grounds? If so, it was preached by people who did not know the effects of such a policy. Transvaalers who had experience would not follow such a policy; their experience had been too bitter. Before the war the Transvaal had also taken part in a sentimental policy, and afterwards they had paid dearly for it. Personally, he could not see where the Prime Minister had deviated from the instructions or neglected the interests of the people. In all the manifestoes not a single fact had been quoted to show where the Prime Minister had forsaken the programme and principles of the party. He had strictly adhered to that programme, and if he was wrong that programme should be altered in a constitutional manner. (Hear, hear.) He could not go with those who talked about carrying out the programme in the spirit instead of in the letter. He greatly regretted the schism which had taken place in the party. Undoubtedly the Government made mistakes—personally, he would not like to see a Government which could not make mistakes, because that body or person who did not make mistakes had never attempted anything. In conclusion, the hon. member said undoubtedly the member for Smithfield—who was still a young man—could do a lot for the country. But he seemed to be getting the advice of the wrong people, mostly disappointed people. (Hear, hear.) He did not think it was fair to criticise the Government because so little had been done in regard to a number of matters. After all the Government could not silence members. They knew that the House was going to deal with the native question, and as a matter of fact, they refused to go home until that matter had been dealt with. (Cheers.) He appealed to the hon. member for Smithfield not to go on widening the breach in the party, but if that was not to be complied with, the speaker would accept the challenge, though deploring it, and believing that the hon. member could still do a great deal for the country.

The hon. member for Fauresmith had unfairly attacked the Government because of the little work done. When six weeks of the last session were wasted in motions of no confidence, the hon. member did not blame the Government, though he did so now. They already had an Irrigation Act, and a Bill dealing with immigration would be introduced. They were now told that the Government could not be trusted, because the Opposition was alleged to support it. Why was the same not said last year when Sir Starr Jameson had said that this was the best Government they could have in the circumstances. He hoped members would drop personalities and deal with principles. (Cheers.)

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

resuming the debate on the Budget, said that before dealing with the main portion of the debate he wanted to pay some attention to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Jeppe, who had shown a lot of skill in wording it. He had followed very closely the proposals adopted at their conferences by hon. members on his side of the House — (the Opposition)

— and no doubt hoped they might support him. He had on several occasions tried to tie them down to a policy of land taxation on what Mr. Creswell called prairie values.

No, It was you that called it prairie values.

said, at any rate, he did not agree with the hon. member. There was only one form of land tax of which they had had experience in South Africa, and that was the Land Tax in Natal, which had been found to work very well. It had had the effect of promoting closer settlement and had led to the development of the land. Much land that had hitherto been unimproved had been thrown on to the market as the result of the tax, and had thus been thrown open to settlers. The hon. member quoted the Natal definition of “unimproved land values,” and said it had worked so well in practice that he was prepared to stand by it. It included what the Labour Party called “site values.” The Natal Land Tax specially exempted urban land, which came under the control of local government, and he was not in favour of upsetting local government. He had always been in favour of encouraging people to own a piece of land, even if it was small. He differed from hon. members on the cross benches in this respect, that they did not believe in giving land to a man in freehold. It was the desire of every man to have a piece of land on which he could build a house to which he could retire in his old age; but he would not desire that land unless he could have it freehold. He was certainly in favour of taxing farms on their agricultural or site value, but did not believe in taxing land on its mineral value. If the hon. member would suggest that when such land came into the market and the original owner made a profit, they should then tax him on his unearned increment, he would agree, but to tax land on its mineral value was ridiculous, because no man knew what was under the earth. In the amendment the hon. member specially included mineral land and urban land, but he could not support that. He found that farmers were not afraid of a land tax when they understood it. When land was not beneficially occupied, under the old Natal system a man had to pay a higher tax, and when a man lived on Kafir rents he had to pay even more. He knew of one case in which a man who owned land in Natal, and which was let out to Kafirs whilst he lived in England, had to pay £900 in land tax in the first year, while the average farmer had to pay not more than £10. The result was that that land was thrown into the market, and had since become available for settlers. He knew that today there were a number of men who were anxious to lay hands on land in Natal, but did not know where to get it.

The white population in Natal was extremely small compared with the black population, there being in Natal and Zululand eleven coloured persons to one white. He was glad to see that young fellows were going to Natal from other parts of the Union and also from oversea, but a much larger increase of the white population was necessary. It was remarkable that although there were two million acres of Crown land still undeveloped it was very hard for anyone to obtain information about them, even on the spot. He knew a man who wished to buy some land about twenty-five miles from Durban, but he was unable to obtain any information with regard to it in that town, yet he could go into an office in Durban and obtain the fullest information with reference to land available for settlement in Canada. (Opposition cheers.) The Canadian Government reckoned that every settler was worth £100 to the State, basing its calculation on the fact that a settler’s taxable value was at least £5 a year. In consequence of the energetic action of the Canadian authorities in attracting immigrants, there was an enormous rush of people to Canada from Great Britain, whole villages in England being depopulated of the best type of man—the yeoman farmer. The House would have an opportunity of going into details with regard to land settlement in South Africa when they came on to the Lands Department vote. It was almost as hard for a man in South Africa to get land as it was for a man from oversea. Thousands of men in South Africa would be only too glad to go on to farms if they had the opportunity, and it was a great pity that young farmers were leaving Natal for Rhodesia and British East Africa because of the lack of facilities for obtaining land in the Union. (Hear, hear.) But he was afraid land would never be thrown on to the market unless there was some form of land taxation.

But he was not going to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe because the tax advocated therein was not the type of land tax which he (Mr. Meyler) thought would be most successful. The gentlemen on the cross-benches wanted to pin one down to their way of thinking, which was a very curious way. The democratic principles they preached did not suit him, because they tried to ape the Socialists of other lands. They tried pseudo Socialism, which caused the real Socialists to jeer at them. It was a vote-catching cry of the hon. members on the cross-benches, and he did not think they were very genuine over the matter. He could hardly understand the hon. member for Jeppe really advocating the State ownership of mines. It was a very great pity that the Labour members did not cast their eyes more on democratic principles, and not so much on the ballot box. (Opposition laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Meyler said that a most unjust attack had been made on him by the hon. member for Kroonstad. He did not expect the hon. member (Mr. Serfontein) to have his (Mr. Meyler’s) way of thinking on Imperial matters, for he (Mr. Meyler) had been brought up in England and the hon. member had been brought up in this country. But he did hope that the hon. member’s children and his own children would have the same way of thinking. It was perfectly possible to be a very true South African and still not to be untrue to the Old Country. He (Mr. Meyler) came out here to make his home in the same way as the ancestors of the hon. member did many years ago. In his strong advocacy of the needs of the Empire he (Mr. Meyler) was none the less a good South African. He had the greatest respect for the fellow countrymen of the hon. member for Kroonstad; he had not faced them in the field for over two years without getting that.

In Natal, continued Mr. Meyler, there was no racialism before Union; racialism was one of the fruits of Union. The two races in Natal got on perfectly well together, but after Union the attitude of the hon. member for Smithfield caused trouble. They said they would like to see the hon. member out of the Cabinet; he (Mr. Meyler) was elected to do his best to get the hon. member out of the Cabinet, and why should he not say he was proud of it? But such remarks would best come from gentlemen sitting on the other side. Why didn’t they glory about it here as they had done in their own constituencies? (Cheers.) He was very much surprised that the Prime Minister rather doubted his statement that Natal was responsible for the hon. member for Smithfield leaving the Cabinet. He (Mr. Meyler) was taking the word of a member of the Cabinet— the member who entered the Cabinet when the hon. member for Smithfield left it. (Opposition laughter.) The Minister of Public Works, speaking at Dundee on January 3, said the one deciding factor was the great difference of opinion between Mr. Hull and Mr. Sauer regarding the expenditure of public money without constitutional control. Mr. Meyler referred to other speeches made by the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and went on to say that he understood that the hon. member for Umvoti went out of the Cabinet to uphold a matter of principle, but he did not think the Prime Minister would deny that the hon. member was not asked to re-enter the Cabinet. Why was he not asked to go back again? There was an outcry against the new Minister who had been put in from Natal, because many looked upon his statement on the Imperial question as being far worse than any expressed by the hon. member for Smithfield. They could make excuses for the hon. member for Smithfield, but the Motherland had reason to be ashamed of the policy put forward by the Minister. He was not prepared to say the same thing about the hon. member for Smithfield. Turning to the work of Parliament, he said that ten Select Committees were sitting, and the only matter for discussion in another place was whether they should adjourn to-morrow for three weeks. They, in that House had nothing before them except the Bills on the paper, very few of which would be carried through. They had the Railway Construction Bill, the Arms and Ammunition Bill, which were very low down on the paper, the “Small-Beer Bill,” the Magistrates’ Courts Bill, the Registration of Deeds and the Land Survey Bill had also gone a long way down, and there was the University Bill. He would not say anything about that, but he thought there was very little chance of seeing it again this session.

The hon. member referred to another matter which from his point of view was a very serious one. At the time of the Crisis in Pretoria. (An HON. MEMBER: Which crisis?) One of the many, answered the speaker, adding that it was the most important one which took place in December. They were all trying to get real information as to what was going on, and there was one source which they looked upon as the Government organ. That was a section of the Press which always had the ear of the Government, the “Volkstem.” At any rate it was common knowledge that the editor was frequently closeted with the Prime Minister; they always knew first what was happening, and nothing was published unless they had got it first. He did not think the hon. Minister would deny they were in close touch with that organ. Towards the end of March there was an article in that organ dealing with the constitution of the Empire so far as South Africa was concerned, containing contentions which he thought were extremely dangerous. They were criticising a speech by Sir Charles Hunter in the House of Commons, in which that gentleman expressed the hope that British troops would not be withdrawn from South Africa, because he thought it would be unsafe to leave the defence of the naval dockyard to other than Imperial troops. The “Volkstem” argued that that was a matter which chiefly concerned the people of the Union and no one else. According to their argument, went on the hon. member, this great naval dockyard in South Africa was to be left entirely to the people here. (An HON. MEMBER: Why not?) He hoped the Prime Minister would take an opportunity of repudiating contentions of that sort, and he would like the hon. Minister of Defence to make a statement with regard to the matter. These were extremely dangerous doctrines. (Laughter.) Hon. members laughed; they did not understand the importance of this naval base. They were hoping also to see a garrison in Durban before long, and he understood the Minister of Defence had made his arrangements and had stated that this should be manned by untrained troops. Then the doctrine of neutrality in time of war had also been preached. There was a very serious danger that England would be involved in a very serious war, and they ought to have this threshed out on the floor of the House before anything occurred.

said they had heard the experts and the semi-experts discuss the Estimates, but he feared there would never be a Minister of Finance who would be able to satisfy all his critics. Personally, he did not propose to discuss the figures, but would deal with something else. He regretted that the question of the crisis had been discussed there. He had hoped that this Cabinet crisis might have been dealt with and settled in the bosom of the party itself, and that it would not have been necessary to raise the matter in this House. He had been sent here by his constituents to look after the interests of the party and of the country without considering any persons. He regretted the violence of the remarks made by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog), which made the whole matter a personal one, and held that, in the circumstances, the Prime Minister could not, and was not allowed to, dissolve Parliament. Only when the party agreed could he dissolve Parliament. (Cheers.) So long as the Prime Minister kept to his mandate, and so long as his party gave him no other instructions, he could not dissolve. As regarded the remarks of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Wilcocks), why did he now ask for a general election, and how was it that he so suddenly found all these faults in the Prime Minister? Did he know what the effect of a general election would be?

The speaker admitted the good qualities and knew the principles of the hon. member for Smithfield, and claimed to be a better friend of the hon. member than the hon. member perhaps thought. He regretted that General Hertzog, by his attitude, had practically made this a personal matter. To his regret, and the regrets of his friends—hot those who had suddenly become his friends after the crisis —they had seen the attitude of many members. If the statements of the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) in regard to the Prime Minister’s policy were right, then the Prime Minister was not so much to blame as the party which had allowed him to go on for three years in the way he had done. At none of the Congresses they had had since Union, and the speaker had been present at several of them, had a word been heard against General Botha’s policy. The speech of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had astonished him, seeing that the hon. member, after having said that he had no confidence in the Prime Minister and his policy, finished up by saying that he would follow him. (Laughter.) Even though the speaker might be a good party man, he should have too much respect for his principles to take up such an attitude. He would follow no body unless he trusted him. The hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) said there was too much talk of conciliation and nothing to conciliate. Well, if there was nothing to conciliate, why should hon. members object so much to the Prime Minister preaching it? (Hear, hear.) It could do no harm. As a matter of fact, conciliation was one of the first planks of the party programme because it was considered necessary. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Wilcocks) had said that Dutch people often selected English people to represent them at congresses because the latter were better educated and more able. He accepted the fact, but repudiated the reason given, and objected to such a statement. (Cheers.) Why were English delegates selected? Simply to show the desire of the Dutch people to co-operate with their English friends. (Cheers.) Certainly not because Dutch-speaking people were too stupid, as was said by the hon. member for Fauresmith. Such a statement was insulting to the Dutch-speaking section of the population.

Personally, in the many public matters with which he had been connected, he had always done his utmost to co-operate with the English people, and that was his conciliation. (Cheers.) The charges made against the Government could only make the bitterness worse. If agitators had kept quiet, there would have been no bitterness at all. (Cheers.) He did not admit that there was any paralysis, but, assuming that there was paralysis, he asked how could the Government be expected to introduce any contentious measures, knowing that one section of the House on their own side were wanting to put as many obstacles as possible in the Government’s way? Proceeding, General Smuts said what had struck him painfully was the provincial spirit which had been displayed by some hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Wilcocks). The hon. member had complained that the Free State was so badly served in matters educational. Did the hon. member know of a speech, delivered in the Free State Provincial Council by the Administrator of the Free State, pointing out the satisfactory improvement in the state of education in the Free State, where the number of schools had increased from 450 at the period of unification to 850, and the number of children in the schools from 19,130 to 25,500. That did not look like neglect. Then that same hon. member had complained that the 3s. 6d. paid to white labourers on the railways was not enough. He pointed out that those labourers were granted many privileges in addition to the wages. Though they received 3s. 6d. a day at first, the amount was increased up to 10s. a day. They had also free dwellings, a free doctor and medicine, free education for themselves and children, and a free railway pass once a year, and so on. Their lot was not so bad after all. Now, if the Prime Minister decided to dissolve Parliament, did the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) think he would gain anything by that? Would the unity of the party become greater or the schism smaller? Assuming they had a general election, and they felt that half of the public was in favour of General Botha and half in favour of General Hertzog, would they then have satisfaction? Would there be no bitterness then? Perhaps the hon. member for Smithfield might get the majority in the fight, but even then there would be a few hundred people who would follow the Prime Minister. The hon. member could not hope to get an absolute majority. He might become Prime Minister—possibly he would some day. But did the hon. member think that they would be in any better position then? Would there be no bitterness? He thought that one section of the community would be so embittered that the hon. member would find his position impossible. (Cheers.) Anyway the speaker could not, at the moment, see the advantage of the dissolution of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)

said he was afraid anything he had to say would sound very tame after the recriminations of the other side, but he would like to make a few remarks on railway matters. At the outset he wished to express his personal appreciation of the courtesy, patience and attention with which the Minister of Finance had sat out that debate. (Opposition cheers.) He regretted that he could not say the same of the Minister of Railways. He had asked the Minister of Railways to wait for a few minutes, but the Minister had ostentatiously walked out of the House. He (Mr. Henderson) thought the arrangement under which the two Budgets were taken together was not very satisfactory, the Railway Budget not receiving sufficient attention. This year’s railway expenditure was £13,700,000, and it was necessary that the House should look into it very closely. The railway salaries alone amounted to about £6,000,000 per annum, the increases in them since Union coming to about £600,000. One great reason why the railway accounts were not so carefully scrutinised as they ought to be was that they generally showed a handsome profit. The railways should be run as near to the actual cost as possible, and if the expenditure were not kept down to the lowest possible point the rates must be increased in order to cover the heavy expenditure. There was great room for economy in connection with railway matters. We had such a large administration that the expenses were really enormous.

The Railway Board alone cost £15,000 a year. What did its members do? Its report gave no indication of the work the Board had done, nor did it give any indication of what the railway policy of the Government was, neither did the Minister of Railways in his Budget speech give any such indication. In fact, it appeared that the railway policy of the Government was framed according to the amount of political pressure brought to bear upon it from different parts of the Union. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had argued that because the Cape had 84 square miles of area to every mile of railways, while other parts of the Union had one mile of railway to every 33 square miles, the Cape had been very badly used, and therefore that the Cape had the first claim for railways in the future.

Hear, hear.

I do not think that is the best method to adopt, but railways should be built where they are required. The better way to lay down a policy is to find out the proportion of people to railway mileage The General Manager of Railways in his report shows that the number of miles of railway open for every 10,000 inhabitants in the Union is as follows: The Free State, 20.47 miles; the Cape, 15.13; the Transvaal, 12.02; and Natal, 9; so that Natal had the first claim for further extensions. Continuing. Mr. Henderson complained that the railways did not charge the same rates for the conveyance of goods the same distance, and he proceeded to give a few instances to show how unequal the railway rates were. The hon. member went on to say that the discrepancies in every case were to the disadvantage of Durban and in favour of the other ports. It showed very conclusively that there was no policy in connection with the railway rates, or if there was, it was to the handicap of Durban. If the ports were not going to be placed on the same ratio and treated in the same way there was going to be trouble. With regard to the proposal to carry coal from the Transvaal to the Cape for 12s. 6d. a ton it was a very satisfactory one from the Cape point of view, but it was most unfair for other ports. They should all be placed upon an equitable basis. There was certainly a strong feeling in Natal that they were not getting fair treatment from the Administration in connection with those matters.

In reference to the harbours, the hon. member said that during the debate there had been some very curious remarks made with regard to the losses. It had been said that the harbours ought to be made to pay their way apart from the railways, but they were in the same position the railway termini which did not pay for themselves apart from the railways, and as soon as they recognised that the harbours were part and parcel of the system the better it would be. In connection with Durban, the harbour was charged with the cost of rails, but the railway took all the revenue, and from £15,000 to £17,000 was collected for light dues, which did not go to the credit of the harbour. If the accounts were properly adjusted between the harbour and the railway he was satisfied that the deficit connected with the harbour would largely disappear, He would like to ask also why, in the Estimates of revenue for this year, the port of Natal had been put down for a decrease while the other ports had been estimated to show an increase? He would protest also against the centralisation of authority in connection with railway management. There was too much necessity to go to Pretoria, and he hoped the hon. Minister would see his way clear to arrange that the Divisional Superintendent or Assistant Manager had more power to deal with small matters, which would do a great deal to facilitate business. He went on to compliment the management on the great enterprise shown, especially with regard to passenger work, and if that policy was continued the country would get the benefit not only in the matter of revenue, but in bringing the people closer together and enabling them to get better acquainted with each other.

Mr. Henderson went on to deplore the tendency on the part of the Government to interfere with private enterprise. The Railway Department were great sinners in that respect, and he strongly protested against their taking matters over which were carried on efficiently under private control. When they took over the railway bookstalls he strongly objected, and he did not think they had carried out that work as well as it had been carried out under private enterprise. The railway bookstalls were disseminating a class of literature which, if not actually indecent, certainly had a demoralising tendency. They were very anxious to have pure beer, and he thought they should show the same anxiety to have pure literature also. Turning to the expenditure of the Government, he said that four Budgets had been placed before the House, and, leaving out the railways, all of them had estimated for a heavy deficit. Proceeding, the hon. member said that something should be done to meet these deficits in the future. They ought not to be surprised that Home financiers were not so hopeful of things as they were, and it would be well if they did a little more window dressing in order to get into their good books. The expenditure had been going up steadily ever since they went into Union. Now, no matter what excuse they had been able to make, an expenditure of 17 millions was an exceedingly heavy expenditure, and the percentage per head of the white population was said to be heavier than that of France, which had to keep up a large navy and a huge army as well, and bear the cost of her colonies. They were told by the Government that they were unable to place their finger upon any particular account to be cut down, but something should be done to reduce this large expenditure. Proceeding, the hon. member said he did not intend mixing with that unfortunate quarrel that had taken up the time of the House. It was beneath the dignity of Parliament for dirty linen to be washed in the House. (Hear hear.) If they could not settle their quarrel in the caucus, then they should go to the country to settle it there. (Hear, hear.) It came to this, that the present Government was not carrying out what it was appointed to do. (Opposition cheers.) The country had been crying out for legislation since Union had been established. (Hear, hear.) There was a large number of consolidating Bills to be put through. The Government said they could not do this, because they did not know how it would affect their position. There were lots of hon. members on both sides of the House, however, who would help them to pass these consolidating measures. If the Government would only put their hands to the plough they would find help from his side of the House. If the Government, simply wanted to draw their salaries without doing anything, then the country would demand that something should be done, and he hoped that the Government would really rise to the occasion. They were not doing fair to the country by this absolute stagnation of business. Personally he did not want to see the Government out of office. What he wanted to see was that they should do the work of the country. (Hear, hear.)

said he wished to put right a misunderstanding in regard to what had been said by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog). That member had said that on one occasion he (General Hertzog) had appealed to him (Mr. Grobler) to say exactly what he had said at De Wildt. General Hertzog to that had added that the Prime Minister had told him (Mr. Grobler) to keep silent. It was correct, as stated, that he had been appealed to some time ago to say what had been said at De Wildt, but it was considered better, not only by the Prime Minister, but by a number of other members as well, that he should not do so. Notwithstanding that he had wished to give the explanation, but he had been told that it would be better for him not to do so. In this last instance the member for Smithfield himself had said that it was better for him not to say anything. There was an impression that the Prime Minister alone had asked him to be silent. That was a misunderstanding.

regretted that these party matters should have been raised in this House. One hardly heard anything about the Estimates. The hon. members for Barberton, Ladybrand, and Uitenhage had declared war, and had thrown a lot of mud. Where were these members when they had an opportunity of facing the guns? He had never heard of them. It was to be regretted that the hon. member for Smithfield had such advisers, and that he followed them. He took exception to the Prime Minister being called a “papbroek” after all he had done for the country. If the Prime Minister was a “papbroek,” how was it he had had the country for six years? The public had once before had a similar quarrel in their ranks which had resulted in the shedding of blood. The hon. member went on to rebuke General Hertzog for his remarks, and concluded by saying that he would not vote for the dissolution of Parliament. A motion of no confidence was to be put before the House, and the hon. member for Smithfield could vote for that if he wished.

said he was one of the members who had urged the Prime Minister to re-open the debate, but he regretted the manner in which this debate had degenerated. But he congratulated the Government that they had not raised this question. However, he held that the questions such as they had had to listen to should be dealt with in caucus, and not in the House. Originally he had sympathised with the hon. member for Smithfield, whom he had considered a man of strong principles. After the speech at Smithfield, however, his sympathies had been somewhat modified and his views had somewhat changed. Mr. Venter went on to rebuke the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) for the attitude taken up by him. To that hon. member Union seemed a failure because some officials were bad and because some floors in some Free State Government offices were rotten. Well, he had a higher idea of Union. (Hear, hear.) He was surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Uitenhage, who, on two subjects, had wasted six hours. Then hon. members said Government was paralysed, but what could they do when hon. members made such lengthy speeches. The fault lay with hon. members themselves, who wasted too much time. As regarded the speech of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), his nature seemed to be very much the same as his name—a free mantle which waved to and fro. The hon. member had been in South Africa for about twelve years, and during that time had followed several different leaders. The one day it was here, the next there. His past career had shown that he could not be relied upon. (Hear, hear.) Now that hon. member criticised all the other statesmen on the side of the South African Party; were all these statesmen wrong? But when he looked carefully into the matter, three thousand golden coins seemed to flutter in front of his eyes. Were these golden objects, the attraction of these golden objects, the cause which had changed the hon. member’s views? Proceeding, Mr. Venter said that in the past he had had the greatest respect for General Hertzog, especially when he had said that he would not split the party. But what had happened since? He (General Hertzog) had disappointed him. Was that the way in which he fulfilled his undertaking not to split the party? Charges had been made that the Government had broken the pledges and had betrayed the people. But not a single fact had been adduced to prove that allegation, except that the Prime Minister was called in one and the same breath a “papbroek” and an autocrat. How could that possibly be that case? He held that Government could not and should not dissolve Parliament, because they had a strong majority behind them, which would not allow them to do so. Within a few days, hon. members would have an opportunity of voting on a vote of no-confidence in the Government. It was true the motion was to be introduced by the Labour Party. If, when they had that opportunity, they did not vote for it, he would know where the papbroekerigheid was. Hon. members now so anxious to have a general election would have to meet their constituents some day, and the outcome might be disappointing to those members. He considered that the agitation should be put a stop to, and trusted even now that a solution of the difficulty would be found.

also regretted that questions of this kind should be fought out on the floor of the House. The hon. member for Smithfield had made allegations to the effect that the Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the country. If the hon. member only knew the opinions of the people of the rural districts, he would come to a very different conclusion, and would discover that the people still stood behind the Prime Minister. What had been done by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Finance would never be forgotten by the people. (Ministerial cheers.) They were responsible for the progress which had taken place within the South African people. (Cheers.) Mr. Fremantle had posed as a great champion of the language rights. As a matter of fact, these men he now so greatly maligned were responsible for that equality which had been achieved. (Hear, hear.) He regretted the inciting meetings which at present were being held throughout the country. One of the arguments for the dissolution of Parliament was the Arms and Ammunition Bill which the Parliament was still considering, and it was not right that that Bill should be made use of in such a manner. It was nonsense to say that the Government had so far done nothing this session. It was true that, owing to special circumstances, not so much had been done as was desirable, but the Opposition were equally responsible with the Government for that. He deeply regretted the fact that some hon. members had thought it necessary to wash their dirty linen in the House.

said at that late hour he would have been pleased if the hon. Minister could have accepted the motion for the adjournment. He was glad to see the hon. member for Springs in his place. Some of the speeches made in the course of the debate had been of a high financial nature. Proceeding, the hon. member said the hon. member for Springs stated that six of the Unionists walked across the floor of the House to support the Government upon the beer question. He also said that the Minister of Justice had made it a Government question. If the hon. member thought that he (Mr. Brown) was selected to save the Government from defeat he was very much mistaken. He wanted to say that he had never been approached by a party whip or by any other body, and he rendered his vote simply as the result of a private inquiry he had made. He had taken the opportunity of consulting one who had experience in England and Germany, and who was now a member of the Bacteriological Department of the Government. He asked him if sugar was necessary for the brewing of beer. He said yes. The hon. member then asked him what percentage was necessary. He said 8 per cent. He told him that the Government intended to allow up to ten per cent. He said that was more than was necessary. He voted for the question because he thought it was right. There was such a thing as living in glass houses. If his hon. friend would just turn to page 240 of the Votes and Proceedings he might get a lesson there. He would notice that a vote was taken upon the Ammunition Bill. How did his hon. friend vote on that occasion? The Government were actually defeated on that question. His hon. friend voted with the minority on that occasion, and so tried to save the Government.

How did I save them when they were in a minority?

You played the fool without success, and I played it with success. (Laughter.) If this was a Government question he found no fewer than 17 supporters of the Government voted against the Government. He fully sympathised with Labour, but he was not prepared to accept the Socialism of the hon. members on the cross benches. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to Port Elizabeth Harbour. They had a Government report from their own officials, which said that this harbour was equal to the best in the world, and he would ask the Minister to do justice to it. The member for Troyeville came and gave them a great speech upon Protection. Now if there was a question that could not be discussed properly in a Budget speech it was the question of Protection. He made a statement about the poverty he found in New York, but did he know that in Great Britain, which was a Free Trade country, every one person in 30 was a pauper. (Hear, hear.) Another thing that they had to remember was the question of the gold reserve. In France it was £8 per head, in America £4, in Germany £3, and in Britain only £2, so that if the gold reserve was a true indication of a country’s prosperity, Protection countries were more prosperous. (Hear, hear.)

We cannot take that.

I am not saying you can, but the gold reserve of a country means something. The true wealth of a country was not in its millionaires, but in its absence of poverty. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, Mr. Brown referred to the discrepancies between the salaries of the Secretary for Finance and the Accountant of the Railways. He could not understand why the Accountant of the Railways should receive £1.700 a year, while the Secretary for the Treasury, who had by far the more responsible position, received only £1,500 It almost pointed to the fact that the Railway Department was somewhat extravagant in its expenses. Nearly 70 persons in the Railway Department were drawing over a thousand a year a-piece. While the income of the railway was large for this country, it was small compared with some English companies. He knew the ability of the General Manager, and did not refer to his salary when he said there was such a thing as over-paying. He thought the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Minister of Finance should, however, direct his attention to the fact that, while there were men on the railways being paid 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. per day, the men at the top should not get such huge salaries. The hon. member for George, in his otherwise excellent speech, laid down the enigma that some Ministers were worth their salaries, and some were not. He (Mr. Brown) had gone into the matter, and came to the conclusion that six were not worth their salaries, and one was worth his. (Laughter.) There was not a constructive idea in the hon. member’s speech, which was a destructive one from beginning to end. At present trade was prosperous, but when the Government loan was not the success it was anticipated to be, it was time to pause. When an ordinary person was told by his banker that his overdraft must be stopped, he took stock. Mr. Brown then moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was carried.

The debate was adjourned until tomorrow.