from H. A. Lamprecht, chairman of the Consistory of the “Nederduits Hervormde of Gereformeerde” Church, Johannesburg East, praying for the removal of the servitude of school purposes from Stands Nos. 348 and 349, Johannesburg, or for other relief.

OLIVER (Kimberley), from J. M. Vorster and 18 others, inhabitants of Aliwal North, 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 Anna C. le Roux, principal of the Girls’ A1 School, Malmesbury, praying for the condonation of a break in her service, or for other relief.

from J. Sissison and 54 others, inhabitants of Knysna, 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 M. A. James and 19 others, inhabitants of Krugersdorp.

similar petitions from W. L. Kidney and 37 others, inhabitants of Observatory and Mowbray, and from the Right Rev. the Coadjutor-Bishop of Cape Town and 72 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs.

proposed as an unopposed motion that the Select Committee on the Administration of Estates Bill have leave to include provisions in the Bill regulating fidei commissary bequests, and that the Committee have leave to amend the title accordingly.

The motion was agreed to.

stated that when this debate was adjourned yesterday, 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 he did not wish to keep the House long, because he did not wish to pose as a financial expert. Speaking as an ordinary man, it was clear to him that the administration was too expensive for the country. It was top heavy. Still, he did not wish to blame the Government for this state of affairs. A great part they had inherited from previous Governments, and another part they had received under the South Africa Act, which made some very expensive provisions in regard to officials, dual capital, etc. Before they went in for fresh taxation they ought to put their own house in order. (Hear, hear.) They had been told that they had paid off two million of debt bearing interest at 3 and 3½ per cent. Now, however, they had taken up another four million loan at four per cent., plus one per cent. commission and one quarter per cent. brokerage. Would it not, he asked, have been better if that £2,000,000 had not been paid back? The Minister should explain.

Three years ago the Opposition had pointed out that the Union Government had taken £40,000 from the Free State, which amount was destined for school boarding-houses. Of that amount £25,000 had been returned. But when were they to get the remaining £15,000?

Mr. Keyter went on to refer to an amount of £110,000, earmarked by the Free State Parliament for certain purposes. The Treasurer was the trustee for this money, and he urged that the money should be used for the purpose for which it was earmarked. If the Treasurer intended devoting that money to other purposes he would first have to come to this House to get the Free State law repealed, and if he attempted to do so, he (Mr. Keyter) would at once take sides with the hon. member for Ladybrand to oppose that, but until such a step was taken they had no right to create suspicions in the minds of the people. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member proceeded to criticise the action of the postal department in removing a postal assistant in Fouriesburg, in the Free State, without appointing a substitute. The official had resigned, and the inspector said it was unnecessary to replace him. How could that be true? This might be economy, but it was economy in the wrong place. The Government promised last year to order an inquiry into postal affairs in the Free State, but had not yet done so.

He now came to the most painful matter he had ever experienced in his Parliamentary life, the personal matter which had been dragged into this House. That was a matter which belonged to another place and would most likely be dealt with elsewhere. In regard to the threats of the attitude of their constituents, he held that every member was prepared to be responsible for his action, and was prepared to face his constituents at any time. In regard to a general election, he wished to say that, to him, personally as Keyter, nothing could be more agreeable than an opportunity of going home, where his presence was urgently required. But he thought the people themselves could express their opinion about a general election if they wished to do so. Under present circumstances he held a general election would be a disaster, an irreparable blow to the Dutch-speaking section of South Africa, and he was not going to side with these people who wished to administer that blow. (Hear, hear.) In regard to the constitutional aspect, he wished to remark that he had always urged that this matter should be dealt with constitutionally. But the constitution he referred to was not that referred to by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), who had pointed to the “Constitution of England” or the “Government of England.” With that they had nothing to do. The constitution they had to act on was the constitution of the South African Party, which they themselves had made. This morning he had seen certain resolutions reported in the press which he hoped were wrong. In these reports he had seen that an ultimatum had been given to hon. members requiring them to do this or that, or else to resign. Who ever heard such nonsense? He had been sent here by his constituents, and he stood here with facts before him. Was he now going to be told that he had to do this or that, or that otherwise he had to resign. Did they have to be condemned even without a hearing? Did these people who had passed these resolutions know what this House was doing? Did these people know that he had spent sleepless nights about the two matters raised in these resolutions, namely immigration and the native question? Did they know what they were doing in regard to native affairs? He hoped that when the Bill on this matter was published, even the people who had passed these resolutions would be silenced. In regard to the Immigration Bill, which had already been published, he felt it very deeply that the criticism should come from the capital of the Free State, for which they had done their very best. He did not know when the Bill dealing with natives would be published, but he hoped it would be soon, and would be in accordance with the promises made to them, so that they would all be satisfied. He understood it was to be brought forward during the present session, and if that were done he would be satisfied if it were in accordance with the provisions made. In regard to native affairs, although he would have liked to have seen a pass law introduced this session, he had been satisfied with the promises of the Minister, and he was sure that something sound would be done this year. In conclusion, Mr. Keyter turned to General Hertzog and said that he (Mr. Keyter) would still be his friend when many of his other so-called friends had long since disappeared; but all the same he could see a mistake if one was made. This matter he hoped would be dealt with at another place, and if the people wanted a general election they would be able to say so at the other place, and they would have plenty of opportunity to do so. If his constituents wanted a general election he would be prepared to face them, but he was not going to be dictated what to do by a committee at Bloemfontein. (Hear, hear.) He intended to address his constituents, and if he found that he and they differed on cardinal points he would resign his seat.

said he did not rise to deal with criticism which had been directed against his Department, neither did he rise to make any remarks regarding the party split that had occurred, which he was sorry to say had been the subject of discussion on the floor of that House. It was a pity that the matter had been introduced, and the less he said about it the better. He rose to make a few remarks on a statement made by the hon. member for Boshof, who said that the speech he (the Minister) made at Dundee some time ago caused a great deal of pain to him and his friends, because it contained a reference to the spirit of Kruger as being still alive. He (the Minister) had in his mind at the time he made that speech, a speech which had just been delivered by General De Wet at Pretoria, in which he said that he would rather talk to his own people from a manure heap than appear on the most brilliant platform addressing foreigners. He (the Minister) took it that General De Wet meant that he would rather be on a platform addressing his own countrymen than on a brilliant platform addressing English people whom he regarded as foreigners. General De Wet drew an unfortunate distinction between the old population and the new population. He said then, and he would say now, that such a statement coming from a public man like General De Wet would do nothing but harm. That was the only thing that he had in his mind when he made these references. If these references raised any feeling of pain he regretted it, but he thought that no man ought to draw such a distinction between the two white races in South Africa. The hon. member said that he was sorry that the Prime Minister had included a racialist in his Cabinet, and he referred also to a statement made by a gentleman in the Natal Legislature applying to him (the Minister), i.e., that he (the Minister) was a hater of the Dutch. That statement came as a great surprise to him when he first heard it, and there was no truth in it. The only reason he could give for a member of the Natal House of Assembly using that expression was that he had lost his temper, and because he (the Minister) had criticised the terms on which a railway to Utrecht was to be built. When he (the Minister) was a Minister of Natal he was instrumental in getting the Prime Minister to visit the Utrecht district for the purpose of endeavouring to find out what were the grievances of the Dutch people there, and when they returned to Pietermaritzburg they immediately set about trying to remedy these grievances, and he took to himself some credit for remedying these grievances. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Boshof did not know that he (the Minister) lived in a district where a large proportion of the population were Dutch. They were his personal friends, and he had for 23 years done business with a great many of them. He himself had been instrumental in placing Dutch teachers in certain schools. (Ministerial cheers.) It was not pleasant for him to get up in this way to advertise himself, but it was an obligation upon him, on account of the remarks that were made. When he was Minister of Education in Natal, he was instrumental in issuing a circular to teachers advising them to qualify in Dutch, and promising that promotion would be given if they were so qualified. (Ministerial cheers.) He hoped the hon. member for Boshof would endeavour not to repeat those statements. The hon. member would almost lead them to believe that he (the Minister) was an obstacle to the coming together of the two divergent parties on the Ministerial side. The Prime Minister knew full well that he could have his resignation to-day, if that would obviate any estrangement between the right hon. gentleman and some of his party. He hoped they would come to an understanding upon this subject as soon as possible, and that they would preserve the same Convention spirit which actuated the members at the Convention, and was not yet dead. He would certainly do all he could in that direction, and hoped the hon. member for Boshof would do his part.

said a good deal of the criticism which the House had had to listen to was of a destructive nature. He did not think the comparison of the expenditure before Union with the expenditure under Union was a fair one, seeing that the further development of the country must naturally bring with it additional expenditure. The defence of the country had necessitated large expenditure, and the interest on the public debt had increased. The transition stage to Union had also caused expenses which would not recur yet.

Notwithstanding that, he held that a saving of £900,000 had been effected in the various departments of State. In regard to other remarks, he held that officials should be paid according to the work done by them, and according to their responsibilities. He did not think it advisable to keep on urging economy, and would refer to the salaries paid to postal officials in the Free State, which should be increased, Economies and retrenchment often were effected at the expense of the country section of the people. The hon. member proceeded to plead for further consideration of the western districts of the Free State, which had become much more thickly populated of late. He urged especially that they should not economise in regard to postal communication, as such postal communication was a factor of great importance in the education of the people. The Postal Administration gave more attention to the eastern portion of the Free State, because the population was three times that of the west. The population was increasing daily. In his own constituency it had increased 150 per cent. since 1904. The people paid taxes, and why he asked should they be asked to put up with less of the public institutions than other places? The post office at Bultfontein was badly dealt with, as a result of which the public were not served for three or four days. The hon. member proceeded to deprecate the attitude of hon. members on the cross-benches, who so strongly urged the taxation of unimproved land values. Hon. members should realise how long it took farmers to develop the farms before they became profitable. It sometimes took six years. In regard to Opposition arguments, he held that farmers paid a good deal in indirect taxation through import duties. The hon. member went on to express himself in favour of a sound policy of moderate protection, which, in the circumstances prevailing in this country, was essential. Fundamentally, however, if conditions were the same here as in Europe, he was a Free Trader. The high price of meat was not due to any lack of slaughter cattle, but to combinations between the buyers of the butchers. If the tax on imported meat were abolished it would only go to the benefit of the butchers. In regard to railways, he regretted that the Minister of Finance had been prepared so soon to surrender the railway contribution. Now the Railway Administration was going to reduce the railway rates, and he contended that it was an injustice to those parts of the country which had no railways that the money surrendered was not used for railway extension. As a matter of fact, the only people who benefited from railway rate reductions were those who had railway communication, but those who had no railways received no benefit at all. Mr. Theron went on to urge the necessity of railway extension in the western districts of the Free State. The eastern parts had nothing to complain of. The hon. member for Winburg had spoken of flourishing co-operative societies, but such societies could not flourish without railways. He referred to a meeting of some fifteen Free State members in Bloemfontein, when a resolution had been passed in favour of a scheme of railway extension in the western districts. He regretted that the Railway Board had not gone carefully through these districts to see the potentialities of these parts. Its members paid a flying visit in a motor car, but how could they form any idea of the country in that way? The lands were capable of producing far more than was at present yielded, but transport was lacking. At most they could only put 30 bags of mealies on a wagon, owing to the heavy roads. In regard to land settlement, Mr. Theron referred to the law passed through Parliament last year. This law had been passed with a view to assisting people who, as a result of the war, had lost their farms, and others. Unless steps were taken at once, the position of these people would become worse and worse. He hoped the law passed last year would be given effect to at once. He thought the fault at present was that although Land Boards had been appointed there was a lack of instruction to these Boards as to what they had to do. In regard to the unfortunate crisis, he thought that, as a member of the Free State, it was his duty to say a few words on the matter. He had every respect for those people who differed in opinion from him. Personally, he had never asked a man in Hoopstad to vote for him. The hon. member for Fauresmith alleged that those members who differed from him were afraid to lose their seats. With him (Mr. Theron) it was not a question as to whether he would lose his seat or not. The question with him was what was going to be the effect of a general election, and would the principles he stood for be put into effect again in the future after a general election? (Hear, hear.) He doubted it. What would be the result of a general election? He had great respect for the hon. member for Smithfield, but, held that General Hertzog had been unfortunate in the choice of his friends—(hear, hear)—and did not know his true friends well enough. Personally, he did not see that the Government had in the slightest degree forsaken the principles. (Cheers.) He was prepared to go to his constituents and fight an election if necessary on a question of principle, but not on a question of personality. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Boshof had asked whether General Hertzog had forsaken his principles. That was not the question. The question was whether the Government had abandoned its principles, and that had not been shown. If it had been shown he would have been ready to stand beside the hon. member for Smithfield. He had greatly regretted General Hertzog’s Smithfield speech; he had greatly deplored the allegations made in that speech against the Prime Minister, to the effect that the Government had abandoned its principles. (Hear, hear.) After that speech he (Mr. Theron) had said that General Hertzog had closed the door to himself. (Hear, hear.) He regretted the agitation which was being carried on in order to stir up the feelings of the people, and was pained to see the names of men whom he greatly respected. They wanted to frighten him with those names now. Well, no one was infallible, not even the Pope of Rome. If they went on like this the day would come when the leaders of this agitation, including General Hertzog, would be cursed by the people. He stood back for no one in his love for this country. It was good sometimes to sit on the fence, so long as they jumped off on the proper side after they had thought. The people of South Africa undoubtedly thought and felt. Let the people, however, be careful not to feel first and then think afterwards. (Hear, hear.) The speaker declined to follow anybody exclusively on the ground of sentiment, or anybody who in his conviction was taking a wrong step. In the past the Government had been told that they must not go to England for their policy. The hon. member for Smithfield had held these views. Now, however, he wanted the Government to go to England for a precedent in regard to the constitutional question. (Laughter.) If there was to be a struggle let it be an honourable struggle. He had seen that morning in the Press that many hon. members were made out to be liars.

Referring to the University Bill, Mr. Theron said he regretted that they should be made liars by the hon. member for Smithfield. Some time age in a caucus meeting, the hon. member had stated that he had helped in the drafting of the University Bill, but that he would not press it if it was against the will of the people. Now, this morning, they noticed in the paper that General Hertzog had sent a telegram to “Die Week” denying that he had had any share in the drafting of that measure. He (Mr. Theron) had written to a friend that General Hertzog had admitted having helped in the drafting of that measure. He had been disappointed, however, at the attitude taken up by the hon. member on this national matter. Although he was in favour of the Bill, he was not prepared to fight for it? Was that an attitude for a leader to adopt? (Hear, hear.) Mr. Theron concluded by expressing the hope that this unfortunate quarrel might be brought to a happy conclusion. The principles of the party would have to be carried out, and the speaker would adhere to them.

said he was in the very fortunate position of representing a constituency that had no particular grievance to bring to the notice of his friends on the Ministerial benches or to the notice of this House, but, as a general inhabitant of this Province of the Union, he wished to repeat the few words he said the other day on a matter to which he would like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister. As he understood the real constitutional position in this country under the Act of Union, the right hon. gentleman, with his Cabinet, were the real revisers of the laws laid down by our Provincial Councils. He had tried to enter a caution, but he did not know whether the Prime Minister knew exactly what he meant, and whether he was prepared to exercise his disallowance of laws passed by the Provinces. His attention might have been directed to what appeared in the newspapers that morning, to the effect that an officer, long known in England as the Censor of Public Morals, had been abolished. (Hear, hear.) The Provincial Council of this Province had appointed a censor by an Act of the Council about a month ago. He had expressed his opinion the other day, that he thought the right hon. gentleman and his Cabinet had been guilty of great neglect in allowing that Ordinance to become the law of this Province—(hear, hear)—and he hoped that that caution would not be lost upon him. He noticed that in Kimberley last night a public meeting was held at which the people of Kimberley raised their protest against another Ordinance with which we in this Province were about to be threatened, and, he was sorry to say, not with any remonstrance on the part of the Cape School Board, which took the lead in the Province in school matters. We were threatened with another element of discord in this unhappy country. Surely we had had enough elements of discord among us of late. The attitude of this House during the last fortnight or three weeks showed to what a length people could go in matters connected with language, etc., and now we were threatened with uncontrolled, dogmatic, religious teaching in schools. He would direct the right hon. gentleman’s attention to the resolution passed at that meeting, and he would like him to take this matter seriously into consideration and see whether something could not be done to prevent the Provincial Council from inflicting such an enormity upon us, or, at all events, disallowing that Ordinance should it unfortunately be passed.

There were one or two other things connected with what he might call the embroidery of government in this country with which he would like to deal. They had heard a lot of talk concerning an Art Gallery for the Cape of Good Hope, and he was happy to hear that something was being done, and he hoped that the Prime Minister would do his best in that direction. Then the Finance Minister, he was pleased to say, was doing something in the way of providing a National Museum and Library at Pretoria and Cape Town, arid he was sure that would meet with the approval of the House, but he would ask the right hon. gentleman if he would not give his attention to the establishment of a National Botanical Gardens for South Africa. They had the Zoo at Pretoria, and he thought that Pretoria was the most suitable place for such an institution, but he thought that the best situation for a National Botanic Gardens would be in the neighbourhood of the Cape Peninsula. In the neighbourhood of the House that was adorned by the Prime Minister there was plenty of ground of a most suitable character, and he hoped by next session they would hear that further action had been taken in this matter. There was a great need for a garden, and as an argument in its favour he would point out that they knew very little about the life histories of many of the plants in this country. The best work could only be done if such an institution were in charge of a competent scientific man. With reference to the quarrels about which they had heard so much, he, as a humble member of that House and a citizen of the Union, must say that he had been surprised and astonished by the attitude of many hon. members opposite. There was a party quarrel, but those hon. members did not seem to understand that party quarrels were of no use to the country—they were quarrelling like old women over a washtub. That sort of thing did not advance the true interests of the country. The constitutional procedure was that a Prime Minister and his Cabinet held their position until they were out-voted by the House. He would tell the hon. member for Ficksburg that there was no written law on the subject. They were guided by practice, and the practice was that so long as the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were not out-voted by the rest of the House they remained the Cabinet of the country. All this talk of dissolution and the Prime Minister resigning was beside the question, and it simply showed that those members who talked about it did not know what lay at the foundation of responsible government institutions. He would like his hon. friends to look at it from that point of view and that point of view only. It would be better for all concerned if they went on doing their duty and the business of the country.

congratulated the Minister of Finance on the able manner in which he brought forward his Budget, and though it might not be as polished as some they had heard, it was a true and business-like statement, and gave poor fellows like himself, who knew very little about figures, the actual position of the country at present, and what they might expect in the future. He was surprised, and yet he was not surprised —(laughter)—at some of the criticism that had come from the other side. He more particularly alluded to the hon. members for Troyeville and Von Brandis. They were exports who told other people what they should do. Last year the hon. member for Von Brandis told them they should go in for violet growing. (Laughter.)

Nothing of the kind.

The hon. member for Troyeville said that the farmers should go in for ostriches.

Nothing of the kind.

Now the hon. member for Von Brandis tells us we should go in for ostrich farming.

Nothing of the kind.

The hon. member for Troyeville tells us we must go in for fowls and eggs. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said he did not see why they should go in for other industries when the ones with which they were connected were paying very well. He hoped one day to pay a visit to the poultry farm of the hon. member for, Troyeville—(laughter)—and he would also look up the hon. member for Von Brandis to see how his violets were getting on, and inspect his books. (Laughter.) He thought the Government should pay no attention to these criticisms. Ho thought hon. members opposite should follow their late loader, who had said that the Opposition could not replace the present Government with a batter one.

That was the last Government. (Laughter.)

dealt with the bewaarplaatsen question, and said that the hon. member for Barberton, with his great cleverness, his head for figures, and—what could he say?

Slimness. (Laughter.)

I think slimness will do. (Laughter.) We have admired him for his slimness in the past. Despite what the hon. member for Barberton had said, he (Mr. Myburgh) said they should not touch one penny of money that did not belong to them, else they would be dealing unjustly with the rightful owners. It was plain what the Volksraad of that time intended. He would just refer also to the last page of the Commission’s report, and what they recommended there. They recognised that the owner had right by law, and was at present entitled to share and share equally with the State in the disposal of the undermining rights. Were they going, then, to take from these people rights which they always believed to be their own? He hoped the hon. member for Barberton would change his front, and he hoped that the owners would receive their share, as recommended by the commission. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he wished to say a few words with regard to the railways. Although there might be shortcomings in the management of railways, still the present Minister of Railways, and the late Minister of Railways, now Minister of Justice, besides the railway management deserved the hearty congratulations of the country for the manner in which the department was managed. He was only sorry to hear that in the near future they must not expect further reductions in the rates inland. He took it that there was some reason for this, because doubtless they had to be very careful in regard to the reductions in rates. Again, with regard to the poor whites working on the railway at 3s. 6d. and 4s. per day, surely it was much better for them to work for that low rate instead of staying at home and doing nothing. He hoped the hon. members on the cross-benches would allow him to say that there was many a poor fellow who would be glad of 3s. 6d. and 4s. per day. Again, in his opinion, they had had, so far, too many expensive railways, and he believed that the cost of one single mile of railway could in many instances have paid for the construction of three or four other miles of line had it been done on a cheaper scale. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the Minister would not be carried away by people begging for more expensive station accommodation. When they saw lines that had been thrown aside for better ones, while other people had no lines at all, he just remembered the old story, “to him that hath, more shall be given.” (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member said he would like to refer to the speech made by the right hon. the member for Victoria West, when he charged the Government with extravagance. Let the right hon. gentleman remember the vastness of the country —the great extent of the country—and when he compared the expenses of the administration of the Union with those of other countries, he did not think the comparison was a just one. Then it had been said that the natives contributed, but did not receive anything, but they must understand that the natives put them to great expense with regard to the upkeep of police courts and prisons. With regard to commercial matters, hon. members forgot that they were feeding six millions of people in South Africa, and he thought, after doing that, and still being able to export so much produce, amply demonstrated that South Africa was increasing in prosperity and going forward.

Let them take the expenditure the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had laid such great stress upon. He asked what the Government could show for the increased expenditure since two years before Union. It was very unfair to take a couple of years before Union and compare it with the expenditure of to-day. Besides the every-day expenditure, he would call his hon. friend’s attention to the recent expenditure on the extension of the railways, on Defence, the expenditure in connection with the dual Capital, the Provincial Councils, the increase in education, stock diseases, the new department created under the Stock Diseases Act. The two years before Union were absolutely the leanest years this country had had, and the hon. member compared them with years when expenditure was high because of the development work undertaken. He (Mr. Myburgh) hoped the Government would not be ashamed of that expenditure and that it would continue its present policy, for he felt sure they would continue to have the confidence of the people of this country. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, said they should, refer the Budget back to the Government in order that expenditure and revenue might be balanced. The hon. member ought to know that that would be the easiest thing to do—any office-boy could do it—but he ought also to know that if he budgeted for a balance next year he would find himself a million out, and he (Mr. Myburgh) would rather budget for a deficit than budget for a balance and have a deficit. He hoped the Government would not give heed so much to the Leader of the Opposition when he said he wanted a declaration. That hon. gentleman wanted a declaration at all times of the day. He hoped the Government would not give him all the declarations asked for, because declarations were only sticks with which the Opposition would beat the Government. The Government should try to help the little man in the outlying districts of the country. He was really sorry to have to say a few words to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt), the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog), and also to the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle). He thought if there was one thing they should have kept from the floor of this House it was the debate on which they embarked, he thought, without any reason. The hon. member for Ladybrand started off by saying that Natal was the Province over which the Prime Minister was always slobbering and trying to meet, and he blamed the Prime Minister because Natal had art galleries. The hon. gentleman hated Natal, and when the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) made a reference and said “Natal did it,” he started into him at once. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) took up the cudgels and also blamed the Prime Minister. It showed a small mind to hate or be jealous of one Province. One Province ought to be proud of being able to give another Province what would help it. If they studied the matter the hon. member for Ladybrand would find that the Free State came in for a bigger portion than Natal in regard to education and some other matters. The hon. member for Smithfield showed them what feeling he held under his mantle since that memorable day in Pretoria. The Prime Minister got up to defend him against the hon. member for Ladybrand. Immediately after the hon. member for Smithfield got up and started in on the Prime Minister. What was his attack? The old thing— raking up things, blaming and accusing him of being a “papbroek.” Well, if a man wanted to be a leader, and, above all, a leader of South Africans, he must be above such things and take broader views. Not only that, but he must be able to swallow a lot of things. He did not wish to labour the point, but he wished to say to those gentlemen that if they would only take the advice of some of their true friends who tell them their true feelings it will be of more benefit to them—but they had lent their ears to people who had not got their interest at heart.

asked the Minister to consider the requirements of his district in regard to railway communication; his district was a rich district, and seeing that the poorest district of the Transvaal—the Piet Retief district— had its railway, he hoped Wakkerstroom would get the same privilege. Owing to railway connection the value of land in Piet Retief had risen from 7s. 6d. to £4 and £5 per morgen. Wakkerstroom wanted a railway in order to transport produce. To trek with cattle along some of the roads was, owing to the construction of those roads, no longer possible. The cattle would therefore have to be conveyed by rail. He had meant to say something in regard to native affairs, but would reserve most of his remarks until the Bill on the matter was introduced. He knew nowhere else in the world where the natives lived such a lazy life as they lived in this country. He disapproved however of the provision which required a Kafir youth of 18 to pay a £1 tax. It was too much, and led to ill results. Formerly they waited till the youth was 21, which was a better arrangement. He thought it was only right that the natives in the Transvaal should pay a poll tax or other tax, which would have the effect of making them work. As a matter of fact, the natives in this country had an easier life than anyone else. The hon. member went on to urge the necessity of a Bill being introduced providing for special native Courts to deal with native matters. Last session a Bill of this nature had been introduced but withdrawn, and he hoped this measure would be reintroduced.

He complained also of the circumstances under which a certain official in the post and telegraph office at Amersfoort had to suffer. Although the man had been in service for 13 years, his appointment was still only a temporary one, and his salary trifling. The speaker expressed the hope that the condition of affairs there would be improved in this respect.

Touching upon the crisis, the hon. member said that these difficulties were felt by every one. He thought it expedient to say a few words on the subject, as it was possible that he also might receive a telegram to appear before his constituents. However that might be he had hoped that the difference would have been adjusted. Some people might rejoice over the present trouble, but most of them sincerely regretted what had occurred. Shortly after the crisis, General Hertzog had made a speech in Pretoria, which had given every one ground to hope that a conciliation would be effected. The Smithfield speech, however, had altered matters. If the hon. member had only kept quiet, the outcome might have been a very different one. After having co-operated with the Prime Minister for two years, General Hertzog suddenly accused his old colleague of being a papbroek. By the attitude taken up at Smithfield, General Hertzog had alienated the sympathies of a good many people who originally had sympathised with him. This was not a matter to be dealt with by a congress. There they had their caucus, and that was the place where a quarrel of this kind should be settled. It should not be sent into the world to embitter the people. But General Hertzog had not been content to leave matters at that. Mr. Van Niekerk had said that Sir Thomas Watt had been taken into the Ministry to fill the place of General Hertzog. That was not so. He had been asked to join the Ministry to fill the place rendered vacant by the resignation of Colonel Leuchars. The speaker was very glad that the hon. member for Umvoti in leaving the Cabinet had done so without starting an agitation. Mr. Fremantle had said a good deal about his political history. In the first place he had obtained the confidence of his constituents before he came there to attack the Prime Minister. No doubt the hon. member had a great political history, seeing the number of times he had changed his views. As to his opinions during the war, it seemed that the hon. member in those days had sat on the branch of a tree, prepared to jump on another if his branch broke. (Laughter.) During the war it was said that he did not entirely agree with the English. Anyway it appeared to the speaker that the hon. member went too far in his speech, expressing lack of confidence in the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had now got into bad odour with the students, and agitation was being carried on everywhere. As to the attitude of the Opposition, it was quite natural that they should try to cause a split in the ranks of the South African Party, so that they might profit thereby. General De Wet was called a peacemaker at the present. Did he think he was making peace by stirring up a lot of bad feeling? Verily, that was not the right attitude for a great man who had rendered great services to this country. That gallant fighter was now raising a lot of bogeys throughout the country. The first bogey was the contribution to the British fleet, the second was immigration, and the third was the fairy tale about the arming of Kafirs. The speaker did not wish to say that in removing General Hertzog from the Cabinet the Prime Minister had hit the nail on the head. The thing had been done, and it was not right to split the entire people in two sections on the subject. The speaker could not understand the conduct of General De Wet, a man whose name was celebrated all over the world. “I feel ashamed of the attitude taken up by General De Wet,” Mr. Joubert went on to say, “and refuse to meet him.” If General Hertzog had only allowed the caucus to deal with the difficulty, he would have been a member of the Government this day. (Cheers.)

said he thought that some protest should be made at the shameful waste of time this session. They had now been three months in session, and, in spite of what the hon. member for Caledon had said, they had done absolutely nothing. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member stated that they had passed nine measures. All of those measures, with one exception, were purely formal. There were five Appropriation Bills. There was the Customs Management Bill, a purely departmental measure, with one clause affecting the policy of the country as to dumping. For three months, therefore, this House had done nothing. The country had been calling out for legislation. The country sent them there, and expected them to get through a certain amount of the country’s work. They had not done it. There was a moral to this, which showed them that the country was not prepared for Union. It showed them that they were far too premature in going in for Union, and it was a moral which he hoped many of them would take to heart. Of the speeches he had heard, there were one or two of an outstanding character, but he could not help thinking that some of the criticism which had been levelled at the Government was unfair, and that it did not tend towards raising this country in the eyes of the rest of the Empire and the rest of the world. For instance, the Government had been taxed, and he thought somewhat unfairly, with extravagance. They had been charged with having increased the expenditure by something like 3½ millions since the year preceding Union. That was correct, but if one looked at the expenditure covering the same period of time of other countries, it would also be found that the increase of expenditure in this country was not disproportionate. In the United Kingdom the expenditure over the same period had increased by 12½ millions. In Australia, with a population about the same as our own, if he included natives, the expenditure had increased by 5½ millions. Canada’s expenditure had increased by 2½ millions, and New Zealand’s by over half a million. There was a healthy sign in this, and, of course, there was an unhealthy sign. The healthy sign was that the country was developing, and that it was going in for expansion. On the other hand, the unhealthy sign was the shrinkage in the purchasing power of gold. In the last 20 years the value of the purchasing power of gold had decreased by something like 4s. in the £.

Another unfair criticism was that hon. members when considering the population of the country altogether ignored the natives. On the question of expenditure they must take the natives into consideration, for there was hardly a Civil Servant who was not directly or indirectly serving the coloured population. A point upon which he could not hold the Government blameless was the arrangement of the programme for the session. It was a month before they were supplied with the Estimates, and it was three months before they were able to discuss those Estimates. He thought that the trouble in the South African Party should not have been brought up before the House, but should have been settled by the two gentlemen concerned. It showed how utterly unprepared they had been for Union. This quarrel was not a matter of policy, but it showed that a general election was essential. He was confident that if the Prime Minister went to the country he would come back stronger than ever, but this unfortunate quarrel had shaken the foundations of the party and made legislation impossible. The only way to get out of the difficulty was to go to the country. On the previous night the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said they had nothing to go to the country upon. That hon. member was wrong, there were two most important questions of policy—the power of the Provincial Council and the native question. Before Union, advocates of Union told them that Union would mean the solution of the native problem. What did they find? They had gone from bad to worse. The native population were being administered on Cape lines. He did not say the Cape lines were wrong so far as the Cape was concerned, but they were not effective in the case of the Transvaal, Natal, and the O.F.S. The reason was that whereas the native population of the Cape had been in touch with civilisation for 200 years the Zulu population had been in touch with civilisation for a matter of 40 or 50 years. The administration of the natives should be left to the Provincial Councils. It was impossible to rule the native races by means of a policy dictated from Cape Town or Pretoria. He considered the Prime Minister should go to the country. Owing to the peculiar circumstances and the extraordinary conditions now facing South Africa, he would vote against a vote of “no confidence” during the present session. It was his duty to South Africa both as a Natalian and an Englishman to do so—

Why?

I will tell you why: Who could you replace the Government with?

You. (Laughter.)

The Labour Party. (Laughter.)

said that one of the bogeys that frightened both sides of the House was the Labour Party. (Laughter.) They knew that if the Prime Minister went to the country they would come back with 20 members. (Labour cheers, and Opposition and Ministerial laughter.)

Quite right. (Laughter.)

said that if the Labour Party came back with 20 members it would be a blessing in disguise, because it would bring together the Progressive parties of the House. But the Labour Party would never get more than 20 members. (Labour laughter.) The native population would always keep these gentlemen in check. He did not fear 20 members of the Labour Party in that House except in debate. (Laughter.) He did not see any reason for fearing an appeal to the country. They were becoming discredited in the eyes of the people of the country, who felt that the Government was frightened of them.

regretted the personal turn which had been given to the debate. In his opinion the whole trouble ought to have been settled in caucus. Why should the matter be raised again in this House? Surely if husband and wife had a quarrel they did not settle it in the street. He regretted the manner in which the secret proceedings of the caucus always managed to find their way into the “Cape Times” the next morning. He thought the constituents of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) would not approve of the manner in which that hon. member had raised this quarrel in the House. When Parliament met the matter was discussed in caucus and decided there, but now it had been brought before the public. The hon. member had been specially provided with a seat, and had no right to light a fire in that way. His constituents would strongly disapprove of such action. He considered that hardly any member sat here for the sake of the £400. They all sat here prepared to make sacrifices for the country, and he deprecated the remarks made by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) on the subject, and who blew on the fire which had been already kindled. The fire started here, would spread all over the countryside. He did not see a reason for a general election. A mistake was made through the exclusion of the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) from the Cabinet, but the mistake would not be put right by a general election. It could be put right in other ways.

Neither General Botha nor General Hertzog could be spared by the party, and he hoped the result of this quarrel would not be the shedding of one of them.

They would have to solve the native question, taking care not to be in too great a hurry on the one band, but at least to make a start, on the other hand.

The split in the party must not be widened. The hon. member for Smithfield was a great man in the eyes of the people, and could not be dispensed with. The Prime Minister and the hon. member would have to work together. Both were dear to the people and neither could be done without. They could not permit that the work which they had built up should be broken down. The Government had done a great deal since Union, and should not be too severely criticised. The speaker believed that a general election was not in the interest of the public, and he disagreed entirely with those who said that no work had been done. There were too many long speeches and too much reading out of books with which they had no concern. Mr. Van der Walt proceeded to ask the Minister of Railways to provide for a line from Pretoria to Magaliesberg Station, which is urgently required. The Minister of Railways deserved the thanks of the House for the regulation made providing that whites and natives were not to travel together. It was quite right to give the native all possible privileges, but he should be kept apart. The hon. member next referred to the repatriation debts, and asked the Minister of Finance to see whether these debts could not be written off. A number of the debtors could not possibly pay. He also urged that the salaries of field cornets, acting as scab inspectors in the Transvaal, should be increased, seeing the large areas which such inspectors had to cover. Before the war they were elected, but after the war appointed at a salary of £260 per annum. They had to cover great distances. The district of Elands River, for example, was much too large for one man. In addition to acting as scab inspector, the field cornet was also a road inspector. They had tried to eradicate scab at the Cape for a long time past, but they had not yet succeeded. Field cornets should be made resident justices of the peace, and each should have an assistant inspector.

The pensions granted were in many cases too high, especially when the money was spent in Europe. A good many of the remarks of the hon. member were inaudible. In regard to immigration, Mr. Van der Walt pointed out that a good many people were leaving the country annually because they could not find land. Was it fair in these circumstances, he asked, to think of State-aided immigration? He also asked that consideration should be given to the poor whites in the country. He was opposed to the policy of the Labour members of placing taxes on land, but held that if economies were necessary they should start reducing the salaries of the high officials. The hon. member proceeded to urge the establishment of local industries. At present they were sending the raw material to other countries and had the finished article imported. Why, he asked, should they not have their own factories here? (Hear, hear.) They had both leather and the material for tanning here, and boot and shoe factories ought to be established. Clothing also could be made here, whilst sufferers from miners’ phthisis should be settled on the land.

expressed his gratification at the sound state of the country’s finances, and hoped the position would be equally satisfactory next year. He was also glad there was no question of imposing direct taxation. The Cape had already suffered from a direct tax, and did not want any more of it. If further taxation were to become necessary, it was desirable to levy it in the form of indirect taxes, by increasing them, say, 2½ per cent. To levy an income tax would cause too much dissatisfaction, whilst an increase of the existing indirect taxes would not require any increase in the costs of administration. Direct taxation would. Seeing the value of the railways, he urged the necessity of careful administration. He also pointed to the necessity of the Civil Service of the country being conducted by a sufficient number of officials. He would not move the adjournment of the debate, because he thought it was time that this debate was concluded. He would not stand in the way of the progress of business, and would not, like so many hon. members, delay the House by a long speech. (Hear, hear.) When he contested his constituency, he had said that he stood as a supporter of General Botha. He would not go into this unfortunate quarrel in the party, and would not take the responsibility for anything that had occurred.

“Move the adjournment.”

said he would not do so. He regretted that the provisions of the Irrigation Act were not being put into operation. It was said there were too many officials in the Department, but that was not the case. It was a most important Department, and there were not enough officials to do the work. At present all irrigation matters were at a standstill. He went on to ask the Government to build a large dam at Toverwaterpoort, which would bring about great developments. Such a dam would store millions of gallons of water, and thus be of enormous value in times of drought. Lack of water was one of the reasons why they were still unhappily compelled to import butter, eggs, and bacon, etc. In his own district private persons were very busy constructing irrigation works, but it would be three years before they Bad finished them. It could be completed in one year but for the lack of engineers to help the farmers. The hon. member proceeded to ask the Minister of Agriculture to see that more veterinary surgeons were sent to the country districts. The hon. member referred to the necessity of the fruit-growing industry being properly attended to. He held that more officials should be appointed to deal with diseases amongst fruit and plants. Instead of one man, there should be at least six. The farmers ought to be taught, too, how to pack their fruit. The hon. member also asked for railway extension for his constituency. Mr. Rademeyer went on to plead the case of the poor woodcutters, and asked that these people should be paid larger prices for the sleepers for the railways. The wood was in the country, and there was no necessity to import any wood. The “geelhout” found in his constituency was extremely suitable for building purposes, and he asked the Government to see what they could do in the way of establishing a depot for the drying of such wood. As regarded scab, the hon. member asked that the Scab Act should be strictly enforced. Postal facilities were not all they should be either, and although they were near the coast, they were as badly situated as the inland districts. In regard to quitrent, he could not understand how it was that out of 692 not a single one had been granted. He was a strong believer in establishing local industries, and pointed to the blanket factory at Ceres as an example, where he said they produced an excellent article. In regard to education, he hoped a Bill would be introduced with which the people from the country districts could agree. He would also like to see an increase in the supply of telephonic facilities in his district, as they were very useful to farmers. He trusted the Government would see its way to reduce the quitrent charges, seeing that the poor people who paid them did not even have the roads made up.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

in seconding, said that before the question was put, he would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if he was prepared to indicate what he proposed to do. He thought he was entitled in his position to get an answer. If he sat down, he would loose his right to continue his speech on the motion, but he thought he was entitled to the courtesy of the Prime Minister. Surely courtesy was desirable between one side and the other. Was the Prime Minister prepared to indicate whether it was his intention to accept the motion or not?

He cannot, while you are standing.

said he would not sit down until he knew exactly where they stood. If the Prime Minister would nod his head in approval, or shake his head he would know how to act.

I will make a statement as soon as you sit down.

said that Mr. Speaker had ruled that if he sat down he would lose his right of speaking or of giving his reasons why the debate should be adjourned.

You can only make one speech on the motion for the adjournment, and if the Prime Minister makes his reply he has made his speech.

said he had no objection to accept the motion, but he wished to remark that the Government was anxious to conclude the debate on Monday. If the Leader of the Opposition agreed to that he would accept the motion.

asked if he understood the Prime Minister to say that he was prepared to agree to the adjournment of the debate on the agreement that they should close the debate on Monday. Surely his right hon. friend knew that there was nothing to prevent them closing on Monday. Was it not owing to the rebellious members on the Government side of the House that they were not allowed to adjourn at 6 o’clock? It was unnecessary for him to give the right hon. gentleman the assurance that if he could not control his own party it was surely unfair to blame members upon his (Sir T. Smartt’s) side of the House. The right hon. gentleman was surely aware that during the past week his (the Prime Minister’s) followers had been airing their personal views.

said he did not only appeal to the Opposition; he appealed to the whole House. Seventy-five speeches had already been made on the Budget, and he hoped hon. members would assist him in concluding the debate.

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