from W. T. Jackson, of Selborne College. East London, a teacher under the Education Department, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

from General T. Smuts and 302 others, inhabitants of the Lake Chrissie district, praying for the immediate construction of a line of railway from Breyten through the township of Lake Chrissie or for other relief.

from P. J. Erasmus and others, inhabitants of Merweville, Beaufort West, praying that Merweville may be constituted a separate fiscal division.

from Adeline E. Paterson and 24 other women, inhabitants of Redhouse, praying for legislation whereby women, on attaining the prescribed qualifications, may be admitted to practise any branch of the legal profession; and a similar petition from Ada L. Geard, president, and others, members of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, Port Elizabeth.

Memorandum upon the administration of Natal Act No. 31 of 1910, entitled “To provide pensions for teachers in Government-aided schools.”

The Memorandum was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, for consideration.

laid on the Table a report of the Cape Civil Service Pension Funds as at 31st May, 1910. He moved as an unopposed motion that the report be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

The motion was agreed to.

suggested that the reports of the other Provincial Pension Funds should also be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

said that as soon as the reports came in he would hand them in.

moved: That the petition from A. Day, principal of the Coast High School for Girls, Durban, Natal, praying the House to condone her omission to register her name in terms of Act 31 of 1910 (Natal) or for other relief, presented to this House on the 2nd February, 1912, be laid upon the Table; and that the petition be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

The motion was agreed to.

stated that when this debate was adjourned on the 18th inst. 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 when this debate was adjourned on Friday evening it had already dragged on in a very stale, flat, and unprofitable manner, and it would be an unpardonable sin to unduly prolong the agony of the House, more especially as the real object of the debate had been obscured by another issue —(hear, hear)— which really was of very little interest to this House or to the country.

The only perceptible result so far, as far as he could gather, was that this so-called crisis had grossly exaggerated the already aggravated developments of the ex-Minister of Justice. They on that side were not at all sorry if they were accused, and probably in some way rightly accused, of bringing about this turn of events. They were glad at the turn events had taken, not because they did not dislike the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and Government less, but because they disliked the policy of the hon. member for Smithfield more. Why were they glad that the hon. member for Smithfield had been expelled from the Cabinet? Because ever since he had held office under responsible Government he had been a mischief-maker and nothing else. When he was a Minister in the Free State he, against the interests of the Civil Service and of the country, got rid of three of his inspectors and eventually of the Director of Education. He wondered how the ex-Minister felt now when he himself had had to take the order of dismissal. They on that side rejoiced at the turn events had taken, not because they had any liking for the policy of the Prime Minister, or his Government, and they would rejoice still more exceedingly when they had succeeded in turning him out. There were many reasons why they disliked his policy and the policy of the present Government and their methods. He would ask the Prime Minister, when he found, at the instigation of the hon. member for Umvoti (Col. Leuchars), that it was necessary to have a change in his Government and he acted upon the line which the hon. member advised him to take, was the hon. member for Umvoti asked to re-join the Cabinet? If not, why not? There was an uneasy feeling in the minds of some of them that the reason was that there was a feeling on the part of the Government that the same straightforwardness which had characterised his action in the past might be found inconvenient in the future. The conduct of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was extraordinary in the fact that he allowed this to happen without any explanation. It was also extraordinary that he should have joined the Cabinet at all, in view of his statement in regard to the dispute between the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Hull) and the ex-Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Sauer), that the action of the latter was unconstitutional.

Again, they had no confidence in the Government’s conduct of the business of this House. This brought him to the very humorous speech made by the hon. member for Caledon, who had made a comparison between the work performed in the House this session and the work done in Parliament to the same date last year. He thought they could take as a very safe indicator what had happened in another place. The other House was summoned for the transaction of business on the same date as this was, viz., January 24. The other House sat till February 14, and then adjourned until March 17. They then met again on March 17, and adjourned on the 19th for Easter. After Easter they met for one day, and then adjourned until April 16. On April 16 they met for one day, and adjourned until May 5. The utter incompetence of the Government was not only indicated by the business they brought forward, but also by the manner in which they brought that business forward. There was never a more gross example of that than their conduct over the University Rill. The House of Commons had been considering the Irish Home Rule Bill, a measure which was far more likely to arouse feeling and passion than the University Bill. Did they think that the British Government would refer a Rill of that magnitude to a Select Committee of the House? Was it not the custom in all decent Parliaments when Rills of first rate importance were introduced by a Government for that Government to stand by its Bills?

I must point out to the hon. member that he must not make reference to a vote of this House. The House has sent this Rill to a Select Committee. (Hear, hear.)

I think I can refer to the conduct of the Government in—

The hon. member cannot make any reflection on a vote of the House.

I can refer to the appointment of the Select Committee, which was not a vote of the House.

That has already been decided by the House.

said that when he found the Government submitting a measure of this sort to a Select Committee, and invoking the aid of no less a person than the hon. member for Roodepoort, he lost all faith in them. It was another illustration of the fact that in this country we had no collective Cabinet government. Each member of the Government did as he pleased. He would also remark, in regard to the administration of the Government, so long as these changes of portfolios were going on, he did not see any chance of efficient administration in the country. There had been an attempt made, both publicly and privately to involve that side of the House in the domestic quarrels which had taken place on the other side. They were even accused of being passive supporters of the Prime Minister.

Hear, hear.

said that he would like to tell the Prime Minister and the House that, until the Prime Minister made some attempt at bringing legislation forward in this House on the lines they wanted, he would get neither active nor passive support from that side of the House. The Government had done nothing to abolish provincialism. Before the Prime Minister got support, they wanted some proof that he would do something with regard to Imperial defence and closer settlement. He though he was justified in referring to the attitude of the hon. member for Uitenhage, who, perhaps, next to the ex-Minister of Justice, was responsible for the deadlock that existed in the House. He likened the hon. member for Uitenhage to a tramp-steamer sort of politician, and went on to explain that a tramp steamer went all over the place picking up cargoes. If the Prime Minister had found a place for the hon. member for Uitenhage, he thought they would have heard a great deal less from him, and he would draw the House’s attention to the following quotation from the Rook of Job: “The wild ass brayeth not when he hath grass.” (Laughter.)

said that the hon. member for Denver had referred to the work that was done by the two Houses of Parliament. So much time was taken up by discussion on the other side of that House—(laughter)— whereas in the other House they had great powers of concentration, and he would allude to the fact that five Bills had been passed in one afternoon. Continuing, he said that the split that had led to the crisis had given great satisfaction in Natal, and drawn many to the standard of the Prime Minister, and he would draw more to his standard if he continued his present policy, he thought that progress would come along in the wake of the crisis. He had been pained by the speeches he had heard, and which he thought were far from edifying. He regretted the remarks of the hon. member for Umvoti with reference to the right hon. member for Victoria West and the hon. member for George, for he (the speaker) always welcomed their criticisms. With reference to the financial statement of the Minister of Finance that statement had, no doubt, been very well thought out, and the Finance Minister, he supposed, must have had good reason for the figures which he quoted, but he (Mr. Griffin) felt alarmed that a deficiency had been foreshadowed. It was regrettable that the Minister should have to budget for a deficiency when the country was in such a prosperous condition. This was a land of promise, and, in spite of the great developments which had taken place, the Minister of Finance found it necessary to budget for a deficit. He thought the expenditure was excessive, and that the Estimates had been drawn up in a rather extravagant fashion. He pointed out that in Natal many voted for Union on the strength that it would lead to economy, but, so far, nothing much had been done in that direction. He could not conscientiously support the Government spending £70,000 on a new Government House, and he wished to record his protest at the inequitable fashion with which allowances were granted to Civil Servants. Another point to which he would like to refer, and which he thought had caused much disappointment, was the matter of the consolidation of their laws. He had hoped at the inception of the Union Parliament that this matter would be dealt with, because of its importance and absolute necessity, at the earliest possible moment. But here they were three years later, and many of their most important laws that required dealing with were still untouched. He could not understand why, unless it was that undue influence had been brought to bear on the Government. Another very important matter which had been left in abeyance, most inexplicably to his mind, was the Customs Tariff. (Opposition cheers.) The progress of the country had been stifled by want of Tariff reform. (Opposition cheers, and a Voice: We can’t bring it in.) The whole commercial community was looking forward to some change. He hoped this matter would be taken up at the earliest possible moment.

Then they came to the question and the surprise that was given the country by the practical failure of the recent loan in London. To his mind there had been several shocks by which the credit of the country had been shaken. The first shock, and which had been felt all over the world, was the East Rand Proprietary Mines scandal. (Government cheers.) Another shock was the proposal to tax bearer shares. (Opposition cheers.) The third shock was that proposal to redeem the Cape perpetual 5 per cent. stock. (Opposition cheers.) That was an item which to his mind had created a great deal of unrest and distrust of the Government. (Opposition cheers.) He hoped something would be done to put it right. Another shock the country had suffered was with reference to the retirement of the late Minister of Justice (General Hertzog) and the changes which their esteemed Prime Minister had had to make in the Government. That had unsettled the country, and he could not understand that the gentlemen who were preaching the propaganda of two streams should reck so little of the real injury that was being done to the country. In this connection he would like to read a few lines from a leading article which he noticed a day or two ago in the “Cape Times.” It stated: “Such a policy would only have the effect of destroying the credit of the country. South Africa required credit and capital at this point of its history. Were they going to frighten that away? This in the old pulpit phrase, is the root of the matter. You may place a Colbert or a William Ewart Gladstone, or even a John X. Merriman, at the Union Treasury, and you may regulate your finance on its technical side with the utmost prudence and economy; but if you have a divided people, whose thoughts and energies are concentrated on racial divisions rather than on building up a strong and united nation, the efforts of the most capable financiers will be hampered or frustrated, and the money markets of the world will prefer to lend to countries which contrive to combine patriotism with commonsense.”

He would like to change the subject and refer to their natives, both in the Transkei and Natal. These people were very large contributors to their revenue, and he thought more attention should be paid to them than had been the case. He would refer particularly to the bad time of drought that the natives had experienced last year, and would suggest that the Government take some more care of these people in establishing elementary agricultural schools and also irrigation work, so that they might be taught how to use water and how to conserve it. With reference to the railways, he deprecated the tendency of the Government to trench upon private enterprise. Many private people had set up businesses and had spent large sums of money in building premises and providing plant for use in connection with railways, and he did feel it was hardly worthy of the Government to attempt to trench on these private enterprises to the extent they had. Regarding railway construction, it had been in his mind ever since he came to Parliament, that it seemed to him it was a short-sighted policy on the part of the Government not to have at first instructed the Railway Board to draw up a comprehensive programme of railway construction for the whole of the Union. It would be better than dealing first with one portion of the country and then another. There were many thousands of acres of land lying idle for want of railway communication. If the railways were extended, new country would be opened up and there would be a large increase in the country’s productions. Such a policy as he suggested would stop a good deal of the present controversy, and give satisfaction to all. Then, with reference to the Provincial Council, in the minds of many the Provincial Councils had been threatened with a shortening of their tenure of life. It was laid down in the Act of Union that the Provincial Councils were to be established for a term of ten years, and he thought it was only just and fair to the various Provinces that the spirit of the Act should be carried out to the full extent. He objected to any shortening of their tenure of life. At the end of that period would be time enough to deal with the matter, because people would then know better what local government meant. If it could be found to work more economically on the Divisional Councils system of the Cape, then it might be better to adopt that system. Touching education, he wished to remark that technical education was one of the most valuable systems that they had established in South Africa, and he did hope it would be fostered on better lines than hitherto. Another question that he thought the country was anxiously awaiting was the equalisation of taxation. This was a question that required a great deal of thought, and he believed that the Government ought to give them some idea of what was their intention in this matter. He was one of those who believed in immigration, and who believed in seeing the country full up with people. Proceeding, the hon. member said he was astonished to find that German currency was in use in the North-west. To his mind this should not be permitted.

said he thought a great deal of the discussion would have been better postponed until the time when the House went into committee. There had been far too many speeches upon what was called the crisis. It was a peculiar thing, but the Prime Minister seemed to resent the criticisms from the Opposition, whereas he seemed to have endured without comment the criticisms of his own side. He noticed a similar disposition on the part of the hon. member for Umvoti, who said in the House that it was hard for him to vote against the hon. Minister of Justice. He stated that it would break his heart to vote against the Minister. If it had not been for the differences that had arisen between the hon. member the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Barberton they would not have been favoured by the remarks of the hon. member for Umvoti, neither would the right hon. the Prime Minister have had to go, all over the country rectifying what had been said by the hon. member for Smithfield. There was another phase: the Government had been most severely criticised for the mal-administration of the railways. In a great measure the Minister of Justice was responsible for that. Had hon. members forgotten last year? The Minister of Justice had set himself to work to entirely cripple the Railway Board, and having succeeded in that he proceeded to ignore his whole Cabinet, and when the hon. the member for Barberton, at considerable sacrifice, gave up his position on a question of principle, they retained the Minister of Justice in the Cabinet. The responsibility for the position of the railways to-day was due to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice having crippled the authority of the Board, and having ignored their authority, proceeded then to construct those lines of railway which he chose. The House never had a proper opportunity of passing a proper criticism upon these lines, because they were placed upon the Table of the House two days before the end of the session last year. There was nothing but discontent throughout the railways, and almost from inception of the taking of office of the late Minister of Railways, he ignored the complaints of the men. The Minister of Justice, then Minister of Railways, wilfully distorted the report upon the question of piecework with a view to placing an indignity upon the railway workers of South Africa.

The Minister of Justice, Mr. Robinson proceeded to say, is a gentleman who rarely keeps faith with this House.

“Order.” The hon. member must not go to that extent. (Ministerial cheers and cries of “Withdraw.”)

I would like to know why the statement I make is not parliamentary?

The hon. member must not impute dishonourable motives to any member of this House.

I don’t want to impute dishonourable motives; I only desired to impute a want of political, faith.

If the hon. member says political faith, that’s all right. (Loud laughter.)

For two years in succession I ventured to appeal to the Minister of Justice on behalf of a number of men who had been led to strike in Natal and had suffered disabilities in consequence. For two years the Minister promised that he would see these men reinstated. He did nothing. I am, however, extremely grateful to the present occupant of the office that he, in the few months during which he has filled his present position, has done more than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sauer) attempted to do in his two years of office. (Hear, hear.) May I allude to the alternative line in Natal? How any hon. gentleman from Natal can continue to sit on that side of the House in face of the statement of the Minister of Railways that the late Minister of Justice, then Minister of Railways, having promised to consider the question of a survey in Natal did absolutely nothing, I am unable to understand. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Railways made the statement that his predecessor in office had done absolutely nothing. Is that the way that Ministers fulfil a promise? (Cries of “Yes.”) It was a matter which concerned Natal most vitally, and the promise was wrung out of him by the hon. gentleman who now fills the office of Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and yet the Minister takes no notice-of it. I charge him with a want of political faith to the police officials of this country. Promises were made to these men that no one should suffer in consequence of the passing of the new Police Act. The strange factor in the whole of this position is this. The right hon. gentleman at the head of affairs in this country, and those connected with him, had nothing to say to this.

We left it to you.

I am glad I assumed the responsibility. (Cheers.) In all the speeches one hears outside the House in connection with the crisis, one thing is invariably introduced: “You must not split. Don’t split whatever you do, or you will let in the Opposition.” What shortsightedness. The true position (Mr. Robinson proceeded) was that, if they split, they would let in the late Minister of Justice. (A MINISTERIALIST: A mare’s nest.) Whatever might be the policy of the Prime Minister, whatever might be the peculiar opinions of the member for Smithfield, it was right and proper that this country should know the part the late Minister of Justice played in the political arena since the inception of Union.

The Prime Minister had been criticised ruthlessly by his own supporters, and now he was attacked by the hon. member for Jeppe, and by gentlemen on the cross-benches, who owed their very existence to the right hon. gentleman.

It’s a lie.

It’s a deliberate lie. (Cries of “Order.”)

No hon. member has a right to say that an hon. member has lied or is deliberately lying. (Cheers and renewed cries of “Order.”) It is a most improper remark. I shall name the hon. member if it is done again.

Surely the words should be withdrawn.

called upon the member for Greyville to withdraw the words.

I will withdraw the words that it is a deliberate lie, but I will say that the statement is not true. (Cries of “Oh.”)

remarked that he made the statement, and he made it advisedly, that every member on the cross-benches, excepting the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Haggar) owed the position they held directly or indirectly to the Prime Minister.

You don’t know what you are talking about. You are dreaming. Prove it.

went on to say that no one, he thought, would deny that but for the assistance that the hon. member had got in the constituency of Jeppe from Nationalists—(Ministerial cheers)—who voted with the knowledge and with the instigation of the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Jeppe would not be in his place to-day. (Renewed Ministerial cheers.) There would have been no Labour Party, in his (Mr. Robinson’s) opinion, but for the extraordinary ability of the hon. member for Jeppe, who had made the Labour Party what it was. The hon. member for Greyville had asked how he got in with the assistance of the Nationalists. He (Mr. Robinson) would tell him. He knew that a large number of the supporters of the Government refrained from voting in the Greyville election, because they would not cast their votes for the Unionists.

Quite right, too.

The result was exactly the same. He (Mr. Robinson) came back to his original King Charles’ head. The Minister of Justice was the man who sent them a telegram. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) But he would not dwell any longer on this painful subject. (Laughter.) The cup of the Prime Minister must be full. Having lost the support of the Labour Party, he did not see how the Prime Minister could possibly maintain his position. He (Mr. Robinson) did not conceive that any duty rested on his shoulders as an avowed opponent of the Prime Minister to give him any advice, but he did say that whatever course he might decide to adopt, he would never lead with legislative success so long as he continued to possess in his Cabinet a man, who, in the estimation of all fair-minded men, was not in sympathy with him, and would leave him when assistance was necessary. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, Mr. Robinson said that lest he should be charged with attacking the Minister of Justice in his absence, he would mention that he told the hon. Minister (Mr. Sauer) before he left the House that he was going to attack him.

said he had felt disinclined to partake in this debate, because, in the first place, the reports of the speeches by the Dutch members were so indifferent that members were discouraged; and, secondly, because a matter had been raised in this debate which could much better have been dealt with in the bosom of the party. He felt, after all, however, that it was his duty to say a few words. He thought that, when looking carefully into everything, they were fully justified in congratulating the Minister of Finance on the sound state of the finances of the country. With a public debt of £117,000,000 an asset of £112,000,000 was reproductive—(hear, hear)—and they need not therefore be alarmed for the future so long as the revenue did not dimmish. As regarded certain remarks of hon. members opposite, it seemed to him that it was the policy of the Opposition to distort the existing position as much as possible. To hear the speeches made one would think this country was practically bankrupt. Hon. members in dealing with the future of the railways even thought fit to discuss the possibility of transport through the air! It was the same hon. members who spoke like that who had incurred these debts, and who now wished to hand over the responsibility to the Government. He held that Government had done nothing but put the South Africa Act into effect, and he hoped they would go on doing so. Hon. members opposite had criticised the Government as much as possible, but they had not in any way referred to what had been done by the Government. (Hear, hear.) Then they were also told that the country was too dependent on the mining industry. He did not agree with that, and held that it was only right that these mines should contribute largely to the revenue Hon. members opposite bad suddenly found out that agriculture was the backbone of the country. It seemed to him that they had suddenly come to that conclusion so as to shift the burden of taxation from the mines on to the agricultural industry. The mines were perhaps the richest in the world, and it was only fair that they should continue to pay until agriculture was able to pay more. It would be un wise as yet to change the fiscal policy of the country. Turning to Mr. Merriman, General Lemmer said the right hon. gentleman had quoted a number of figures in regard to the Civil Service. He had said that the number of civil servants was too large for the number of white inhabitants of the country. He said that if they counted members of Parliament there were 60,000 persons who drew salaries from the Government, and that therefore every six persons had to contribute the salary of one official. But he forgot the thousands of natives who paid taxes and enjoyed the advantages of the Administration.

Then it bad been said that the natives received nothing back from the taxation they paid to the Government. This he denied, and he pointed to the many advantages enjoyed by the natives through the protection of the white government of this country. Nearly all the laws passed by this House benefited the natives as well as the whites. General Lemmer went on to deal with the remarks made by Mr. Merriman in regard to the mines, and held that the mines had done a good deal for the development of the country, and the people of the Transvaal appreciated these mines. (Hear, hear.) It was ridiculous for people to look upon the mines with contempt. Turning to members on the cross benches, General Lemmer said that if the mines were to disappear to-morrow all these members on the cross benches would also disappear. (Hear, hear.) With regard to immigration, it was quite true that the people were opposed to it as long as the present position remained unchanged. It was not quite correct to say that the poor white question arose from the fact that the people could not get their land back after the war was over. There were other reasons. Before the war there was plenty of room for bywoners, and those people did very well then, the price for produce being very good. But after the war they got the old land back again, but not the old price. General Lemmer went on to refer to the question of railway tariffs, and held that the inland Provinces should not be made to pay high tariffs through railway rates. He was disappointed to hear there was to be no further reduction of the tariff, as it was still too high. Take wagon building. That industry and others were unable to compete with the coast owing to the high railway charges. Imported articles should be taxed at the seaports. In that way taxation would be more equally divided. He also objected to the inland Provinces having to pay in the form of railway charges for the deficits on the harbours, and urged that these harbours should be made self-supporting, if need be, by higher charges. In regard to the poor white question, General Lemmer rebuked hon. members who thought that this was a question which could be easily solved. It was a question which had always existed, he held, and which required careful handling. Touching upon the question of branch lines, General Lemmer referred to the necessity of such lines being built for the development of the outlying parts of the country, having regard, not so much to what they produced at the moment, as to what they could and would produce if reasonable means of transport were provided The Minister of Railways had recently said that it was impossible to employ whites on railways in certain parts of the country, because of the lack of dwellings and the conditions prevailing in certain parts. This he denied, and he asked how he himself and other people could thus live in these parts. Referring to other matters, General Lemmer said Mr. Wilcocks had said that the payment of 3s. 6d. per day to white men on the railways was a disgrace. Did the hon. member know that thousands of people were ready to take such 3s. 6d., and did not that show him that changes were required in other branches of industry? It was not such a disgrace to offer people 3s. 6d. Often they could not earn 3s. 6d. on the land. Proceeding, General Lemmer said he was perfectly well aware that he was responsible to his constituents, and that he was here to represent his constituents. He wished to advise the hon. member for Fauresmith to be careful not to create false impressions. It was creating a false impression to say that nothing had been done in this House. He was not in any way afraid to lose his seat, and if the loss of his seat would be the only result of a general election, then he would not hesitate for a moment, but members were here like the advocates of the constituents and hon. members should remember that the clients of the advocates were usually the people to pay all costs. And these costs were what he feared. Dealing with other remarks, he asked Mr. Wilcocks whether he was so stupid as not to know the intentions of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, who was here to stab the Government. The hon. member knew this well, but he had only intended to create false impressions. Turning to Mr. Fremantle, General Lemmer said that the hon. member had to have a better history before trying to carry weight in his remarks against the Prime Minister. He said that the people at Stellenbosch looked on the Prime Minister as unsympathetic towards the Dutch language. Did the hon. member not exaggerate his own love of the Dutch language? Although many members did not shout their love of the language from the roofs, they loved the language. But they did not believe in advertisement. They had respect for a man who stood by his principles, but not for men who stood here to-day and somewhere else to-morrow. He only remembered the attitude which the hon. member for Uitenhage had taken up in the past too well, and the remarks made recently by that hon. member were an insult. The hon. member for Barberton was a great friend of the Prime Minister, but now he came forward and told them there was a conspiracy between the two parties. That also was false. If the hon. member was disappointed, he himself was the cause of the disappointment.

In the past he had greatly respected the hon. member for Smithfield, and he had greatly deplored his exclusion from the Cabinet. Had the hon. member said that his words had been wrongly taken up, he was sure everything would have come right again. But there was one thing which he sincerely deprecated in a statesman, and that was an attempt to insult others and minimise the merits of others. He regretted that the hon. member for Smithfield had done that. The hon. member had sunk to a position which could only be described as contemptible and ridiculous. Personally, he had been unable to see where the Prime Minister had forsaken his principles. General Hertzog had not proved in how far the Prime Minister had forsaken his principles, but he had made insinuations. If any rights had been given up in regard to the Dutch language, then the hon. member for Smithfield was as responsible as anyone else in the attitude he had taken up on the language clause in the Civil Service Bill. He (General Lemmer) had always objected to this. When he had spoken about this to General Hertzog, the latter had said: “We must be fair and make allowance for the opinions of others.” The speaker had then allowed himself to be talked over and had voted with the hon. member. If principles had been sacrificed on that occasion, it was the fault of the hon. member for Smithfield. General Hertzog had accused General Botha of bluff, but if the Prime Minister was guilty of this, then General Hertzog was doubly guilty. General Lemmer went on to argue that the Government were still following the policy they had followed in the past, and so long as they did so, so long would he support them. In regard to conciliation, General Lemmer said that in the past the two sides, the two races which now worked harmoniously together, had stood diametrically opposed to each other. Conciliation had been necessary, and this harmony had been its effect. If such a policy had been carried out earlier, a good deal of misery would have been avoided. General Lemmer went on to rebuke General Hertzog for calling the Prime Minister a “papbroek.” and for saying that the Government had ceased to be ridiculous by becoming contemptible. How could the Prime Minister be at the same time a “papbroek” and an autocrat? Blackguarding others could not have the effect of raising anyone in the opinion of the public. (Hear, hear.) He would not agree to a dissolution so long as the Prime Minister had a majority. Some members were trying to let the stream loose, and were trying to put up friend against friend. What would be the effect of that. The people would curse those who were responsible for that. Personally, he did not fear the loss of his seat as its possession caused him a financial loss. In conclusion, General Lemmer said that of late he had heard a good deal about the definition of “great men.” To these definitions he would add that it was human to err. But it was for a great man to acknowledge an error and correct an error. He hoped that would be realised, as along that way only could they hope for salvation. So long as the Government remained faithful to its policy, he promised his support; otherwise he would be the first to help turn it out of power. (Hear, hear.)

asked for a bi-weekly post from Harrismith to Vrede. He also hoped the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would consider the question of extending the telephone and telegraph lines to Witzieshoek. The railway line to Vrede ought to be continued, he thought, to Harrismith, whilst the station at the latter place badly required to be put in order. In regard to the political crisis, he regretted that the matter had been raised here. What he regretted more, however, was that a great man like President Steyn should have mixed himself up in the matter. President Steyn, in his opinion, fell under the control of the Red Cross at present. Naturally, after his long illness he could not be properly aware of what had occurred, and he regretted that President Steyn was using his influence to create feeling among the people. He could not see in how far the Prime Minister had forsaken his principles, and, therefore, he would support the Prime Minister. General Hertzog had thought fit to call the Prime Minister all kinds of names—which was not fitting of a great statesman. In these circumstances, he would return to his constituents prepared to tell them that he supported General Botha. The speaker had been elected for that express purpose, and so long as the principles of the party were adhered to would continue to do so. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Smithfield had shown by his speeches that he would never become a leader of the people.

congratulated the Minister of Finance on being able to avoid new taxation proposals, but he thought it was a wrong principle that the Minister of Finance should also be responsible for such a large spending department as that of Defence. That was a serious defect, and he would be glad if the Government could see their way to introduce another principle. There was a check on all the other departments but that of Defence, but that was not the case in connection with that department. If they followed that principle it would lead to what happened in the House of Commons when Mr. Asquith gave up the Exchequer, as it were, to Mr. Lloyd George, which resulted in the increase of expenditure being enormous, and before we followed the same procedure in this country the matter should be taken into very serious consideration. Of course, hon. members might say that the Minister of Finance was not of a Socialistic nature, for, as they knew, the great expenditure incurred by Mr. Lloyd George was mostly on account of his Socialistic views, and it would be argued that the case in this country was not analogous, but it was a position which would make considerable demands upon the Minister of Finance. If the Government had all the demands and complaints that had been made during the speeches on that Budget, it would make a very large volume, and would show an enormous expenditure which had been clamoured for by hon. members on both sides of the House. He was sorry that a large number of these complaints came from his own side of the House. Referring particularly to the railway demands, he pointed out that although wages were low at the commencement, there was a large body of men who had risen to better positions, and therefore the circumstances were not so bad as they had been made out to be by hon. members who had perhaps individual cases of hardship in their minds. They should not urge the Government to extravagant expenditure without taking into account what the effect would be. If the Government went in for the extensive railway schemes that had been mentioned, the credit of the country would be further injured—an important matter, particularly in view of the fact that money was so difficult to get. They must realise that the railways did not all pay, but they were able to carry on the business of the country. There seemed to be a feeling on both sides of the House that the Government was not making rapid progress. It was called by the name of paralysis; the Government was paralysed. Were hon. members desirous of having legislation rushed through? (Laughter.) The value of legislation was not always reckoned by the number of Bills put through.

A number of members wished that Government would consolidate the laws, but they forgot the different elements with which the Government had to contend. There should be more careful administration of the present laws—(cheers)—the reason there were so many complaints being that the existing laws were not properly administered. Again, Government was expected to do everything.

By the farmers.

said they all wanted the Government to retrench, but when Government did so efforts were made to have the retrenched person restored to the service. The Government’s task was an immense one. It was, went on Mr. Oosthuizen, only on the agricultural wealth of the country that we could really depend. It had been said that the Government had been doing nothing to foster agriculture or industry, while some members were dissatisfied because a larger effect had not been given to the Land Settlement Act. But they must not forget that Government must be very careful, because Union was a new sheet on which they should be most cautious as to what they wrote. Many hon. members, even those on the Ministerial side, had pointed out to the Government that it ought to put people on the land. There was a large shifting population in the north-western portion of the Cape Province which could not settle on any particular spot because they had not the means of obtaining a permanent supply of water. Boreholes should be put down for them. Government, it was said, was to blame because it was not doing sufficient to get people on to the land, but it was difficult to induce people to do so. The labour problem, went on Mr. Oosthuizen, was not confined to the Rand alone, the want of labour being felt all over the country, the cry being that they could not get labour cheap enough. (Ironical Labour cheers.) Government had done a good thing in establishing a Land Bank, but it would take time before it could get into proper working order. Fortunately the people realised that the Government was doing its very best for them. There was really no dissatisfaction on the part of the people of the country with regard to the policy of the country. Returning to the subject of the land, Mr. Oosthuizen said he did not see how Government could force people on to the soil. It must not be forgotten that there were many hardships to be endured by farmers. In many instances they were far away from civilised communities, and therefore he thought Government should, wherever possible, extend to them postal arrangements and telephones. (Cheers.) A great deal could be done to remove the difficulty in the way of putting people on to land by having improved means of communication.

The reason why we were not able to feed ourselves was, he thought, because we found too small a number of people engaged in agriculture, seeing that out of a population of about six millions only about two millions were on the land. He thought there had been grave complaints on both sides that the Agricultural Department was spending too large an amount of money, but we had to consider that money judiciously spent by the Agricultural Department would do a great deal for this country. Again, it was a department which did a large amount of research work, from which they naturally could not expect a direct income. It was also of an experimental nature. The institution itself in this country was, too, a fairly young one. He was glad that the Government had in one respect, at any rate, gone about a right policy, inasmuch as they had sent several young men from this country to study in other parts of the world. Our Agricultural Department would never become what it ought to be until we got our young men to take an active part in the various branches of its work. As to the alleged extravagance of the Government, he was somewhat disappointed, because year after year they had the sittings of the Public Accounts Committee, and that committee never seemed to lay exactly their finger on any extravagance of the Government. He thought they should at least get a lead from the committee as to what the Government ought to do and what particular department was spending too much money. He agreed with hon. members who said that we must be very careful. The expenditure was increasing year by year, and in proportion to the progress made they could hardly say that the expenditure was warranted. (Hear, hear.) He must say, at the same time, he was disappointed, when they spoke of the expenditure of the Government, that the Opposition were the greatest sinners in urging the Government on to spend more money. (Cries of “Oh” and dissent.) They had already established a defence scheme. Hon. members opposite had claimed that a larger contribution should be given to the Navy. He contended that they must first look about and see whether the country was able to afford this extra and increased expenditure. Dealing with the Railway Department, Mr. Oosthuizen said it seemed to him that the Railway Administration had got out of touch, as it were, with Parliament. He would ask the Minister of Railways not to forget that the Railway Department in this country was a monopoly. Continuing to deal with railway matters, Mr. Oosthuisen said that Parliament should decide how far betterment should go, and touching upon coal, said he thought the householder should get it as cheaply as the man who wanted it for bunkering purposes. He thought that the harbours of the country should be able to pay their own way. He regretted the trouble in connection with the party, and said he thought such matters should have been discussed in caucus, instead of being brought on the floor of the House. If they could not conquer difficulties inside their party, how could they conquer difficulties outside? He thought the Government should act in such a way as to convince those who held different opinions at the present time that they were acting in the best interests of South Africa.

said it seemed that as this debate, which had continued for a considerable time, was now drawing to a close on the opposite side of the House, perhaps the House would permit him to add a few remarks to such a lengthy debate. It had been a debate of a most extraordinary character It had been his privilege to witness many debates on the Budget in the Cape Parliament and the Union Parliament, but it had never been his experience—he did not think it had been the experience of any Parliamentarian—to witness such an extraordinary exhibition as they had been witnessing during the last ten days or so. Save and except the criticisms from that side of the House, and the criticisms by the right hon. the member for Victoria West and the hon. member for George, they had heard practically nothing outside the politics of the parish pump but the domestic quarrel that was troubling the Government Party. Member after member had got up, and after regretting that nothing had been done in their own constituencies, and just when members expected they were going to discuss the Budget, they would always, at the psychological moment, proceed to deal with the “painful question.” He (Sir Thomas) had no doubt but that it was a painful question. (Opposition laughter.) It was a moeilike kwestie. He was quite certain that the country realised, as well as members of the House, that it was a moeilike kwestie. He did think it most extraordinary, in dealing with the Budget, which entailed the expenditure of something like thirty millions of money, that member after member should get up and give them an exhibition such as had never disgraced the annals of any Parliamentary institution before, because, after all, the House was not called together for the purpose of seeing members of the Government Party airing their grievances and going for one another. One member would get up and say that the pynlike positie was due to the hon. member for Smithfield; another member would get up and say that the position was due to the want of strength of the right hon. the leader of that House. No consideration had been given to the important question that was before them. He had no doubt that the country would have something to say upon this important matter. The hon. member at the end of the hall, the hon. member for Lichtenburg, could not understand why the discussion had taken place in the House. What was the reason? That in a chamber upstairs the question had been discussed, and they had reached the position that it was an inopportune time for the Government dissolving Parliament, and asking the opinion of the country on the extraordinary attitude in which it found itself.

You are quite wrong.

I can quite understand the hon. member for Caledon saying that I am wrong, because it was suggested to me this afternoon that, at what was considered the psychological moment of this debate, the hon. member for Caledon was put up to recount the good actions of the Government. He did so as though he were telling of the virtues of something that was being put up for auction. My hon. friend the member for Pretoria. East, remarks that it sounded as though he was reading an inventory in an insolvent estate. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that if the Government were put up to auction, he thought they would find very few buyers, and that was why the Government were so anxious that the country should not be asked to express its opinion on the matter. He thought hon. members would agree that, with the exception of the right hon. the member for Victoria West, and the hon. member for George — outside the speeches from his side of the House — there had been no efficient criticism of the important financial proposals before the House. There had been practically no defence of the Government’s proposals—oh, of course, the hon. member for Barberton did defend the Government, and did say that the statements brought forward from his (the speaker’s) side of the House in connection with their extravagance, were simply rehashes of previous speeches; but immediately after that the hon. member for Barberton regretted that the Opposition had lost a golden opportunity. On behalf of the Opposition, he (Sir Thomas) desired to tender to the hon. member for Barberton their sincere thanks for his solicitude as to the manner in which the Opposition should carry on its work, and the position it should assume in a matter of this kind; but it seemed extraordinary that a gentleman who sat on one of the front Government benches, and who, when he resigned his portfolio last year, sat cheek by jowl with the Minister of Finance to assist him in carrying through his financial measures, which were equally as extravagant as the one now before the House. In the circumstances, he could quite understand the difficult position in which his hon. friend found himself. His hon. friend, desiring to open an attack on the Government, was extremely anxious that that opening should come from the Opposition side of the House.

The condition of affairs at the present moment was of an entirely different character. They (the Opposition) were not prepared to take the chestnuts out of the fire for the purpose of giving hon. members opposite an opening for their attack. The time was not far distant when hon. members on that side of the House would begin to play that game themselves.

The hon. member for Barberton did not proceed very far with regard to his remarks on hon. members of the Opposition when also the hon. member for Barberton came in with the extraordinary “but” again—in this case in a different direction. He said that the Estimates were extremely loosely prepared—especially the railway estimates. Then they, the Opposition, knew that the fat was in the fire, because he said that four or five millions of money were asked for when only two and a half or three could be expended. Then the hon. member went on to explain how that meant that those extremely loose estimates resulted in large surpluses.

That was loan money.

No, no, surpluses in revenue were used for the purpose of betterment, and my hon. friend seemed rather opposed to the question of large sums of money being voted to betterment. Proceeding, the hon. member said when Mr. Hull had an opportunity the other day of voting for the motion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton), he voted with the Government instead of the Opposition. The Opposition took the first opportunity of proving their want of confidence in the Government. The hon. member for Barberton went on to say that large amounts of money were expended on relaying and regrading the railway line. All he (Sir T. W. Smartt) could say was that the hon. member for Barberton was for a considerable time a member of the Government, and he was, therefore, collectively responsible for its policy. He must know better than he (Sir T. W. Smartt) did whether these amounts were just or not. All he (Sir T. W. Smartt) could say was that it was a very grave charge to lay against the administration. He wanted to make his position extremely clear. He had given much attention to this matter for many years, and he found that no expenditure was more justified than for relaying and regrading. So long as money was expended judiciously on this there would be nothing that would give the Minister of Railways that reduction of rates so largely as that policy of relaying and regrading.

His point was that if they could relay and regrade a section of railway, by doing so they were going to reduce their costs of working far more than the interest on the cost of relaying and regrading, so that money was justified from a business point of view. And instead of that going to cause the up-country people to pay increased rates in the future it would mean that the rates would be reduced. His hon. friend seemed to refer to the vote for relaying and regrading for the purpose of pointing out to his friends from the North that there could be no further reduction of rates. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) really could not believe that that came from the same gentleman who was Minister of Finance last year. Did his hon. friend remember a certain committee loom in this House which had historic associations connected with the Committee of Public Accounts? And last year, when that committee sat, was it not the hon. member for Barberton, as the Minister of Finance, that had the Treasury bring forward proposals for the purpose of increasing the capital charges of the railway and materially increasing the interest charges on it? The interest charges were increased by some £450,000. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) was not a member of that committee last year, but he did say that though the Government and the Treasurer might have been perfectly within their legal rights in interpreting the Act of Union in that direction, that, save and except his hon. friend was anxious to get that extra money for the Treasury, there was no necessity to increase that capital whatsoever, and it was unwise, because, by increasing that capital account of the railway, they were adding to the direct charges on the railway by £450,000 in perpetuity. And with what result, but to encourage the extravagance of the Treasury by placing that money in the maw of the Treasury instead of devoting it to some useful purpose. When he heard of that, he said if it was the decision that that capital charge should be increased, surely it would have been better to have ear-marked that money and paid it into a special account.

If that had been done, did hon. members realise what £450,000 per year would have meant to the agricultural development of the country. And when they heard people asking day by day that the country should be developed, then he would say if they had kept that amount from the Treasury, the Government would have kept down their expenditure in comparison, and the result would have been more economical administration. They would have had some 400 or 500 miles more of railway. It was not a sound policy. It was not the idea they had in the Convention that the capital which had been paid for directly out of revenue and which they used for services which were legitimately of a capital character, should have been added to by the Union, and the charges on it increased by £450,000. When the hon. member for Uitenhage said the railways had received great consideration by the reduction of the interest from four to three and a half per cent., surely his hon. friend was too good a financial authority to know that that argument would not hold good for a moment. Surely his hon. friend knew that the three and a half per cent. was an adjustment of equality between the cost of railway construction and the interest they bore at the present moment. His hon. friend wanted to impress on the House that this was justified. The hon. member then went on to say that the hon. member for Uitenhage had always come to the assistance of the State in giving Parliament control over the finances of the country. Did his hon. friend ever hear of the Audit Act? And did his hon. friend forget that the safety clause in that Act was forced upon the country by the hon. member for Barberton? There was another thing in regard to which he felt aggrieved with the hon. member for Barberton. He gave the House to understand that he did not think it was a sound position that Parliament should be asked to deal with the Budget every year without having the railway proposals for the year before the House. It was a very sound doctrine. But his hon. friend, with the object of roping in the Opposition, said that his hon. friend on that side of the House could not be justified in criticism of that character.

Well, his utterances were so extraordinary, that he (Sir T. W. Smartt) made some interesting investigations. The hon. member for Barberton was a member of the Administration which, on the 10th March, 1911, moved a motion to go into Committee of Supply, but on April 12 the Railway Construction Bill was only introduced, and the House rose on April 25. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) had heard a great deal of the recommendations that people who lived in glass houses should not throw stones, and he made a present of that suggestion to his hon. friend. (Opposition cheers.) In 1912, Parliament met on the 26th January, on the 23rd March was moved the motion to resolve into Committee of Supply, and on May 20th the Railway Construction Bill was introduced. But it had a premature birth.

I ceased to be a member of the Government.

Yes; but the year before was equally bad. A Bill was introduced into that House about fourteen days before the House rose, and it was passed through that House by brute force. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he would now deal with the charges that had been laid against himself and the Jameson administration in the Cape Colony—that they were not justified in bringing forward criticism in regard to this matter, having themselves failed to put Railway Construction Bills before the House at reasonable times. In 1904 he introduced a Bill to authorise new railway works; not only a Construction Bill. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton), moved, on May 9, the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply. On May 10, before the debate was continued, he (Sir T. W. Smartt) laid his Railway Works Bill on the Table. In 1906, the Government introduced a fairly large Railway Construction Bill, so far as the Cape Province was concerned, for the construction of some 400 odd miles of railway. The House met on May 25, and on June 19. the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, moved that the House go into Committee of Supply. The right hon. member for Victoria West moved the adjournment of the debate to June 25. On June 22, three days before his right hon. friend replied to the speech by the then Treasurer, he (Sir T. W. Smartt) laid on the Table and took the first reading of the Railway Construction Bill. There was sufficient justification for himself and other members upon that side of the House to criticise the extraordinary attitude of the Government in allowing their followers to imagine that they were going to introduce a railway budget, but which hon. members had not yet seen upon the Table. (Opposition cheers.) The whole thing reminded him of the story of the carrots and the donkey. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Barberton referred to the question of the harbours, and he was pleased to hear such a high financial authority as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) stating that to make the railways bear the loss upon the harbours was not a sound proposition. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) It was surely not at all impossible for the advisers and technical advisers of the Government to draw up a proper account to show where the railways began and the harbours ended. It was only fair that the people who used the harbours should pay for them, and it was only fair that the same obligation should apply to the railways. What he said was this, the harbour and railway accounts should be divided, and they should be able to know what ports were not paying. There was already a loss of £455,000. How did they propose to settle that? And with another £300,000 loss on the working of the harbours, he thought the accounts were badly adjusted. He hoped the good sense of the House would impress upon the Minister of Railways the necessity of adjusting these matters. Then with regard to the Cape 4½ per cents. This was a question that had already been discussed. The view that he had always taken was that the Government should give a final pronouncement without delay. Nobody knew when the Treasurer was going to come down to the House and repudiate these obligations. It might be that they had a legal right to repudiate these obligations, but he did not think they had a moral right. (Hear, hear.) Why was it that British stocks kept up to their standard value? Simply because people knew that they were steadfast and secure. (Hear, hear.) Again, some £500,000 of Government money was invested in these stocks. This had been purchased in the open market, even at 110. Surely no one was going to take up a Government loan if he thought the Government had a right to redeem it in twelve months. He hoped his hon. friend would not keep dilly-dallying. Then with regard to the bewaarplaatsen, even if the surface owners became freeholders, surely that was no argument why this question should not be settled. In his own experience— especially with regard to water conservation, they had many cases of that sort in the old Cape Colony. Another thing he would like to refer to was this: It was not right for the Minister to come down to the House and not tell the House what the policy of the Government was. He did not think any language could be strong enough to condemn such things. Surely the proper thing for the Minister of Finance to do was to set forth some definite policy and abide by it. (Hear, hear.) Last session the Minister of Justice was Minister of Railways. He then stated definitely that a Bill would be introduced defining the absolute powers of the Railway Board, but he also stated that it was impossible for him to deal with the matter that session. It would be dealt with next session, he said. Having met on January 26, it was now April 21, but his hon. friend had taken no notice. (An HON. MEMBER: Plenty of time.) All he would like to say was this: The Government gave a promise and it was becoming a very serious state of things if their promises could not be relied upon. He hoped the Minister would tell the House what he was going to do in this very important matter.

Business was suspended at 6 o’clock.

continuing his speech, said that when the House adjourned for dinner he had been dealing with a variety of subjects which had been discussed during the course of the debate. He had been pointing out the reasons why hon. members on his side of the House had no necessity for seizing “the golden opportunity” which the hon. member for Barberton considered it was their duty to do, but it was no part of theirs to take part in the more than interesting quarrel which was going on the other side of the House. He looked upon it in this way, it was a quarrel between two rivals, and it struck him that a very apt quotation from Sheridan’s admirable play, “The Rivals,” would be very appropos in the present position. The quarrel was an extremely interesting one, and they would only spoil it by trying to explain it. They would leave the explanations to the hon. members on the other side of the House. Whether the Prime Minister was entirely satisfied with the various explanations that had been given he would leave it to his right hon. friend to say. Turning again to the question of the Railway Board, he said that last session there was a distinct promise from the Minister of Justice, who was then Minister of Railways; but an interesting quarrel took place in the Cabinet. They had the hon. member for Barberton leaving the Cabinet, and the Minister of Justice took over the position of Minister of Railways. Subsequently a further development took place, and it was found difficult to retain the present Minister of Justice as Minister of Railways, and another change took place within this very harmonious body. At least they had been told by the Government that the greatest harmony existed within the ranks of the Cabinet. He could assure his hon. friend that, like some hon. members opposite, they on his side of the House had been deeply pained at the extraordinary differences of opinion which they saw existed among the members on the Government side. They thought of the lines of their school-boy days that began “Even birds in their little nests agree.” They could hardly understand how those various birds supporting his hon. friend could bring their squabbles into the open as they were doing at the present. He had known of these squabbles upstairs, for in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition he happened to be in possession of a room upstairs which, unfortunately was in juxtaposition with the Conference room, in which many of those interesting debates had taken place, and—would his right hon. friend be surprised at what he told him?— he was getting alarmed at the loudness of the oratory, because there was a deep crack in the wall and a piece of plaster even had fallen out. (Laughter.) Some had told him that was due to the eloquence of the hon. member for Smithfield, and others that it was due to the warmth with which the Prime Minister replied. (Laughter.) With regard to the Railway Board, he understood that the Minister of Justice, when Minister of Railways, promised that a new railway Bill would be introduced at the earliest possible moment, defining the powers of the Railway Board. The excuse made then was that owing to the lateness of the session it could not be dealt with, but it would be one of the first Bills to be introduced this year. Knowing the influence that the present Minister of Justice exercised on the Government, he (Sir Thomas) thought that the Minister would be able to bring pressure to bear upon the Minister of Railways to make the Government fulfil its promise, for it was a promise on behalf of the whole administration, of which he happened to be a member. He (Sir Thomas) was perfectly certain that unless they had a Bill defining the powers of the Railway Board they would still have the same dissatisfaction in connection with the administration of that most important department.

When are they going to do it?

If they don’t do it they will find it very difficult to get through with their financial business, because we are determined to see that the promises of the Government are fulfilled. (Opposition cheers.)

Continuing, Sir Thomas said that there had been a good deal of discussion in regard to the policy of the Government concerning immigration and land settlement. The condition in regard to the latter was of a most unsatisfactory character, and it was useless for the Prime Minister to express brave sentiments in London unless he was going to carry them out here. The hon. member for Willowmore had said that the best land was already in the hands of private owners. If that were so, and the private owners were not willing to make use of it, it was the duty of the Government to devise means by which the owners should be made to utilise their ground or give place to those who would do so. (Ministerial cries of dissent.) And that could be done without resorting to any scheme of spoliation. He believed that this country was capable of an enormous amount of production, and he believed it was capable of supporting an enormous population. He entirely disagreed with the statement made by members on the opposite side of the House to the effect that it was impossible for this country to progress as other parts of the world and other portions of the Empire had progressed under more favourable conditions. (Opposition cheers.) He took a good deal of exception to a statement made by the hon. member for Bechuanaland that certain portions of the country, especially the Karoo, were incapable of development. He had a statement there showing the development which had taken place in this country, which was not due to the action of the Government, but through the general actions of the people under the laws at present in existence. Since 1906 and the passage of the Irrigation Act in the Cape Colony, something like two hundred thousand acres of land had been developed in the direction of irrigation. In a portion of the Karoo, on the Great Fish River, comprising districts like Cradock, already schemes were being carried out, which, in that area alone, were placing about 67,000 acres under irrigation. In the valley of the Breede River, which was not very far from Cape Town, schemes were in operation at present, which were placing thousands of acres under irrigation. On the Sundays River there were some eleven thousand morgen already practically placed under water. Scattered through the country there were a great many other propositions, and the total in the last nine or ten years showed that ground to the extent of two hundred thousand acres was being brought under intense development.

There were enormous possibilities for land settlement, and if the Government would advertise the resources of the country in London and on the Continent, and give people an opportunity of knowing what could be done by intelligence and enterprise in this country, he believed they would have an opportunity of attracting a suitable class, who would build up homes, increase our resources, and enormously increase our possibilities, to the benefit of every section of the people. (Opposition cheers.) (A LABOUR MEMBER: And the unemployed.) The Prime Minister might take a leaf out of the book of Canada, where every man who was prepared to work knew that the Government would give him a free plot of ground on certain conditions. He did not want to deprive the people already in this country of the right to settle on the land, and he had always been in favour of assisting the poor whites again to obtain their self respect. But while they were doing this there were enormous opportunities of attracting to this country people with a certain amount of capital, and also people perhaps without any capital. The latter could be employed on irrigation areas, and at the expiration of their period of service, they could be given irrigation land at the cheapest possible rate. That might not be popular with all sections of the people, but it would attract a splendid class of settler, and would develop the possibilities of the country in the immediate future —possibilities which otherwise would not be made the most of for a large number of years. He would remind the Prime Minister that through such a forward policy of this class, within a period of ten years the population of Canada had increased by forty-seven per cent.

Might he address a word or two to his hon. friend the Minister of Finance? He did not think he could congratulate his hon. friend on the manner in which the financial transactions of the Government latterly had been carried out. His hon. friend had gone to the London market, and he had borrowed a considerable amount of money, and he (Sir T. W. Smartt) took it that it was only fair to the House, when he was replying on the debate, that he should take the House into his confidence, and give them a full and authoritative statement in regard to his loan account, and what he proposed to do in the future. (Hear, heard.) He had gone into the market and raised three millions of money, not on the most favourable terms, and when people said that the market was bad, his answer was that his hon. friend, in his position, ought not to have waited upon chance, knowing that they had a number of obligations to meet, but should have made provision for more permanent loans before gambling with the securities of this country. No doubt his hon. friend and the Prime Minister were busy—not busy with the circumstances of State, but busy trying to reconcile the difficulties and differences existing in the ranks of their party. Did his hon. friend realise the position? About a million and a quarter of that three millions of money had gone to pay the overdraft of his hon. friend in the London and Westminster Bank, on which he was paying a fairly heavy rate of interest, while their balances were being deposited in this country at 3½ per cent. He had got two millions of Treasury bills falling due in November. If he paid those two millions off, he had not got a sixpence. That disposed of his three millions in London. If he were prepared to make arrangements to renew the three millions Treasury bills due about November, he had another two millions of money. He (Sir Thomas) did not know what his hon. friend had got to pay for it. They had just withdrawn from revenue balances an amount of almost one and a half millions, which it was his duty to pay back. In regard to these revenue balances, on which he had drawn, £770,000 were earmarked by his hon. friend to meet his supposed deficit at the end of the financial year. On the top of that, he came down to the House with loan estimates of £6.440.000—£4.000.000 for railways, £461.000 for public works, £330.000 for telegraphs and telephones, £147.000 for land settlement. £353,000 for irrigation. £679.000 for local works, loans, etc., and £500,000 for the Land and Agricultural Bank. It was only fair to the House that he should tell them how he proposed to get this money, and if it were the intention, late as it was, of the Minister of Railways to introduce a Railway Construction Bill this session, let him inform the House that it was not make-believe. The Government came into Union with nearly £3,000,000 of money, cash balances at disposal at the date of Union, most of which was provided from the wealthy Province of the Transvaal. (Hear, hear.) The position they had to face, owing to the financial distress of this country—because, as his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) rightly pointed out although the debt of this country was of a considerable character, the major portion of that debt was represented by reproductive capital expenditure—under these circumstances, the position we found ourselves in to-day was not due to the condition of the country, but due to the fact that the Government had been so busy, and so desirous of keeping their party together, irrespective of one section holding one principle and the other holding another, that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister had had no moments to bestow on the condition of the finances of the country, and the interests of the people of the country. (Hear, hear.) After all, the interests of the people of this country were a secondary consideration, because for days and days they had heard nothing of the position of the country. That brought him to he thought, a rather unkind statement by his hon. friend the member for Umvoti. He did not know who prompted the hon. member to make the speech he did the other night, but in the course of that speech he made a very violent attack upon the right hon. the member for Victoria West and the hon. member for George. Why, he (Sir Thomas) did not know. He said that the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for George, in the speeches they had made, had destroyed the credit of the country. The loan arrangements of his hon. friend the Minister of Finance were made before the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for George made their speeches. The hon. members had given most valuable information to the House, and he said this notwithstanding that be believed the right hon. gentleman had most strange bedfellows. Was the reason that of his hon. friend the member for Umvoti, or was he prompted? He would tell them why He had seen during the course of the last few days an interesting statement in the newspapers, telegraphed from Bloemfontein, as to what should be the policy that actuated the Government. They had had two pictures. They had a picture of the right hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Smithfield with their arms round one another’s necks kissing and making up their personal quarrels. (“Hear, hear,” and laughter.) But they had been told that if that, picture was impossible, there was another one—that was, that his right hon. friend should give way, and the South African Party should be kept together by a third person being chosen to lead its serried ranks. Was the hon. member for Umvoti prompted to make the attack upon the hon. member for Smithfield simply for the purpose of discrediting the Prime Minister? He simply threw out the suggestion for what it was worth. Now he came to what was the position of the Government. (Hear, hear.) Would hon. gentlemen like to know what the position of the Government was? (HON. MEMBERS: Yes.) He had in his hand a very interesting paper—a paper that advocated the claims upon the Treasury benches. It was the “South African News.” It stated that the Prime Minister was responsible to Parliament—save the mark!—but that there must be some semblance of unanimity among the party. General Hertzog (the paper went on to say) had destroyed that semblance of unanimity by placing himself in direct conflict with the Government. The Government were going through a period of unexampled prosperity, yet they were budgeting for a deficit. The Minister of Finance was like Micawber sitting at the Treasury and waiting for something to turn up. What would turn up would be the unexpected. In this period of time they would have expected to have had a balance from expenditure, and if they had not such a balance, then the Treasurer ought to have come down to the House and said they would have to have more taxation so that this expenditure should balance. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the hon. member for Liesbeek had referred to lost opportunities, and that directly Union had been consummated, proper schedules should have been drawn up. The laws of the Provinces, like the gold and insolvency laws, needed consolidation.

The party opposite was not of the most harmonious character, and if his right hon. friend the Prime Minister thought that he could continue that egg-dance—(laughter)— and keep both sections of his party together, he was embarking on a perfectly useless undertaking. The party squabbles were of such a character that nothing could be done. What was the experience of that House? Measures introduced, measures dropped, and measures withdrawn. He would ask his hon. friend the Minister of Justice—who had received much consideration for the withdrawal of a measure the other day—to satisfy a certain section of the people who were now loudest in their denunciations—if that were not so. He saw his right hon. friend the Prime Minister blush, and so he ought to. (Loud laughter.) He was glad he did so, because it showed that he had not yet, lost a complete sense of shame. (Continued laughter.) Continuing, he said there was nothing more ignominious than to see the Government come forward with a bold front and a loud blast of trumpets and withdraw a measure at the behest of hon. members who were now kicking them, and who thought that if the Government capitulated in one direction they were likely to do so in all directions. They really had a right to complain of the way in which the administration of the Government had been carried out. “De Volkstem” was very much exercised at the position which existed at the present moment, and said, with regard to general elections. “that, they were a heavy trial to the people, and consumed much national energy”—(laughter)—“Ministers were not so much the instrument of administration; the ordinary affairs of the country were practically all managed without Ministerial intervention by the permanent officials.” (Opposition laughter.) The hon. member went on to read the extract: “And the representatives of the people,” bless the mark, look at them. (Laughter.) (VOICES: “You are one.”) And a very much better one than the representatives on the Treasury benches. Continuing, he further quoted from “De Volkstem.” which stated that the Government were the representatives of the political principles, by which the people desired to be governed. Where, the hon. member asked, were the political principles of the Prime Minister or the hon. member for Smithfield; they were somewhat difficult to understand. Ministers were responsible for the administration of the country, and they should direct the action of the permanent officials, because they (the Ministers) alone were responsible to Parliament and the people. That brought him to another Province, which he believed had also got into a chaotic condition. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. Maasdorp) who was a supporter of the Prime Minister, had thought it necessary, in the course of his remarks, to turn round and warn the Prime Minister of the chaotic condition of the Agricultural Department and of the dissatisfaction existing in the country, and so long as his hon. friend remained Minister of Agriculture he had more sacred duties to perform than attend caucuses and travel round the country to try to prevent dissension spreading amongst his ranks; but what he had to do was to see that the permanent officials were carrying out the desires of the people and not setting up a bureaucratic system in the country. The hon. member asked, was there no suspicion and distrust in the ranks of the Government supporters? The Government of the country was carried out in the caucus, and they saw what was done by the exhibitions which they had seen during the last thirteen or fourteen days. How anyone could imagine that a party, torn asunder as the gentlemen behind the Treasury benches were, could do any good for the country it was impossible for him to understand. Dealing with the “conciliatie” policy, he asked what “conciliatie” there had been amongst the Government’s supporters when the Minister of Education had introduced his University Bill. Continuing, he said that the Prime Minister, the leader of that House, and the exponent of the policy of the Government of that country, had got up in that debate, and dealing with an expenditure of something like 30 millions of money, never thought it worth his while to devote his attention to the consideration of the financial condition of the country, but had devoted the whole of his remarks to the gentlemen who sat behind him and the split in his party, and had forgotten that his duty was to the country and not to the party, and had forgotten that the dignity of his position demanded that at least he might have devoted some of his remarks to the criticisms which had been made as regards his financial administration, He had tried to reconcile the irreconcilable elements of which his party was composed, but the people of the country would not be satisfied with the administration of the country being carried on in such a manner as it had been carried on by the present Government. The Government had no policy under existing conditions. (An HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.) Yes, he would withdraw, they had a policy —that of sticking to the Treasury under any consideration whatever, irrespective of the dignity of their position. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. member for Wodehouse, dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for Uitenhage and the hon. member for Smithfield, and one or two other hon. members, said he saw before him a sort of vision as if those people had found three thousand golden reasons why there should be a general election. But there was another question which should be asked, were there three thousand reasons why hon. members should stick to the Treasury benches when their day of usefulness was past?

Proceeding, the speaker asked what was the proper course of the Government to adopt. (An HON. MEMBER: Resign.) No, he did not say resign, but they had ceased to be useful and should go to the country. (Opposition cheers.) He would deal with the matter from a common-sense point of view, and the Government who found themselves in a position such as that Government was—a position of absolute paralysis—when they could do nothing owing to the dissensions of their followers, and when they were confronted with a united Opposition who felt that they could do something with that united party behind them, he put it to his hon. friend that he should go to the country and see what the effect would be. Whether that House lasted for one or two years as at present constituted, it was utterly impossible for it to transact business in the general interest of the country, for the Government finding their ranks divided, had to divide their energies to keep a semblance of a majority in the House. There was nothing more pathetic than the appeals of hon. members as to why they should not go to the country at the present time. A large number of hon. members had committed themselves. (An HON. MEMBER: Not as many as you think.) Well, they were careful not to go back to their constituencies, and a certain number of Ministers had committed themselves, too. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who delivered a very important speech, said he did not know the reason of the quarrel. It was a quarrel between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Smithfield—of a personal character—and the party did not know the reason, so that the policy of the hon. member for Smithfield and that of the Prime Minister were two blank sheets of paper. (Laughter.) Under those circumstances he (Sir Thomas) was justified in saying that his hon. friend had some method in his madness when he referred some time ago to the programme of the South African Party, which, he said, was drawn up in such a character that it could be used to explain different circumstances to different classes of people. It was “slippery”—(laughter)—and the principles of the hon. member for Smithfield were like a number of pebbles which could be rolled about where he liked. The Government had utterly failed with regard to their railway policy; they had done all they possibly could to tangle things for the purpose of securing votes. They had kept back their programme until they had got their Estimates through, and he was perfectly certain that the vast majority of the people of the country agreed with him when he said that his hon. friend the Prime Minister should make up his mind what the policy was to be. He must stop trying to conciliate all sections of his people. It seemed to be like trying to mix oil and water. Those who knew the circumstances of the country recognised that it was impossible to humbug all the people all the time. The Prime Minister must declare what his policy was, and they (the Opposition) would declare what their policy was going to be, and the people of the country should be given an opportunity to decide. With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe, it was not necessary at that late hour that he should go into the question, for the position had been frequently detailed by the hon. member for Fordsburg and the hon. member for Weenen. He apologised for trespassing upon the time of the House, and again appealed to the Prime Minister to put an end to the farce, for it was a farce; he had ceased to rule in this country. If in the caucus he had a majority behind him, it was a majority only until Parliament rose. The position had arisen that if his hon. friends were to preserve any self-respect they should not stick longer to the Treasury benches like limpets to a rock, until dislodged by a political dynamite charge, for that was not in the best interests of the country. (Opposition cheers.)

said after the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, it was now only necessary for the hon. member for Jeppe to give the Government the coup de grace.

Unfortunately we cannot do that, or we would.

proceeding, said the fine words that had fallen from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition would avail nothing against solid facts. Fine words and high-flown rhetoric might be addressed to the House, but the Government stood four-square against all attacks. The hon. member seemed to have been a little exercised over the constitutional position—some of them on the Government side had also been exercised. (An HON. MEMBER: For a long time.) (Laughter.) But instead of studying the constitutional authorities the hon. member had spent most of his time in studying newspapers and reading the “S.A. News” and the “S.A. Review.” (Laughter.) So that instead of the hon. member giving the House of his wisdom and dealing with great financial problems, the House had been listening to the views of “De Volkstem” and other organs. (Ministerial cheers.) His hon. friend had asserted that the long debate over the Budget was an exhibition that had disgraced the annals of Parliament. After that he thought the hon. member would give them some solid contribution. (Ministerial cheers.) But instead of that he found the hon. member quoting the newspapers, and there was a general vituperation of the Government, much swinging of the arms, great fervour and eloquence, but not much substance or any real light. (Hear, hear.) If he (General Smuts) followed the hon. member through all the periods of his great speech, not only would he occupy the time of the House unduly, but he would be doing what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had been doing —viz., discussing things in general without saying much about the Budget. It was only at long intervals that the hon. member came to matters of a “Budgetary” character.

The proposal was brought up from the Treasury.

But I find that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton) was in the chair. (Ministerial laughter.) Another notable financial authority was present in the shape of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan).

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE: And two more.

All present were great financial pundits—Mr. Fremantle, Mr. Merriman, and Mr. Jagger.

No, I opposed that.

The hon. member for Barberton has never disclaimed responsibility. He had legal opinion. Some of the greatest financial pundits on the Opposition side voted for this proposal because there was in the terms of the South Africa Act no alternative. (Ministerial cheers.) That was one of the charges made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

That was not his point.

said there was no doubt in the mind of any well informed person who kept the legal aspect of the case before him, that in the terms of the South Africa Act no other course could have been followed. It was competent for this House to depart from the terms of the Act, and to say that the Railways would not longer be responsible for this interest, but so long as the terms of the South Africa Act remained as they were there was no alternative.

Legal opinion was not unanimous.

They were all unanimous.

The sense was the same in all of them. My hon. friend comes forward with a brilliant suggestion, and I was astonished when I heard it applauded by the hon. member for Pretoria. East. The suggestion was that this £455,000 should not go into general revenue, but should go into a special fund, out of which railways should be built.

What I said was, that if it were legal, the proper thing to do would have been to pay it to a special fund for meeting any shortfall on railways that Government were preparing to build, instead of the railway revenue bearing that increased charge.

said that the proposal was that the interior should continue to be responsible, not only for this increased interest, but also liable for any taxation which may be necessary to make up any shortfall of revenue, and also help to build light railways.

What do you drag me in for I opposed the whole thing from start to finish.

said that another matter to which his hon. friend had referred was Cape Perpetual Stocks. His hon. friend appealed to him to come to some decision on a question which was so important to a large number of people in South Africa and also elsewhere. Well, he explained very fully in his Budget speech that, in his opinion, it was necessary to come to a conclusion on this important matter, and he hoped, now that they had his hon. friend upon the Public Accounts Committee, that they would have, in the calm atmosphere of that room, No. 33, away from the harangues of this Chamber, the benefit of his wisdom. The subject had been under discussion last year in the Public Accounts Committee, and before he announced the decision of the Government, which would be done this session, he wished again to discuss the matter with his colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee. There were certain aspects of the matter which deserved very careful consideration. His hon. friend the member for Barberton had fortified himself with legal opinions, but he (General Smuts) thought it would be generally admitted—and his hon. friend virtually admitted it—that it was a matter involving a number of considerations, and not merely the purely legal aspects of the case—(hear, hear)—and he, therefore, thought it would be in the public interest if this matter were again discussed in the Public Accounts Committee, and thereafter the Government would give their decision and announce it to this House.

We all agree with that.

said that they had one precedent before them where it cost £1,200,000 or £1,300,000 to place a few hundred settlers on the land in the Transvaal. His hon. friend knew about that. He did not hold his hon. friend responsible, because it was a well-meant effort to bring white settlers into this country, but unless they were careful they ran the risk of entering into other Government schemes inc this country involving enormous sums of money without any benefit to white settlement. His hon. friend referred to what was being done in this country already by way of irrigation, etc. That undoubtedly was the right thing. They wanted private effort to create openings for land settlement here. As soon as Governments touched these things they became most expensive and costly, and certainly the benefit was much smaller than it otherwise would be.

Why did you introduce the Bill?

That Bill will be carried out, but if my hon. friend thinks it will be carried out in a revolutionary manner he is very much mistaken. He accuses the Government of extravagance and want of economy, but I am certain that there is no greater scope for extravagance in the course of the whole operations of the Government than there would be from an ill-advised scheme of land settlement.

You know the Government better than we do.

said that most of the efforts which the hon. member had referred to in Canada and elsewhere were carried out by private effort by big companies, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and other similar concerns. Why did the land companies in this country do nothing? (Ministerial cheers.) Here they had land companies with enormous areas, and why didn’t they do what companies did in other countries? He would tell them why. Because they were wise in their generation. It would mean nothing but financial loss to them. Many of these companies had tried land settlement on a small scale already, and he thought their testimony was conclusive that from a financial point of view the thing was a failure. Under these circumstances the Government might have to do something, but he mentioned this to show to hon. members how warily the Government had to proceed. All the same he did not say this to pooh-pooh any scheme of land settlement. He thought it was the duty of the Government to foster the matter and judiciously to move forward, but any vast scheme of land settlement which his hon. friend seemed to think of, would not, he considered, be in the interests of the country, and was bound to be a great financial failure and a burden to the country. In the course of this debate many eloquent speeches had been made, but he was afraid that most of them had been forgotten by this time. (Hear, hear.) There were certain outstanding points, however, which he thought ought to be referred to. He thought the most notable point that was made in the course of the debate was made by his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth, Central. When he compared the expenditure three years before they went into Union and three years afterwards, they would see how the figures had gone up. The figures given by his hon. friend were not quite correct, but they were as near correct as necessary for the purpose of argument. Comparing these figures, he would take the years 1909-1910 and 1913-1914, and by that comparison they would be able to explain the large increase in expenditure. Omitting the railway expenditure, if they would compare the general expenditure they found an incrase of almost two million pounds, to be correct £1,949,000, and on the railway expenditure the amount was £3,835,000. His hon. friend mentioned these figures, and he based upon them his general charge of extravagance against the Government. He (the Minister of Finance) admitted that these figures seemed rather startling, but then they must remember that a greatly increased revenue involved an increased expenditure. Since Union 860 miles of railways had been opened up, and there was £800,000 more revenue received from the railways than before Union. The ordinary working expenditure of the railways had gone up by no less than 1½ million pounds. Very little was done to meet depreciation before Union, and it was only since Union that something had been done to meet this depreciation. It would be possible to get from the reports how this amount was made up. Everyone admitted that there had been enormous expenditure, and everyone admitted that the increased revenue could only be secured by increased expenditure. If they went through the various items they would find that the expenditure of the Provincial Councils accounted for more than 1¼ millions out of the general increase of £2,000,000 to which he had just alluded. The Councils themselves in salaries, etc., cost £25,000. Then education had gone up by £750,000. Then the next item was the hospitals. That had gone up by £100,000. That expenditure could not well be curtailed: hon. members must remember that hospital services in some of the Provinces were very much neglected, both with regard to buildings and maintenance.

There was another item of £400,000 for roads and local works. If his hon. friend would add up those items, he would see that they got £1,275,000.

Salary vote.

said that the hon. member for George had dealt with that same case in the same manner the previous year, and the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Hull) had explained the case up to date, viz., how £600,000 was accounted for, but since then there had been another rise of half a million. Police and defence accounted for £328,000 of that, and posts and telegraphs for £74,000, so that these two items alone accounted for £400,000 of that rise, and there were other small items, which he need not now go into. There was a long list of them. Hon. members could see that there was no extravagance, and those rises, which were apparent in the Estimates, were due to expansion in absolutely necessary services. It was impossible to overlook those services, and leave them alone. Before Union they had not been dealt with on an adequate basis, but now they had to do so.

Will the hon. Minister put these figures on the Table?

said that he thought that if it interested hon. members, he might give the Public Accounts Committee the figures. It should be known to all the country that serious and successful efforts had been made to control expenditure in connection with administration.

What are you going to do with this loan vote?

It would be possible to go slow even on that vote.

You have not got any money and cannot do it at all.

said that it was not possible to hang up everything in the country because money was ½ per cent. dearer. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had blamed him for not having gone to the money market earlier. The fact was that the money market had been in a bad state for a long time. Why, asked the hon. member, did not the Government go into the market when the bank rate was 3 per cent., and not wait until it was 5 per cent.? He (the hon. Minister) doubted if the hon. member knew when it was last 3 per cent. It had been 5 per cent. for six months. Ever since he had been Treasurer he had been in touch with the money market and had been fully advised as to the proper time to go to the money market for a loan. Instead of things getting better they had been getting worse. There was another question on which he would like to say a few words, that of the Orange Free State Local Loans Fund of £110,000, which had been referred to by the hon. member for Ficksburg. He wanted to explain fully what was the position with regard to that fund in the Free State, for not only had the hon. member for Ladybrand made the same charges, but he had read a statement made by the Administrator of the Free State before the Provincial Council there, which also seemed to lend support to the charge made in regard to that matter.

who rose amid Ministerial cheers, said that he did not intend to trouble the House long, but there were one or two things which he thought it was necessary to reply to in regard to observations made by hon. members opposite as to the administration of his department. He would take one or two of the minor matters first of all. He wished to endorse the statement made the other night by the hon. member for Ermelo, in answer, he believed, to the hon. member for Fauresmith, in regard to the position of white labourers on our railways. Practically, with a slight modification, the hon. member for Ermelo was justified in his statement. There was only one modification that was necessary, and that was that in the matter of accommodation they had not yet got sufficient accommodation to meet the needs of all the men they employed. The number in their employ had very substantially increased, but they could still take on some thousands more, and on the Estimates this year hon. members would see that he was taking an amount of over £5,000 in order to provide sufficient accommodation, and he was not sure that he should not come to the House at a later stage to ask that that amount should be increased. (Hear, hear.) He was confident that the result would be justified, not only from the point of view of European employment in South Africa, but from the point of view of the financial administration of the railways as well.

He never spoke, it must be somebody else.

said that the hon. member for Newlands had charged the Railway with being extremely neglectful in their treatment of the carriage of livestock. He had stated that sometimes stock went five days without being fed or watered when being conveyed by train. He had also stated that in the United States, on the other hand, livestock trains were given precedence over those conveying passengers, and that it would be a good thing if that practice were followed here. All he wanted to say was this, that, as far as he was aware, the statement that livestock in South Africa were shunted for as long as three days at a time, was entirely without foundation. (Hear, hear.) He knew of no such case. If the hon. member would give him particulars he would undertake to go into the matter, and show that the hon. member was mistaken. It was impossible, of course, to prevent things going wrong sometimes, but the regulations with regard to the matter were extremely strict and rigid, and any lapse from these regulations was punished by the department. The hon. member had said that in America livestock trains were given precedence over passenger trains, and he had suggested that the same should be done here. Really, he (Mr. Burton) did not know whether his hon. friends opposite or any members of the House would care for their trains to be stopped for a day or two in order to allow livestock trains to pass. He did not think so. He was now going to refer to some of the observations made upon the Railway Budget by the hon. member for Uitenhage. He noticed that the hon. member was not in his place, so he would not refer at any length to the general observations he had made, except perhaps the House would allow him to say that when the hon. member illustrated what he called the cloud of prejudice and suspicion that existed in his (Mr. Burton’s) mind, nothing but a mind entirely clouded with suspicion and prejudice could possibly have made that ridiculous suggestion. (Ministerial cheers.) In regard to the Railway Budget, the hon. member had stated that he had entirely under-estimated the surplus of the present year and that it was going to be a great deal more than his estimate. At that period there was always a certain amount of expenditure which could not be allocated, and that could not be provided for, and they would find that the figures that the hon. member gave for the current financial year were not very fair. He estimated it to be a little over £500,000), and he would say this, that any amount over the sum for the period he had mentioned he intended to use to provide against wash-aways in the Natal Province. The figures with regard to the increase in the traffic were very substantial. In 1909 the tonnage was 10,268,000 and in 1912 it was 13,820,000. They had, therefore, a 35 per cent. increase, and there was an increase in the train mileage of 44 per cent. The expenditure per train mile in 1909 was 5s. 0½d., whereas in 1913 it was 4s. 8d., representing a saving of 7½ per cent. They had 986 miles of new railways. This implied a great expenditure in new rolling stock, and therefore it was not surprising that their expenditure had gone up. The hon. member for Durban had criticised the expenditure, and he would deal briefly with these criticisms. Speaking broadly, where there were three administrative appointments before Union, to-day there was only one. In local supervision it had been found very difficult to bring that ratio down to one. For instance, in Pietermaritzburg the workshops were at one time in charge of a foreman, but they had now to put in charge a capable mechanical engineer. Then with regard to the administrative staff and the major positions, not one single new appointment had been made. With regard to the figures in the increased traffic and mileage, he was bound to say that there was still some considerable room for reduction in the administration arrangements, and they were proceeding to carry out these reductions by degrees. The main point of the hon. member’s criticism was this. He said that in Union there was a supervising appointment for every 50 miles of line, but he (the Minister) would like to point out that in the Cape Colony there had been a supervising appointment for every 37 miles, and on the Natal railways one for every 28 miles of railway. Then there were 27,564 Europeans employed in the Civil Service, 923 of these were receiving £500 and upwards. In the Railways 31383 Europeans and about 30,000 natives were employed, and of these only 16 Europeans received £500 and upwards. With regard to the daily-paid staff, since the date of Union the increase given to that section was represented by a sum of something like £400.000. Dealing with the criticisms of the hon. member for Pretoria District, North (Sir T. M. Cullinan), he said that the hon. member had complained that there was going to be no reduction of rates, but let him say at once that when he had said that he could hold out no prospects of rates being reduced he had been particularly careful to say “not in the immediate future.” He could not be justified, with the finances such as they were at present, in being able to hold out an immediate prospect of reduction of rates; but then the hon. member had given some figures which he was perfectly certain, or he suspected very strongly, made some impression on a section of the House,, that there was the sum of £1,900,000 which had gone wrong somewhere, and the hon. member wanted to know what had become of it. Then he had taken the interest, but as the law stood they had no option in the matter. The hon. member had dealt with preferential rates, which he said should be abolished, and in that way the consumers up-country would benefit. There was no doubt that that system of preferential rates was an unhealthy one and that it should be abolished, and no doubt when they were in a position to do so, and arrange their Customs Tariff as to impose the taxation at the Harbours, they would proceed to abolish the preferential rates, but, of course, hon. members must remember that if they were to attempt to abolish preferential railway rates now, while they had not got their tariffs at the ports, the result would be that instead of the consumer or the manufacturer up-country benefiting, they would kill a great many of the industries they had up-country. He had already explained what he proposed to do with the surplus of £142,000, and he need not now go further into it. Then the hon. member had said that three millions were floating about somewhere, but the hon. member ought to remember that in the first place the Constitution made provision for that sum, and they could not use that money for railway purposes.

Why not?

Because they not been exhibited in the working. A certain number of reductions were made in August, but a large number were not made until October.

I have admitted it over and over again.

said the hon. member did not seem to have allowed the full force of it to have a full effect on his mind.

No; that the Railway Board should lay the particulars before this House.

The Act only says that the railway shall pay when the Railway Board reports adversely.

They have never reported at all.

On what?

Branch lines.

You had lots of reports on branch lines last year, and I hope you will have lots this year. The hon. member’s remarks really come to this, that he requires a guarantee, otherwise, according to him, there are to be no more branch lines built in this country. That is what it comes to.

Certainly not.

Then I really cannot understand it. Only the other day I remember his coming to me with a most interesting and influential deputation to request me to build a line from Kimberley to Kuruman. (Ministerial laughter.) There is a great deal to be said for that line, but I am sure that in its initial stages it is not going to pay. (Hear, hear.)

I have never objected to branch lines.

Then I misunderstood the whole tenour of the hon. member’s speech.

And you do that solely for the benefit of inland consumers?

I have said nothing of the kind. But does the hon. member deny that they have the benefit of it? I say that the bulk of the traffic as conveyed over the Cape section of the main line is traffic that does not pay the high rate. Proceeding, he said that he would take, for instance, live-stock. Glasgow, with a population of about 880,000, consumed 440,000 head of stock, while Johannesburg with a population of 227,000 consumed 453,000 head.

It is for the good of the country; why shouldn’t they?

I am not complaining in the very least. I hope they will eat twice as much meat if it agrees with their health. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that the bulk of the live-stock carried over the Cape lines was carried at rates which did not pay. He would take the oversea traffic, machinery, etc., that went over the main line from Durban. His hon. friend must understand it was not the Cape members of Parliament who made the Mozambique Convention. The hon. member for Barberton had a hand in that. He would like to say that he was speaking of the Cape. He was not ashamed of having a provincial feeling for his own Province. There was no crime in having that feeling of attachment for a Province, any more than having a special feeling of attachment for their own home. (Hear, hear.) What they ought to try to avoid was to see that they did not carry this feeling into matters respecting the Union. (Hear, hear.) He wanted to refer to a matter that had not been properly dealt with in the House. He thought it was forgotten that before the war the interest upon the £35.000,000 railway loan was paid by the railways. (Sir PERCY FITZPATRICK: It was a guaranteed loan.) A portion, no doubt, was the portion payable by the railways, but the other portion was not strictly payable by the railways; and prior to Union, a sum of something like two million pounds had been paid by the railway taxpayers of the Transvaal, through the railways. Since Union, that burden had been taken off the shoulders of these taxpayers, and had been shifted on the shoulders of the Union Treasury.

Hear, hear.

said that in his references to reduced railway rates to the North he had only endeavoured to show what was the explanation of an apparent case of unfair treatment, and to try, by making a frank statement, to remove some misunderstanding. The claim that because railways in certain portions of the Union made large profits that the rates over those lines should be reduced was hopelessly impracticable. If they went on that line they must not go by Provinces, but take each individual portion of a line and each individual section. He was afraid that the proposal was hopelessly impracticable. They could only deal with the thing as a whole and deal with it as fairly and reasonably as they could.

To define their powers according to the Act of Union.

The powers are defined by the Act of Union. The position, authority, and powers of the Railway Board were defined by the Act of Union. All you can have by a Bill to further define these powers will be either to decrease them or increase them. Proceeding, he said that if they wanted to leave the position as it was, then they need say nothing more. They had a perfectly clear definition in the Act of Union. Did hon. members want to reduce the powers of the Railway Board? He did not think that hon. members upon that side of the House desired to do that. The object rather would be to increase them slightly. He was sure that if a Bill was introduced defining the powers of the Railway Board they might rest assured that before that Bill left the House it would reduce the powers of the Board and the end of the business would be to leave the Railway Board in a worse position than they were to-day. So far as he was concerned, he did not think they would find any complaint from a member of the Railway Board or any friction whatever.

I do not say that there was in your case, but it was different last year.

then put the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

declared the amendment negatived.

moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

This was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday, 28th instant.