from P. A. Vermeulen, who was wounded during the late South African war, for relief.

from D. J. Oosthuizen, who was wounded during the late South African war, for relief.

Return showing all tenders exceeding £2,000 called for by the Government (exclusive of Railways and Harbours), from January 1st, 1913, to date; how many of those contracts were placed outside the Union, etc.

Amendment to South African Police Regulations.

Government Notice No. 451 of 1914 having reference to regulations in regard to the water supply of the village of Kopjes (Orange Free State).

moved that the order for the second reading of the Peace Preservation and Criminal Law Amendment Bill be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. (Loud Opposition and Labour cheers.)

Could not the Minister tell us what his reasons are ?

Is there any objection to the motion? No objection. Agreed to.

moved: In line 1, to make “sections” in the singular; in the same line, after “three,” to omit “and five”; in line 3, after “in,” to insert “that”; and in the same line after “section,” to omit “three of this Act.”

Agreed to.

The Committee’s amendments were agreed to.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

said the Speaker had asked whether there was any objection to the third reading being taken then that was to say, that the question should be put then. On that question the members on the cross-benches wished to make some observations on the matter, but he was afraid it was too late now.

said he was sorry if there had been any misunderstanding. He had out the question and there had been no objection.

said there was no objection to the third reading being taken at that stage, but they had no notion that they were allowing the Bill to be read a third time and that they were foregoing their right to speak.

I am sorry; the Bill has been read a third time.

moved that the following be a new Standing Order, viz.:

74a. (1) After a question (except a question already barred from debate under the Standing Orders) has been proposed from the Chair either in the House or in a Committee of the Whole House, a member may claim to move “That the question be now put,” and unless it shall appear to the Chair that such a motion is an abuse of the Standing Orders of this House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question “That the question be now put” shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

(2) When a motion “That the question be now put ” has been carried, and the question consequent thereon has been decided, any further motion may be made (the assent of the Chair, as aforesaid, not having been withheld) which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair, and such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

(3) If an amendment or amendments have been proposed to a motion, clause, section, sub-section, schedule, or other matter under consideration, when the motion: “That the question be now put ” is carried, such amendment or amendments, together with the original question, shall, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 73, be put forthwith and decided without further amendment or debate.

(4) Provided always that this Standing Order shall be put in force only when Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees is in the chair.

And that the following consequential amendment be made in Standing Order No. 280, viz.: In lines 8 and 9 to omit “with the exception of the ‘Closure’ procedure.”

The right hon. gentleman said the Government had earnestly considered whether it was desirable to introduce such a motion and after long and careful consultation they had come to the conclusion that it was.

When they came to examine the Standing Orders of all the Parliaments, they would find that very few of them existed, but had found after years of experience that the closure in some form or other had to be adopted. They in this country were being constantly referred to the English Parliament, the mother-Parliament, as the one from which they were to take their examples. Well if they went to that Parliament, they found that the closure was necessary, and there was hardly a single Parliament under the British flag that did not have the closure in one form or another. The Government had been convinced that a closure procedure was necessary in South Africa, not only because there was obstruction in the House, but also because it was desirable in the interests of the House and of South Africa that the length of the debates should be kept within reasonable dimensions. He expected they would be told that they were doing violence to the freedom of debate, of a tyrannical majority forcing its will on the minority, and of a violation of the rights of Parliament. When they came to examine history they found that similar arguments were heard everywhere where the closure was introduced, and that would continue to be the case as long as Parliaments existed. Then, as soon as the closure was applied they were safe to hear talk of the stifling of discussion and of the right to speak. The motion was not introduced solely because there had been obstruction, but also because it appeared that owing to the long debates which took place on every Bill, new legislation was almost impossible. No matter what the Government brought forward the debate on nearly every subject was long drawn out

They must not lose sight of the fact that the Union comprised what were four different States, each having its own separate laws, and owing to Union having been effected, a good deal of legislation of a codifying character had become necessary. That legislation was not required by the Government, as some persons seemed to think, but in the interests of the people and in order to satisfy a public demand. The existing legislation was too diverse in its character, and the public demanded that it should be codified. That demand would have to be complied with, and Parliament was very properly expected to do more than it had hitherto done. When they came to examine the previous sittings of Parliament they found that they sat for nearly six months each year, and if they went on as they were and were to satisfy the requirements of the public it would be necessary for the House to sit continuously all the year round. The procedure of the House should be of such a character as to make it possible to perform the work of Parliament with reasonable speed, and the Government wished to pass with such reasonable speed the legislation which was called for. When they came to examine the events of the past four or five years they saw that from different sides the necessity for the codification of the laws had been urged on them. Unless it was agreed to make certain limitations to the debates, the position became an impossible one. In what form should they put that limitation on the debates? In his view there was only one form. In some countries there was a limitation to the duration of speeches, and it was only with the permission of the House that the prescribed period could be exceeded. Well, he doubted the suitability of a similar limitation here, and he thought a form of closure would be more appropriate. If they did not do something of that character, he feared that the sessions of Parliament would be too long. If they lasted too long they would cease to be able to get the best men there to make good laws for the country and to maintain good government Those people would not be able to take part in the work, and they would lend to create a sort of professional politician who would not have that interest in the work of Parliament which a good member ought to have. If they did not want things to go entirely wrong, it would be necessary for them to adapt something in the nature of the motion which he had proposed. The country was a big one, and hon. members who came from afar could not be kept from their homes and businesses for too long a period. It would be necessary to do something to meet the convenience of those members, or otherwise they would lose some of the best of them.

What was now happening? When a long debate arose it was necessary for him to appeal to the members of his own party to be silent, with the result that they sometimes appeared in a wrong light. If the members who formed the majority of the House were to speak in proportion to hon. members in the minority, the House would certainly have to sit twelve months in the year, whilst if they wanted to avoid that, it would be necessary to change their procedure. They must take care that there was no abuse made of the freedom of discussion. He asked for a fairer proportion of the time of the House amongst its members, so that a minority should not be able to make the acceptance of a motion impossible. If they were to have that power it would not be in the true interests of South Africa.

The debate on the subject of the Indemnity Bill, which the House had recently dealt with, had lasted for about 134 hours, equal to 34 ordinary sitting days. The minority consisted then of a few members only, and out of the 134 hours, some six or seven members occupied 102 hours in debate. A small minority were thus able to take up 76 per cent. of the time of the House. Then, in connection with the same Bill they had had forty divisions, out of which 23 were divisions in which the minority formed less than ten members, whilst in 35 out of the 40 divisions the minority was less than 15. In five cases only were the minorities 18, 19, 23, 27, and 29. He only mentioned that to show how easy it was to block legislation. And yet that Bill only contained four clauses. They would see, therefore, how difficult it was for the House to deal with legislation, and every year they had the same experience. Unless they so changed the Standing Orders as to make it possible to deal with the business of the country with reasonable speed, it would be impossible for them to pass the required new legislation.

He considered it was of the first importance to keep the best men in Parliament. If the proposals were opposed it would awaken dissatisfaction, and if the country became dissatisfied at the long sittings of the House, things would follow which they would regret. It should be made possible for the best men to devote their attention to the affairs of the House without being kept too long from their businesses and without having to make room for the professional politician. The dignity, the name, and the popularity of the House was at present suffering owing to what had happened there, and they ought not to allow such things to continue. No rights ought to be taken away, and the rights of the minority would have to be protected. On the other hand, they could not allow the minority to abuse those rights. Assuming that the freedom of debate were abused in order to prevent a motion from being carried, were they to allow that? No.

They could not permit a minority of members to bring the business of the country to a standstill. Let them examine what took place in the English Parliament, the mother-Parliament. If they agreed to the motion which was now proposed, they would be accepting only a portion of what was adopted at Westminster. If they agreed to the motion the initiative would rest with hon. members themselves, who would have the right to move that the question be now put. Such a motion having been proposed, it would be the duty of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman, to decide whether the question had been so sufficiently discussed that he ought to bring it to a vote. The House would not tolerate the application of the closure to every debate. Personally, he felt that at present the debates were entirely out of proportion, that the one section talked, and the other had to sit silent. If they could do something to bring about a better proportion in the debates it would be very much better, and would help to preserve the dignity of the House. He had recently seen things happening there which they had to submit to, and which did violence to its dignity, and it was necessary that that dignity should be protected.

Perhaps it would be said that something was being proposed that they did not know. Well, the closure was not unknown in South Africa. They had had it in Natal, and never suffered any ill effects from its operation. In the Transvaal and Free State Republics, too, the closure had existed and no complaint was made against it. The closure was, therefore, not new either in Natal, the Free State, or the Transvaal.

seconded the motion.

said that those of them who on many occasions had had the pleasure of listening to his hon. friend when addressing the House, would, he thought, agree with him that never had he addressed the House when his whole manner and the character of his remarks made it plain that his heart was not in the proposals that he had introduced. As he had proceeded with his arguments he had practically demolished the case for these resolutions. It was said that a proposal of this sort was adopted in the British House of Commons, and because it was adopted in the British House of Commons it should be adopted in the Union House of Parliament in South Africa; but he had not told the House that the condition of affairs in the House of Commons which necessitated the introduction of closure resolutions was entirely different from the position of affairs in this House. (Cheers.) The necessity of the application and adoption of the closure by the British House of Commons was due to the fact that a certain section of the members made the business of the House of Commons absolutely impossible—(hear, hear)—and he would say to the right hon. gentleman and those, who, like the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and other gentlemen who sat opposite, cheered his statement so lustily, that the right hon. gentleman himself said that this motion was not introduced for the purpose of curtailing discussion, and that nothing in the nature of obstruction had occurred in this Parliament. (Cheers and counter-cheers.) He had taken down the Prime Minister’s words. He had thought that his hon. friend was going to follow the example once set by the Minister of Education and conclude by stating that the time was not opportune to introduce these proposals. The Prime Minister had said that there was hardly any Parliament under the British Flag which had not adopted this procedure.

Not this; some sort.

Well, some form of closure, intending to imply that, though the wording might have been different, the purposes were exactly the same. Proceeding, he said that the Prime Minister knew as well as he did that, save and except in the Commonwealth of Australia, where they had got a closure, he believed, much on these lines and provision for the our-tailing of speeches, there was no such thing in the Dominion Parliament of Canada and there was no closure of this character in the Dominion of New Zea land. Having said there was nothing in the nature of obstruction, which he (Sir T. W. Smartt) presumed was the only possible reason that would justify the House or even the Government in bringing forward a resolution of this character, the right hon. gentleman then said that a motion of this sort was necessary to satisfy the people. Well, if there were one thing more than another which was necessary to satisfy the people of this country it was the fact that there was open and free discussion from every section of opinion throughout the country, irrespective of whether that section took up a long period of time or not. If the Government, by a cast-iron majority, at a most inopportune time forced through the House a resolution of this sort, they would live to rue the day. (Cheers.) The proper way to satisfy the people was to see that every measure was fully discussed in this House, and if the rules of full discussion of the most liberal character should be transgressed, Mr. Speaker had the redress in his own hands—(hear, hear)— and he did not think it was necessary for this House to go any further.

The Prime Minister’s reference to the Indemnity Bill, he thought, afforded one of the worst possible examples that he could have given in connection with a proposal of this sort. (Hear, hear.) He could conceive nothing more calculated to have brought the House into disrepute than an attempt to curtail discussion on such an important measure “That measure,” added Sir Thomas, “was a measure of a most extraordinary character, one that has never been seen here before in its peculiar application and one that, I hope to God, this country will never see the necessity of in the future.” Sir Thomas went on to say that, notwithstanding the views he held on this matter, he did not think the discussion was unduly prolonged, considering the importance of the measure. When the Prime Minister spoke of the number of hours taken up by the discussion, who was he girding at?

The Labour Party.

Oh, no, the Prime Minister is a bit of a humorist, and he was girding at the Minister of Defence, who occupied two days in introducing that measure. Other Ministers also spoke on that measure for a considerable time, and several members sitting on the same side as the right hon. gentleman also spoke on it for a considerable time, including the hon. member for Barberton. Proceeding, Sir Thomas said that if this had been an example, why had the Prime Minister told them that there had been nothing in the nature of obstruction? He (Sir T. W. Smartt) had had some considerable experience of Parliamentary discussions in this country, and he must say that from the first day when this Union Parliament had assembled, though there had been a great deal of discussion, there had been nothing that had been longer than the discussions they had had on important matters in the late Cape Parliament, as, for instance, when the Light Wine Licences Bill was before the House, a measure that was not as important as the Indemnity Bill.

You had a closure on that.

Not a closure such as this—a closure placed in the hands of the Speaker, representing the House, to introduce it when he thought the psychological moment had arrived for preserving the dignity of the House. Sir Thomas went on to say that the right hon. gentleman had used another argument, and that was that many hon. members had got to keep quiet. They in that House had more than once seen the industrious Whips going the round of the benches opposite getting hon. members, whom the Government were afraid would, in the excitement of debate, speak out some very unwholesome truths, to keep quiet. (Laughter and cheers.) He was certain that in the caucus or in this House that procedure had been repeated very advantageously during the last few days, because when he looked round the benches opposite he must recognise that there were a large number of members who, in their hearts, were opposed to this proposal—(hear, hear)—and who, if their lips were unsealed, would give as unqualified opposition to it as he, on behalf of hon. members on that side was giving at the present moment. It was not the duty of the House to act in advance. It was the duty of the House to “wait and see,” as an illustrious statesman had once said, and when the position arose, it was the duty of the House or the Standing Rules and Orders Committee to see whether there was no possibility of doing something, without a drastic proposal of this character, which would facilitate the despatch of business in this House.

We had Standing Rules, which placed in Mr. Speaker’s hands considerable powers in regard to repetition and the introduction of irrelevent matter, and they had struck out the whole rule, whereby there could be a second debate of a second reading character, on the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair. Consequently a great deal had been done to facilitate the business of the House. A great, deal of time was wasted by the bungling manner in which the Order Paper was drawn up, and the careless manner in which the business of the House was conducted. (Loud cheers.) They had an example of that only to-day. The Minister of Justice had kept on the paper a Bill which he had now withdrawn because the whole country was opposed to it. (Opposition and Labour cheers.) It was this sort of thing which had caused a good deal of discussion. But no sooner was the Peace Preservation Bill off the paper than they heard it was the intention of the Government to introduce another measure in much the same direction. Even if he were in favour of adopting the motion, he would like to see the text of that Bill before he could be persuaded that it might not be in the interest of members to oppose by every means in their power a motion of this kind. How were they to know that all the objectionable clauses in the Peace Preservation Bill were not included in the new measure? (Hear, hear.)

There was another objection to a motion of this sort. The closure had not always worked well, and it had had a tendency in periods of excitement to facilitate the passing of legislation, which the country very often had afterwards regretted. (Hear, hear.) From the Prime Minister’s own showing, he had not advanced a single argument which would justify the House in taking such a very important step at this particular moment. The only possibility at the back of the Prime Minister’s mind was that he had a majority behind him. But this was the last thing he should try to force through the House, for it was a procedure which should be adopted only when the vast majority of the members considered it was absolutely necessary in the interest of the country and of Parliament. (Opposition and Labour cheers.) That was the position in England, when a proposal of this sort was brought before the House of Commons; but that was not the condition of affairs here. Surely the Prime Minister could wait until he saw that there was urgency for the introduction of such a step, and should such an urgency arrive, the Prime Minister would find the House with him in trying to find some means by which the functions of Parliament could be carried out. There were many members who recognised the advantages of free discussion in the late Cape Parliament.

Had this proposal been in operation in 1898, would it have been possible for the Cape Parliament to pass a Bill for the better representation of the people? Sir Gordon Sprigg introduced a Bill for the better representation of the people. A vote of no confidence in the Government was carried, and afterwards Mr. Schreiner came into power. On October 31, 1898, Mr. Schreiner’s Government moved: “That the House resolve not to proceed with the question of the Redistribution of Seats Bill during the present session, but instructs the Government to prepare and introduce in 1899 a measure dealing with the subject, and that the order for the second reading of the Redistribution Bill be discharged.” There was such a tremendous hubbub and discussion that that motion was not carried in its original form, because the late Mr. De Waal moved an amendment, the tenor of which was that the motion should not be passed, and that the Government should meet a committee, containing members nominated by Sir Gordon Sprigg as the representative of the Opposition, for the purpose of going into the whole question of redistribution. The result was that, on November 4, the motion was withdrawn by Government and a Redistribution Bill was introduced, this only being wrung from the Government by the free liberty of discussion enjoyed by the Cape House.

The power in the hands of the Speaker made the present motion almost unnecessary. On March 29, 1904, after the discussion on the Bill for the Better Representation of People in Parliament had gone on in the Cape House for a considerable time—on one occasion for 27 hours—Mr. Speaker Berry gave the following very important ruling:

The power which existed in the hands of Mr. Speaker in 1894 was also placed in the hands of Mr. Speaker in 1914. We had another example in 1909. After a very extended and heated discussion on the Light Wine Licences Bill, which measure had proved a fiasco, Mr. Speaker (Sir James Molteno) gave a ruling which brought the discussion to an end. He ruled that the resolutions of the House of Commons of 1883 were applicable to Parliament, and he therefore closed the debate. That power was now taken away from the Chair, because in the Standing Rules it was distinctly laid down that the closure should not apply, showing that the House, when it adopted these new rules, had fully considered the matter and had decided that the closure was not necessary. (Opposition and Labour cheers.) Although that ruling was debarred Mr. Speaker, the ruling of the Speaker of 1904 still remained open. That was should Mr. Speaker consider the character of the discussion, the length of the debate, and the irrelevancy of the matter brought forward had the tendency to bring Parliament and its authority into disrepute, he still enjoyed the power to put the question. We had no single example in the Union Parliament to prove that the time had arrived when the motion of the sort proposed by the Prime Minister was necessary. With the feeling that existed in the country at the present time a motion of this sort was bound to be misunderstood by the people. (Opposition and Labour cheers.) Under those circumstances the Leader of the House had no right to bring forward a motion of this character at this period.

Was the Prime Minister justified in using an argument of that character? One of the first things dealt with in the Governor-General’s speech showed that the Prime Minister was prepared to run away from his own legislation. He was glad that better councils had prevailed, and he could assure his hon. friends that even without a resolution of that sort he would keep a sufficient quorum to proceed with remedial industrial legislation, which was absolutely necessary. It was the duty of the Prime Minister, knowing the feeling of the representatives of the people in that House, to withdraw the resolution until such a time as it might unfortunately become necessary. They had for years refrained from having a motion of that character. If he liked to refer to another place not far away he might draw attention to the fact that it had a resolution of that kind, and it did not add to the dignity of that Assembly to close a debate within forty minutes of the opening of the discussion. The time was inopportune to bring in a motion of that nature, and if the Prime Minister did not want to do incalculable damage and cause much bitterness he would withdraw it. (Cheers.)

said the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had endeavoured to make the House believe that it was the intention of the Government to prevent debate. That was not the intention of the Government. (Laughter.) There was no intention to interfere with members debating a question fully and freely, but there was an intention on the part of the Government to ask the House to adopt those rules for the purpose of limiting discussion. Some remedy was required to stem the torrent of loquacity and verbosity which the House is suffering under. The hon. member had said that the time was inopportune. He asked hon. members whether it was not the case that that House assembled every year eager and anxious to do business, but at the end of the time they went home disappointed and, to some extent, disgusted with the work that had been done? (Hear, hear.) They had listened to long debates—to endless debates— to repetition after repetition from a certain quarter of the House. And hon. members were unable, owing to the time taken by some hon. members, to perform the duty they were sent there to perform. He would point out that during the four years that had elapsed since Union they had done very little work in the way of consolidating the laws of the country. (Cheers.) They had done very little indeed. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) But that was not the fault of the Government. (Laughter.) Even at the end of last session they had had to drop at least two important measures of that nature. The practice had been to have a session of four or five months, and hon. members were not prepared to sit eight or nine months, nor was that necessary if some reasonable restrictions on debate were introduced. There was a long list of first class measures which ought to be carried by that House at an early date and put on the Statute-book, but this was prevented by the endless discussion that took place on other subjects. There were, for instance, laws relating to magistrates’ courts, insolvency, co-operative societies, public health, factories, patents, etc., which were different in the various Provinces, and were crying out for consolidation and coordination. They had two other measures which had been before another place, but which, owing to want of time, had not been considered by that House— he referred to the survey of lands and the registration of deeds Bills. There was a whole host of measures of first class importance which ought, in the interests of the country, to be placed on the Statute book, but the Parliamentary machine was clogged, and it was their duty to put it right. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said that the motion was unnecessary and that it had no counterpart in Canada. There he was totally wrong. There was a closure in the Dominion of Canada. In Canada, on the resumption of a debate, a Minister, having given notice, might move that the debate should not be further adjourned. That motion was put, and on being carried by a bare majority no member might speak more than once nor for longer than 20 minutes. (Cheers.) That was in answer to the hon. member who said that there was no closure in Canada. At 2 o’clock the following morning the question was put and the debate closed The hon. member had also said that there was no such thing as the closure or a time limit in New Zealand.

said the Minister was putting the words into his mouth. What he had said was that there was no closure in New Zealand such as was proposed here.

said the hon. member had not referred to a time limit, but he (the Minister) wanted to do so. He found that in New Zealand they had what was equivalent to the closure. In New Zealand there was a time limit, and on important questions members might speak for one hour and no longer, and on less important questions for half an hour. In Committee of the whole House members might speak for ten minutes and only four times on any one question. They had, as a matter of fact, in almost every European country and in every British Dominion a form of closure or a time limit, and he contended that that House was not doing its duty to itself nor to the country in not restricting the speeches of hon. members. Even the public were amazed at the waste of time that went on in the House. One heard on all sides surprise expressed at the debate on the Indemnity Bill having lasted for 19 days. Even now, after two months, what had they done? Nothing, and that was mainly due to long speeches and unnecessary repetition. The remedy for the existing state of affairs was undoubtedly the closure, and although they might regard freedom of speech as being one of the bulwarks of liberty, still it ought to be directed to a definite end, and if that end could not otherwise be attained, freedom of speech must be curtailed. Where liberty of speech was allowed to become licence, then it interfered with the rights of others, and it became necessary for the majority to say whether it should be restricted or not. The whole of their Parliamentary system was built up on the principle that the majority acted in the interests of the whole country. Important measures were passed by a majority of only one, a member of Parliament could be elected by a majority of one—nay, even by the drawing of lots in event of equality of voting. Mr. Speaker was elected by, it might be, a majority of one only, and a Government could be defeated by a similar majority. There could be no question that the rights of the majority had not up till now been properly respected in that House. A little consideration would show that there was no fear of that motion being used solely in the interests of the majority. The minority by criticising the Government and by putting forward a more attractive programme endeavoured to prove to the public that the minority was better able to be trusted with the affairs of the country than the majority. No majority could last long if it brutally stopped free and full discussion, because such conduct would outrage public opinion, on which every majority depended for its existence.

Continuing, he said that some members were restrained in the length of their speeches, but there were others who spoke to their constituents outside, quite regardless of that thing, hard to define, but what has been called the “sense of the House.” He would not have the effrontery to say that they were desirous of advertising themselves, but they were anxious to prove that they were active and intelligent members of Parliament. There were other members who were honestly desirous of improving measures that were going through the House, and of educating public opinion and giving information to the House, but there were times when it was even necessary to restrain these members. If they had an economic question before the House and they had twelve professors in the House, he thought that members would agree that it would be a bit of a bore to listen to a three-hour speech on the subject from each of these gentlemen. Sometimes when it was necessary to close the debate on a clause, members made a fresh start and covered the whole ground again. A torrent of words instead of enabling a man to make up his mind really weakened his will power. (Laughter.) The hon. member proceeded to quote Mr. Gladstone on the subject of obstruction by minorities, and went on to say that some members wished to prevail over the will of the House otherwise than by fair argument. During the debate on the Indemnity Bill there was an attempt on the part of one quarter of the House to weary members out.

Which quarter?

said that that quarter endeavoured to physically tire out the House. If six members could do that, how long could 26 go on?

Say 36. (Laughter.)

said they were not interfering with the freedom of speech. There were two evils that had to be reckoned with. They could allow unlimited freedom of speech and get little or no work done. The other evil was to put some restriction on speeches and get some work done. He hoped the House would choose the lesser evil, restrict unlimited freedom of speech, and get some work done. He went on to refer to remarks of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who said that when the closure had been carried into effect in other cases it was done with the consent of the great majority of the House.

He (the speaker) would point out that in the House of Commons, when the closure was introduced by Mr. Gladstone in 1882, it was most hotly debated and only carried by a small majority. In 1881, after a sitting of 41 hours, Mr. Speaker closed the debate, but only after a conference with Mr. Gladstone, who said he would introduce a rule relieving Mr. Speaker of such a great responsibility. The Minister then went on to refer to Mr. Gladstone’s Urgency Rule, and said that by three to one in a House of 300 members Mr. Speaker was given full power to close a debate. There was a special session in 1882 which nut it through, and the final division was 304 to 260. Under that rule 200 members had to support the closure, but a bare majority sufficed. It was wrong to say that the closure had only been carried by the general consent of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said that in the old Cape Parliament the closure was not necessary, but he found that in 1904, on the debate on the Additional Representation Bill, the debate was closed after 30 hours. Something similar happened on the second reading of the Light Wine Bill in 1907. He did say that the House ought to make this rule so that business might be done, and the House should take the responsibility of saying when it was necessary to close a debate, and not throw the whole responsibility on Mr. Speaker. who at present had the power to do so. There were two safeguards with regard to the minority. First, the majority of the House had to consent to the closure, and then Mr. Speaker’s consent was also necessary. In the past he had found that Mr. Speaker had not lightly given his consent in the House of Commons. From 1887 to 1905 in the House of Commons private members moved the closure 517 times, and consent was refused on 178 occasions. During that period the Government moved the closure 651 times, and consent was refused on 75 occasions. During those 18 years the closure was moved 1,168 times, and consent was refused on 253 occasions. Continuing, he pointed out that the closure proposed in that House was simple as compared with the form of closure in the House of Commons, which was of an extreme character. He went on to refer to the fact that in the British House of Commons, in addition to the simple closure now moved by the Prime Minister, they had the guillotine closure by compartments and the kangaroo closure. They did not ask the House to adopt any of these complicated forms of closure. (Hear, hear.) All they asked the House to do was to accept this simple form of ordinary closure, which would enable the House to say, after a matter had been fully and fairly debated, that the time had arrived for a vote to be taken. When their rules were drawn up they took ever the old rules of the Cape House, and there the practice was for a matter to be fully debated by half a dozen or a dozen members on each side, for a full dress debate to take place and, the general sense of the House being that a vote should be taken, a vote was taken, and there the thing concluded. But now they had skirmishes day after day on a Bill, and, instead of a decided debate, they had a debate which went on for weeks and months. He submitted with all confidence, that that was a state of affairs which was not consistent with doing good business in this House.

The first part of the motion was copied almost exactly from the first part of the House of Commons Rule. The second part of the motion was copied from the first part of the House of Commons Order, No. 26. The third paragraph of the motion was to some extent similar to the second part of the House of Commons Order, but it was not quite the same. According to the House of Commons practice, as he understood, it was necessary where certain amendments were made to a clause or a motion to confine the debate strictly to each amendment, and to put each of those amendments separately and to move the closure separately in connection with each of them. The reason why they had made an alteration in the proposal before the House as compared with the House of Commons Rule was to make provision for the different practice here, where the original clause and amendments are debated at the same time. They provided that it should only be necessary once to move “that the question be now put.” The fourth paragraph of the motion was the same as House of Commons Order No. 24. The House of Commons Rules, however, went further and provided that the closure should only be carried when 100 members voted in the affirmative. Here, if the rule were passed as it stood, the closure would be carried on a bare majority. There was no provision in the rule for any definite number in its favour. If they adopted the same proportion of members as in the House of Commons Rule, they would provide for 18 or 19 members voting in the affirmative. That, of course, would be absurd. When he heard so much about the rights of the minority, he sometimes wondered whether hon. members took into account the rights of the majority. (Hear, hear.) He had heard it said that they ought to adopt the “time limit,” instead of this form of closure. He would remind hon. members of the difficulty associated with the “time limit.” In the first place, it prevented a very full and copious debate on a measure of first-class importance, if they restricted the speeches, say, to one hour. It had been tried in New Zealand and the United States, and it had not been a success. One other objection to the “time limit” was that if a clause were before the House it was open to members, say ten members, each to move an amendment to that clause, and then it would be open to each of those ten members to speak ten times on each amendment, 100 times in all, and the Chair could not stop them; but if the closure in the form in which it was now submitted were adopted, it would be possible for the House when it was satisfied that the debate had gone on long enough, to resolve that the question be now put. Any hon. member not necessarily a Minister, could rise and move “that the question be now put.” If Mr. Speaker were satisfied that the rights of the minority were not being infringed, he proceeded to put the question.

He thought they might go round the whole world looking for precedents, but they could not do better than follow the example of the Mother of Parliaments. There they had found that this form of closure and not the “time limit” was the most effective, and he asked hon. members to remember that they were not in this measure proposing to legislate in advance of the question. They were not adopting the guillotine, closure by compartments, or the kangaroo form of closure. In the old Republics, the Transvaal and Free State, they had a form of closure to this effect: “That the Raad may by resolution decide that the question or subject under consideration has been adequately discussed, and the debate thereon be concluded.” (Hear, hear.) He had been told that that worked well. In Natal, before Union, they had a Standing Rule and Order which provided that, after a question had been proposed, a member rising in his place might move “that the question be now put,” and unless it should appear to the Chair that such motion were an abuse of the Rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question “that the question be now put ” should be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate. (Hear, hear.) He was a member of the Natal House for many years, and he saw this put into force many a time; but he never heard any serious objection taken on the ground of its unfairness. (Hear, hear.) There was no doubt, he thought, that members of that House were anxious to do business. They felt at the present time that the Rules of the House did not enable them to make that progress with legislation in She interests of this country, and for which the country was crying out, that they would like. They felt that the dignity and authority of Parliament were being undermined, and he appealed to hon. members on both sides not to approach this matter from a party spirit, but to look at it in the interests of good government and fair play. (Hear, hear.)

said the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had not had a word to say about the rights of minorities. What the Minister wanted was a steam roller—(Opposition and Labour cheers)—so that, whatever the majority said was right, must go through without any opposition. What did the Minister of Agriculture, with his experience of the Cape House of Parliament, think about this business? Did he support it? If so, he had gone back on his own position. The time would come when the Ministerialists would regret this motion, as if it were passed, it would apply to them when they were in Opposition. But Ministerial members could not speak; they were gagged, and they had to support the Government. He (Mr. Jagger) often regretted that two of the leading members of the Government did not know what it was to be in the Opposition. Their only idea was that of the Oriental despot, to carry things through with a big majority, and now they wanted to make the majority more effective still. They said they wanted to get the business of the country along. So did all the members of the House. If there was one section of the House to blame for delaying business during the last three years, it was the Ministerial side. (Hear, hear.) The Government itself was largely to blame. Why did it allow debates to go on day after day on a Bill, and the Minister in charge of it never to get up and reply? (Hear, hear.) If Ministers would reply to points as they rose, things would go on very much better. Take the Immigration Act. The present Minister of Finance brought it in in two different years, but in neither case could he get it through. It was then brought forward by the late Mr. Fischer, who got the measure passed. He (Mr. Jagger) left it to the House to draw its own conclusions. Bills had been brought in, partly discussed, and then dropped.

There was the Arms and Ammunition Bill, which was dropped after it had gone through committee. Then if the odd moments of the House were utilised, as they ought to be, better progress would be made. Sir Gordon Sprigg used to adjourn debates at 5.30, and bring forward unopposed business to fill up the time until the House rose. Then in the British House of Commons all opposed business was adjourned at 11 p.m., and from 11 to 11.30 p.m. unopposed business was taken. But here, even unopposed Bills were left on the paper and finally they were slaughtered at the end of the session. He said quite deliberately that the Government, through its mismanagement of the business of the House was as much to blame as any section for the delay that arose. Again, the paper was not properly arranged. Then the family disagreements of the Government’s supporters last session took up the time of the House for hours. Was that the fault of the minority?

They wanted the closure.

said the Government simply let things slide, and it was largely to blame for the wretched state of public business at the present moment. He was strongly opposed to the motion. The responsibility of interfering in debates was not thrown on the Ministry, but any member on the back benches could move the closure A discussion might arise on something very disagreeable to the Ministry, like a certain debate in the Senate last session. This was on a certain point which was not agreeable to the Ministry, and the debate had not lasted 40 minutes when the closure was moved and the debate wa3 closed down. That was what would happen in the Assembly if the motion were carried. It was the biggest “flap doodle ” and a perfect fraud. The responsibility for applying the closure would be thrown on hon. members on the back benches who, of course, would be under the control of gentlemen on the Treasury benches. Suppose a debate was raised on the deportations, it would be open to any hon. member on the back benches, at the instigation of Ministers, to move the closure.

It had been said that the same rule existed in the British House of Commons, but the circumstances there were very different from what they were here. The late Mr. Parnell entered Parliament in 1875 with the set purpose of discrediting the House of Commons, and he made business impossible. It was a regular calculated policy to discredit the British House of Commons and to show that they could not carry on the legislative work of Great Britain, much less that of Ireland, so that there must be a separate Parliament for Ireland. Had that been the case here?

Yes.

Most assuredly not. The hon. member for Ladismith is not serious when he makes a statement of that kind. Continuing, Mr. Jagger said that no attempt had been made to obstruct Parliament and to bring it into ridicule in South Africa. Mr. Parnell continued his policy of obstruction from 1877 to 1881 before the closure was introduced. The motion under discussion, went on Mr. Jagger, was the biggest reflection on the management of the business of the House that had ever been made. (Hear, hear.) If it were carried one effect would be to rouse very strong feelings—much stronger party feelings than we had to-day, because the side which would be closured would have a grievance. One-half of the business of the House consisted of discussion, and It was right that the grievances of the people should be debated here.

The result would be that they would bring that House into more discredit than ever and they would create bitterness which did not exist at present. They would create a false impression if they applied the closure. What was the closure for, if it was not to interfere with the discussion? He very strongly objected to it, because it threw too much responsibility on the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees. Without making any reflection on the Chair, he thought it would destroy confidence in the House. It stood to reason that if the closure was applied hon. members would think that they had a grievance against the Speaker or the Chairman. In the House of Commons the circumstances were entirely different. Here the closure was not called for. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had said that there had been too many speeches. There might have been too many speeches, but the Minister would admit that every member of the House had a right to speak and to voice the opinion of his constituents. He granted that hon. members sometimes spoke too long, but he did not think the Minister was the right person to speak on that subject. He agreed that it might be right to restrict the length of speeches and then they would not be interfering with the rights of a member, but to take away from him the right to speak altogether was a different matter. He thought that some method of restricting the debates would be far more just than to apply the closure.

For how long?

said he was not prepared to suggest the time limit, but he thought the method proposed in the resolution was the most unjust that one could suggest. He did not think that they could oppose it too strongly, because it interfered with the rights of members. It was a machine to help the Government. He believed there was a strong feeling in the House that they should do nothing to impair the confidence that they had in the Chair. The time was not opportune for it, and he would strongly oppose the proposal.

said that when he read the resolution he had not known whether to laugh, to cry, or to yawn, but eventually he yawned. It appeared that in the case of the Prime Minister the fires had not yet burned down, or they would not have had such a hasty and ill-thought-out proposal as the one he had put forward. Had he foreseen the dangerous nature of the proposal he would not have brought it before the House. The drift of the proposal was to make Parliamentary business a game of catch-as-catch-can. To say that members of the New Zealand House could only talk for an hour was absolute nonsense, because he had heard members there speak for over three hours. Only recently a proposal was made to limit speeches, but it was laughed out of the House. There was not a single Parliament in Australasia which had the closure such as was proposed here. In New South Wales an hon. member might propose that the question be now put, but after that had been done the member who proposed it had the right to speak for half an hour in reply. In Queensland they had the same rule, and in Western Australia they found a much more modified form. In Canada a very harmless form of closure was proposed only recently, but there had been no chance yet to put it into effect. Mr. Gladstone had said that the oppression of the majority was detestable and odious. During the time they had been in that House they had had much oppression by the majority, and they were no Parliament at all in the true sense of the term. The minorities had no rights in that House except theoretically. He was grateful that the hon. Minister had told them that he had unbounded solicitude for the welfare of the country. To his (Mr. Haggar’s) mind, there had been no solicitude during the present session nor the previous three sessions. The House had done very little work, said the Minister. That was quite true, but why had it done so little? During the first session they had to find their feet, of course, but since then they had asked in vain for statesmanlike, needful legislation. The second session was taken up by a miserable racial squabble. Last session they had another squabble nearly all the time, and nothing was done that was worth doing. Some months ago Bills were brought before the House which they hoped would come to fruition, but they were withdrawn. Then the country woke up. The Ministers also were awakened up; they realised that the Romans would come, and the Romans did come.

Proceeding, Mr. Haggar said that the burden of the Prime Minister’s speech was the evil of these long discussions, but they had not by any means been a waste of time. They had brought the country to a consciousness of what they had not got, and of what they ought to have. And it had brought hon. members to a realisation that they had a duty to perform, a fact which many of them had hitherto ignored. The Prime Minister said they wanted this motion through to facilitate business, but there was another way To do that. He should bring business before the House in a businesslike fashion, so that hon. members could put their hearts and their heads into it, then he would find hon. members inclined to work. If he would close the billiard-room, and not have so much coffee going, hon. members would spend more time in the House, and take more interest in the discussions, and more business would be done. It was a matter for regret that hon. members took so little interest—so little, indeed, that it was often difficult to get a quorum. The Prime Minister had said that they must follow the House of Commons in the matter of the closure, but the closure was put on there in exceptional circumstances, and events have proved that the men who caused that closure to be put on were largely in the right. Mr. Gladstone said in the House of Commons that the prolongation of a debate even by persistent reiteration of an argument was not necessarily an outrage, or an offence, or an indiscretion. What did the Prime Minister expect to gain by his move? Did he expect to gain that co-operation which any Prime Minister must have if he was to succeed? Did he hope to retain the confidence that he had in the days gone by? They on the cross-benches believed that the action was deliberately aimed at them. He hoped to curtail them and to silence them, but he would never do that. They did not intend to be silent, when they had anything of importance to say or a duty to do. He wanted to keep down the professional politician. What was that?

There was one sin they on the cross benches were alleged to commit when they devoted all their time to their political work—the work they were sent there to do. They on the cross-benches devoted their time to study the interests of those who sent them there, and in order to properly master the questions of the day they were forced to do that. If they made their private interests first, they might be looked upon with much greater favour. The man who made politics his business was, in the mind of the Prime Minister, a political agitator. They did not mind that. It was because of the agitation and the education that was going on that the country was waking up—(Labour cheers)—and in consequence of that agitation and education, the country would become more progressive than it had been in the past. The Prime Minister wanted the co-operation of men who understood the social and industrial question equal to anybody in the country. If he wanted to make his measures a success, he must have that co-operation; and he (Mr. Haggar) wanted to warn the Prime Minister against the rash, foolhardy policy of thinking he would stop the policy of the hon. members on the cross-benches by curtailing what they had to say. That could not be done. He begged the Prime Minister not to force the hon. members on the cross-benches into an attitude of self-defence. They would take that attitude if they were forced into it. They would watch their opportunity, and not they, but hon. members on the Government side of the House, would suffer more than anybody else. The Prime Minister said he feared the sittings would be too long, and the best men would not come. Who were the best men? Were those the best men for the country’s good who made self-interest first? They heard too much in that House of “Hurry up, the rain is coming.” If hon. members had not time to devote their energy to the important work of the country, by all means let them go home, and let others come who would do it. They had great national problems looking them in the face, and instead of taking them full breast on, they had the Government playing with pettifogging affairs, and great national issues were being left alone. That was not the right way. There was another point, the incidence of the whole thing. He objected to any responsibility being put on the Speaker by the House, which the House ought to have the moral courage to retain in its own hands.

He was opposed to this being forced on an unwilling House, at least that portion of the House that took an intelligent interest in the affairs of the country. The reasons in favour of the motion would not hold water. It could not facilitate business. They had got all they needed in previous rulings, and he asked the Prime Minister not to try this little game on. He warned him that if the rule went through it would fail, and before long would cover the Government with shame.

put the question, and was proceeding to make the declaration, when

said that the hon. member for Von Brandis was on his feet.

I have put the question and no hon. member rose.

But the hon. member for Von Brandis was on his feet.

The voices have been given.

said that the hon. member for Von Brandis was on his feet before the question was put.

said that if that was so, the hon. member could go on, but he (Mr. Speaker) did not see the hon. member.

said that he thought the Prime Minister had not adduced sufficient reasons for them to adopt the motion. It was possible that at some future time it might be necessary, but the Prime Minister had not given sufficient reasons to show that that time had arrived. He referred to what happened in the British House of Commons in 1906, when the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies took advantage to make a statement on the attitude of the Government, on the question of responsible Government, for the Transvaal and Free State. The debate started between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, and at one minute to ten Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had just commenced to give his views, when the clock struck ten and the Chairman put the question. Did they want that sort of thing in that House? In connection with this matter he thought that the cleverness of the Government was too palpable. They did not want the power, but if they required a closure they would get it moved by some innocent back bencher.

Put in Minister.

Now we have found him out. (Laughter.)

He went on to say that the fact that the delay in connection with the Registration of Deeds Bill was due to the negligence of the Government, and also referred to the Administration of Estates Bill which only passed after three years. He pointed put that hon. members on his side of the House were prepared to sit a year if necessary in order to carry on the business of the country, and they had never asked the Government to close down a session. They had always been imbued with the high responsibility that rested upon their shoulders. He would oppose the motion.

said that he could not allow this proposal to go through without saying half a dozen words. He regretted the statement had been made that the Government had aimed this motion at hon. members on the cross-benches. That had been a most unfortunate admission. He thought it was most unfortunate that the Prime Minister should distinctly tell the House that this was aimed at one particular and one very small part of the House. He (Sir W. B. Berry) wished on behalf of the party on that side and on his own behalf to say that they had not asked for these resolutions to protect them against the members on the cross-benches or members on the other side. While it might be necessary in due course to have certain closure resolutions included in the Standing Rules and Orders, the time had not yet arrived, and it was most inopportune to introduce the resolutions brought before them that day. It was impossible to agree to resolutions of this kind without exposing the House further to the bad opinion which it had recently been incurring in the country.

The right hon. gentleman had said a great deal about members wasting the time of the House. He joined with those who held that very much of the blame, if not the whole of it, was to be laid at the door of those who were responsible for the conduct of business. An instance of that had been afforded by the recent Indemnity Bill, which ought to have formed the subject of two separate Bills. Then last session a most important measure was brought before the House which was not even mentioned in the speech of the Governor-General, namely, the Natives Land Bill. The remedy for useless talk in this House was the better preparation of the Bills that were to be brought before the House. He would like to remind his hon. friend that he might carry this by his majority, but a great writer had said that “it is excellent to have a giant’s strength but it is tyranny to use it like a giant,” and he was perfectly sure that if the right hon. gentleman used his great strength on this occasion to force through these re solutions he would be using it like a giant, It was most desirable that hon. members should know the real implication of these resolutions before they adopted them. He hoped the Prime Minister might be prevailed upon even now to withdraw this motion and bring it up in some other form and at some other time.

said he had listened with a great deal of pain to the discussion which had taken place, because it seemed to him to be a step back, a retrograde step. Hitherto they had been very proud in the Cape of one thing, and that was of their Parliament and of the orderly manner in which their debates were conducted, and upon the whole, he thought, the good amount of work done. They never had closure rules during the long term of its existence, and he did not think anybody could say that the amount of work done was at all inadequate, or that the work on the whole was bad. Of course, some of the measures passed were undoubtedly needless, but he thought that was the experience of every Legislature. (Hear, hear.) Short time as they had been in existence as a Union Parliament, they had passed some remarkably silly Bills, if he might venture to criticise the House, Bills which certainly some wiser Parliament would alter, if not repeal. (Hear, hear.) He listened with a great deal of attention to find some words in the Prime Minister’s speech which would justify the introduction of this motion—(hear, hear)— but he himself disclaimed any idea of obstruction. He, however, said there was one thing—he never knew the Prime Minister had such a delicate sense of humour—and that was that he introduced this to protect the rights of minorities. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) As a stroke of humour, he thought that would probably not be equalled this session at least—(hear, hear)— just as if they were to knock down a man with a bludgeon and say they did it for the good of his health. Very different indeed was the language used by Mr. Gladstone in his great speech in 1882, when he moved for the introduction of a closure proposal. He then said, “It is the first condition of Parliamentary existence for which we are now struggling.” Nobody could say that it was for the first condition of Parliamentary existence that they were now struggling in this House. Considering the passions involved and the great question of policy, although the debates on the Indemnity Bill which they had had were interminable, he did not think they could say that they were altogether wearisome to the last degree, but, on the whole, considering the importance of the subject, he did not think undue length of time was taken over that measure. They must consider that they had got to deal with a young Parliament and that the members who were introduced into that Parliament now for the first time had got yet to learn the great lesson which Parliament taught, namely, that people who wearied the House with much speaking and made bores of themselves were invariably the first people to suffer. In the same way, if he might venture to speak to so great an authority, the Government and the Prime Minister had got a lesson to learn yet, and that was that by forcing measures through, arbitrary measures, they were not doing themselves any good, but doing themselves infinite harm—(hear, hear)—and putting weapons into the hands of the very people whom they thought they were going to control by them. Had they not had a lesson within the last few weeks, when those people who had committed crimes— he thought he might call them “crimes,” because it was a crime to stir up social unrest—having committed that crime, having failed, having been utterly crushed down, had been literally picked up by the Government, put on horseback, and a flag placed in their hands? That was the result of the grand measure which was supposed to stifle them altogether. He remembered the time when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and his friends came down and boasted in the chamber close by that they had crushed what they had been pleased to call the South African Party or the Bond Party for ever by their Redistribution Bill. Then they entered into a conspiracy of silence, and the result was that in four years they were swept out of existence at the polls.

All these violent measures inevitably recoiled on those who made use of them. He was perfectly certain that if they passed this they would be forging a weapon which would be used against them to the utmost detriment of the country. The motion was not called for; there was no reason for it, and it had come like a bolt from the blue. It was said that they wanted to get on with useful legislation, but in the Governor-General’s speech at the opening of Parliament they were expressly told that owing to the state of unrest and unquiet of the country, it was not wise to go on with any large number of measures. Now that they had blown up the unrest and disquiet and the flames had been kindled, now was thought to be the time to put the flames out by bringing forward some very useful measures. He hoped they would be successful, but he was afraid not. The time for introducing this measure was most inopportune—a time when it was likely to do the maximum amount of harm, and when if anything were wanted to add to the accumulated feelings of the people this was the thing to do it. It, would be said, “You can’t beat us in fair fight, so you want to choke us out of existence.” (Cheers.) The proposal would only add to all the difficulties this unhappy country had to contend with at the present time. Let him turn to the question at issue. What was the object of Parliament? The object was by free discussion to learn the opinions of the collective people in the House. (Cheers.) The object was not, and he hoped it never would be in this country, merely to register the wishes and the will of the Government, and to have them embodied, maybe, in very faulty measures. The object of Parliament was to enable people to hammer out by free discussion the best course to adopt. How would this proposal work? A number of worthy gentlemen, and it was almost always the worthiest gentlemen who were anxious to speak first, would get up and speak. It might be that they would weary the House. Somebody then would propose the closure. It would be carried by a majority, and a large number of people whose counsels might have been of some value to the Government and the country would go home with their speeches unuttered. It might be good, but it was not Parliamentary Government. (Hear, hear.) But it would suit the Minister of Defence admirably. (Hear, hear.) That was exactly the sort of Government he would like to see—(cheers) —Ministers lolling on the benches taking no part in the discussion, a button touched, an obedient brigade trooping in, and the thing over. He (Mr. Merriman) would be very sorry to see that. It would not be for the good of the country, and it would create bitter dissatisfaction. If there was one thing to degrade Parliament in the outside eyes it was not wearisome discussion, but the idea that a measure was forced on the country without adequate discussion.

If they polled the country now and collected from the people what the real opinion was on the action of the Government in deporting men without trial it would be found that the country was against them, and would be in favour of the people who had discussed the matter at considerable length. Do not let Government make the mistake of thinking that people were with them on that point.

said that the hon. member must not refer to the deportations.

I give it as an illustration that the absence of discussion is against the spirit of Parliament.

You must not traverse old debates.

How am I—

The whole of that debate has been finished with by the passage of the Indemnity Act.

Is that Act on the Statute Book? May I not criticise an Act on the Statute Book?

The right hon. member may not traverse that debate.

I am not traversing that debate. I should be the last person indeed to wish to do so. We have quite enough—

No further reference to that debate can be made.

“Oh, no, we never mention it; its name is never heard”— (laughter)—except outside this place at the polls. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, Mr. Merriman said they had heard a great deal about the closure in other countries, but in other countries members of Parliament threw inkpots at one another, had fights on the floor of the House, and the Speaker sometimes had to ring his bell, but we had not come to that yet here. What was the result of the adoption of the closure in the British Parliament? Did it suppress the Irish members? Did it in any way strengthen the hands of the Government that brought it in? No. But it had been the means of passing some most desirable Acts, without proper discussion. It had been the means of introducing legislation by regulation which led to endless trouble and pleased no one except the lawyers. Could any person honestly say that the British Parliament, since the passage of the closure, had increased in favour with the outside public? Certainly not, it had diminished. But he would not say it was on account of that, but the British Parliament was no longer held in the same esteem it was, and he predicted if we passed this closure if it were a dead letter well and good, but it would be a foolish thing to have on the Book, and it would be a weapon to be used by some tyrannical Ministry, and they could not always be sure that they were going to have an impartial Speaker or Chairman. (Hear, hear.) He would ask hon. members who were gaily supporting this motion, did they know what closure by compartments was or what the kangaroo clause was? Did they know that they had to be exercised by the Chairman ?

It is not included here.

That is the Postmaster General. (Laughter.) I do not suppose he has read the proposal, but he gave us a very interesting and luminous speech just now. The motion contained the following words: “And that the following consequential amendment be made in Standing Order No. 280, viz., in lines 8 and 9, to omit ‘with the exception of the Closure procedure.’ ” What did that mean? Whenever there was any doubt they went to the Rules of the House of Commons, which embodied all these things, and they would see their very excellent Chairman, upon whose judgment and discretion he had the utmost confidence, but still it was a great power to put in his hands, they would have the Chairman selecting the amendments to be put. This was “sniggled in” in such a way that no one would notice it. He (Mr. Merriman) would take his own opinion rather than that of a Postmaster-General. He was sure that hon. members did not know what the English procedure was.

There were other ways of enabling Government to push through that useful legislation which was not on the Order Paper. One way had been mentioned—the shortening of speeches. For his part, he had a great leaning towards that. (Hear, hear.) The greatest sinner in this respect had been the Minister of Defence, because there was no man who could compress himself better than he if he chose, but in his Ciceronian oration he spoke for six hours, and of course set the tune of the debate. If a man could not say all that he had to say in an hour, there must be something wrong with him; the ordinary men should be able to do it in twenty minutes, and in Committee at the outside in ten minutes, although he (Mr. Merriman) would prefer five. It was not necessary for any hon. member to speak for more than one hour. As soon as a man spoke beyond what he wanted to say, people jumped up and one by one filed out, and so the House got thinned down. A man did not see that he was boring the House, and he went on and the unfortunate gentlemen in the gallery had to listen to him and take him down. He must see that he was not doing the same. (Laughter.) That was the tendency, and he thought that the shortening of the speeches would be a much better way of getting at what they wanted to do than the introducing of a measure which would be misunderstood in the country and would do more harm than good. He thought it was necessary that hon. members should have that information before them and that the matter should be thoroughly threshed out first. It did seem a scandal that they should alter the whole of the parliamentary procedure after a flimsy discussion like the one this afternoon. He moved: That the subject matter of the proposed Closure Standing Order be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders for consideration, and that it be an instruction to the Committee to bring up a report within one week.

seconded the amendment. He said he did not think that anybody could say that the discussion on the Indemnity Bill justified the introduction of the closure rule. Taking it as a whole, he did not think that anybody could say that that discussion was excessive—it was not so excessive that anybody could say it justified the closure. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had disclaimed that the Rules were being introduced on account of obstruction. If there was no obstruction why should they introduce the rules? What were they introduced for? The arguments that had been adduced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs were mutually destructive, because with one breath they said there was no intention to stop discussion, but that the loquacity of members was so great that something must be done to get on with the work, and in the same breath they said the rule would never or very seldom be put into force. If the rule was to have any effect it would have to be put into operation pretty frequently. What was the use of the rules if they were not going to effect any real purpose? No man dared say what was going to happen in South Africa even within the next three months. History was being made so fast that no man could say what was going to happen. Why should they put that weapon into the hands of the Ministry which had a majority, when it was a weapon that was not going to be used and was not going to be effective? It was perfectly true that people were complaining of the want of constructive legislation, and it was always put down to members of Parliament, but the responsibility rested with the Ministry.

It was said why not have a time limit? Time limits had been tried, but they had never been effective. If they limited the speeches and allowed members to abuse the rules of the House they could make so many speeches that they arrived at the same result—obstruction. But they had had no obstruction. Why then did they want to limit the speeches ? It was a dangerous power to give the Government. There was nothing that was going to do more harm to discussion than that power. Let them take the case of the Public Health Bill, which was discussed two years ago. Had they heard anything about it since? No. Because the discussion in the House had shown that the country was not in favour of it, but if the closure had been in force they would have had that Bill. Then there was the measure which the Minister of Railways and Harbours had described as the Civil Service Relief Bill. Let them look at the change that came over the scene after the discussion they had had in that House. If they had had the closure would they have seen that change? One could go on giving illustrations of the danger they ran it they placed in the hands of irresponsible members the right to claim a closure and the danger there was in not having proper discussion. How many members had the faintest notion of what that motion meant? The Minister of Mines might be a perfect encyclopédia regarding rules and regulations, but he (the speaker) and his hon. friend the member for Queen’s Town did not know what they meant. He did not know what the meaning of section 2 was. He agreed with the hon. member for Victoria West that no one had realised what might be the meaning of the last proviso. If they took Rule 208 and cut out the words proposed to be omitted, on the face of it they were introducing the kangaroo. That was not intended, that was all the more reason why they should not rush those rules through. He was perfectly sure that until the hon. member for Victoria West pointed out the possibility of that rule, including the guillotine and the kangaroo, members had not grasped what it meant. He would be glad if the Minister of Mines would tell him what would have been the effect of sub-section 2 in regard to the discussion of the schedule of the Indemnity Bill. He ventured to say that would cost the Minister a good deal or trouble. No reason had been advanced why the suggested rules should be introduced at all, and the House was asked to agree to the whole of those rules without—he was convinced of that—without understanding exactly what the effect would be. Some hon. members would be surprised at the possibilities of the application of the rules. If the hon. Minister persisted in that matter, he should allow the House sufficient time to consider what those rules meant. Personally, he (Sir H. H. Juta) saw no reason for the rules at all. (Hear, hear.) They would be misinterpreted and misconstrued; they would do much harm and no good, for it was stated they would very seldom be brought into operation. The best principle of the Chair was to protect the minority, and by those rules it was proposed to place the onus on the Speaker to decide when the minority had had sufficient say. That was a serious responsibility, and one which no Speaker would be ready to exercise. Therefore, the closure motion would be one that would rarely be moved, and would very seldom be put into operation. A dangerous power like that should not be put into the hands of a majority. Even in the House of Commons, when they had to deal with obstruction carried to the extent of a fine art, they had a safeguard in the rule that there must be a hundred majority, but under those rules a majority of one would be sufficient. That would lead to an abuse of Parliamentary discussion. To institute the suggested change would lead them down a very dangerous path indeed. (Cheers.)

said he wished to say but a very few words on this motion. If every other instance quoted by the Prime Minister was as correct as that about the closure in the Free State, then he could not say much for the accuracy of the speech. The position in the Free State in the past had been that only if three-fourths of the members were in favour of the closure it could be applied, but even then members who had not spoken still had an opportunity of stating their views. He would support a similar procedure in the Union Parliament if the Prime Minister would propose it. He (the speaker) was not going over the ground which had been covered by other hon. members, nor was he going to point out again how extremely inopportune the time was for introducing this motion. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Prime Minister himself had stated that there had been no obstruction to justify the introduction of this motion. But he had said: “The interests of the country demanded it”—always the interests of the country. (Laughter.) The greatest crimes had been committed “in the interest of the country.” As to the hon. the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, it seemed to him he was fighting shadows of coming events. Well, it was very bad to fight shadows. Why not wait till the time came when something actual had to be fought? This motion reminded him very much of an action which had been taken by the Government a short while ago for the purpose of frustrating a so-called complot, and just as the Government was sorry to-day for having taken that action, he foresaw the day when they would be sorry that they had introduced this motion. Now the House was told that the Government wanted to do some work. Was that so? At the beginning of the session they had been told that there would be hardly anything to do, as the conditions rendered further legislation at the present time undesirable. That was six weeks ago, and as a matter of fact only one small measure was on the Table now. (A Voice: “It has been withdrawn.”) What, had the Peace Preservation Bill been withdrawn? (“Yes.”) Well, he was amazed, and so would the country be.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continued his speech by saying that the Prime Minister seemed to be a little uncertain as to what sort of argument he should advance, and had summed up the legislation which was necessary to be passed. The Government had not, however, created the conviction that there was a great deal of work to do, and had even announced solemnly enough that there was very little work. And now they heard that a Bill of great importance had that day been withdrawn. The speaker doubted very much whether the motion was a serious one. The fear that was felt or expressed for the future was entirely without any basis. He was going to move an amendment, which he hoped would have the approval of the Prime Minister. His amendment was as follows, to add at the end of sub-section 4: “And provided that the question shall not be considered as decided in the affirmative unless at least two-thirds of the total number of members voting on the question vote in favour of the motion; and provided, further, that in case the question shall be decided in the affirmative, every member who has not yet spoken on the motion under discussion shall retain the right to speak upon the same.” The Prime Minister had spoken strongly in favour of the English system, and thought apparently that his motion was necessary, for fear that the shadows might become realities. Well, the amendment would save time. The amendment would mean that both in the House and in Committee all members would have the right to speak, but only to speak once. Most of the obstruction—when there was obstruction—took place in Committee. There were 121 members in the House, of which 61 at least stood behind the Government. With the exception of the Minister who spoke, these 61 were generally silent, so that the Minister had nothing to fear from them. He thought, however, that every member should have the right to speak. After the 61 on the Government’s side there were, out of the remaining 60, the 38 in Opposition. Those who wished to speak had not the right to prevent others from speaking. Small factions also had the right to speak. He was pleased that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and his friends had at last woke up to their duty, and he wished to say that if the Opposition had done their duty earlier this foolish motion would never have been introduced. As a matter of fact, the attitude of the Opposition had encouraged the Government to introduce this motion. The facts mentioned by the Prime Minister in regard to the Indemnity Act displayed a very unsound state of affairs, but all the same the Government had no right to try and close the mouths of any section of this House. He (the speaker) wished to support the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West, but if the Government did not accept that, he hoped his (the speaker’s) amendment would be accepted.

seconded the amendment.

said that they had heard two Ministers endeavour to justify the motion on the paper. He did not know whether they had convinced anybody but themselves of the strength of their case. He did not think so. They had both disclaimed the idea that this new Rule of Order was designed because of past obstruction. If that were so, taking their own statement that the necessity was to get their Bills through faster than had been the case in the past, that statement merely pointed to the fact that the Government wanted more power in their hands. There were a good many members in this House who viewed with a good deal of alarm the amount of power which the Government were gathering into their hands. It seemed to him that it would be a disastrous thing if, added to that, they were to give the Government these very drastic powers that they were now asking for. The House of Commons had been adduced as an example. Now the whole tendency of events in the House of Commons was not to improve that body as a popular Assembly. The whole tendency of events in the House of Commons for a long time had been to lessen the power of the House itself as a popular Assembly and increase the power of the Government, and one of the means by which it had been achieved had undoubtedly been the closure. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had spoken almost lovingly of the “kangaroo” closure and closure by compartments, and he had almost wished this House to follow suit. He (Mr. Baxter) maintained that it would be a very disastrous thing if it came to that in this House. Bills that had been brought down by the Government during the last four sessions had only been licked into shape in the course of their passage through the House. If the closure were going to be accepted as a settled thing, it simply meant that the Government who, he presumed, would not improve in the drafting of Bills, would bring their Bills down to the House, force them through by means of the closure, and they would be allowed to go through with all their crudities. The justification for this closure which the Government had given was undoubtedly that they wanted to press their measures through in a hurry. That was not going to make for good legislation, or freedom of speech or the freedom of Parliament. They knew that it was the Labour benches the Government had their eyes upon in bringing forward these proposals—(hear, hear)—but sooner or later this big weapon which they were asking the House to pass was going to be directed against any Opposition. Now, he claimed that the Opposition was just as necessary in the parliamentary system of any country as the Government. He reminded the House of what happened almost on the final day of last session, when, at the last minute, proposals were introduced with reference to the excise on wine brandy. Very strong exception was taken by members on that side of the House to the Government’s proposals on that occasion, and hour after hour that Saturday the Opposition were ramming home to the Government the falsity of the proposals and the wrongness of their proposals. If the closure had been in operation, would, he asked, the House have come to the conclusion that it did? He did not think so. It seemed to him an instance, a very pointed instance, where, if these closure proposals had been in operation, the House would have been deliberately led to a false conclusion. What he argued was that there was no necessity up to now in anything which had happened in the Union Parliament since it had met in 1910 to justify these drastic proposals. He did not say but what circumstances might arise when such a measure might be necessary, but that time had not yet arrived. The House had reason to be suspicious on account of the way in which that Bill had been brought forward, as only one day’s notice was given for a measure of such importance. Was it not a case in which the Government were clearing the decks for action, for the purpose of bringing in other drastic measures? The Minister of Finance smiles, but he is most dangerous when he is smiling. (Laughter and cheers.) They knew from the Bills which had already been gazetted, and in other cases foreshadowed, that some drastic legislation was proposed, and the Government wanted all the power in their hands to enable them to carry those measures. It appeared to him that the proposals were altogether too strong for the present circumstances, and the powers too great to place in the hands of the Government.

said that the course which that debate had taken, having occupied hours, was an excellent commentary on the proposals made by the Government in the Bill. It showed their way of dealing with arguments. The Prime Minister, who introduced the motion, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours, who purported to make some sort of a reply to what had then been said, were the only members on the Government side who had spoken to the motion. Although a number of members on the Opposition side and several on the Government side of the House had most strongly attacked the proposals, yet that House, with the exception of the two Ministers already mentioned, had been left without any reply from the Government benches. But that was what the Government wanted. They wished to gag Parliament in order not to expose the emptiness of the Government’s policy. The Prime Minister had admitted that there had been no obstruction, but the Minister of Railways and Harbours had spoken about the loquacity of members on the cross-benches, so that evidently he did not agree with the Prime Minister that there had been no obstruction. The real pretext for the introduction of that Bill was the recent discussion on the Indemnity Bill, and was intended as a check on the Labour Party. The Minister thought by such measure he was going to better the position of the Government, but he (Mr. Creswell) would tell him that the latest proposal of his was consistent with the petulant manner which expressed itself in the declaration of Martial Law. But the Bill was not going to stop the party to which he (Mr. Creswell) belonged, but would strengthen its position far more than the Government’s Indemnity Bill had ever done. There was either obstruction in the House or there was not. The Prime Minister had stated that there had been no obstruction. In that case there had been useful discussion. That being so, the Bill now proposed was going to stop useful legislation in the future. Obstruction, however, was really the charge, and they would discuss it openly and squarely from that standpoint. The reason for this charge of obstruction being brought was that the party who professed to be in opposition failed to do its duty, and the cross-benches were left to bear that responsibility. If the Opposition had not thus failed in its duty the position which the cross-benches had been compelled to take up would not have appeared in the light in which it did. They would remember that the first all-night sitting was through no fault of the cross-benches; but the ukase had gone forth that the Bill must be passed before the Umgeni arrived in London. The next occasion arose out of one of the clauses of the Bill when the Minister of Defence made that House sit up during the long dreary night. But did he gain time? No, not a bit, for when the House rose on Friday morning the Minister moved the adjournment until Monday. Was that, he (Mr. Creswell) asked, the fault of the Labour Party that the time of the House was lost in that manner? That was not the first time, and as long as the Ministry maintained their present intolerable attitude it would not be the last time. He would ask hon. members not to consent to that radical alteration in the procedure of that House in order to enable the Ministry to cover up their incompetent conduct of the affairs of that House.

Then they had that long, protracted sitting. Could any hon. member say that there had been any obstruction there? Could any hon. member say that on his conscience? For an average of two and a half hours for each man that House had been considering the sentence and deciding the fate of these nine men. Were two and a half hours per man an excessive amount to devote to each man’s delinquencies and to endeavour to obtain from the Minister by all the ingenuity in their power some information upon which he proposed to ask that House to sentence these men? All through that time they had been endeavouring to obtain any information, but the Minister had sat like a Sphinx, and not a word would he contribute to the enlightenment of the House. It was they (the Ministers) who had obstructed. They were the members who had obstructed and made it impossible to carry on the business of the House properly. It was that stony silence and that refusal to recognise the rights of Parliament which wanted curbing, and not the legitimate rights of members and the rights to voice what their constituents had sent them there to voice. Let them first set their own house in order, and let them reflect on their own conduct to the House. It was their own conduct which was primarily at fault, and let them not ask the House to pass new rules, which would lead to the entire undoing of Parliament. The right hon. gentleman (the Prime Minister) had quoted Mr. Gladstone that the first condition of Parliamentary existence was at stake, but Mr. Gladstone had quoted that in a different sense. In the present instance they could each equally allege that the first condition of Parliamentary existence was at stake, and in a very different sense. They (the Labour members) strove for a revival of the first conditions of Parliamentary existence, and they were making it more and more difficult for the Ministers to treat Parliament with the contempt with which they were accustomed to treat it.

So much for the facts and for the charge of obstruction. He said that the work which circumstances had placed upon them (Labour members)—work inadequately done, as it might have been—had been, he ventured to say, of inestimable value to the country. He said so without the least diffidence, because to-day they were able to put their fingers on the result of that work. On that part of the country principally affected (the Transvaal), he did not say that the result would have been so profoundly different, but the elections which had taken place in the Transvaal a week or so ago must have convinced the Prime Minister that something extraordinary had taken place, and he (Mr. Creswell) said that in no small measure had that extraordinary result been contributed to by the spectacle which had been presented to the country of members on the Labour benches challenging the Government and showing the nakedness of their position, when the Government and their allies—the Opposition—had frequently been silent while the Labour members were defending the liberties of the people. It might be called ungracious for him to say so, but the result had also been shown in that Parliament on that side of the House, and they (the Opposition) must now give some semblance of reality to the resolution (which they had adopted at one of their Congresses) that they must adopt a more vigorous policy of opposition to the Government. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) had that afternoon been quite vivid in his attack on the Government. These members had been as lacking in the duties of an Opposition as any Opposition in the history of Parliaments had been. That motion had not only had a good effect on the country, but also on that House. There had been no opposition from the Opposition in that most critical time of the country’s history. He was not accusing hon. members altogether of electioneering, but the tremendous bump they had got the week before last had no doubt had an effect and wakened them up, and shown that they had been going on an altogether wrong tack—and now for some weeks they would, no doubt, have some semblance of opposition. (Labour laughter.) He held that no effective opposition could come from a party which would go on the same lines as the Government if they were in power; and they could have no Opposition unless there was some conflict of principles.

Let them mark a secondary effect—the position they (the Opposition) put up on the Railway Strike Bill and the support they had given the Labour Party in the later stages. When they (the Labour Party) had asked for a complete indemnity, and for a complete amnesty, they had got no support from them except from one member— who had since left them. Let them take the effect upon the Government itself. Had that clear expression of opinion from the country had no effect on the Government? Did any hon. member venture to say that the Minister would have made such a radical alteration to the Bill which he had made? Certainly not. They knew that the same arrogant tone which had characterised the second speech of the Minister would have characterised him throughout. But a very great amelioration had taken place in that Bill, and his only regret was that it was not greater. Besides the Railway Strike Bill, would the Peace Preservation Bill have been withdrawn? No, that would not have been withdrawn—although they still had to see what that little substitute in its place would be. Might they guess that with their usual lack of real perception the Ministry were doomed to disappointment, because hon. members on that (the Opposition) side would now try to appear the incorruptible champions of the liberties of the people, and that that little changeling would not meet with the welcome which the Minister of Defence probably expected it would receive from the Opposition. (Labour laughter.) The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and his friends had asked for a measure of that sort, and had been somewhat embarrassed when, in response to their request, that Bill had been introduced. They would not have the Opposition really fighting that proposal if they had not had that result in the country. “But for small mercies we are thankful,” said Mr. Creswell, “and we are thankful that the Opposition has woken up.” From any charge of obstruction they on the cross-benches could defend themselves. They saw from its after-effects that the position they had taken up had been amply and fully justified, and so far from affording any ground whatever for the present proposal, their action gave the strongest reason for a refusal to gag the debate. They might be put in a similar position again, and the real Opposition would have again to fall upon a handful of members of that House.

Having disposed of the real reasons why the motion had been brought in, let them now pass to some of the subterfuges and the ostensible reasons advanced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for the introduction of that motion.

The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs objected to loquacity. Had he given any ground for the House to think that he could judge as to what was loquacity? Even he was not able to realise the capacity of the arguments that had been used by the hon. members on the cross-benches. Those arguments had appeared to appeal to those to whom they were responsible very much more than they had appealed to hon. Ministers in that House. They all admitted that it was a function of Parliament to afford the country a platform upon which they could see the policy of the country properly discussed. The Prime Minister wanted to limit that discussion. He wanted to prevent things being properly discussed. What were his reasons? He objected on the ground of the difficulty of getting business through the House. With all his statesmanlike qualities the Prime Minister did not appear to influence the debates in the House nor to facilitate business. It was one of the functions of a Minister to wind up a debate, but if he was to do that efficiently he must have some appreciation of the way in which the debate should be wound up. He (Mr. Creswell) did not wish to be offensive to the Prime Minister, but if the right hon. gentleman would set his mind back to some of those one and a half hour winding-up speeches to the Committee it would be evident that they were more like the winding-up of an eight-day clock. (Laughter.) Many times the Prime Minister, so far from helping the finish of the debate, had started it off again with a new lease of life, and he should recognise that some small share of the blame was upon his shoulders. Then he said that legislation was almost impossible under the present conditions. The slaughter of the innocents at the end of each session had already been alluded to. In 1913 there were 15 orders of the day on the votes and proceedings on the concluding day. So incompetently had the Government controlled their followers that they could not keep them, but had to let them go to their farms. All those adjourned debates at the end of the session meant Parliamentary time. If they had judged the capacity of the House with more judgment they would have had fewer Bills and would have passed more of them. All things attempted, nothing done, was generally the condition of business at the end of the session. In 1912 before those obstructive tactics began there were 30 Orders of the Day on the concluding day of the session which were disposed of. The Prime Minister said they must have this motion or sit longer, and in the latter case they would not get the best men to carry on the business of the country. He (Mr. Creswell) did not know who the best men were. In the course of his speech the Prime Minister told them that some of the best men of the country would refuse to stand for Parliament if there was to be a heavier tax on their time than five months, and that would cause great dissatisfaction throughout the country. If hon. members were going to place their private interests before the interests of the country in determining whether they should sit another month or two to finish business, what security had the country that they would not place their private interests first. There was evidence from several constituencies that if some of those gentlemen did not come forward again the country would not altogether welter in its distress.

The Prime Minister had explained that the resolution would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the House, that meant between the discretion of the Speaker and the oppression of the minority. The steam roller only existed in the imagination of journalists and certain hon. members of that House. (Laughter.) But the Prime Minister must admit that either one of the Ministers or one of his supporters at a given time, with the approval of the Minister in charge of the Bill would move the closure. Of course the minority had the protection of the Chair, but as had already been said they had no security as to who would hold the office of Speaker in the future, and it was imposing far too great a strain on any occupant of the Chair to leave such a decision in his hands. If the question was allowed to be put, were they not all familiar with the sight of a little nod by the Minister of Defence or the Prime Minister; and the “Noes” or the “Ayes” had it, as the case might be. Then there was a call for a division. When that division was called would there not be a procession of hon. members from the billiard room who, on entering the House would ask on which side they should vote? Then it was said there was no steam roller.

The Prime Minister had said that Parliament must not lose its reputation with the Country. He (Mr. Creswell) heartily agreed, but he suggested that the best way for the Government to preserve the House was to recognise its constitutional position and not keep this House sitting when it no longer represented the country. The Prime Minister had talked about the House of Commons, but there was no parallel. There were over six hundred members in the House of Commons; there were 121 members in that House. There was, however, one parallel, and that was a very curious one. The introduction of the closure rule in the House of Commons was caused by the embarking of the Government of the day on a policy of coercion. It was owing to the impossibility of getting that policy of coercion in the form of Bills through the House of Commons that caused the Government of the day to adopt the attitude that it did. To-day that policy was recognised by all parties in the House as a bad policy. He ventured to say that the country did not and would not know that the reason of the lack of legislation in that House was not due to any fault of the institution of Parliament, but was owing to the real policy of the Government and the lack of ability on the part of the Government to guide the proceedings of that House. It had been said that they should have some limitation—that there should be a time limit. They on those benches were against all those limitations. He did not think anyone could say that the real reason was that within a certain time it was possible for every one to state every argument which he thought necessary to bring to the notice of the House. The right hon. member for Victoria West had said that a man could say all he had to say in an hour. But they had not the wonderful capacity for compression which was a characteristic of the right hon. gentleman, and he agreed with the hon. member who said it was better to have a little too much talk than to put such a gag in the hands of the Government. The fact was it was exactly the same spirit which produced Martial Law, which conceived that iniquitous Peace Preservation Bill, that spirit of petulant intolerance to ideas which did not suit them that was expressing itself in that resolution, not content with taking the power to gag people outside, when liberty of speech was most valuable to them, but gagging them in Parliament assembled so that the nakedness of the Government’s policy should not be too indecently exposed to the public gaze. (Labour cheers.)

said he was one of those people who did not like the liberty of any member interfered with, and he wished every member to be placed in a proper position to enable him to represent his constituency. But because he thought so, he was going to support the motion. Under present circumstances he held there was no doubt that all the time of the House was monopolised by one section, with the result that those members who were in the majority were rather at a disadvantage. Members who were in the majority fully realised that if they occupied as much time as those who were in the minority, they would have to sit here from January to January. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said that the interests of this House were best served by a full and free discussion. That was so but for four years members on the Government side of the House had been practically muzzled. They had, so to speak, muzzled themselves in the interests of the country, because they did not think that a taxpayer would stand it if they were kept here throughout the year. And again, the result of this had been that members on the cross-benches had gone to the country and had told the country that members behind the Government had never any arguments to offer, and were a silent majority. As to certain arguments of the hon. member for Jeppe, who had spoken about the interests of the country, he wished to remind him that long before his (Mr. Creswell’s) name was known in this country he (General Smuts) and others had fought for the interests of the country, and it was not right for the hon. member to say that members on the Government benches placed their own interests before those of the country. The hon. member only reminded him of the proverbial frog, and he wondered if the hon. member knew what happened to that frog. (Laughter.)

Of course, he could quite understand what hon. members were driving at continually. They simply wished to draw from one of the Ministers something on which they might go on talking for another few days. He wished to tell hon. members on the cross-benches who reproached him with putting his private interests before the interests of the country, that they appeared to have no interests in the country. He was not one of those who, if things did not prosper with him in this country, could go to Australia or elsewhere. He had to stay in this country to make a living for himself and his children. But they had before them the example of a number of people who had voted in Johannesburg, but who were now over the sea on their way to some other country, and these were the people who, as a rule, wished to teach them what the interests of the country were. Hon. members on the cross-benches were still too young to this country, and if they would learn a little more of the country they would talk somewhat differently. What did hon. members want, he asked. Did they wish the country to be represented by millionaires making a hobby of politics and by people who simply went in for politics in order to make a living out of it, or by people who had the interest of the country at heart, but who would be unable to stand for Parliament if they had to be here all the year?

Of course, it was quite natural for hon. members on the cross-benches and in the Opposition to retard the progress of Parliament so that afterwards they might be able to tell the country that the Government had been unable to get on and that it was deserving of a vote of no confidence.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had spoken truly when he said that the best thing for the interests of the country was that they should be discussed openly. That was why the speaker was in favour of a modification of their procedure which had muzzled him and his friends for the past four years. He protested against that, as the public began to think that he and his friends were not doing their duty, whilst the real fact was that the time of the House was taken up by long speeches from a small minority. He pointed to the case of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who brought forward a motion last year which had occupied six weeks, and now the hon. member turned round and blamed the Government.

Then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had quoted a case from the year 1904, when another Speaker had spontaneously applied the closure when he considered the discussion had lasted long enough; and he approved that action. And the hon. member followed with a violent flood of words to oppose the Prime Minister’s motion.

The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had referred to Parnell, and said that he went to Parliament with the sole object of preventing Parliament from doing any work. Well, he and others were not going to be muzzled all the time and leave the debates entirely to the members of the Labour party. It was the right of every member to speak, and that was why he supported the motion.

As to the amendments of the hon. member for Smithfield, he could not see that the closure had had such detrimental effects in other countries. Furthermore, he failed to see the point in the hon. member’s amendment. What was the good of having a closure at all if, after a two-thirds majority had agreed to close the debate, members who had not yet spoken would still be able to speak. That was not a closure. Some remark had been made by one hon. member that in the Senate the closure had been applied when a debate had been in progress for forty minutes. His information about that was that that was not so, and that the debate in question had been in progress for four days when an amendment was proposed, on which the closure was applied after it had been discussed for a further forty minutes. Concluding, General Smuts asked what the result would have been if on the Indemnity Bill debate all members had spoken as long as the members on the cross benches? Why, they would never have finished. If they had a closure procedure which required a two-thirds majority before it could be applied, and which even then permitted everyone to speak who had not previously spoken, what, he asked, remained of the closure? He did not see the least danger in the Government’s proposals, and he was going to vote for the motion.

said that the speech they had just listened to was, he thought, a complete justification for two propositions: (1) That the proposals of the Prime Minister were wholly unnecessary and entirely premature; and (2) that the hon. members who supported the Government usually sit silent for a very good reason. The speech of the hon. member (General T. Smuts) showed a complete misconception of the functions of Parliament. He had waxed indignant because he said he could not see why the majority should allow the minority to monopolise debate, and he was more indignant at the suggestion that that should be so because hon. members on the Government side were not as able to express their opinions as hon. members on the cross-benches. Well, he (Mr. Botha) did not know for what reason the Government usually kept their followers quiet. It was not the fault of the people who expressed their opinions in this House that they sat for a long time. There were a variety of reasons why they were kept there. He thought if the hon. member would discuss this question with himself impartially, he would find that the main reason for the extremely slow way in which they carried on their business was the manner in which the Government conducted the business of the House. Mr. Botha went on to say that the hon. member for Jeppe had given them that evening an exhibition of the most extraordinary egotistical vanity. He would like the hon. member to consider whether this was the time for the personal vanity he had displayed in telling them that all this hubbub was caused by the very able way in which he and his colleagues had conducted their part of the debate on the Indemnity Bill. Let him assure the hon. member and his friends that they were not yet Atlases. As to the recent elections, he thought there were a great number of causes that contributed to the results they had seen, but he believed that the people of South Africa would come in time to see that the members on that side of the House had, on the questions which had recently agitated this country, taken up a correct attitude in granting indemnity for the acts which had been committed, and refusing to assist the Government in perpetuating their acts of violence. It seemed to him that, for the Government to justify the proposals that they had brought forward, it was essential for them to show that these proposals were necessary. The only way in which they could do so was to show that the members of the House had abused the liberty and the right of free speech. He did not think a single argument had been adduced in favour of that position.

There was one phrase which the Minister had used which should gain the attention of the House. He had justified this proposal by saying “that liberty as a rule ought not to be interfered with.” He (Mr. Botha) would like to know when he proposed interfering with that liberty.

When he interferes with the liberty of other people.

said the Minister should have come out deliberately with the accusation that members were abusing the privileges of the House, but the Minister knew perfectly well that that contention would not hold water.; or he should have said that members were no longer satisfied with liberty, but wanted licence. If the Minister intended to say licence instead of liberty, then he had not brought forward one argument in proof that members on that side of the House had displayed licence. They had been taunted on that side of the House in respect of the motives that inspired them to oppose the Government proposals. He (Mr. Botha) wondered what motives inspired the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs when he sat with the Opposition? He (Mr. Botha) did not doubt but what those motives were absolutely pure, but it did seem extraordinary that he now taunted members on that side of the House where some little while ago he sat. He thought the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who put forward the case of the Government, had done more to condemn the Bill than anything that had been said from the Opposition benches. He (Mr. Botha) did not know why the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) should bring forward an amendment, although he could understand the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) doing so. Such a motion as was now before the House, he (Mr. Botha) knew would not have been accepted in the Parliament of the Free State without a two-thirds majority. Hon. members were in that House not only to stand up for their own liberty, but for the rights of those people who sent them there, and for those members of Parliament who would follow in after years. Once they had these rules they would never be able to get rid of them. The references which had been made to the Mother Parliament, and the Parliaments of the Dominions, had no weight with him, as he contended that no Parliament had a right to stifle debate until there had been a thorough and complete discussion of the questions before it. The members on the cross-benches had been entitled to put up that fight on the Indemnity Bill, particularly so when the Government had acted contrary to the laws of the country

said it was perfectly natural when a motion of that sort was brought forward in that House where nothing of the sort existed before that there should be an apprehension of an attempt to hamper the freedom of speech. That attitude had been taken up in every Assembly where the proposal had been made, and quite reasonably too. And yet one would imagine from the discussion that had taken place that every great Legislative Assembly of the world had not already adopted the method. It was a fact that almost all the great legislative bodies had been forced to adopt some method of cutting off debate. Of course, members on the Government benches were conscious of the fact that they were not going to sit on those benches all their lives, and that the same law would operate against them under other circumstances. They on the Government benches knew what it was to be in opposition, and to sit in front of a Government which always asserted its will with a majority of ten behind it. Of course, he did not dispute that they had the right to do so. Continuing, the Minister said the debate had largely rested on the idea that the Prime Minister had declared that there had been no obstruction. That was decided by a misunderstanding, as he had never said so. What he did say was that he did not specially introduce this measure because of obstruction. Of course, there had been obstruction of a most emphatic character.

When?

I need not tell the House when because it is notorious, but when it is said that the Prime Minister had given the case away, then the debate took a line which was neither fair to the Prime Minister nor to the Government. They had been driven to adopting this measure not because of obstruction, but because the Government were not able to get through the work of the country without it.

They had failed to carry on their principal objective. As to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), he could hardly believe that the hon. member had been in earnest. He had been in such a towering rage about the motion that he (Mr. Burton) thought it must be stage thunder, because he knew that there was no hon. member who was more intent upon business being done than that hon. member, and they all recognised it. The hon. member had said that the Government wanted to use the steam roller, as if that was the first time that such a thing had been introduced anywhere. The Government did not desire to use the steam roller, but desired to put a stop to, or to modify, a state of affairs which was continually steam-rolling the business of that House. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member had said that the Minister did not reply to debates, and that if that were done it would shorten debate. He did not think he had not replied to points in the debate—

indicated the Minister of Defence.

went on to say that the Minister of Defence could take care of himself. What, however, had been their experience? When a Minister did answer points in a debate, as soon as he had done so it was made a point on which to start off an entirely new debate. (Ministerial cheers.) Apparently a section of the House was on the watch, especially on a member of the Government party, and was on the watch for some single word on which they might hang a thread—and off they went and another long debate ensued. (Laughter.) That was the true explanation of the Prime Minister’s action. It had been said that Sir Gordon Sprigg tried to get through some odds and ends in the last 20 minutes of an afternoon sitting, but that was not to be tried there. If not Sir Gordon Sprigg, but the Archangel Gabriel, came down there he did not think he would be able to do it. (Laughter.)

They had a different class of House from the House which had allowed Sir Gordon Sprigg to put through these odds and ends in the last 30 minutes. It had been said that any hon. member might get up and ask that the debate be closured. Was the hon. member who had said that the same hon. member who, with his leader, had rested his whole discussion on this: that the whole power rested in Mr. Speaker’s hands to close the debate? What then became of the position of Mr. Speaker in the motion of the Prime Minister? It might be competent for any hon. member of the House to move that a debate be closed, but that could only be carried if, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, it would be no abuse of the rights of that House. The odious burden was removed from Mr. Speaker’s shoulders or the shoulders of the Chairman of Committees, and now the initiative came from a member of the House, but it must still be always with the approval of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, and with the approval of the majority of the House, of course. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) seemed to favour a time limit, but as the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) had pointed out, that had not succeeded, for many reasons, which he need not now point out. The hon. member thus admitted that there was a necessity for shortening the discussion in that House, and admitted that there was something wrong with their discussions at present, and, of course, had given the case away. The hon. member had admitted that their business was not carried on on a proper footing at the present time.

Dealing with the principal objection of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), the hon. Minister said the hon. member had spoken mainly of the power of the Speaker to closure the debate, and had quoted the precedent of Mr. Speaker Berry in 1904, following upon the precedent of Mr. Speaker Brand in the House of Commons. But surely the hon. member knew that in the case of the historic precedent of Mr. Speaker Brand, he had declined to take it upon his shoulders until Mr. Gladstone had promised that he would bring in proper rules to deal with the matter. A motion had to be introduced immediately in the House of Commons to make that regular. Mr. Gladstone had agreed to that, and immediately afterwards had introduced his urgency motion. He (Mr. Burton) did not think that if that had not been done Mr. Speaker Brand or Mr. Speaker Berry would have agreed to that. Without such a rule what would they have said of the authority of the Speaker of the House, who, if he might be allowed to say so, was, after all, the servant of the House, but who was expected to lead the House in the path of its own rules. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta), in his remarks about the matter, had referred to the Railway Strike Bill

said that he had said the result of the discussion in the House.

went on to say that that discussion would never have been closured.

How do you know that ?

asked what Speaker or what Chairman of Committees would have closured such a discussion? Proceeding, he said that the hon. member had said he did not understand paragraph 2. He (Mr. Burton) was understood to say that he believed that what was intended there was the inclusion of such a motion as the adjournment of the debate, and there were illustrations of the same class of motions in the British House of Commons. The main objection of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta), as well as the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), was to the last part, which meant that they were taking all the House, of Commons rules with regard to the closure. He had no doubt that by introducing that construction upon a motion a certain amount of hesitation had been aroused in the breasts of the hon. members who otherwise would have been perfectly satisfied with the motion as it stood on the paper. Rule 280 said that in all cases not provided therein they should follow the procedure of the House of Commons. If they adapted the motion of the Prime Minister they would provide; they would have provision with regard to the closure in their own rules. They would have “provided herein” for that, and therefore the words now proposed to be deleted from the Rule became superfluous. He hoped that point was clear. The second point was even clearer, although the hon. member for Uitenhage did not seem to grasp it.

How these Christians love each other.

(proceeding) said that the kangaroo closure was only introduced into the House of Commons in July, 1909, for the first time by the present Prime Minister, but in the rules of the Union House they had adopted the practices of 1906. That included no kangaroo motion, therefore to assume that was a fallacy. The guillotine motion stood out of the House of Commons rules entirely. It had to be moved as a special resolution every time. In the Union House of Assembly they could move that motion without the Prime Minister’s motion being carried. They could introduce the guillotine motion any day if they wished to bring a discussion to a head. They could move it without any addition to the rules of the House, but they could only move it with reference to the matter under discussion at the time, and it would not apply to anything else. Every time they wanted to move the guillotine motion it would have to be a fresh resolution, upon which there would be debate possibly lasting for a week. The idea that they could saddle the kangaroo or guillotine motion into the wording of the Prime Minister’s motion was a fallacy. The right hon. member for Victoria West had moved an amendment that the matter be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, but the Government did not see its way to accept that amendment. The matter had already been before the members of that Select Committee, and it did not see its way to approve of the closure. What was the use of sending the matter to a Select Committee, which was composed of the right hon. member himself, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, the hon. member for Jeppe, and he thought, the hon. member for Queen’s Town, as well as the hon. member for the Cape Town, Harbour, Division.

There was no authority from the House.

The hon. member has not heard what I am going to say.

The Minister has already said something. (Laughter.)

(proceeding) said he was going to say something more. What was the use of referring a motion of that sort for the deliberation of the Select Committee when five of its eminent members had all declared themselves against the motion? They had all expressed their determined opposition to the closure. The Committee would be entirely controlled by their influence, and the hon. Minister of Finance would not be able to hold his own with all that galaxy of talent, so what was the good of sending that little motion to the Select Committee with all those big guns against it? They had condemned it root and branch. No, the Government preferred to fight it out on the floor of the House With regard to the general position, the Prime Minister had been very much misunderstood; he did not wish to base his motion entirely on obstruction, but on the difficulty of carrying through the business of the country under present conditions.

Quite apart from any obstruction, there had arisen a state of things in that House in which it had been impossible apparently to avoid interminable rambling talk about every imaginable subject. He did not think there was a single responsible hon. member of that House who did not agree with that. In their heart of hearts not even the hon. members on the cross-benches could deny that. That tendency might be due to a lack of proper appreciation of Parliamentary Government. It might be due to a lack in that House of that fine sense of feeling and intuition that members on all sides should have when a subject had been sufficently discussed. Could they say they had that sense exhibited there ? Lecky, in similar circumstances, had attributed what he called enormous and pertinacious development of Parliamentary speech to a sense of violence and obstruction that weakened respect for the House and imposed a restraint, and idle speech partly to the growth of the provincial Press which reported hon. members in full in their own constituencies, and partly to a vast increase in stump oratory. Lecky had described exactly what had happened in regard to the Union Parliament. They had got to the stage that Parliament had become almost impotent for the purpose of carrying on the business of the country on account of the difficulties to which he had referred. There was not a due conception of what was appropriate in the matter of the length of a discussion.

That House was losing the esteem of the country as its legislative machine, mainly owing to the performance of certain members. He was not surprised that their speeches had had some effect on the country, because they had monopolised so large an amount of the time of the House that people up-country, reading the newspapers, might be doubtful as to whether there were any other members in the House. (Ministerial cheers and Labour laughter.) Hon. members had criticised the Government for not bringing forward legislation and not guiding the House as it should be guided, but he would not go into that matter, as he did not think that that was an essential point of that debate. He believed that there was a good deal of legislation necessary for the development of the natural resources of that country, and that that ought to be their main business. But what time had they had in that House in the circumstances for the consideration and discussion of measures which should be their first business in that House? He would leave entirely out of account the Government’s share in the matter. Supposing the Government had been incompetent, and that he would not admit, would any member get up and say that any competent Government would have had the time and the opportunity of getting these measures through? The fact was, Parliament had become impotent as the machine for carrying out the will of the people of the country. There was legislation which they would have presumed hon. members on the cross-benches would have had some interest in. He referred to legislation in regard to industrial matters.

You are not fit for it.

That is a courteous interjection. That is the hon. member’s idea of parliamentary courtesy. Continuing, he said that he thought this kind of legislation was that every rightminded man would like to see introduced. What time had they had for getting this legislation through. As things were going it was becoming impossible to move at all. Reference had been made to the rights of minorities, but after all was said and done, while he entirely agreed that freedom should be given the minority, it must be admitted that there was also the reasonable right of the majority. The minority could not rule, and at present they had to stick to the old rough method of ruling by majority. There were the rights of the majority.

Sneering references had been made to hon. members who constituted the bulk of the majority on the Government side. He (the Minister) was getting tired of these sneering and contemptuous references as to hon. members on the Government side being unable to understand this or that. But he could say that that sort of speech in that House and in that country was not likely to work for that harmonious feeling they desired in South Africa. How entirely undeserving these remarks were. He was not referring to education, because, perhaps, some of them had not had the same chances, but if hon. members “across there ” had one-tenth of the political insight of hon. members on the Government side (The remainder of the sentence was drowned in cheers.) That afternoon they had had two or three more of these sneering references. The hon. member for Smithfield had moved an amendment, but he did not think it had helped them. If carried it would lead to a most curious state of affairs. He did not know whether it came from Utopia or Mesopotamia, but it was the most curious attempt at the closure one could possibly conceive. Continuing, he said that the argument that the Government had brought this motion forward as a bludgeon with which to belabour the House was not well founded. They had sat there for some days watching the course of events, and do what they liked, owing to the peculiar ideas of Parliamentary government that prevailed and the curious habits of speaking, they found it impossible to proceed with the business of the country in the way it should be done. He believed that the country was demanding that they should do their business in the proper way and with reasonable despatch, without denying any man the right of speech. He supported the motion of the Prime Minister, and said he believed that if it were carried it would be found that every man would have the reasonable right of speech. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that, before moving the adjournment of the debate, he wished to make one or two observations in reply to the hon. member for Jeppe, and to say one word in reply to the Minister of Railways and Harbours. As far as he could make out, the case for the closure rules as proposed had not been greatly strengthened by the remarks of the Minister. The House was really only put in possession of these closure rules on Saturday morning, and although a radical alteration of the rules of debate was to be made thereby, so unimportant did the matter seem to Ministers that they were put down for consideration on the Monday following. He had not had the time, nor, perhaps, the inclination to look up all the authorities that the Minister, no doubt, looked up before the rules appeared on the paper. He thought it was safe to say that the rules now moved were only part of the House of Commons Rules, and the proposal to omit certain words in clause 280 was such as to leave, at any rate, some doubt in the minds of many hon. members as to what the effect would really be. As to the member for Jeppe, the hon. member constantly charged that side of the House with being allies of the Government. He had done so that day. If their opposition to the Government were to be measured by the violence and the vituperation of the language that was used—if that were to be the test, he confessed that he was unable to compete with the hon. member for Jeppe. He felt a considerable amount of sympathy with the hon. member for Jeppe because he was in this unfortunate position, that he was the leader of a band, and unless the band continued to play, and the music was in ever increasing volume, the populace would drift away and would not support the leader and the Labour Party. The hon. member for Jeppe had charged hon. members on that side with being supporters of the Government, because during the recent Indemnity debate the majority on that side took the line that it was their duty to support the Government. That was no change in the policy which had been enunciated in that party ever since the Bloemfontein Conference in the first days of Union. (Hear, hear.) The policy they then announced was that they would support General Botha when he was right, and fight him tooth and nail when he was wrong. (Hear, hear.) They considered that the closure was wrong, and that was the reason for their present attitude. It always amazed him that these charges should come from the hon. member for Jeppe, because in the first session of this House he was always in the Government’s pockets, indeed, his head barely stuck out. (Hear, hear.) He supposed that the Government did not provide the Labour Party nourishment upon which they depended for their existence in sufficient quantities, and, therefore, they had seen fit to alter their tactics, and were out in strong opposition to the Government, by whose assistance several of them had been returned to Parliament. Col. Crewe at this stage moved the adjournment of the debate.

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