from G. M. Robinson, B.A., teacher, praying that certain periods of his service be taken into consideration in the calculation of his pension.

from Amy E. M. Clack, teacher, for condonation of breaks in her service.

from C. W. F. Schlüter, B.A., teacher, praying that certain periods of his service be taken into consideration in the calculation of his pension.

moved that the order for the second reading of the Removal or Modification of Retractions on Immovable Property Bill on April 8 be discharged and set down for May 6.

The motion was agreed to.

moved That Order of the Day No. V for to-day— House to resume in Committee on Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill—be discharged, and set down for Wednesday, the 29th instant.

Agreed to.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to legalise the application to certain purposes of certain moneys under the control of the Railways and Harbours Administration

The motion was agreed to.

asked for leave to raise a point of order.

The hon. member had better wait just a moment. The Minister will bring up the Bill.

brought up the Bill, which was read a first time, and set down for second reading on Monday next.

said that the point of order he wished to raise was this: He had a notice of motion on the paper asking this House to aver that it “is no longer sufficiently representative of the opinion of the constituencies to justify it in considering and passing important legislation, particularly in relation to industrial matters.” The next order, he noticed, was one in which the Minister of Mines was moving to introduce a Bill dealing specially with industrial matters. He wished to ask whether it was in order to move that motion until the question had been disposed of as to whether this House felt that it was justified in considering such a motion.

said that he would look into the matter. The Bill was not at present before the House.

said he wished to point out that the record was not correct in this respect—that he had not seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West.

The hon. member rose after the motion was proposed.

The views I expressed showed that I could not second a motion of that sort. I should be obliged if the record could be altered.

I took it that the amendment was seconded.

said he did not think that that was the proper or suitable time to introduce a motion of that description with a proposal for a closure which could be put into effect by a bare majority of one in that House. There were now two amendments to the original motion. The amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West, to which they on his side would not agree, as they were against a closure in any form at the present time. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield, he thought, might be allowed to drop. It really made any closure inoperative, as it purposed, even if the closure rules were passed, to allow any member who had not spoken to debate the main question. The hon. member (Genl. Hertzog) made these ridiculous kinds of proposals, and during one of his brief visits to the House he had chosen to read the House a lecture on its duties. He thought it ill-befitted the hon. member to read the House a lecture on the subject. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had put his case extremely well, but he thought his argument must break down. The Minister desired to impress upon the House that since Union there had been a complete change in its character, numerically there was no very great difference between that House, now 121 and to become after the next election 130’, and the old Cape House of 107 members. There had been obstruction in the Cape House days. There had, to be quite frank, been obstruction recently upon the Indemnity Bill, but it had not been more serious nor more violent than the obstruction which had been offered by the Minister of Railways, Mr. Burton, on another occasion.

There were special circumstances.

asked whether it was wise to introduce a motion of that description at that time? Was it wise to introduce the closure simply because there had been a long debate on one Bill— the Indemnity Bill. He could understand that in certain emergencies a motion of that description might be necessary, but he did not think it was necessary at that time. The present moment was not the time to apply closure rules. The steam roller, which was used by the Government, was perhaps an excellent and useful) machine for those who had the direction of its movements, but the man in the road took an altogether different view. That brought him to the historic debate in. 1904, when they sat from 2 o’clock one day, to 2.30 o’clock the following day on the Additional Representation Bill. That debate was on a measure which gave simple justice to districts which had for long been underrepresented in Parliament There was a violent and heated discussion, and when Mr. Speaker applied the closure after a debate lasting over 24 hours, the Minister (Mr. Burton) took part in a more violent scene than any he had ever witnessed. Then the hon. Minister was in the road, now he was on the footplate and directing the steam roller, on that occasion when the debate had been closured Mr. Burton called out “Debate? a disgrace,” and there were other calls of “a blackguardly shame,” “tyranny,” and so forth, and yet now the same gentleman wanted to apply the closure to others.

The Minister of Railways and Harbours was guilty of as violent opposition as they had witnessed during the passage of the Martial Law and Indemnity Bill. That did away with a good deal of the Minister’s arguments, and the views hon. members took of the closure was according to the side of the House on which they sat. It had been said that there had been a complete change in the House. Those who remembered the old Cape Parliament would bear him out when he said that the difference was not a marked one. There was no great change in the character of Parliament. He ventured to say that there had been no obstruction in that House since the passing of the Indemnity Bill. If on the Railway Relief Bill the closure had been in operation the Minister of Railways and Harbours would not have taken the wise line which he adopted. He would have gone on, because the tendency and temptation was for Ministers to go on into the hours of the night in order to pass legislation, knowing that when the House was tired members would pass a clause and apply the closure, in preference to being kept out of bed. What a vast misfortune it would have been to the service if the debate had been carried on, and the Minister had said he would not grant any concessions to the men! That was the danger and the temptation that lay in the adoption of the closure. The temptation would always be for Ministers to prolong debates into the night, in order that they might apply for the closure. He proceeded to refer to the manner in which the motion was brought before the House, saying that it was brought forward on the Friday and moved on the Monday. That was not the way to conduct the business of the House, and it was not right that vital alterations in the rules should be carried through practically at the point of the bayonet. The commando system was all very well in the field, but it was not applicable to the Parliament of the country.

The Minister of Finance—the strong man —liked the closure far more than hon. members of that House who were in favour of full and free discussion. It was far better to have a safety valve in discussions than to sit still and apply the steam roller or the commando system. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs told them that they should go upon what was done in the British House of Commons, but he would point out that, whereas there were 670 members in the House of Commons, there would only be 130 members in that House when the redistribution proposal came into force. Had the conduct of business in that House justified anyone in saying that there had been constant, deliberate, and frequent obstruction? He ventured to say, not yet. What had been the cause of the enormous waste of time? It had been due to constant changes in the Government, and the constant quarrels which they had witnessed day by day between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Smithfield. Almost daily they had to listen to the echoes of the trouble that occurred in the Cabinet. Then there was the quarrel between the hon. member for Barberton and the Government, and even the right hon. the member for Victoria West had not been too kind when he dealt with the Government.

You are quite mistaken. (Laughter.)

I leave it to the House to judge. We had an example the other day. My hon. friend not only lectured the Prime Minister, but he who had styled himself a humble musket bearer in the Government’s following had left the ranks. (Laughter.)

What about your quarrels ? (Laughter.)

If there were any quarrels, we would hide them. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that one of the charms of being in Opposition was that, to a certain extent, one could go a little on one’s own. Then it was said that Ministers sat still for fear of starting debates anew. They had the question of the telegram to the Control Officer the other night, and if the Minister of Finance had said three or four civil words, there would have been no debate at all. He simply had to say that he had not the telegram handy, and that he would bring it down on the following day. Instead of that, he sat still and did not say a word, except to remark, “Draw your own conclusions.”

If hon. members who represented important constituencies were not going to receive civil answers from Ministers, probably Ministers would find the result would be a good deal of debate. And what a time to choose to ask for the closure! There was a Bill to which they had taken great objection, and which had been withdrawn by the Minister of Justice. At the same time he brought forward another Bill, and then the. Prime Minister asked for the closure. He thought many hon. members would like to see the second Bill before they voted in favour of the closure. He did not think the time was opportune for it, and it was a confession of failure on the part of the Government as to their inability to carry on the business of the country. Continuing, he said he did not think that the resolution was necessary, and said he thought that if the Prime Minister brought forward the strongest evidence that such a change in the rules became necessary later on, he was certain it would be carried by a large majority. He ventured to say that if the closure were passed now it would only be by a narrow majority and by the exercise of the powers of those who controlled the steam roller.

rose.

The hon. member has spoken.

I have seconded a motion, sir, but I have not spoken.

The hon. member seconded an amendment.

said that when members on his side of the House brought forward a question of any such character, they were accused of moving a vote of no-confidence against the Government. He interpreted the present motion to be a direct challenge to that House to pass a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Government, and he hoped that when this Vote was taken it would be negatived by a large majority, showing that hon. members of that House had no confidence in the Government. When the Prime Minister introduced that motion, he (Dr. MacNeillie) understood him to say that there had been no obstruction in that House, but the Minister of Railways and Harbours had stated that those were not the words used by the Prime Minister, and that what the Prime Minister had said was that obstruction was not the basis upon which the motion for the closure had been framed. If that was not the basis on which the motion had been brought forward, then he believed that the Minister had abandoned the only argument which could justify the introduction of such a proposal.

The only purpose that a closure was used for was against obstruction. Once the closure had been introduced into the British House of Commons, the tendency was for the procedure to become more and more stringent. If the House started with the closure hero proposed he did not know where it was going to load them to. To his mind, there was no comparison with the British Parliament, consisting of nearly 700 members, and that House, with its 121 members, and the youngest Parliament in the British dominions The British House of Commons was overwhelmed with work, and sitting in almost continuous session. The Prime Minister in his speech had taken exception to the delay in passing legislation through the House, and he (the speaker) agreed with hon. members who said that that delay was due to the Government itself in introducing badly-drafted legislation. There was no Bill which had left that House as an Act on the Statute Book which did not bear the imprint of improvement effected by hon. members on the Opposition side of the House. He believed that there was never a time when there was less excuse for the introduction of the closure than the present time. He believed that if the Government persisted in carrying through that motion of the closure they would take away from that House the great helpfulness which they had had in the past from hon. members on his side of the House, and the tendency would he that Bills would he much worse in the way they were introduced and in the way of drafting, and not only that, but the Government would he careless in regard to the course that the debate might take, knowing that they had behind them that weapon of the closure: and he believed that the only tendency that that would have would he to make legislation much worse than it had been in the past.

said that from the remarks of many hon. members, one would think that if the closure was agreed to it would mean that the end of the world had come. Yet this “closure” was as old as the hills: it was even found in the Senate, and no evil consequences had been experienced there. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield, which the mover (General Hertzog) had said was based on the practice of the old Free State, he (the speaker), who had had 14 years of experience in the old Free State Raad, wished to say that it was incorrect that a two-thirds majority for the application of the closure was required there. A bare majority was all that was necessary. In the circumstances, he would vote for the motion as it was based on the Free State rule.

said it was true, no doubt, that a large portion of the time of that House had been taken up by a small section, but the measures before the House had particularly effected that section, and therefore it was right that they should have devoted a large share of the time to these measures. But how did the Prime Minister protect the rights of the back benches? He (Dr. Watkins) failed to see how in a motion like that any more opportunity would be given for members on the back benches to speak than at the present time. If time was limited, members on the cross-benches would not be the last to avail themselves of their opportunity of addressing the House, and how about members of the back-benches? When they had the closure in view, would these gentlemen on the cross-benches reserve themselves?—everyone knew perfectly well that then upon every occasion they would be the first to rush in. He was rather surprised that the Prime Minister had not adopted the method of the Minister of Defence or taken a leaf out of his book and attached a schedule to the motion giving the names of those hon. members against whom the closure ought to be applied. (Laughter.) If hon. members were too lengthy in their speeches, their names might always be added to the list. (Laughter.) If they were going to keep before them the very object of Parliament—and there was a good deal more to be done in Parliament than talk, and it was necessary that those who represented outlying portions of the country should from time to time be heard—they should not agree to the motion. The one difference between that Parliament and the House of Commons was that in Great Britain the outlying districts were represented by men in the towns, generally, and there was a more rapid exchange of thought than was the case in South Africa. It was highly important that those members who represented outlying districts should have an opportunity of making their voice heard in that House, while nothing should be done to restrict the expression of opinion held by those hon. members who did not happen to sit on the Government side of the House. He hoped the Minister would explain in what way the closure would benefit those members who, he says, are at present unable to put their views before the House.

said it seemed an extraordinary thing that as soon as he was elected to that House the Government at once brought in a measure introducing the closure. (Laughter.)

It was generally understood that this measure was directed against the cross benches, because it was said that the party he belonged to had taken 102 hours in debating the Indemnity Bill. He did not think that was any too long to give to the consideration of such an important subject when they recollected that this question had been discussed all over the world. They had one member of the Government stating that there had been obstruction on the cross-benches, while the Prime Minister had said that there had been no obstruction. In any case, they on those benches had been sent to that House for a specific purpose, and he did not think that the question of industrial disturbances had been discussed sufficiently. They who had been brought up in the industrial world knew the discontent which existed amongst the working-classes, and they knew that this attempt to curb discussion would be considered us a further attack upon their rights. It was also said that this measure was intended to do away with the extended time occupied by Parliament in the conduct of the affairs of the country. He did not think that any time was too long to spend in that House as long as there was work to do, and if it was necessary to sit for twelve months in the year he thought it should be done. If the Government succeeded in passing those rules they would be placing another weapon in the hands of those members on the cross-benches with which to beat the Government. He was not sent to obstruct the business of the country, but to better the conditions of those people he represented, and he thought this was an inopportune time to introduce such legislation. Naturally, the people would say it was another weapon the Government were using in order to stifle public opinion. He would ask the Government to withdraw the closure and trust to the good sense of the representatives of the people. He quite admitted that the majority should rule— that was a democratic principle; but there was a higher will than that of the House which should prevail, and that was the will of the people. He was convinced that the great majority of the country would oppose this attempt to curb discussion in that House.

said he could not help thinking that there was a great deal of hypocrisy in that House when it had been stated that there had been no obstruction. There had been obstruction, and no one could deny it. They had heard the member for Roodepoort threaten the Government that unless a certain line of action was taken, members on the cross-benches would obstruct the business of the House. Of course, hon. members knew very well that that measure was directed against obstruction, but although there had been a certain amount of it on the Indemnity Bill, still there had not been sufficient to warrant the closure being introduced. There was nothing before the House to indicate that the Government intended introducing such measures that it would be necessary to pass these rules before they could get the business through. They had also to remember that such rules were made for the conduct of a much larger body than that of their hon. House, where a far wider range of subjects had to be discussed, and a much larger volume of business transacted. They had also to bear in mind that the closure was nor adopted by the House of Commons until after a long period of very late night sittings. Could hon. members say that such a state of affairs existed in that House to warrant the same procedure being adopted? With one or two exceptions, there had been no long sittings, and certainly nothing to justify such stringent rules as were now proposed to be applied.

In a report prepared by Mr. Hofmeyr, the Clerk of the House, that gentleman stated that “the absence of studied methods in the conduct of the business of the House is, in no small degree, often responsible for a great waste of time. The order paper should be arranged beforehand.” The Government would not inform the House what work it intended to go on with, but simply threw matters before members, and frequently after a great deal of time had been wasted over a Bill it was withdrawn. Almost on the closing day of last session, when there were about 25 orders on the paper, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) asked what work the Government intended proceeding with, and the Prime Minister replied that Government hoped to carry out all the business on the paper. That was a perfectly futile remark to make, as only one of the 25 orders was dealt with. That was not the way to carry on the business of the House. Rather than there should be a closure he would prefer a time limit on speeches, for every hon. member would then know that he could, if he so desired, speak on any subject, and it would do away with a sense of irritation which would be felt by those who were prevented from speaking through the application of the closure; further a time limit would tend to make speeches more terse and to the point. The time limit was in operation in Legislatures in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. A perusal of the valuable report which had been prepared by the Clerk of the House—

I admit that the Clerk’s services are available to ordinary members as well as the Government, but is the hon. member in order in quoting from a document of that sort?

I don’t quite know what document the hon. member is quoting from.

A document dealing with the modes of procedure adopted in various parts of the world, but if you think it inadvisable to deal with it—

Where did you get it from?

I don’t want to transgress the rules in any way, but I understand the report was called for by the Minister of Education.

I think it was annexed to the annual report I lay on the Table. It was intended for the private information of hon. members. Of course I can’t take exception; the hon. member must assume the responsibility.

It was laid on the Table of the House. (Cries of “No.”) I will not quote any opinions.

Has the paper been laid on the Table?

I have just said it was laid on the Table.

It is quite right; go on.

said the report had been prepared by an official of long standing who was entitled to give his views on the subject when he entirely dissociated himself from any party aspect of the matter. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had caught up the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Hon. Sir T. W. Smartt) who had stated that no closure rules were in force in Canada. As a matter of fact, however, closure rules were adopted in the Canadian House last year, but they applied only to specific cases, to adjourned debates, and could be enforced only after 24 hours’ notice had been given, and their enforcement could be moved for only by a Minister. There were very important distinctions between that rule and the very wide rule proposed by the Prime Minister. No closure rules should be adopted until the time of the House had been saved by better management and until other methods had been tried for saving the time of Parliament. Such methods had been suggested to Government, but the Government, instead of adopting them, asked for a most stringent closure procedure. Again it should be laid down that before the closure could be applied its enforcement must be supported by a certain proportion of members. The hon. member went on to point out that he found that, on the average, 88 to 91 members had been present at every division taken in that House. Taking that as their effective voting strength, he thought it was not asking too much to say that, before the closure was put into force. 50 per cent. of the total number of members should be present and take part in the vote. He thought the Government would have to make out a very much stronger case than they had done, with the Order Paper in such a state as it was, before they asked the House to accept a closure of any sort.

moved that the debate be adjourned until the document quoted by the hon. member (Mr. Struben) had been printed and circulated. Many of them, he said, knew nothing whatever about this document.

The motion for the adjournment was negatived.

said he was going to vote against the introduction of the closure, primarily because, he thought, all his party would vote against it, and he was a good party man; and, secondly, because he believed that it was a tacit admission that inside or outside the 1 louse they feared the Labour Party. He did not fear the Labour Party. (Laughter.) The closure was bound to come in this House. The question with most members was: was this the time to bring about the closure? Judging by the events that had gone before, he believed that every man of right judgment would say that it was not the time. If the Government wished to stop these long speeches, they had got the power in their own hands. The other day the Prime Minister said, quite truthfully, that if the sessions were dragged out so long, the best men in the country would not come down to Parliament. One good way of shortening the sessions would be to alter the South Africa Act, and begin by not paying members of Parliament. That was a very necessary thing. (Laughter.) They should also annul the contract with the “Cape Times” for the printing of Hansard. He felt convinced that if these speeches were not reported so fully as they were, they would not have as many speeches in that House. He was going back four sessions, and were he asked to make a synopsis of the speeches of the hon. members on the cross-benches, one would do it in a very few words indeed. In regard to the hon. member for Jeppe, he would say that he had spoken about white labour and contract labour from the tropical regions. That would sum up the hon. member for Jeppe. When they came to the hon. member for George Town, they had Socialism, revolution, and the like. Coming to the hon. member for Greyville, they had piecework and the way to make locomotives and bricks without straw. (Laughter.) When he came to the hon. member for Springs, he was reminded of a composer who wrote “Songs without Words ”—(laughter)—and when he thought of the hon. member for Springs, he thought of one who used words without sense. (Laughter.) Well, he could go on ad nauseam through all the rest of them.

He knew the closure was bound to come, because, in addition to the ills they had to bear from the Labour Party, they now had the ills of hon. members from the Free State joining in every debate. In the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe there were imputations which were perfectly and hopelessly wrong. (Hear, hear.) He had asked in reference to the late speeches on the Indemnity Bill, whether it could be said to be too much to give nine men two and a half hours each? He (Mr. Rockey) thought the answer of the House was that it was a great deal too much. What affected one of these men affected the other, and what, was true of one was true of the other. There was no necessity to make these long speeches respecting each of the nine men. In regard to the railway strike, the hon. member had stated that the position they on that side took on that occasion was due to what he called the “great bump” they had had lately. That was quite wrong. He had also stated that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and his friends had asked for the Peace Preservation Bill. That was gravely untrue. It was a deliberate, if he could say so. (Laughter.) If the hon. member for Jeppe would go back to the Unionist Conference in Cape Town recently, he would have seen that what they brought through their Congress was measures for remedial and industrial legislation. There was not one word said in that Congress of any kind of coercive measures being brought forward. He was going to vote against the closure. He greatly regretted it. (Laughter.) He know perfectly well it would have to come, but he believed that it would be wiser at this moment for the Government to withdraw the motion.

said he was not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition had a great dislike for the closure, because he had had a very effective closure put upon him on one occasion recently, during the Liesbeek election. For some years he (Mr. Clayton) had been a member of the Natal Parliament, which had this rule in operation. Long before they had any Labour Party in the Natal Parliament they had this provision for the closure. Although at times party feeling ran exceedingly high, no unworthy use was ever made of the closure in the Natal House. He thought it was an advance on the power which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said that Mr. Speaker possessed. The hon. member briefly referred to the circumstances under which the closure was introduced in the House of Commons, in view of the blocking of legislation by the Irish Party, who refused to allow Parliamentary business to proceed until they obtained what they wanted. He asked if we had not a parallel to that state of things in a small party in the House, who desired to block legislation until they obtained a larger representation in that House, and the special measures which they desired. According to Mr. Jagger, it was five years before the closure was put on the Irish members’ plan of proceedings. Were we to wait five years before the House took power to protect itself?

He went on to say that they could not wait until their Parliamentary machine was broken down before they introduced the closure—they ought to be long-sighted enough to do it now. So far as he was concerned, it appeared to him that some shortening of the talk in the House had become necessary. It had been said that the length of the debate on the. Indemnity Bill had been justified, but if some hon. members had gone home with the milk in the morning, as others had done, they would have realised that there had been obstruction. There had been many cases in that House where time had been wasted, and no better instance of it was provided than what had taken place the previous afternoon. Then they had wasted three-quarters of an hour in discussing whether they should discuss a certain motion on one Friday or on another Friday Had they put the question at once, they would have saved that time. He was sure that that House would always have too much respect for itself to abuse the privileges of discussion.

said he entirely agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort— that nothing in the discussion that had taken place on the Indemnity Bill had justified an interference with the liberty of debate. That had been a matter that could not be expected to pass through the House without a serious discussion. The cross benches had been blamed for any obstruction that had been suggested, but were other quarters of the House not equally to be blamed? He would like to recall the debate that took place during the first session of that Parliament on a Bill dealing with stock diseases, when the hon. member for Prieska took a part in the discussion. He also remembered a debate on the Budget, which had lasted for a considerable time, and from which it appeared that financial matters occupied an entirely subordinate position. They were told that the form of closure proposed now was the same form that was in use in the British House of Commons, but of all the House of Commons procedure the closure was the most objectionable. He thought that this country had not yet arrived at the stage when they ought to introduce that sort of thing into Parliamentary procedure. They ought not to reduce their Parliament to a machine which would merely register the decisions of the Government with a large majority.

said it was noteworthy that it was just a year ago when the closure had been introduced in Canada. The reasons adduced by the Canadian Premier, Mr. Borden, when he proposed the closure motion on 9th April, 1913, were very much like those given by the Prime Minister. Mr. Borden at the time said that no one was more in favour of liberty of speech than he was. If the closure was agreed to matters would go on very much as they had done in the past—all arguments, the hon. member said, which had been used by the Prime Minister. History, however, repeated itself. On the first day the closure had been applied in Canada, one of the greatest injustices was committed, namely, when the Leader of the Opposition was prevented from answering the Prime Minister. Every member in that House had his mandate, and it was the duty of the Government to make it as easy as possible for members to carry out the mandates; and the closure would not facilitate members doing so. Not only his mouth, but the mouths of his constituents, might be closed one day by means of the closure. The people had to express themselves, but the closure might prevent them from doing so. Everywhere where the closure had been introduced it had had the effect of robbing members of a certain amount of liberty. The Canadian Parliament had existed for about 46 years, and in these 46 years serious obstruction had been conducted on about four occasions. Why should the closure be introduced in this country? In this, the fourth year of the Union Parliament, practically no work had been done. What was the cause of that? Socialism? No, though it might have been a contributory cause, the fault lay with the Government itself. The attitude of the Government had weakened the hands of the Government itself. The force of conviction was lacking, and the closure would not remedy this. The Prime Minister had said that the obstruction was not the reason for bringing forward that motion. They wanted to do more work. He said the reason the business of the House went slowly was because the Government lacked conviction. The closure would not improve matters in that respect. There was another great danger in the closure under the conditions prevailing here. He (the speaker) might be reconciled to allow Mr. Speaker the power of applying the closure, although he thought the responsibility was too great. But when the Chairman of Committees was in the chair it could also be proposed to apply the closure. With due respect to the present and past Chairman of Committees, he wished to point out that the Chairman of Committees was always a strong parliamentary man. He was also chairman of the caucus and knew exactly what the wishes of the Government were, and it would not be right to give him all the power now proposed to be given him. As regards the remarks of the hon. member for East London (Col. Crewe) he could appreciate his desire to assist the Government in attacking the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog). His remark that the hon. member for Smithfield was hardly ever in his seat was most narrowminded. It reminded him of the case of a young lady who had received a proposal of marriage, but was too bashful to inform the world that she had accepted the proposal. The whole world, however, could see that a betrothal had taken place, and to whom. (Laughter.) Dealing with the motion, the hon. member said that although he had read it over and over again, he had been unable, in company of the hon. member for Cape Town. Harbour, properly to grasp its full meaning. He could not see that the House was insulted, because it had been said that members did not understand the motion. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had stated outside the House that he had managed to get a Bill passed because hon. members did not understand it. (Laughter.)

The hon. member moved an amendment: To add at the end of the last clause words to the effect that at least two-thirds of the members present must vote in favour of the motion for the closure before it could be applied.

seconded the amendment.

dealing with the position of private members in the House, said that they could not initiate anything which involved expenditure, and could only bring business forward on one day of the week, and now it was proposed by means of that motion to make matters still more difficult for them. He went on to refer to some of the occasions on which the closure had been resorted to in the House of Commons, and mentioned that during the period 1900-1910 it had been carried 559 times, the guillotine had been brought into operation on 95 days, and the Bills guillotined numbered 19. The Kangaroo closure, which was more drastic, had been brought into operation on nine occasions since 19091 The Minister of Railways and Harbours (the hon. member continued) had said that they would not be bound by the rules of the House of Commons after 1906, but why should they be dependent on an out-of-date edition of May’s Rules? When the hon. Minister had spoken of obstruction, he (Mr. Alexander) turned with great amusement to the debates which had taken place in the Cape House in 1904, when the Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Burton) had been the leader of the opposition against the measure then before the House. Hon. members who were now on the Government benches had played the game very well in those days when they were in opposition. The debate he was referring to was the historic debate which had begun on a Monday afternoon and had finished the following Tuesday afternoon at 5 o’clock, when Mr. Speaker Berry had given the ruling which had been referred to. Amendment after amendment had been moved during the night, and admittedly it had been pure obstruction. The hon. member (Mr. Burton) had threatened the Government of that day that if they did not adjourn the House he was going to do so-and-so and other hon. members behind him were going to do so-and-so. He had accused members of the Ministerial Party of remaining silent— and that had happened again in the present debate. Hon. members on the Ministerial benches had practically all remained silent, with the exception of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Clayton), who committed an indiscretion. (Laughter.) The Minister of Railways and Harbours had also questioned the ruling of Mr. Speaker Berry, and had done so very firmly, as the report of the debate showed. Having quoted from the report in question, the hon. member went on to say that people seemed to become very different beings when, instead of being in a minority, they had a majority behind them. At the end of the debate in the old Cape House, at the end of that long and arduous sitting, Dr. Jameson had said that after the longest and most arduous debate Mr. Burton exclaimed “Debate! A base scandal! ” and the hon. Minister had been the leader in the pandemonium which had occurred. Let them get away from that idea of obstruction and consider the thing on its merits. It had been assumed that the Speaker would as a matter of course give his decision in that matter, but he need not give any decision at all, according to the; way that motion was worded. If he simply sat tight and did nothing the closure had to be put. Had that struck the hon. Minister or the Prime Minister? Unless the Speaker intervened the motion had to be put, and there was no necessity for the Speaker deliberately to give his ruling. As showing the value of discussion, the hon. member drew attention to the Immigration Bill passed last session, as compared with the Bill brought forward in the first session of Parliament. He went on to point out that the two Bills were very different indeed, a result that had been arrived at by the discussions which the Bills had caused in that House. He strongly objected to the motion on the paper from that point of view, that question of the value of discussion. They were now bringing in a Peace Preservation Bill to deal with Parliament. It was really a Parliamentary Peace Preservation Bill, and by means of that closure Parliament would become an absolute farce. He hoped that the motion would not be carried, and that it was not yet even too late to ask the Government to withdraw it. Sometimes he was in a difficulty with regard to the Government. He did not know whether they were riding for a fall or whether they were oblivious to the wishes of hon. members in the House and of the people of the country.

said that he was going to vote against that motion, because he was not able to see any justification for it. That opinion was strengthened by hearing the remarks of other hon. members who had preceded him, including two who had held the office of Speaker. They, too, had condemned the motion. Proceeding, he said that he had never known any real obstruction in that House since the beginning of the Union Parliament. There had been repeated divisions called, but that course had been adopted by hon. members on the Government side from time to time. There had been some very protracted debates in the House. There was one on the Deportation Bill, but was not that justified? If the Government was prepared to depart from principles of justice the Government must expect protracted debates. What would happen in other representative Houses, not excluding the House of Commons, if such a procedure were attempted as was accomplished by forcing through that House the Deportation Bill. It was the opinion in the country that that protracted debate was not wholly improper. (Labour cheers.) The ordinary business of that House, when presented to the House in an ordinary business-like way, had not been delayed, and that being so, why did the Government require the closure at the present time? Did they contemplate introducing other contentious measures? It looked like it. The Prime Minister might want to deport the hon. member for Smithfield, or, possibly, the right hon. member for Victoria West. It would be very convenient, indeed, if he had either the closure or the deportation law to get rid of those two hon. members. If it was not the intention to bring in contentious legislation, why was that closure introduced?

The Prime Minister had said quite seriously that the final decision was to be left to the House. They all knew what that meant. He knew, because he had been there himself. There was a time when he was a “Ja Broer,” and was instructed, “Do not speak—vote,” and at the nod of the Minister they voted, and did not speak. The safeguard of the majority did not interest him. He would like to refer in that connection to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who had forgotten a wonderful incident on the railway in the railway strike debate. At the second reading of that debate, the hon. member thundered forth the unalterable conviction that there should be a policy of the iron hand, a policy of the iron keel and the stony heart, and he sat down glowing with a seraphic righteousness. The next day, in connection with the same Bill, the same hon. member, with the very same unalterable conviction, said then he advocated the policy of the velvet glove and the tender heart; again he sat down, and again he glowed with a seraphic righteousness. Very wonderful! He (Mr. Fichardt) had not any exalted idea of the impartiality of the Parliamentary majority.

It had been suggested that the minority was protected by the Chair, but, with regard to that, he, as one of the minority, thought that was not all the safeguard it might be. It was asking too much that this decision should be left to the Chairman. He had a great respect for the Chairman of Committees, but he could not forget that for three days of the week the Chairman of Committees was a red-hot partisan, and after that he sat in the chair so that the motion was asking too much of human nature—more than human nature could very well stand. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had shown how the rights of hon. members in debate had been restricted, but the hon. member had forgotten there were more than rights in that House— there were rulings. The minority had learned that it might not use an argument somebody else had used. The minority had also learnt that it could not defend itself against personal attacks, therefore he did not know how much further this closure motion was going than that. They might soon expect, when they had a real live Opposition, that something more than the present proposals would be required. (Laughter.) When they heard this motion brought forward by the Prime. Minister, they had hoped that he was going to lead the House once more, but what was the position? The Prime Minister, after a little while, handed over the oars to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who, amongst other things, said there was no intention on the part of the Government to interfere with the full and free liberties of members, but they merely wanted the House to adopt the closure. Then he went on to sneer at members who kept in touch with their constituencies. He (Mr. Fichardt) saw nothing improper in that. Had not the Government counted heads before to-day? He wondered if the withdrawal of the Peace Preservation Act had anything to do with the large meeting just recently held in Pretoria, and whether it was not meant to propitiate somebody up in the North? The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs then went on to quote a number of closure resolutions passed in the English House of Commons, but omitted to mention the special circumstances under which they had been passed. Then they had the Minister of Railways and Harbours, who might fittingly be called, he thought, “the darling of the ‘Cape Times’” (laughter), stating that all great legislative bodies had been compelled to adopt such measures. But he (Mr. Fichardt) would tell the House that that was in consequence of scientific and systematic obstruction taking place. There had been nothing of that here. Then, they had the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders saying they were going to have nothing to do with it, and that being so, he thought it was a good argument that the House should not adopt the measure. It had been stated that Mr. Speaker Brand, in the British House of Commons, had been compelled to adopt the closure, but he would ask Mr. Speaker if he had ever felt compelled to take such a step? And the fact that he had never done so was a sufficient reply that there was no need for such a rule. There seemed to be no particular reason alleged against hon. members of that House for establishing such a rule. There was one offence, however, alleged against hon. members, and that was made by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, who said members were guilty of an absence of “Parliamentary feeling.” He (Mr. Fichardt) did not know what was meant by such a phrase. Did it mean that they had dared to express their opinions, that they dared to place the wishes of their constituents above those of the Minister, or did it mean that speaking too long meant an absence of Parliamentary feeling, and was the closure intended to prevent the Minister of Defence speaking for 24 hours if he so wished, that the time of that House might not be monopolised? The Minister had given one reason, and that was that the closure was necessary because the Government had been unable to carry out any useful legislation. Evidently the Minister had forgotten his journey to Maritzburg, which at that time was spoken of as a crusade. In one of his speeches then made by the Minister, be stated the Government had been able to accomplish good work done under the Land Settlement Act, and that since Union £283,000 had been spent, representing something like 2,000,000 morgen of land. That was spoken of as one of the achievements of the Government. Now either the Minister must have said what was not true when in Maritzburg or it was untrue that the Government had been unable to accomplish any useful work and therefore the closure was required. The Prime Minister had stated that all civilised countries had the closure and that the same arguments with regard to the freedom of speech, etc., would be employed in that House. But the Prime Minister never advanced one good reason why those countries had introduced the closure, and if he had he would have found that not one of them fitted the conditions here. The Mother Parliament had been spoken of as an example, but that Parliament had 600 members. That being so, let that House wait until they had 600 members. He (Mr. Fichardt) would really like to know what the requirements of the Government would be when they had something like a real, live Opposition, and when the Government had some little obstruction to deal with. Then he thought the Prime Minister would require a more drastic measure than that which was proposed today.

The infallible Minister of Railways had stated that there was obstruction, but the Prime Minister had asserted that there was not. Thus we had the dear old two voices out for another airing. One could only surmise that Government intended introducing some more than usually autocratic legislation, and therefore felt that it must have the closure. The Prime Minister had cited the unusual happenings of the last few weeks as an excuse for his proposal, and he had regretted the absence from Parliament of the best men in the country. Did he think that the best men in the country were going to come here to sit with their mouths shut among the old guard of “Ja Broers.” Then the Prime Minister was concerned for the dignity of the House. Might he (Mr. Fichardt) suggest that he plucked the beam out of his own eye before he attempted to take the mote out of other people’s eyes. He did not think the Prime Minister should pose as an apostle of dignity. The Prime Minister had led the House to believe that the proposed closure was something of the same sort as that which prevailed in the Free State.

He never said so.

said that in the Free State Volksraad the closure should only be imposed if two-thirds of the members voted for it, and it applied only to those who had already spoken on the subject under debate. Hitherto the members were allowed to speak as often as they liked, and the reason for the closure was to prevent a member speaking more than once on the same subject. There was no party Government there. (Cheers.) If the Prime Minister wished to follow the precedent of the Free State, let him adopt a similar procedure. In the Free State they believed in democracy and freedom, but they did not express it by allowing one man to speak for several hours and then passing the nod round and not allowing other members to speak at all. In proposing the motion the Prime Minister stated that the House sat for several months every year, but could not do anything unless it altered the entire system of procedure. Speaking at Nylstroom last November, however, the Prime Minister claimed that Union had proved a great success. At Rustenburg he gave a list, a column and a half in length, of what the Government had done. The Prime Minister was not the only one who had been going round the country telling of the achievements of the Government. The Minister of Defence at Pretoria strongly denied that the Government had proved incapable of carrying on the public business. Then the Minister of Lands— be (Mr. Fiehardt) would not give him away altogether—gave a speech occupying six columns, in which he catalogued the achievements of the Government. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, speaking at Maritzburg, claimed that the Government had done wonders along the lines of its main policy. Not only did Ministers believe that there had been vast achievements, but all their hon. friends on the back benches were of the same opinion. (Hear, hear.) The member who said that was prepared to say that the Government had done much when it was necessary that he should say so, and also to affirm that Government had done little when it was desirable that he should say so. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Parijs, speaking during the recess, referred to a number of laws that had been passed, and the hon. member for Fieksburg went a step further than the other certificate writers for the Government, for he even went back to 1912 when he said that out of 54 Bills that were introduced, 32 had become law. Now, however. Government was showing how little it had accomplished, in order that it might justify the passing of the closure. The hon. member for Ermelo had asked how long a debate would last if every member spoke? But it would be easier to ascertain how long a debate would last if no one spoke at all. (Laughter.) It would save a great deal of time if hon. members were not allowed to speak in the House. (Laughter.) A very useful suggestion had been made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) that all questions should be written down and handed to the Clerk. He (Mr. Fiehardt) would suggest to the Prime Minister, when he had persuaded the country that freedom was old-fashioned, that all members should write their speeches down, hand them to the Clerk of the House, and then have the division bell rung. (Laughter.)

He would like to ask some of his hon. friends on that side, because, although they differed in politics, he thought he might still call them friends, to beware. They must remember that either of the two parties opposite had promised that when they got into power there would be an income-tax, there would be a minimum wage for coloured and white people—same wage for both—adult suffrage was suggested, a land tax and many other things which they on that side would want to oppose and when they stood up to fight and found their hands were tied behind them by this closure, it was not going to add to the comfort of hon. members on that side of the House to know that they had themselves helped to forge the shackles. This new measure was going to cause more unrest in the country; it was going to cause a vast amount of dissatisfaction right throughout the country when the country got to know what was being done here in its name. It would be his duty to let the people in the Orange Free State know what had been done in this Parliament, how one more step had been taken in a long series by this autocratic Government in order to throttle the voice of the people. He hoped the House would not accept the closure, because he did not think it was necessary and because he did not think the House deserved it. If they were looking to where the trouble lay, the real reason lay in the way in which business was brought before the House. He hoped that, for the sake of freedom of speech in this House and for the freedom of the people of this country, they would not accept any such measure as this closure which was now proposed.

said he had boon astonished to watch the faces of Ministers during the speech they had just listened to.

The hon. member must be confined to the question of whether the second proviso of the hon. member for Smithfield's motion should be struck out.

May I ask whether I am more confined that the hon. member who has just spoken ?

Oh, much more confined The hon. member has already spoken on the main question.

said that the proviso was that it was desirable to confine this closure resolution so that it should not be enforced unless a two-thirds majority of the members were in favour of it but there should not be a rule that a member who had not spoken should not speak after this had been carried. It appeared to him that this raised the whole question. The question was whether members should be allowed to speak or should not be allowed to speak, and this was the point of the amendment of his hon. friend.

The hon. member for Uitenhage has already discussed that matter.

was understood to say that Mr. Speaker was putting a form of closure into force against him.

I am not putting any form of closure into force. I am carrying out the rules of debate. The hon. member has no right to make a remark of that kind.

resuming his seat, said that, in view of Mr. Speaker’s ruling, he should not trespass further on the time of the House.

said he thought it was most unfortunate that the Government, in bringing forward this most important matter, should have neglected to give the House the full information that they themselves had got in regard to it. Certainly there had been a report laid on the table, but it would have been far fairer to members if this report had been printed and circulated amongst them. The report had been drawn up by the Clerk of the House, at the request of the Minister of Education, and, if it were not too late, he thought the Government, before pressing this motion to a division, should give hon. members an opportunity of looking into the matter. He proposed to refer to one or two points dealt with in the report. One of the points was in regard to the danger of accentuating party feeling. They wanted to do nothing towards accentuating party feeling among members of this House at a time when there was a somewhat revolutionary spirit abroad in the land. Then, again, a certain section of the people had had it impressed upon them that, instead of taking extreme action, they should pursue constitutional methods for the redress of their grievances. If they were going to say that members should only speak when the majority allowed them to do so, surely that was once more upsetting the liberty of free speech and the liberty of the subject. This was brought in at a time when the Government were suggesting the bringing forward of measures which they could not make up their minds about, and which they shuffled like a pack of cards. The second point was as to the constitutional effect on the two Houses of Parliament of the introduction of the closure, and on this point a report was quoted on the effects in America of limiting debate in the Lower House, and it was stated that additional legislative importance had, as a consequence, been imposed on the Senate. Now they did not want to put any further work in this country on that already much over-worked body. (Laughter.) The third objection was that Bills might not be adequately discussed, and that towards the end of the session large money votes were rushed through without adequate debate. Apparently there was no very great need of shortening the sittings in this House, because he saw that the tendency since the first session had been somewhat in that direction. In the first session, they sat 550 hours; in the second, 598: and last year, 538. As to this session, with the one exception of the extremely important measure, which naturally took a very long time to debate, he thought that the legislation and all the matters brought before the House had been got through very quickly. Even an important measure such as they had now before them was not being debated at very great length, especially when they bore in mind the very protracted and exhaustive debate that took place on the introduction of the closure in the House of Commons.

Continuing, the hon. member said that a different state of affairs existed in the House of Commons at that time to anything they had seen hero. He went on to say that the Irish members obstructed by opposing English Bills, ostensibly with the idea of improving them, but really for the purpose of “wasting time,” so that there should be no time to go into Irish legislation. There was only one thing that made the position similar, and that was, he found, to be the moral cowardice of what ought to be the governing class. Continuing, he pointed out that they had various forms in their rules of restricting debate in that House. Power was given to Mr. Speaker or the Chairman to stop what they considered tedious repetition, not only of a speaker’s own argument, but arguments used by other members. This was a very drastic rule, which had been used in Committee of the Whole House recently, and it was rather hard that members were not allowed to repeat arguments which were used in a language they did not understand. He referred to the case of the hon. member for Winburg and the hon. member for Von Brandis. The latter attempted to use arguments which were used by the former, and he was not allowed to do so, although the one spoke in Dutch and the other in English. He also put the case of a member who was absent during a part of a sitting, and when he rose to speak being prevented from using arguments used during his absence. Even in that debate the Prime Minister repeated a statement no less than three times. He (Mr. Meyler) agreed that it was an important statement, and it was necessary that it should be repeated, but perhaps twice would do in the future. Then Mr. Speaker or the Chairman could refuse to take dilatory motions, if they considered these a breach of the rules. The hon. member then went on to allude to a large number of improvements made on the rules of the old Cape House, but said he thought there were other improvements that might be carried out that would facilitate business better than the closure motion. First they wanted a Government that had some knowledge of Parliamentary procedure. They did not want a Government that wasted time, and instead of attending to the business of the House read the biography of Tom Mann in the “Winning Post” whilst sitting in the House. (Laughter.) He pointed out that there were dilatory motions that Mr. Speaker and the Chairman had to accept, and he thought the number might be reduced, more discretion being given to Mr. Speaker or the Chairman. The hon. member went on to say that night sittings might be started at an earlier stage of the session than they were at present. He also suggested that a Bill might be taken up at a stage where it had been abandoned at previous session. He moved, as an amendment: to delete all words after “that,” and insert the words, “no rules of procedure will be satisfactory to this House which confer the power of closing a debate upon a majority of members.” He had intended introducing another amendment, to the effect that a certain number of hon. members must vote for the closure, but in view of the many amendments already moved he would not do so. The amendment he now moved got to the root of the matter, and they could come to a straight vote upon it. As to what the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had accused them of—of repetition after repetition, it was a very unfair accusation to make, because little repetitions were unavoidable unless one had very full notes. As to what had been said about the time taken up in connection with the discussion on the schedule of the Indemnity Bill, they had been told that Parliament was the highest tribunal of the land, and yet they had only taken a little over two hours in dealing with each man’s case, whilst a court of law would have taken three days to deal with one of these cases.

ruled that as this amendment was in effect only a direct negative, he was unable to accept it.

said that no arguments had been bought to bear tor instituting so drastic a thing as the closure; neither by the Prime Minister nor by any of the stalwarts who sat behind him. In the House of Commons the closure had been introduced to cope with a special situation, as a certain section, and not a small section either, had expressed their determination to obstruct on anything; but such a thing had not happened in that House and the Prime Minister had admitted that there had been no obstruction. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had said that they on the cross-benches had obstructed; and if they had done so, were they not justified in bringing all the opposition and obstruction they could against such a measure?

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing his speech, said that he thought he had demonstrated pretty conclusively that there was no occasion for that motion for the closure. There was no reason why the House should pass it in view of the experience they had had or in view of the experience they were likely to have. The House had no right to pass a motion of that character. Each individual member of that House represented a constituency, and no constituency sent a member to that House to represent it silently. They were expected to voice the opinions, not always of themselves—it was frequently the case that members in that House voiced the opinions of those who controlled them—but the opinions of those who sent them there. Those hon. members who had been sent to oppose the Government were expected to oppose, and the expressions of their opinions might possibly take the form of opposing every piece of legislation introduced by the Government, and they might reasonably be expected to introduce measures along their lines which they on the cross-benches had preached from the platforms when seeking the suffrages of their constituents. He wanted the House to think well and truly about the matter; hon. members were not going to be gagged. That motion was directed against the members on the cross-benches, and it was particularly unfair—that unfairness was never more exemplified than when the Prime Minister trotted out the good old “Cape Times” analysis. He said there had been no obstruction, but they had to curtail debates in the interests of the House and in the interests of the country. In order to do that the right hon. gentleman had just demonstrated that the hon. members on the cross-benches have taken 102 hours out of 134 hours in their opposition to the Government, to the so-called Opposition, and to every quarter of the House in connection with that contemptible destruction of the liberties of the subject perpetrated by the Government in those dark days of January. If they had not taken those 102 hours there would not have been any opposition at all. (Labour cheers.) They had the right, then, to oppose the Government in a piece of legislation indemnifying them for an action unprecedented in the civilised world. They got no support from the Opposition and they took up as much time as they could, little as that was, not only to shame the Opposition into supporting them, not only to shame the Government into receding from the position they had taken up, but also to open the eyes of that particular section of the country who were not au fait with the matter. They had done right. Every portion of the Union that had had an opportunity of demonstrating its opinion on the action of the hon. members on the cross-benches had done so, and that provided the reason for the Prime Minister introducing that motion. There could be only one reason why the Government at that particular portion of the session, and the session so late in the life of that Parliament, the reason could only be to prevent any real opposition, any real exposure, any effort on the part of any section of that House demonstrating to the country what was the truth of the industrial proposals of the Government. Hon. members must realise and admit that that could be the only reason why the Government had introduced a measure of that character.

The most damning speech made on that particular motion was that made by the hon. member for East London. That speech had at last wakened up the Opposition, for that particular time only, he (Mr. Madeley) believed. That speech was a splendid one, and proved the satisfaction of his party, to the hon. members on the cross-benches and to hon. members on the other side of the House that there was no Opposition in that House except the hon. members on the cross-benches, and some hon. members on the Opposition side of the House. That was the most convincing reason for preventing the Government passing that motion. It was proved conclusively by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth that there was no need for the motion. There was certainly no need for hon. Ministers to fear long speeches from hon. members of the Government side of the House, for they had only to send the word round by the Whip to hush and hon. members on the Government side would hush. The closure, therefore, was in existence already. The Prime Minister could apply it any moment, so far as his own side was concerned. Then why try to gag that little band of seven—or rather, as an hon. member had pointed out, that little band of eight. They were increasing slowly, and the increase would be more rapid in the near future. For the present, however, they were unable to do anything in the way of systematic obstruction, and moreover, they were absolutely unwilling to do it. He defied the Prime Minister to bring in any instance at all, other than in connection with the Indemnity Bill, when they were justified in pumping away at the Government for all they were worth, where they had deliberately obstructed the business of that House.

The hon. member for East London had styled the member for Jeppe as a leader of those going about the country playing a band. Well, he had heard that jealousies were never so keen as between rival musicians. The hon. member for East London had good reason to be jealous, because that band to which he referred discoursed popular music. That music had been very popular in East London, he might tell the hon. member, and an encore was being demanded. It was claimed that they should have the closure in order to save time, but it had been brought to the notice of the House that this waste of time was due to the inability of the Government to conduct the business of the country. He would ask the House to cast its memory back two sessions ago, when certain members on the opposite side turned the House into a laundry, and for days they on the cross-benches had to listen to an unseemly wrangle, while the business of the country was neglected. He had taken the trouble to go through the Votes and Proceedings of the last three sessions. In the session of 1910-11, eleven Government Bills, not including private members’ Bills, passed through the House, but there were no fewer than eleven Bills dropped or withdrawn. It was fair to suppose that all Bills brought in during the first session of the Union Parliament were of first importance, yet only one-half the measures that were introduced became law. In no instance was the dropping of those Bills due to the Opposition or the obstruction of members on the cross-benches, but was entirely due to the inability of the Government to carry them through. One of these Bills was the Railways and Harbours Service Bill, which passed the second reading, and was then referred to a Select Committee, which reported, but the Government took no action on that report. In the second year just the same process took place, when all the expenses of printing, the cost of Special Committees. etc., was again incurred. The Miners’ Phthisis Bill was another example of the incompetency of the Government to carry through its own measures. This was brought in during their second session of the Union Parliament, but was withdrawn, and a useless one was afterwards substituted, to be followed by a third, which was now in operation. Another Bill of first importance was the Public Health Bill, which was dropped and had never again been introduced. Perhaps one of the most notable examples was that of the University Bill, when the Minister of Education delivered an eloquent speech for two hours and a half, and after commending it to the country, asked leave to withdraw it. Where was that University Bill now? As an example of the incompetency of the Government to place its business before the House they had only to look at almost any copy of the Votes and Proceedings, and they would find seven or eight Bills all at the same stage. An hon. member had given it as his opinion that the House ought not to sit more than a limited time, but he (Mr. Madeley) thought if there was any business to be done it should be proceeded with, even if it took nine months of the year. He asked the Prime Minister to be frank and to say if the whole motion was not directed against the cross-benches, although he (Mr. Madeley) would ask the House to point out any one instance of obstruction coming from the cross-benches. They had sat and listened to members on the opposite benches, who were causing all the delay, without having once objected. Members on the cross benches had no right to be blamed, still less ought they to be gagged, because they were the only people who thoroughly understood the industrial questions of the country, therefore if any one had a right to unburden himself on such matters it was the members on the cross-benches. The statement that the final selection rested with Mr. Speaker did not hold for one moment. Was it fair that the majority which was chiefly concerned in shutting up the other portion of the House which was opposing it should have the power to shut them up altogether when the majority liked? No. It was contrary to all principles of right and justice and good government. He, therefore, called on hon. members to assist them on the cross-benches to prevent the Government riding rough shod over the liberties of members of this House and of the country. (Labour cheers.)

said most of the hon. members who had argued against the motion were not actually opposed to it, but they had held that the time for the introduction of the closure was inopportune, although they had given no reason for this contention. Apparently the time would only be opportune when hon. members on the opposite side were at the head of affairs. He held that the time had arrived a long time ago for the introduction of the closure. Many hon. members after a question had been fully discussed would rise in their seats and keep the House for another hour or so. There were at present three amendments before the House, and it struck him in reading these amendments that all the hon. members who had proposed amendments were in favour of the closure, although they expressed themselves against the motion. He did not think the right hon. member for Victoria West would try and kill the motion in a roundabout way. The same applied to the hon. member for Smithfield. The latter’s idea of a closure might be good in theory, but in practice it was impossible. It was quite out of the question ever to get two-thirds of the members to vote for the closure being applied, because any hon. member opposing the Government would vote against the application of the closure. As to the position of affairs in the Free State, conditions there were altogether different from those prevailing here, as members of the Free State Parliament were all imbued with a spirit of co-operation and of helping matters along. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Fauresmith, after having argued against the closure, by his amendment had proved himself in favour of a closure. It had been said that if the motion was agreed to bitterness and strife would be caused. He (the speaker) held that the people in the country wished to see legislation placed on the Statute-book and wished economy brought about. The hon. member for Ladybrand had accused members behind the Government of being “ja broers.” The hon. member should know that members behind the Government were always prepared to stand up for the rights of their constituents. The hon. member for Ladybrand himself, however, had one leader, and no matter what that leader said he agreed with. (Hear, hear.) In the Committee-room the hon. member had also supported the hon. member for Barberton in proposing to seize the £110,000, which belonged to the Free State, and pay it into the General Treasury. The hon. member for Ladybrand had twitted the hon. member for Oudtshoorn for his loyalty. Could any member be twitted with anything more honourable than with being loyal? The hon. member for Ladybrand had further said that there was a betrothal between the Opposition and the Government. It struck him, however, that if there was a betrothal, it was between the hon. member for Fauresmith and the Opposition. The hon. member for Fauresmith had always stood by and voted with the Opposition wherever there was any possibility of embarrassing the Government. As a matter of fact there was no longer any question of a betrothal— the hon. member for Fauresmith and the Opposition had been wedded long since. (Laughter.) He regretted that so many hon. members who in public had expressed themselves in favour of the closure should now speak against it. The people in the country realised the necessity of a measure such as this, and he for one would vote for the motion. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought it was right that he as a member should not give a silent vote on such an important proposal as this. To him it was even more important than the matter which engaged so much of their time and attention at the beginning of the session, because, if the closure were passed and placed in the Orders, it was likely to last as long as the House lasted. They might have expected that some member of the Government would have laid the proposal before the House in a proper, full and logical way, but the three members of the Government who had spoken had, so far as he could follow them, been contradictory of one another, and on reading the reports of the speeches, he found that the same Minister contradicted himself more than once. He also objected to the very short notice which had been given of this motion. As far as he could understand, the two main reasons given by the Government were first, that it was to stop obstruction in the House, and, secondly, that it was to facilitate business. He would like to draw attention to the fact that it was only when Legislatures were forced by circumstances that could not be allowed to continue that such measures as the closure had been brought in. The question was, had the Government been forced to bring in such a proposal as this? The only ground which they had stated for their proposal in the way of obstruction was what took place at the beginning of this session in connection with the Indemnity Bill. He did not think that one occasion of that kind was sufficient to warrant the Government in bringing such an important proposal as this before the House, even if it: could be said that there was obstruction on that occasion. He did not go so far as to say that there was pure and sheer obstruction on the part of the hon. members on the cross-benches in that matter. There had been cases when the speeches had been unduly prolonged, but they already had provision in their Standing Rules and Orders for dealing with matters of that kind, and it tested with Mr. Speaker or the Chairman to apply those rules. He, therefore, did not think that the Government could possibly claim the vote of the House on that issue. In regard to their plea that it was in order to facilitate business, he agreed with a great deal of what had been said about the ineptitude of the Government in the carrying on of the business of the country. A great deal of the failures to get business through this House lay at the doors of Ministers themselves. They had been helped through with business by members of the House when they had brought in business which the country desired to have. A glaring case of the way in which the business of the House had been mismanaged was to be found in the Railways and Harbours Control Bill, which, during two sessions had been brought in, passed first and second reading, sent to Select Committees, reported upon, and dropped at the finish. One thing that every member of the House must insist upon was that on every measure that was brought forward he should have the right to express the opinion of himself and his constituents.

It was a curious circumstance that the Government had thought fit to introduce this closure proposal during the very session when practically no business had been brought before the House. Very few Bills had been brought before them so far, and the Government had stated that they had no intention of introducing many Bills this session. This motion, too, was introduced during a session when the Prime Minister insisted upon the House having a fortnight’s holiday at this particular time of the year, for the first time in the history of the Union Parliament.

said that the hon. member must not reflect upon a vote of the House.

continuing, said that if the Government had continued on the lines they had adopted in the first session and had brought in consolidating Bills such as the country felt were necessary, they would have done very much better than they had done since. As to the actual merits of the Prime Minister’s motion, the Government’s statement that they were only following the custom of the House of Commons and the legislatures of other countries was scarcely justified by the wording of the proposal. The rule had not been taken as it was in the House of Commons Rule, because in the latter a stipulation was made as to the number of members who must be in the House when the closure was carried and also as to the number who must constitute the majority. No such safeguards appeared in this proposal. Again, he claimed that there was no need for these closure proposals in this House, though he believed the time might come when such a thing would be necessary.

If they brought anything of the sort forward he would much prefer to see the New Zealand system of a time limit for speeches. In the New Zealand Parliament the limit for speeches was half-an-hour. In committee a member could not speak longer than ten minutes or more than four times on each point. If the closure system, as proposed in the motion, was adopted, it could well be understood the front benches would get the preference and the ordinary members of the House would rarely get a say on any important subject. It would not only be unfair to these members, but it would be unfair to their constituents. It had been said that the New Zealand practice had been a failure, but he considered that no proof of that had been placed before the House. If a member could not say all he wanted to say inside an hour then he must be a very poor speaker indeed. A man who could not do that did not know how to arrange his thoughts, and perhaps it would be an advantage to some of their speakers if they were forced to curtail their remarks. This would not only be an advantage to the Press Gallery, but would be an advantage to the country. He pointed out that Mr. Asquith never spoke for more than an hour on any subject, and it was said he never said too much, and never left out what should be said. They could not all be Mr. Asquith’s, but they could try to follow his example. He thought that the Government was making a mistake. They made a mistake in deporting the nine men without trial, and now—

The hon. member is dealing with a Bill already passed.

But I am not—

The hon. member has no right—

I agree with you, sir. (Laughter.) I am only

The hon. member cannot go into that matter.

said it would be most unfortunate for the Government if the impression got abroad that they had brought forward this closure proposal in order to try and force measures through the House. After what had happened recently he thought it was a most unfortunate proposal. He suggested that Government should drop the proposal and wait until something occurred which would give them a right to bring forward such a motion. Even if they carried this through the House he did not think they would have the support of the country. If the Government was not prepared to drop the proposal, he thought it should be sent to a Select Committee.

said he extremely regretted that the hon. member for Uitenhage had had no opportunity of taking part in the debate, as the hon. member always showed himself to be well informed on every subject. On the day the motion was introduced there was no single Government measure on the paper, the Peace Preservation Bill having been withdrawn. The Railway Bill passed through two stages that same day—was there any obstruction there? If they looked at the laws passed by that Parliament they would find some extremely important laws for the development of the country—which should be the main objective of a Parliament to pass. A number of important industrial Acts had also been passed, while other Acts, such as the Defence Act, Further Administration of Justice Act, were also passed during the past few years. What, however, stood in the way of the main objective mentioned by him was that Bills were introduced, pass the second reading, and then be withdrawn. A good deal of time was of course wasted in that way. In reply to the Prime Minister, he wished to point out that Mr. Gladstone, in introducing the closure in 1882, made it clear that he only desired such a measure to be agreed to if a large majority on both sides of the House agreed to it. Dealing with other arguments, Mr. Grobler held that there had never been any organised obstruction here in this House justifying the introduction of this motion. If ever in days to come the conditions became such as to make it impossible for the Government to carry on the business, they would always be able to introduce the closure, but at present there was no necessity. In the Cape House the first obstruction took place on the occasion of the introduction of the Federation Bill by Lord Carnarvon. The closure was not considered necessary then. Obstruction occurred again later on in connection with another measure, but again the closure was not considered necessary. Many hon. members who comprised a large minority of the House, were opposed to the motion, and when the opposition was so great the Prime Minister ought not to drive his motion through. The time was certainly inopportune. If there were really substantial reasons to justify the introduction of the closure, hon. members would vote for it. The hon. member for Ermelo had delivered a very peculiar speech on the subject. If members could not get a chance to speak now, then, with the closure introduced, they would certainly get no chance. He hoped the motion would not be agreed to. (The speaker was only partly audible.)

said he could not understand the position of some hon. members, who, on the one hand, complained that no work was being done, and, on the other hand, produced a long list of laws which had been passed to prove that the motion was uncalled for. He had always been opposed to the introduction of the closure. He had been in the Opposition, but his experience had been that, where the Government introduced wrong measures, they opposed, but did not obstruct. At present, however, the position was going from bad to worse. Interminable speeches were being delivered, and on every question lengthy arguments were raised. Matters could no longer go on like this. The best men were being kept out of Parliament, and he would therefore vote for the motion. If the sessions of Parliament lasted too long, who would remain members of Parliament? Only the capitalists and the hard-up; the man of medium means would be unable to attend. Whilst preventing unnecessary discussion the Government would take care that the new rule was not abused.

said he wished to lodge a protest against the manner in which Bills were introduced into this House. In the Free State measures, whether introduced by a private member or a Minister, were published some weeks in advance in the “Gazette,” so that members had an opportunity of consulting their constituents. Then in this House members had to decide on their attitude within one week. And the same was the position in regard to this motion. He did not come here as a critic, to drag up all sorts of irrelevant matters. He wished to ask himself whether or not it was in the interest of the country to have a motion like this agreed to. However, in a Parliament like this, where members had no opportunity of consulting their constituents on every Bill, he thought it would be wrong, undesirable, and unnecessary to introduce the closure. After all, the debates threw a fresh light on every matter brought up, and in the circumstances members wanted every possible explanation. Therefore he could not agree with members being deprived of the opportunity of hearing the views of other members. The closure really meant that the number of speeches would be limited; a few members might speak for four, five or six hours and would only be applied to those who did not belong to the Government party. One member got tired and moved the closure, and if Mr. Speaker agreed, it would mean that those members who had not been able to catch the Speaker’s eye were deprived of their right to address the House. He could see, a good deal in favour of the imposition of a time limit, but he certainly could not agree to the motion now before the House. He might be instructed to speak on one or other measure, but owing to the closure he would be prevented saying anything, with the result that he himself and his constituents had their mouths closed. Mr. Wessels proceeded to deprecate the attitude and the remarks of the hon. member for Winburg, which, he said, were not conducive towards maintaining the dignity of this House. He hoped the result of the recent Provincial Council elections had not scared the Prime Minister into introducing this motion. Let the Prime Minister bide his time and introduce the closure when the necessity arose. It was because so many members on the Government benches were silenced that so many members from other sides of the House occupied so much time. Although he had the greatest respect for Mr. Speaker, he thought they were now proposing to give him too great a responsibility. He held, therefore, that at least two-thirds of the members speaking on a subject should vote in favour of the closure before it should be applied. He intended to support the amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith, and if it was rejected he would vote for the amendment which had been moved by the right hon. member for Victoria West.

said he wished to support everything that had been said by hon. members who had spoken against the motion. It was a two-edged sword which had been hanging over the head of the Labour Party for some time, but one day it might be used against those who were now trying to tyrannise over minorities in this House. It was another attack on the innocent members of the Labour Party. (Hear, hear.) They knew what it was to be attacked and to have their freedom of speech and freedom of meeting taken away, and now Government was trying to gag them inside the House itself. It had been suggested that hon. members should write out their speeches and hand them in to the Clerk, but why not go a step further? Do not call upon members to attend the. House, but simply let them drop a post-card stating whether they were in favour of a Bill or against it. Judging by the Bills brought forward by the Government, such as the Peace Preservation Bill, it would be a very good thing if the Government did not stop short, at closing debates but closed the House itself—(hear, hear)—for 25 or 30 years, and letting it to some other gasworks. (Laughter.) The motion was directly aimed against the members of the Labour Party. In the earlier days of the session every time a threat to apply the closure was made the hon. members on the Opposition side vociferously cheered, but now they opposed the motion. Why this change? If the motion had been brought in two months ago, when the Government thought it had its heel on the Labour Party it would have been welcomed whole-heartedly by the majority of those who were now opposing it. But a change had come over the dreams of the Opposition, and they were opposing the motion, not on the grounds of principle, but because it was inopportune. No question of dividends was at stake, and the Opposition was now standing up in favour of the freedom of speech. The Labour Party in that House found itself in a very singular position, since the onus of opposing Government measures fell on the shoulders of the seven men on the cross benches, who consequently had to talk more than they otherwise would. They had not tried deliberately to obstruct any debate, but there were times when they had talked longer on a certain subject than some hon. members thought they were warranted in doing, but the bigger the outrage the bigger the opposition. When Magna Charta was outraged a few weeks ago they put up an opposition, and the country had expressed its opinion as to whether they were justified in what they did. The Minister of Railways had compared the Union Parliament to the old Cape Parliament, but even although there were no Labour members in the latter, its members had dragged down debate to a low level, using words at times which had not been used by hon. members on the cross-benches. But in those days the fight was between vested interests as to which section should get the largest portion of the plum, but with the advent of the Labour Party it was a fight between those who stood for Capital against Labour, which demanded a greater share of the profits it produced. That fight had now become a real one.

The same fight had been waged in the Australian Parliament. Labour triumphed there, and it would triumph in South Africa, in spite of Martial Law, in spite of all the persecutions, and in spite of the closure in this House and the taking away of freedom of speech outside the House. This was merely a continuation of the policy of persecution. They had seen it exemplified during the past few weeks. They had seen it when the Minister of Defence and his colleagues appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the Official Telegram Disclosure question. To-morrow they were going to discuss whether a certain individual—he could not anticipate the discussion but he would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that to-morrow they ought to have a full and free discussion of this man’s liberty. How could there be any confidence in a full and thorough examination if the closure were going to be passed this evening. Upon the eve of one of the most important debates, they were asked to pass the closure which would prevent possibly, if the Government wished it so, a thorough and full examination into the question of the Official Telegram Disclosure and as to how this man was to be treated. They had been gagged in the country, and now they were to have the gag applied to the Labour members in Parliament. The Government were putting a rod in pickle, which might be used against themselves in the future. From the point of view of party politics, they could not have played better into the Labour Party’s hands than they were doing at the present time. If the Government wanted any form of closure let them introduce legislation which was calculated to benefit all sections of the community and which was in the real interests of the people. The closure measure now proposed would only annoy, agitate, and irritate many members in this House who would feel that they were not given sufficient opportunity of discussing the question before them. There would be found ways and means of defeating this closure motion. The Government were not serving any good purpose by forcing it upon the small minority of seven. If their rights of speech were limited, then they would have to adopt other measures, if necessary deliberately obstruct.

said that, to his mind, it had long been time that something was done to prevent not merely the waste of public time, but also the waste of public money that had been going on, more especially during the present session. They had heard a lot about the O.F.S., but he made bold to say, as a member of the old Volksraad, that if such things had taken place in that body as had taken place during this session in this House, the public would have interfered. (Hear, hear.) Personally, he could not say that he loved this proposal very much. (Labour cheers.) He would have preferred to have seen some other way of putting some restriction upon members, especially those members who always went beyond the line. He would have liked to see something of the kind that they had in the O.F.S., but, seeing the class of people they had got to deal with in this House, they could not make the same rules as the old Volksraad had He would have preferred in this House to have had a time limit for speeches—(hear, hear)—but even against that there were many things to be said. As regarded the O.F.S., they had had many explanations of the old rules, and everyone seemed to be leaving out something. He would take the hon. member for Ladybrand. He had really forced him (Mr. Keyter) to get up this evening. He never liked to be personal. The hon. member had said that he was going to give the member for Ficksburg a friendly dig. He hoped the hon. member (Mr. Fichardt) would take a friendly box on the ears. (Laughter.) He had tried to interpret the rules of the old Orange Free State Volksraad. In some things he was absolutely wrong. He had told this House that the Free State closure was simply to prevent a person from speaking twice. In a way that was right, but he did not go far enough. The Free State rule was that, at any time, a member could get up and propose the closure, but it would not affect those members who had not spoken on the subject, except in so far as they were barred from introducing fresh proposals or amendments. He had the minutes of the old Volksraad for 1893, and he found that on almost every subject the closure was proposed. Continuing, he said that his hon. friend had said that the hon. member for Ficksburg had gone one better than the hon. member for Vredefort, by comparing the laws passed in 1913 with those passed in 1912. But his hon. friend had gone one better than either, by taking the laws of 1911. The difference, however, was that the hon. member for Ficksburg had taken the official list, as supplied by the Clerk of the House. But, of course, he never took his young friend seriously, because he always made speeches first and got his information afterwards. The hon. member for Ladybrand had told his constituents that the Prime Minister had forced the Mixed. Marriages Law through the House and on the Free State. But he would point out that that Bill was wrecked. As a matter of fact, mixed marriages were allowed under the regimes of President Brand, President Reitz, and President Steyn, and, as a matter of fact, was the law at the present time. He was not one of the “Ja Broers,” and nobody could make him one. He was too old a bird to be caught. The now hon. member for Barberton when Treasurer tried to get him to follow blindly, but he told him plainly in the House that he refused to follow anybody blindly. Continuing, he advised his young friend to be more consistent in the future, because he had told his constituents that nothing had been done, and yet he told the House that a good deal had been done. In Conclusion, he said he was not in love with the motion, but he thought that something would have to be done.

said he judged this motion would be carried, and he supposed this would be the last time he and his friends on those benches would be able to exercise their full speaking rights as members of Parliament. He was glad to hear from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that the Indemnity Bill debate was necessary, and he only regretted members of the Opposition had not discovered it before, and given assistance to hon. members on the cross-benches. The Prime Minister had said something about Parliament having to satisfy the people, and the hon. member for Ficksburg had said that if the same thing had occurred in the O.F.S. Volksraad, the public would have interfered. But there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to what was meant by public and what was meant by people. There was no doubt the Prime Minister referred to one section of the population—that section of the population which was sometimes called “our people.” But he had some doubt as to whether that particular section would be satisfied by the attitude of the right hon. gentleman and his Ministry. They on those benches represented a large section of the population, which even included some described as “our people,” and they had no doubt that that large section had no sympathy with what was beings done that night. He referred to the able speech made by the hon. member for East London, and said it was comforting to find him taking up his position again as a member of the Opposition. The hon. member had claimed that they were a real Opposition, and that they supported the Government only when they considered the Government was right. The unfortunate difference was, that when the Opposition thought the Government was right, the cross-benches did not. But it was votes that counted, and that fact, unfortunately for the Opposition, was gradually being discovered by the electors. It had been stated by members on the Government side that they were not doing business quickly enough. He had yet to learn that the work of Parliament should be judged by the number of Bills that were passed in one session. It was very desirable that legislation should be stopped when that legislation was bad for the country. If they had succeeded in stopping some legislation of that kind—he did not think they had, as they were too few in number—they had performed a useful service.

The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had said he did not want to stop useful debate, but he wanted to stop unnecessary loquacity. But who was to define what was useful debate and what was unnecessary loquacity? They were going to put that matter into the hands of the Government and its supporters, and if anything was said from their side of the House which was favourable to the Bill before the House that would be considered useful debate, but if their views were of a critical nature, anything that tended to show up the deficiencies of the proposal of the Government would be in great danger of being considered useless loquacity by the hon. Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. That vas the danger they at the Opposition end of the House stood in. The hon. member for Langlaagte told them they toiled not neither did they spin, though he did not know what the hon. member meant by that. Another hon. member had said that the hon. members on the cross-benches were actuated by various motives, amongst others, a desire for self-advertisement. Still another complained that because they advertised themselves so much other hon. members on his side of the House were unable to speak and satisfy their constituents. That could only mean, of course, that they were unable to advertise themselves, as they evidently wished to do. They on the cross-benches had no wish to advertise themselves, but he would admit they had a desire to advertise the principles for which they stood, and while much of the discussion which they contributed to the House was not considered of much use, so far as the ideas of many of the hon. members were concerned, their contributions had had some effect, and would continue to have some effect, in the country. Parliament was a useful sounding board, and they had a right to use that House as a platform from which to instruct the electors. They had been told that the dignity of Parliament had been undermined. The Minister of Railways said that all had agreed that rambling discussion must cease. The particular action which had brought that matter to a head was the debate on the schedule of the Indemnity Bill. He (Mr. Andrews) did not think any hon. member could fairly accuse hon. members on the cross-benches of being rambling on that occasion. They were discussing definitely the merits and demerits of the men whose names appeared on that schedule, and certainly the Minister of Railways was not justified in calling that a rambling discussion. They on the cross benches claimed to be as responsible as any other hon. members, excepting, of course, the Ministers, and there should be no discrimination in that House between those who supported the Government and those who might be called irresponsible. There had been longer discussions in some other representative House of Parliament. There was a case in point at the present time in connection with the Home Rule question, which was before the House of Commons. That matter had been discussed for many years. Could they say that the discussions had been a waste of time? Long discussions had some times been justified in order to bring out all the points of difference, and if possible to come to a satisfactory conclusion. Very often these long discussions were very salutary and beneficial, and calculated to prevent legislation which would otherwise be pushed through in a hurry and neglected at leisure. In conclusion, the hon. member said that he would not express the hope that the party of which he was a member would not take the opportunity of using the gag, for the motion would no doubt be carried. If ever that party got the power they would be more generous than the Prime Minister and his colleagues were determined to be.

said he represented a large and peculiar constituency.

No one could accuse him of ever unnecessarily delaying the House, but occasions did arise when members had to make the voices of their constituents heard, and he remembered the occasion when time after time he had had to rise to express the views of his constituents. He admitted that on occasions hon. members did take up too much time, but if the Government allotted a certain time to the discussion of a certain measure, and if nearly all that time was taken up by a few members, would it then be right to close the mouths of the other members? If the Government were to propose a motion laying down a time limit of half an hour he would support such a motion. Many hon. members occupied two hours in saying what could be said in half-an-hour. The Government would say that in that way many hours would be taken up. But some hon. members did not speak at all, and others spoke but briefly. Many of his constituents would not be satisfied if his mouth was closed on a matter on which he was expected to speak. He trusted that even at this late hour the Government would see its way to substitute a time limit for the present proposal of a closure.

did not think he would be wasting the time of the House in saying a few words on a motion which was to make such an important change in the procedure of the House and to leave to future Parliaments a legacy such as it was proposed to do. Hon. members must know that if this rule is adopted it will be many a long day before it is removed; it is therefore important that members who held views opposite to those on the Government side of the House should not let the opportunity pass of opposing it. He was not there to facilitate the passage of the closure, and for that reason he was not going to abstain from speaking against it. That the new ruling was going to be abused there could be ver little doubt, and the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Maginess) was right when he said that people outside that House would be inclined to regard the measure as an attempt to gag hon. members. It would not be necessary for the Labour members to express the same opinions over and over again if other hon. members would only stop and listen to them, for owing to the frequent absences from the House of hon. members the Labour speakers had to repeat their arguments. Several suggestions had been made for facilitating the business of the House, and if the Labour members had desired to obstruct they could have done so when those suggestions were before Parliament. But against the closure motion, they must raise a very strong protest indeed. They had been told by the Government Whips that this was going through, and for the past two or three years they had been told, “If you Labour members don’t shut up, some sort of closure will be put in force.” Hon. members who had said that ought to know better. (Labour cheers.) If they wished to fight this matter out, let them go to the Labour members’ constituents, and not come here in a back-handed manner with a castiron majority. The Prime Minister (concluded Mr. Sampson) was being made a tool of in this matter by the members composing his party.

replying on the debate, said he had listened with the greatest attention to all the speeches. The personal attacks in these speeches he would not take any notice of, as the work of this House was of far too much importance to make it necessary for him to answer these attacks. He had not heard a single argument to convince him that the Government’s proposals were wrong. The arguments in regard to the steamroller being used were practically the same as those which were used everywhere where the closure was introduced. In no Parliament which he knew of, the closure, once it had been introduced, had been withdrawn. The introduction was always contested and opposed, but even if the existing Government was substituted by another, the closure remained. As to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, his remarks had given him the impression that he (Sir Thos. Smartt) was very pleased to be able to attack the Government. Recent events had evidently affected the hon. member profoundly. He (the Prime Minister) remembered the days when the hon. member occupied an important place in the Government of this country. In those days he had proposed a sort of closure, but he went much further— he proposed to abolish the House of Parliament altogether. Of course, the people would not tolerate such a proposal. Many arguments had been used, and it had been said that the rights of members were being interfered with. The hon. member for Bethlehem, although a young member, had acted more or less like a schoolmaster in trying to teach the House its duties. After all, the majority had far greater responsibilities than the minorities. The former was in charge of the constructive policy, while the latter were not. It was very odd that all the hon. members who wanted to upset the Government had used the same arguments. Many hon. members who in the past had expressed themselves in favour of a closure now spoke against it. It struck him that their intention really was to attack the Government more than anything else. The Leader of the Opposition, taking as his precedent an action of a previous speaker, had said that Mr. Speaker had the right of closure. He had not given the grounds for this contention, but merely alluded to what had taken place in the House of Commons. Moreover, he had omitted to mention that Mr. Speaker Brand, when he applied the closure in the British House of Commons, did so on the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) that he would move the adoption of definite proposals in that connection, and so justify his action. He (the Prime Minister) did not agree with that, but if that was the view of the hon. member, why then not give Mr. Speaker that right? Let Mr. Speaker apply the closure in this country with that as a precedent, then they would hear something from the member for Fort Beaufort. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition had convinced him more than any other speech that the proposal was right. It had further been said that he (the Prime Minister) had said that there had been no obstruction. He denied having said so. No one could say he had said so, and hon. members, knowing the facts, knew that he could not have said so. What he had said was that his morton was not based solely on the ground of the obstruction which had taken place. They all knew that there had been obstruction. He had clearly stated that the proceedings of this House were not going on as they should, and had specifically referred to the fact that 102 hours out of 154 hours had been taken up by only a few members whilst debating the Indemnity Bill. There was no need for members to lose their rights, and on the other hand, no reason why those rights should be abused.

When the liberty of speech of this House was being abused to the detriment of the people, there must be machinery to stop this. Hon. members opposite had said the present state of affairs was due to the inability of the Government. This argument rather reminded him of the old saying, “Every jackhal praises his own tail.” (Laughter.) Naturally, the Government had to be attacked. (Laughter.) Dealing with the argument of hon. members on the cross-benches that this motion was intended against them in view of the forthcoming industrial legislation, he wished to point out that in 1913, the Government had asked the Clerk of the House to draw up a, memorandum in regard to the proceedings of this House, and the application of the closure in other countries. His report was dated 13th July, 1915. This motion was under consideration long before the Indemnity Bill was submitted. The work of the House had not been going on as it should. A considerable amount of time had been spent on a small item on the Estimates, while a large and important measure would go through quickly. In regard to the criticism of the Government wishing to give a recess, he desired to say that the Government had not proposed this recess because they were so anxious to have a holiday. It had been decided on owing to a desire from all parts of the House.

The Government’s business was not ready.

That was not so. Could anyone-say that the dignity of the House of Commons had been interfered with as a result of the closure being in force there?

Yes.

He denied it, nor had the rights of the minorities been interfered with in any way. He felt, however, that the closure as applied in England was too far-reaching to be suitable for the Union Parliament. In regard to the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West, he asked what use it would be to send this motion to the Select Committee on Standing Orders, seeing that all the members of that committee had spoken against the motion, the Government could not accept it. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield, he wished to repeat what he had said originally, namely, that the closure was not a foreign thing to South Africa, and that in some form or other it had existed in three of the Provinces, and he believed also in the Cape Legislative Council. He had expected that the hon. member would have made a practical proposal. He (General Hertzog) was a man with ambition, and he hoped he would not help to create impossible conditions. A proposal such as that of the hon. member would be good in a House imbued with the same spirit as that which prevailed in the old Free State Raad. There was no party Government there, but here their whole Government was based on a party system. He thought the old republican system was better, but under their party system they had to have methods applicable to such a system. In regard to other matters, he wished to point out that the membership of the House of Commons was over 600, of whom 100 had to vote for the closure before it could be applied. Proportionally, that would be 20 in the House of Assembly here, and the fixing of a minimum was therefore unnecessary. They could in a small House like this not have the same rules in regard to the voting on the closure as prevailed in the House of Commons. He could not accept any of the amendments, and moved his motion as it stood.

After discussion, Mr. Speaker put the question: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

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

Ayes—59.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bokker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje. Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

Do Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris, David

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman. Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—46.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Botha, Christian Lourens

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hertzog, James Barry Munnik

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

The question was according affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Merriman dropped.

then put sub-sections (1) to (4) of the motion.

(Fort Beaufort) called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

Ayes—59.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris, David

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman, Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Therein, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

FT. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—46.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Botha, Christian Lourens

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustas

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hertzog, James Barry Munnik

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Runciman. William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

Sub-sections (1) to (4) were accordingly agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Wilcocks was then put.

Is there not another amendment? (Cries of “Sit down.”)

The hon. member is in order.

There is another amendment, which refers to the deletion of certain words, with the exception of closure procedure. Would you not put that separately?

I am putting the whole motion.

A very material question was raised on that past point.

I am putting the whole motion as now printed.

then put the motion as moved by the Prime Minister, and declared that the “Ayes ” had it.

called for a division, but this was shortly afterwards withdrawn.

The motion was therefore carried.