from voters in Bechuanaland for construction of a railway from Vryburg to Kuruman.

from J. Donaldson, Postmaster.

from Native Labour Agents, praying for legislation facilitating the business of recruiting.

from J. de C. Walsh, Education Department, Cape.

from residents of Rondebosch, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

similar petition from Councillors, Somerset East.

from Sarah Helm, Teacher, Independent Mission School, Heidelberg.

from inhabitants of Schweizer-Renecke, Bloemhof, praying for railway from Zoutpan on the Welverdiend-Lichtenburg line, through Schweizer-Renecke, to the Cape-Vryburg line. (Two petitions.)

as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, as follows: First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, appointed by Order of the House of Assembly, dated the 10th November, 1910, to which shall be referred all minutes recommending special pensions, and all applications for pensions, grants and gratuities not authorised by the Civil Service regulations; the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, Messrs. Currey, Maasdorp H. S. Theron, Phillips, Whitaker, Runciman, Robinson, and the Minister of Finance.

Your Committee, having considered the various petitions referred to them, recommend condonation of breaches of service by the following: Mary Macdonald, Teacher; W. H. Taylor, Teacher; Mary Welsh, Teacher; R. Blake, Teacher; William Jones, Teacher; C. A. H. Kotze, Teacher; Alice Pfohl, Teacher; P A Rossouw, Teacher; G. van Roenen Philpott, Civil Commissioner and Resident Magistrate, Bathurst; and J. P. J. Roux Teacher.

They are unable to recommend the prayers of the following petitions: J. L. Read, G. Varnfield, E. L. Kramer, E. M. Ackermann, S. Madella, P. Kelly, T. D. Bliss, G. E Bridges, D. P. Bromfield, C. Cave, J. Crawley, T. Chance, W. H. Dymond, H. A. de Melker, G. E. Ellis, P. Glidewell, J. H. Greentree, A. E. Gee, G. R. Godfrey, T. J. Hall, A. Hardcastle, J. T. Harrop, A. Janson, G. Jones, G. Kenniford, S. J. Leary, R. B. Matheson, A. MacNay, H. Mortimer, J. C. Niddrie, F. G. D. Ohlsson, R. J. Paynter, D. A. Paterson, W. Phillips, W. G. Reid G. Simpson, H. D. van der Schyff, J. N Schietekat, F. J. C. Schultz, W. W. Scuter, F. Z. Smyth, W. Terry, J. Walker, J. C. Croxford, J. Scott, H. O’Connor, T. Byren, F. M. Weighill, T. Tannahill, W. Howe, D. Bailey, G. E. Bath, F. Sturge-Brain, A. Bartholomew, M. J. Botha, J. C. Cawcutt, T. H. Dawe, J. Hardie, J. V. Howat, A. Howard, W. G. Jeffery, W. A. Newby, S. S. Ponder, W. E. Pienaar, Maria Smuts, C. J. Stewart, A. H. Stace, M. W. Siebert, W. T. Newing, H. R. Sloan, C. G. Rush, A. M. Middleton, W. H. Whitney, H. W. Willmer, R. L. Williams, S. J. F. Weich, A. P. J. van der Poel.

J. W. SAUER, Chairman.

Committee Rooms, House of Assembly, 13th February, 1911.

moved, seconded by Mr. Louw: That the Report be considered in Committee of the Whole House on Thursday.

Agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure for year ending 31st March, 1912.

moved that the following members form the Select Committee on the Bill: Colonel Louchars, Messrs. Bosnian, Van Niekerk, Cronje, Steyl, Kuhn, Neser, Watermeyer, Van Heerden. Wessels, Blaine, Sir Thomas Smartt, General Tobias Smuts, and the mover.

seconded.

moved as an amendment that the following words be added: “And that the committee have power to take evidence and call for papers.” He said that he moved the amendment because he thought that the measure, being of such an important nature as far as the country was concerned, it was necessary to have the fullest evidence before the committee. There was no reason for undue haste; hence his amendment.

seconded, and said the committee need not travel about the country, but it should enable witnesses to appear before it.

said that he regretted that the amendment had been moved, because it was clear to him that if it were agreed to it would only mean the shelving of the whole matter. They were no longer at the beginning of the session, and if the amendment were carried the matter would come up at the tail-end of the session—and the delay would simply mean shelving. The measure did not deal solely with scab, but with other cattle diseases, and it any evidence were to be taken at all, it would have to come from all parts of the Union. As to scab, they wore not at the beginning of the controversy. If the Select Committee was of opinion that there were certain matters about which it was desirable to have further information, it would have the power to ask the House that it should be allowed to take evidence. (Hear, hear.) It was large enough to represent all shades of opinion.

moved, as a further amendment, that the number of the members of the committee consist of 16, instead of 14.

seconded.

hoped that his hon. friend would withdraw the amendment. He had, he said, consulted the leader of the Opposition (Sir Starr Jameson) as to the members of the committee, and had come to an agreement with him; and the matter of the selection of the various members of the committee bar! been left in his (the Prime Minister’s) hands. If the amendment were agreed to, it would mean that the whole arrangement would be upset.

said that, as far as he was concerned, it was not at all a party question.

said that he also hoped that the hon. member who had just moved the second amendment would withdraw it. As the hon. member for Prieska had said, this was not a party question, and he thought it was recognising that fact that the Prime Minister consulted him (Sir Starr Jameson) on the subject as to who should form the committee, and he quite agreed, seeing that the Prime Minister had this subject really at heart, and desired to do his best in the interests of the country, that he was the best judge in regard to who should be put upon that committee. With regard to the first amendment of the hon. member for Prieska. He had much more hope now that this Bill, which they all on that side of the House, at all events, approved of, would pass, than he had before he heard the amendment of the hon. member for Prieska, because that amendment could only mean masterly inactivity, which meant delay, and which meant defeat and nothing else. (Cheers.) They all felt, as the right hon. gentleman had said, that this subject was not limited to scab, but, the hon. member for Prieska, as seconded by the hon. member for Hope Town, in their amendment were thinking of scab and nothing but scab. (VOICES: “No.”) He himself, during the four years they were in office, had deputation after deputation upon it, and their predecessors had deputation after deputation, and, as the Prime Minister had said, this was not at the beginning of the controversy, it, was at the end, and he had carefully selected in that House a committee to give a final opinion to that House, and therefore it would be more than a useless waste of time to call for further evidence on the subject. He hoped that both amendments would be defeated.

In withdrawing the amendment, I wish to give my reasons.

The hon. member cannot speak again.

formally withdrew his amendment.

It was agreed that the committee should consist of 14 members as nominated.

Mr. Kuhn’s amendment was negatived.

The original motion was agreed to.

moved that Mr. Langerman be discharged from further service on the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and that the Minister of the Interior be appointed in his stead.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the House go into committee on the following: That the committee of the whole House on the Explosives Bill have leave to consider the imposition of a factory licence of fifty pounds, an amended factory licence of one pound, and an explosives magazine licence of five pounds, and, if agreed to that the House do now resolve itself into committee, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, and that the chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day.

seconded. The motion was agreed to.

asked whether the Minister for Mines meant to exclude small fireworks manufacturers from the operation of the Bill? Otherwise, he said, it, would be a great hardship on small importers. In the Cape Act it was provided that fireworks-makers should not be subject to the Act at all. A £50 licence Imposed on small fireworks manufacturers would mean that they would go out of existence altogether.

said he did not think it was necessary to have small fireworks factories; in fact, they would be a very great public danger. Similar legislation had been in existence in the Transvaal for many years, and bad worked very well. He did not think it was necessary to exclude such manufacturers. If a man wanted to make fireworks he should: pay for the licence, and he should be subject to the supervision of the inspectors.

said he would not object, to the supervision, which was right and proper. He quoted the provisions in the Cape Act, and said the Government should not put a small manufacturer of fireworks on the same level as a manufacturer of explosives. He was sure the Minister of Mines did not desire to have, an injustice done to the small men.

said the motion on the paper did not seem to him to, correspond with the motion they had heard read to them, and he would be glad to have a little information on it. He wanted to know what exactly was before them, for he understood there were more details in the motion as it had been read.

read the motion for the benefit of hon. members.

said he would like to know if the Minister of Mines would give them a little more information as to why he proposed to levy this tax at all. They were invited to levy a tax of £50 on dynamite factories. Well, it was clear from the magnitude of dynamite factories that the imposition of a tax of £50 would; not affect them much. But why was it necessary to tax an industry that employed a great deal of labour, and which does good work in the country, to the extent of £50? He could not see why it should be imposed.

said he did not think that argument was really logical. The hon. member said £50 was neither too little not too much. Surely the hon. member would not advocate the imposition of a £1,000 or £10,000 licence? He did not think they should go any higher. The question was: should it be lower? If it should be made lower, at what stage should they stop? At £l or 10s.? If it was made lower, the Act would be useless, for it would not affect the experimental explosives maker. His hon. friend knew there were a number of ingenious people in this country. One could not walk down the street but what he came across a man with a new scheme. One would be for aeroplanes, and another would be a new scheme of defence, in which some new explosive was concerned.

said he would like some assurance from the Minister of Mines that he meant to deal specially with the people he had mentioned. The imposition of a £50 tax on a small man was a hardship. In the Act no differentiation was made between the manufacturer of dynamite and a class of people, who manufactured fireworks, and dealt, in’ them. According to the Act it was going to be impossible for a man even to deal in fireworks, far Jess manufacture them.

said he thought his hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) was right. They should deal with these men when in committee on the Bill itself. Mr. Baxter might bring up his amendment then.

Would it not be too late to annul the £50 licence then? I don’t want the thing to go by default.

This is a committee stage, because we are imposing certain taxation. I understand; he wants to release a certain class, and, therefore, his amendment could very well be moved in committee.

This is rather an important point, and I should like your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Proceeding, he said he desired to know whether if this committee affirmed the principle of the £50 licence, it would be possible, when they discussed the Bill, to reduce that licence in any possible way.

It can be reduced at any time.

Oh, well, that is all right then.

The motion was agreed to by the committee, reported, considered, and adopted.

moved.: “That this report, be referred to the Committee of the whole House on the Explosives Bill.”

seconded.

The motion was adopted.

resumed the debate. He said it was perfectly obvious that, no criticism was forthcoming front the official Opposition, and so, perhaps, the Minister in charge of the Bill would not object, to some friendly criticism from his side of the House. (Opposition cheers.) Well, he had served on what was known as the Mining Industry Commission, and he had been surprised to learn from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips) that certain of the Commission’s conclusions had been controverted. He had paid the greatest attention to all the criticisia that had been levelled at the findings of the Commission, and not one single doctrine contained in the Commission’s report had been controverted. What had been controverted was exactly what was not said, and the old dodge had been adopted of putting wards into one’s mouth, and then controverting them. He did not wish to criticise the Bill from the point of view of white labour, but he wished to call attention to one aspect of the case. It was well known to everybody that, as far as underground work on the mines was concerned, the labour force was almost entirely coloured, and that that labour force was very inefficient as compared with the white force in other countries. He wished, therefore, to draw special attention to the principles laid down in clause 15 of the Bill. If the House applied these principles it would forge an instrument, by which an employer would be enabled to keep the native employee’s nose to the grindstone. It was absolutely futile to suppose that any other instrument would be forged for the purpose of applying it to a white employee. The result was that the word “slavery” had been used, and although he did not wish to use the word he could not help saying that a certain amount of force could be applied to the native labourer which could not be applied in the case of the white man. What would be the result? The result would be that an employer would be encouraged to make use of the docile native, or rather make use of the native who would be made docile by force of the law. On that ground he objected to the principles contained in clause 15. But apart from that ground of objection, he considered that the principles contained in clause 15 were most pernicious. Why, he asked, should a civil contract be enforced by a fine or imprisonment, as was proposed in the Bill? If such enforcement could be made, why should not the same principle be applied in the case of hire and purchase? If that were done it would only be the logical outcome of the principles contained in clause 15. As regarded clauses 13 and 16, the House had been told that a certain class of individuals, known as contractors, would be wiped out if these clauses remained. The House had had an apologetic statement by the Minister of the Interior, who said that there were three classes of contractors who would be affected. He said he had no objection to two classes, but as regarded the third class he had no objection himself, but his department had certain objections which were based on hypothetical reasons, namely, that a contractor might be tempted to make certain illegitimate gains. That, however, was a very feeble argument to use when attacking vested interests. Proceeding, Mr. Stockenstrom said that members who came from the Transvaal were rather apt to be suspicious when they found those interested in mining in accord with the members on the Government benches. He pointed our that the contractors who would be affected were the successful recruiters, and the result would be the creation of a monopoly in favour of a well-known body which existed in Johannesburg. Members from the Transvaal were extremely distrustful of that body, which had made use of its power in the world of politics. Another matter upon which he wished to touch briefly was that, of the mortality of natives coming from tropical parts. The House was told that the mortality was 70 per 1,000, and yet it was asked to wait until certain investigations were made before stopping importations He thought it was the plain duty of the Government to stop the recruitment of natives from tropical parts. In fact, he thought it was preposterous to wait a moment longer. It was the duty of the Government to stop recruiting these natives immediately, and afterwards make, investigations. Personally, he objected to the importation of natives from outside the Union.

said that the criticism which had been directed against the Bill had been noteworthy for the speech of the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), who had administered a very severe admonition to the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell). The Bill under consideration was very largely based upon the Natal Act of 1908. In that measure for the first time in Natal free recruitment of labour for service in the Transvaal was agreed to. He hoped that the Minister of Native Affairs would lie careful to ascertain that the requirements of industries in districts from, which natives were recruited were sufficiently safeguarded. As regarded the issue of licences, he thought that licences should be restricted in number, and that the test, of granting these licences should depend upon the character and financial position of the applicant.

said that he represented a part of the country from which thousands of natives were recruited. He thought the Bill a very good measure, and one that should go a long way towards protecting the natives. But he hoped that when the Bill came into operation the Minister of Native Affairs would issue instructions to magistrates to exercise the greatest care in the appointment of labour agents. Unscrupulous labour agents had in the past, done an incalculable amount of harm. He was glad the Government had retained the power of restricting recruiting in districts where such a course was considered necessary. There was a shortage of labour in South. Africa, and if they went to mines in the Transvaal and Rhodesia they would hear that story. Agriculturists were in the same position. He went on to allude to the agricultural importance of the Western Province, and said that farmers were paying more for labour than they could afford. Now, the mining industry was an opulent, industry, and could pay more for labour than the farmer could. There were thousands of natives in his district, but they all passed on to the mines, and so farmers were unable to get the labour that they required. The result was that the country suffered. Now industries wore flourishing in Natal, but these had been built up by coolie labour. The Government had said that this was to be stopped. What would happen? The result of this would be that the farmers in Natal would come into competition for the available native labour of the country. He recommended that this phase of the situation should be carefully considered by the Government. It was a serious point. The Government should consider whether it would not be in the best interests of the country to exclude certain areas from the operation of the measure so far as recruiting was considered, for he was of opinion that agriculture should not be sacrificed for the sake of the mines. After all, agriculture was of the greatest importance to the country. At the present day there was a great shortage of native labour, and as industries sprang up, so the competition became keener. If this sort of thing went on without (restriction, ‘the position in the course of a few years would be exceedingly serious.

supported the measure, which he thought was fair and reasonable. He was understood to say that farmers did not object to the recruitment of natives for the Witwatersrand mines, providing districts where labour was scarce were not tapped.

said that the natives from north of latitude 22 were not medically examined before they left their own country, but when they were engaged at the Kimberley mines they underwent a medical examination in the Rest-house before commencing work. The natives from the tropical countries were very susceptible to chills, and the greatest part of the mortality was due to chest diseases. Their death-rate at De Beers, however, was smaller than that in their own country. Proceeding, the hon. member said labour agents should be made responsible for the actions of their runners. He was, he went on, pleased to be able to bear witness to the improved condition of affairs among the natives employed by De Beers.

took exception to contract labour, be it white or black. He referred to the Padrone system of white contract labour in the United States. Europeans, largely Italians, had been imported into America under the contract system, under which the banker who introduced them made a large profit, not only by importing them, but by getting a percentage of their wages and the profit on the goods he sold, to them. It was estimated that the banker responsible for their importation made altogether one-third of their earnings. The Padrone system had had a very bad effect on free labour, the position of the white man in America being undermined. Continuing, Mr. Sampson said it had been assumed that it was the Inevitable destiny of white and black in South Africa to labour side by side in the same workshop. If that were so, hon. members who called themselves friends of the natives should blush with shame when they were prepared to saddle both races with such conditions as were imposed in the Bill. These were conditions which no free white man would accept. Then why should they saddle them on to the native? He was surprised to hear the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner)—who called himself a friend of the native—propound the doctrine that the Bill was a very good one. The hon. member (Mr. Schreiner) had no right to sit quietly down and endorse clause 15. If the natives accepted that clause, it would be a very bad day indeed for white labour, for naturally employers would give the preference to natives who would accept the position of serfs. He was opposed to the Bill, because it debarred the white man from competing with the native on terms on which both could compete. It would be impossible for the white worker to compete on the conditions laid down in this Bill.

said that if the Minister of Native Affairs had not stated that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, he would have agreed with his hon. friends on the cross-benches, except that he did not, go with them when they talked of the “slavery” on the mines. He saw difficulties, however, in regard to clauses 13 and 16, as the rights of certain persons were involved, and the whole question was a difficult one. If these clauses were agreed to, certain privileges which were now in the hands of recruiters would got into the hands of the mines. He was not against the mines, but he did not believe in giving them exclusive privileges. As to the compound system, it answered very well at Kimberley, but it, would prove most, unpopular on the Rand, owing to the trading rights, which would then get into the hands of the mines. He must therefore oppose clauses 13 and 16. As to the recruiting of natives, he was afraid that, if it, got, into the hands of the mines themselves, and went out of the hands of the agents, it, would be said that there was a scarcity of native labour, just as it had! been said a number of years ago. The Chinese had had to be imported, and now it was proved that there was a sufficiency of native labour, for since the Chinese had gone, there were more native labourers on the mines than before. The mines themselves sometimes treated their natives roughly.

said that the question of compounding the natives had to be looked at from the point of view of humanity. It was not a question of slavery; it was a question of how best to protect the natives who went to the mines; and when one remembered what new influences they met with there, how they came into contact with white people, many of whom were of a bad type, and the temptations to which they were subjected in the form of the liquor traffic, one felt that not only was the compound system justified, but that something more required to be done by the Government, especially in regard to the liquor question. He had been along the Reef road on a Sunday, and what he had seen there forced him to the conclusion that the natives were better left in a compound altogether than left to go about exposed to the temptations of the illicit liquor dealers. It was as a safeguard for the natives themselves that they were compounded. It had astonished him to hear the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) say what he had said about the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner). It surprised him that the hon. member (Mr. Sampson) could come to that, House and say anything as to the honesty of purpose of the hon. member for Tembuland, for the letter had stood alone for what he believed to be the interests of the natives. When the hon. member (Mr. Sampson) had done so much for the natives as the hon. member for Tembuland had done, or so much as another bearing the same honoured name, who sat to look after the interests of the natives in another place, had done, then, perhaps, it would be time for him to come to the House and tell them what to do with regard to the native question. (Hear, hear.) Now, the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. Stockenstrom) seemed to object somewhat to support being given by the Opposition side of the House to this Government measure. Well, he would tell the hon. member that the Opposition was not there to object to every measure proposed by the Government. When the Opposition thought that any proposal was for the advantage of the country as a whole, it would give its support to the Government, just as it would oppose any measure it thought had. He believed the Bill was, on the whole, in the interests of the whole community. The hon. member for Heidelberg objected, very strongly to clause 15 as special legislation which was intended for natives in the employment of the mines. He would put it to the hon. member whether they had not a pass law in the Transvaal, whether they had not a Master and Servants Act, and whether farmers and others had not special protected legislation in regard to natives in their employ. The hon. member, as far as he could make out, was somewhat in favour of the contractor. He was well aware that there had been a very high legal luminary in this town during the last few days who had been deeply interested in this question from a certain point of view, and he only hoped the arguments which had been used with such success to his hon. friend over the way could have been used to him (Colonel Crewe), to see if he could convince him that it was better to have a contractor who was not always easy to get at, than to have the natives registered to a mine owner or a mine manager, a person like his hon. friend on his right (Mr. Chaplin). Then they had been led to believe that white workers were being reduced, while native and coloured workers were increased. What were the facts? In 1905-6 the number of whites employed on the Witwatersrand was 17,944 and natives 151,000,while in 1909-10 the number of whites employed was 23,000 and natives 191,000.In 1906-7 there were 10 whites employed to every 100 coloured persons, and in 1910 there were 13 whites employed to every 100 coloured persons, so that, as a matter of fact, the ratio of whites employed to coloured had gone up between 1906 and 1910. It seemed to him that the correct policy to pursue was to encourage native labourers to seek work on the mines, but while they did that they must see to it that the natives were protected from some of those temptations to which he had referred, especially illicit liquor selling. Colonel Crewe also urged upon the Minister the desirability of appointing another representative from Natal, say, from the southern portion, as a member of the Select Committee.

said that he had discussed this Bill with people who were entitled to speak with some authority as regarded the native question, and they agreed that it was a very good Bill, and that all that was wanted was proper administration. During the debate they had heard remarks about free labour and slavery. If his observation taught him anything it was this—that the so-called free man was the real slave. (A laugh.) He was absolutely dependent upon some other will for the opportunity of earning his living, and if he did not submit unhesitatingly and unreservedly, there was no alternative but to go to the street, and that had one opportunity—starvation. The native was far better off than that. Where, he asked dramatically, were the white communities in South Africa to-day that were as well off as the natives on the mines or in the locations? The statements they had heard as to the mortality among the natives were of no value at all. It was a well-known fact that the germs of pneumonia might be dormant in their systems for years. The hon. member for Bechuanaland had spoken about the scarcity of labour. Why did this scarcity exist? Because too much work was done; because there were too many artificial industries. Proceeding, Dr. Haggar discussed the several policies which were open to them in regard to this question of native labour, and emphasised the importance of organisation, discipline, and control. Proceeding, he said that the Bill undoubtedly had some exceptions, but he did not know why they should be there. He did not know why different principles should be inserted, but he did think the majority of the House ought to know that they were anxious to do this thing—that they were anxious to use the native for his own and their advantage, and so long as they did that they would do the native good and themselves good, and all would pull together.

said he welcomed the Bill, because for the first time it, give them in one Bill what he might call the charter of indentured labour. Hitherto, it had been scattered about in laws and regulations, and nobody had quite known what it was what, its foundation was. Now they had it in the compass of one Bill, and they could see what it, cost the country, and what it clearly involved. He was not going into all the arguments raised in the course of another debate regarding this question of indentured labour; he would only say that so far as he was concerned the system of indentured labour, reinforced and made possible by the introduction of uncivilised natives from outside the Union, was not a sound system, and did not offer any sound basis or any permanent basis for the European population of South Africa. They had heard arguments advanced which seemed to him to impart that those of them who did not like this provision of indentured labour did not like the coloured man, and did not want him to have a part in their industrial system at all. That was entirely wrong. The provisions in the Bill were necessary solely, almost entirely, because of this system of indentured labour; not because the coloured man took part in the industrial system—that they always would do—but because they went out to the ends of the world to look for semisavages, and because they had this enormous recruiting system, which involved offering big inducements to men to work for them on contract. It was because they brought these men out of the surroundings in which they were, and in which they should remain, into their industrial system, and once they entered into their contracts they were liable to all the pains and penalties of the law. If they took clause 15 they found a man was subject to the criminal law for various misdemeanours, such as desertion of service, neglecting to perform work, refusing to obey an employer’s commands, using insulting and abusive language to an employer, and so on. The ordinary labourer had the fear of dismissal before him if he committed any of those acts. Here, however, they had men, each of whom cost a large sum to bring here. Some of the clauses about housing and protecting them from the outside contractor were because the ordinary labourer was not available. He would have to take his chance before the civil law. The ordinary inducement was not allowed to be exercised here, but instead they had the sanction of the criminal law. There was one other argument which was used, he thought by the right, hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). He said that a free labour system was an impossibility on the Rand, because if they had such a system the community would be exposed to the risk of thousands of uncivilised men wandering about without proper restraint. They were exposed to all those risks now, and the native was exposed to all the risks the right hon. member so eloquently described. They were all freely and fully at work now. By urging a free labour market, nobody meant to urge that those 200,000 labourers, mostly uncivilised, should be let loose on the public. But if the free labour market were to be in existence in this country, the great majority of these men would not be there at all. They would be in their kraals, in districts which were their habitats. A free labour market did not exist in the status of the men who were now brought into the industry. A free labour market was incompatible with the conditions of the Bill, and for that reason they argued that, so long as their industrial system rested upon it, it would be incompatible with the free labour of all the industrial systems of the world. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. King) said there was a dreadful scarcity of labour in this country, and that the farmers’ sons had to work. What did they do in other new countries? Was there no scarcity of labour in New Zealand? Did not the sons have to work there, and very hard too? When they talked about a scarcity of labour in this country, they were too apt to forget that other countries met with the same difficulty, and met it, but with different methods from those adopted here. When the people spoke of a scarcity of labour here, they meant they could not find a native to do the work they should have done. (Hear, hear.) A scarcity of labour was a benefit in one way, and in another a drawback to a country. If they met scarcity of labour as other countries did, they would be healthier industrially and socially than they were now. (Cheers.) They also heard some criticisms about the intemperate language in which certain arguments had been brought forward by hon. members on the cross-benches; at the intemperate language in which they addressed the House. He did not in the least defend such language, but would like to say that he considered that the members in this House who were most responsible for the use of such language were the members on the opposite side of the House, and more particularly the members on the Government benches. During the election campaign those hon. members, in the hope of becoming hon. members, played up all they possibly could to the anti-capitalist spirit, and all the talk in the House was owing to the platform talk then. He could assure them that no hon. member who heard the Minister for the Interior introducing his Mining Regulations Bill would have recognised in him the same person who a few months ago was occupying a platform in the Transvaal in the guise of a friend of the working man against the grasping capitalist. They should give their friends time to be reconciled to those quick changes. They should recognise that if they adopted language outside the House they must expect to find some of it inside the House. (Cheers.) This was not a question of capitalists against the rest of the country; it was a question of a very parlous system which had fastened upon this country long before the capitalists came into the country; long before advantage was taken of it to build up, the industries of the country. He did not in the least question the necessity of the Bill, or dispute that it was a good Bill, so long as this system existed. The Bill would pass, and no doubt it would help the Government to rectify some of the abuses which had crept into the system, and to that extent it would be good.

said that there were certain aspects of the Bill to which he must object—first of all, the definitions of recruiters and runners. The Transvaal Act stipulated that a recruiter had to be a white person, but an the present Bill nothing was said as to that. Further, the Bill regulated the recruiting of natives, but not that of coloured people. Farmers were not required to take out a licence, and he trusted the Minister would also exempt municipalities, builders, and brick manufacturers. Exception had been taken to the Minister’s extensive powers in regard to regulations; yet, as if those powers were not enough, the Bill referred to “proper officers,” who would exercise all the Minister’s powers. He thought that was going too far. The expression should be more clearly defined. It often happened that a recruiter, after having contracted with an employer and obtained a licence as well as an advance, cheated the employer, made over his licence to another recruiter, and the natives already recruited to another employer. In order to stop sharp practice of that description, no licence should be transferred except with the employer’s permission. Sometimes recruiters incited their Kafirs to refuse to work for the original employer in order to be able to supply them to another employer who paid more. The Native Commissioner would then hear the Kafirs, and discharge them, making them into free labourers. Recruiting would be encouraged by the abolition of repeated registration. Natives did not care for that system, and should be able to leave for the employer’s compound upon original registration. He doubted whether the Minister would be able to punish chiefs for promising to assist in recruiting; further than that, he thought that such assistance would frequently prove useful. Clause 14 (e) contained a provision he did not like. He wondered whether the Minister had considered the position as it existed in districts sparsely occupied by whites. Why should not recruiting be allowed on the huge tracts of lands belonging to land companies? Contractors often took farms on lease; those farms usually had a number of Kafirs living on them, which meant that rent became due to the contractor, and that, in default of payment, the natives were obliged to go and work in the mines, thus yielding a double source of income to the recruiter. The Bill enabled the mines to stop advances, as well as fines, out of the native’s wages. Advances should, however, rank as a preferent deduction. In Zoutpansberg 200 runners sometimes worked for a single recruiter. The runner could go all over the country on payment of but one shilling? Those licences should be raised to £6. Owners and lessees of farms should not be permitted to, recruit on such farms.

hoped the Minister would not be turned in any degree from the line which he seemed to have laid down for himself when he introduced the Bill. Now, he (Mr. Quinn) was amazed that certain members of the House had appealed for the retention of the contract system. It was well known that some of these contractors were making enormous sums out of what the Minister in introducing the Bill rightly described as the farming system. Now these men had started to work in all sorts of ways to try to get the Bill altered so that they would be allowed to get on with their farming of labour. Surely there was no sound argument in favour of keeping this contract system going. It was infinitely better that the native should go direct to his employer. To talk of these people having vested rights was stretching the English language too far, but if there were a vested interest, than the sooner it was swept away the better, in the interests of the natives, at any rate. As to what the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had said with regard to stopping the recruiting of native labour, it would be remembered that about two years ago a Commission on which the hon. member sat recommended that notice should be given immediately that there should be a limit to the importation of native labour from outside British South Africa, and that the supply should from that time automatically diminish until at the end of three years it should have stopped. Now, that would have meant that a hundred thousand natives now employed on the Witwatersrand would have been prohibited from going there, by recruiting. Had anyone given the country an alternative policy? No one had told them how they proposed to do without this large supply of labour. Were the advocates of this policy willing to see the native in free and untrammelled competition with the white workers? Were they prepared to say frankly that they would do away with the recruiting, that they would wipe out all these agencies for gathering and controlling native labour, and allow the natives to come in as they choose? Were they in favour of allowing the native, to enter into free competition with the white man on the Witwatersrand? (An HON. MEMBER: “They do it now.”) They did not do it now. In most industries, though there was no law compelling it, the native was kept in some sort of inferior position to the white, and it was those cases in which the natives were allowed to make the best of themselves that furnished a warning against the policy of free labour. There were only two lines upon which they could proceed. They could not, by a stroke of the pen, alter the conditions which existed in this country. What was the good of talking about the conditions which obtained in Australia or in certain parts of America, where there were no natives? They could not wipe the natives out of existence. They must either allow the natives to compete on free terms with the white man, or they must stop all this nonsense and grumbling. This was a question of giving the largest possible measure of justice and fair treatment to the natives, and because the Bill did that it appealed to him.

supported the Bill, but asked what the duties of the Registrar would be. Of course, he was supposed to register natives; but it seemed to him that the Registrar would, in addition, act as a recruiter, because he would get a travelling allowance of a hundred pounds. It was unfair, however, to turn registrars into recruiters. He applauded the proposed reference to a Select Committee, and the taking of evidence. He agreed with what the hon. member for Bechuanaland had said about the scarcity of agricultural labourers. Clauses 13 and 16 were most unjust to the contractors. If contractors had been so unsatisfactory, why had one never heard of complaints?

said complaints regarding labour agents had been made to the Minister. What was nearer to slavery than agents hiring out natives at a higher price than the agents paid the natives? That was nearer to slavery than any other proposition made to this House. The Minister was to be congratulated on having introduced the Bill. (Hear, hear.)

referring to criticisms of clause 15, said that white men and natives in the Cape Province had been labouring under just the same—and, in some respects, more severe conditions than those contained in the Bill. And yet, no petition had been received by Parliament against the Masters and Servants’ Act of 1856. Under this Act servants could be punished by law for absenting themselves without leave, for rendering themselves unfit for the proper performance of their work by becoming intoxicated, for neglecting to perform their work or carelessly or improperly carrying it out, or for neglecting to obey the commands of their employer. Under these circumstances the Ministry should not be attacked as if they were introducing some thing revolutionary. A native was perfectly free to work on the mines or not, and the Bill protected him from certain temptations. That, however, did not prevent the labour from being free. In introducing this measure, the Minister responsible for it had the bulk of the members on both sides of the House behind him. If European employers did not carry out their obligations under the Bill they also could be punished. The Minister had held the scales of justice even between employer and employed, and the Minister and the Government were to be congratulated on the Bill. He (Mr. Alexander) hoped that substantially the measure before the House would be adopted by the Select Committee.

said that with regard to the natives who were recruited from the territory north of latitude 22, the disease from which they suffered most and which contributed so largely to the mortality figures, was pneumonia. He said that every endeavour was being made to bring down the figures, and at the present time a serum was being prepared which it was hoped would considerably reduce this mortality. He was of opinion that should the serum not prove as successful as it was hoped, recruiting from the territory north of latitude 22 should be stopped. Referring to the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe, he said that he could not understand the amendment that had been moved by that gentleman. He (the hon. member for Jeppe) knew as well as he (the speaker) that the present recruiting system lent itself to considerable abuse, and yet, by his amendment, he sought to block the progress of the Bill and allow a pernicious state of affairs to continue. He welcomed the Bill for the reason that it would be productive of good. He dealt with the position of labour agents, and said he considered that a native was justly entitled to all that he earned.

said he did not agree that by a stroke of the pen the conditions of labour in this country could be changed. So far as the treatment of natives was concerned, he did not think that the House was in possession of all the facts of the case. Since 1903 there had been great progress made in the way of bettering the position of the natives on the mines. Would the hon. member for Jeppe say that they were not well paid, well fed, and well housed? He thought the House regretted the intemperate land-usage of the hon. member for Jeppe: it was not the first time he had accused employers in this country of being slave-drivers. The speaker was making some reference to the hon. member for Jeppe and a campaign that took place some years back, when

rose and denied the statement.

Well, there are hon. members in this House who know that if he did not take an active Dart in the campaign, he was behind it. Continuing, the speaker said that the mortality in 1903, due to pneumonia, was 63 per cent., but the last report on the subject showed a slight improvement—52.6 per cent. Some hon. members had had a lot to say about what the late Transvaal Government had done. With these statements he disagreed. If it had been lung-sickness or scab, or anything of that sort, the Government would have investigated the matter without delay. But what had the Government done to investigate the cause of this mortality among the natives? They had left it entirely to private enterprise; even the much-a bused Chamber of Mines had done much, and he hoped that through an inquiry that was at present being held, some solution of the problem would be furnished. It was the duty of the Government to come forward and investigate it, instead of leaving the matter to private enterprise.

said that in no part of South Africa was there more concern in regard to labour than in Natal. One of the prices they had paid for entering the Union was having lost the supply of Indian labour. Indirectly, that was the price. Then another part of the price was the sacrifice of a considerable part of Natal’s market for one of her principal industries, in the shape of sugar. He thought that during this debate too much had been made in regard to the question of the servility of the conditions of labour. He thought it was in the interests of the natives themselves that these restrictions were placed upon their movements on the Rand, and: that there was nothing servile. He denied that there was anything savouring of slavery in connection with the corvee system or the system of Indian labour. Touching upon the provisions of the Bill in regard to recruiting for places outside the Union, Mr. Clayton said that, as one of those who were suffering from the scarcity of labour in Natal, he thought they were entitled to raise their voice and say that, until at least South Africa was supplied, they had no right to allow a foreign State to enter into their precincts and take away that which they themselves required. The labour was being taken away for one industry, and one industry only, and by that he meant that by virtue of the inducements which were held out before the natives, other recruiters for other industries were entirely shut out from the labour market. Some five years ago, when the land of Basutoland was handed over to the Colonial Government, it was decided to form a settlement on the coast. A great deal of trouble had been taken, and it had been a great success. The men showed what they could do, and were not afraid of work. Some protection should be afforded in the question of labour for the young men of the country, who were the proper type of work and of the right class. They were aware of the importance of the gold industry, and the magnitude of the capital expended on it; and they knew that if it failed, there would be an enormous demand upon the private taxpayers to pay for the money expended; but what he did ask for was that hon. members when they considered the question would bear in mind the one fact, that, the industry being as it is, was, day by day, growing smaller in this sense, that every ounce of gold removed from the ground was an ounce less left to be mined. This depletion was going on, and they should be building up industries, so that every ounce of gold going out of the country might be replaced by some industry or by agriculture. So every encouragement should be given to those parts of the country which were so dependent upon native labour. A good deal had been said about the way the natives were treated, but he agreed that there should be Government control, for they were very much like children. What they had to deal with was facts as they were to-day. It might be wise for hon. members and those who thought alike with them, to press on steadily, step by step, towards the goal towards which they aimed; but they could not do away with facts as they were, and that enormous numbers of natives were needed for the requirements of the country, and they must have them and deal with them properly. He hoped they would have every effort made to develop the resources of the country and conserve their energies, and that they would never lose sight of those within their own borders.

said he wished to bring to the notice of the Minister the unfair conditions regarding the competition for the available native labour in South Africa. They found that the gold companies could lend money and keep the man they lent the money to under lock and key until he had repaid the amount. The ordinary employer had not that right. If he lent money he did so at his own risk. He objected to the unfair competition in regard to the compound system, and trusted that the Minister would see that such unfair competition was done taw-ay with.

said he would not take up the time of the House, but just desired to say something with regard to one or two of the matters that had been raised. Regarding the question put by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Theo. Schreiner), he would say that the clause intended only to refer to Government work, and he did not think anybody could complain of the condition, because it did not intend in any way to indicate anything but Government work. A matter had been mentioned by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Mentz) that the Bill did not contain any provision with regard to coloured labour. It was almost impossible for him to introduce any measure to control coloured labour in the same way as native labour. Once they departed from native labour they were in the sea. Some of his friends had said that he dealt with clauses 13 and 16 in an apologetic manner, hut he thought otherwise. All he said was that with the information before him he considered the clauses to be good ones, and again he said that with the information he had at the present time he was bound to insert these clauses. Another point had been raised with reference to the exclusion of certain areas for recruiting purposes, and he wished to say that he proposed, as well as possible with the power which he was given in the Bill, to try to meet local difficulties. He thought hon. members would sympathise with him in regard to the enormous difficulties and complexities with which he was faced. The difficulties were more accentuated in some parts than in others, but there were difficulties everywhere. As regarded the statement that there was not sufficient native labour to go round, so far as he was aware he did not agree with it. He considered that an enormous, amount of labour was still available, if they went about the matter in the proper way. The member for East London (Colonel Crewe) had called his attention to the amount of illegal liquor selling that was going on the Rand. Well, his attention had been fully called to that matter during the few months he had been responsible for that office, and he entirely agreed with the hon. member for East London, and, so far as it was possible, the Government would endeavour to put a stop to the practice. He was convinced, and he made bold to say, that, as in the matter of outrages by natives upon white women, the white man’s responsibility existed in more than one direction, so the white man’s responsibility existed in connection with the selling of liquor for filthy lucre to the native. A great deal of good could be done in the matter, but whether they could succeed to a great extent he could not say. At all events, they would do their utmost to cope with this great evil in Johannesburg. On the principle of the Bill a vigorous stand was made by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), who was joined by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan), who seemed to him to be in a state of transformation. Both of these hon. members complained of the system of indentured labour, but he would ask them what alternative way he had of dealing with the present position? In reply to the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), he wished to assure him that the Bill was not introduced with a view to helping the mines to get labour. As to the hon. member for Jeppe’s remarks regarding the expansion of white labour in South Africa, he wished to assure him that he sympathised with him very much more, perhaps, than he knew. He believed that the true view was that there was an abundant field for both classes of labour. The weak point about the argument regarding the conditions of labour was the fact that those who used those arguments had nothing to offer. He could not prevent a black man going to labour on the mines—(hear, hear)—more than that, he could not prevent anyone asking a black man to go to those mines. The position therefore was—they had this labour available, and they had the people who knew of it, and made use of it. What was the position of the Government in those circumstances? According to the arguments that had been advanced, the Government must sit by, and not do what was the most natural thing for it to do. The whole intention of the Government was to give protection to the native labourer. That was the object of this legislation, and that alone. He quite agreed that there was something unpleasant about the business, that there were conditions which they did not wish should prevail in the manner in which these natives were got to work, the manner in which they were compounded, and so on. But what alternative had they got? If these natives were there, if these natives would go and do this work, then it was the duty of the Government to protect them to the best of its ability. They had heard a lot about free men, but they knew as well as he did that free men entered into contracts every day. A man need not go to prison.

made a remark that was inaudible.

Oh, is that the point? Well, will the hon. member tell me if there is any greater compulsion or anything more semi-servile—in comparison to the native who goes to work in a Johannesburg mine— than the white free man who binds himself by the regulations of a trades union? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Continuing, he said, that if the Bill was withdrawn the position so far as the Johannesburg mines were concerned would remain unchanged. He went on to say that objection had been taken to the introduction of penalties for what had been called novel offences. But it had been pointed out that such offences as desertion and so on were not new at all. He would not say anything about the argument regarding white labour, because he sympathised. But having such a position in regard to native labour, it had to be recognised. The position being what it was, the bounden duty of the Government was to bring into effect legislation that would, as far as possible, ameliorate present conditions. He moved the second reading of the Bill.

The amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe that the Bill be read a second time six months hence was negatived.

put the question: “That the word “now,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

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

moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report, with power to take evidence and call for papers, the committee to consist of: Mr. Merriman, Sir Bisset Berry, Colonel Harris, Messrs. Stockenstrom, Bosnian, Chaplin, Geldenhuys, Creswell, and the mover.

seconded.

moved, as an amendment, that the committee consist of ten. He said he wished to add the name of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Brain) because it seemed to him that the Free State was being ignored.

seconded.

said he had no objection.

The amendment was agreed to.

said the hon. member (Mr. Keyter) would have to give notice to move that the name of the hon. member for Frankfort be added.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

moved certain amendments in the Dutch copy of the Bill.

The amendments were agreed to.

On clause 2,

said the word “officer” was not defined. Was the hangman an “officer”? (Laughter.) He moved the omission of the word keeper from line 92, and that the clause stand over.

did not think a definition of the word “officer” was necessary, as it meant the holder of an office.

It was agreed that the clause should stand over,

Clause 3 was slightly amended in Dutch.

On clause 5, Officers of convict prisons and gaols,

moved the deletion of sub-section 4 and the substitution of the following: “There shall be for every convict prison and for every gaol a medical officer, who shall either be appointed by the Governor-General, and give the whole of his time to the duties of his office, or shall be appointed by the Minister, and give part of his time to the duties of his office. If no person has been so appointed by the Governor-General or the Minister, or if the post of medical officer be vacant at any convict prison or gaol, the district surgeon shall carry out the duties of medical officer”; certain amendments in the Dutch version, which do not occur in the English version, and in line 47, after “appointment made,” to insert “by the Minister.”

thought it was a pity that the Minister had not given notice of the amendments, as it was difficult to follow them. (Cheers.)

said he did not see any provision for the payment of a medical officer. He thought that should be attended to.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 6, Appointment and removal of officers,

considered that the punishment for making a false statement prior to appointment was excessive oven it were made wilfully. He thought also that the intimation that a man should be liable to dismissal if he married without the consent of the director was unnecessary and harsh. A man would probably be a more efficient officer if he were married. He hoped that the Minister would see his way clear to excise this clause. (Hear, hear.)

said he did not agree with the hon. member for George. He thought that it was of the highest importance that a prison officer should make correct statements. Now the matter of age was important because of the pension to which a man would become entitled. On the second point he thought it a very sound principle end—

What? (Laughter.)

Very indispensable, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth should agree with me. Continuing, he said that they had to have unmarried men because it was necessary that many of the prison officials should sleep on the premises. There were other reasons why this provision should not be excluded from the terms of the measure.

said that the Minister had not appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for George, whose point was that the penalty should only rule in cases where the statement was of a material character. So far as the marriage question was concerned, he pointed out that in a private firm a man would be dismissed for a false statement, whereas in this case the Minister would have a man convicted of perjury.

pointed out that the English version of clause 4 was totally different to the Dutch version. (Laughter.) It was no laughing matter. In the Dutch version it was stated that a subordinate officer who was unmarried at the time he was taken into the service might be dismissed if he married without permission. According to the English copy it did not matter if the man was unmarried or not, but it depended on whether he was enrolled as unmarried. The only reason adduced by the Minister was that married men were not able to carry out all their duties. Dismissal was the proper way of dealing with these matters. Clause 3 was a marvellous clause, under which, he thought, no court would convict. He considered that the Minister should withdraw both clauses.

thought that the penalty should be dismissal.

But why should it be neccessary to convict a man in court?

moved an amendment to the effect that any contravention of the clause should, result in the dismissal of an official and the forfeiture of his pension rights.

asked whether if the false declaration were made on oath in the Transvaal Province a man would not be punishable in any case?

That is so.

urged that the clause in regard to false declarations should be withdrawn, as, the Minister had got sufficient protection under existing legislation. As to sub-section 4, he was opposed to that altogether, because he thought the State would be setting a bad example to the general community. (Hear, hear.) It would be a very bad thing for the country if they were to place on the Statute-book a law discouraging marriage. He, therefore, moved that sub-sections 3 and. 4 be deleted.

said that he was quite prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. (Hear, hear.) In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for the Harbour Division, he must say that he could not see what the hon. member found different in the Dutch from the English. The English said “subordinate enrolled as unmarried,” and the Dutch, which he read was, he declared, the same. (Dissent.) He could not possibly accept any amendment which would do away with sub-section 4, because it would be fatal to the public service in respect of its gaols if they were to accept it. ‘They seemed to be very sentimental about getting people to marry and getting a large population in South Africa, but that was just what they had not got to deal with in this case. They were now considering the requirements of the public service.

submitted that there was no necessity for the clause, because a man could always be dismissed if he could not do his work. He again pointed out that the Dutch was not the same as the English in this clause.

submitted that there was a great deal in what had been said about the State discouraging marriage. That, he pointed out, was a subject of great complaint against the banks. The clause was very blunt as it stood, and it might at any rate be toned down a good deal.

thought it would be fatal on the part of the House to place the power in the hands of any Government to restrain or restrict a man from getting married if he were in a position to maintain a wife.

referred to the practice which had been adopted in regard to the Natal Province, and said that he should support the motion to strike out the clause.

asked how long would a man be likely to serve before he was allowed to get married? He should be against the clause if it meant putting a bar upon a man marrying for, say, 12 or 15 years.

said he hoped the hon. member would press the amendment.

said that he sympathised with the Minister in this case, because, in his own experience as a visiting Magistrate, he had had more trouble with the three married; men who were employed as convict guards than with all the nine unmarried men who were so employed.

assured hon. members of the difficulty of getting married men to do night work, and if some provision were not made in that regard a great many would have to go, because men were required at night-time, and one could not get them to live with their families near gaols. He would propose an amendment to sub-section 4, because he thought the English was incorrect. (Hear, hear.) His amendment was to delete the words “enrolled as unmarried,” and to add the words, “who was unmarried when enrolled.”

said that on the question of marriage be thought there was a good deal to be said on behalf of the arguments advanced by the Minister.

said that in reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick), he wished to say that, judging from what was taking place in the Transvaal to-day, a man need only be a few years in the service to get married.

said he wished to withdraw his amendment to sub-section 3 in favour of that proposed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger.) He would, however, press his amendment to sub-section 4.

inquired if the law was to apply to the existing force?

replied in the negative.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) was put, and declared carried.

The amendment moved by the Minister of Justice was also declared carried.

The amendment to sub-section 4, moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), was put, and declared negatived.

called for a division.

rose to a point of order. He said that a hon. member crossed the floor of the House after the tellers had been appointed. He asked that the Speaker be called in to give a ruling.

said the point could be raised later.

The division was then taken, on the question that sub-section 4, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

asked for a ruling on the point he had raised, as to whether a member could leave his seat after tellers had been appointed.

said that his ruling was that the member who had left his seat after tellers had been appointed must have his vote recorded on the side which he had left.

Oh, I don’t want that.

On clause 8,

considered the clause too severe, because it stipulated that official residences would have to be vacated within 48 hours if required. It might happen that a widow would be called upon to leave within 48 hours of her husband’s death.

pointed out that 48 hours’ notice was required. No official with a proper sense of his duty would eject a widow within 48 hours of the husband’s death.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 9,

said he thought proper provision should be made for hospitals for the chronic-sick prisoners. On Robben Island they had convicts who had been guilty of criminal acts running with boys and other innocent sick people. They ought, he considered, to have special hospitals for criminals, instead of allowing them to associate with the innocent sick in places like the Old Somerset Hospital and Robben Island.

fully agreed with the hon. member, but lit all depended on the funds provided by Parliament.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 11, keeping journal in convict prison by superintendent,

said he thought the same ground was covered more fully in clause 20 (duty of gaoler to keep a journal). He moved that the clause stand over.

It was agreed that the clause should stand over.

On clause 13, establishment of local gaols and road camps,

proposed an amendment, the object of which was to enable a gaol to serve one or more districts, to add at the end of the clause the following new sub-section, viz.: “(3) For the purposes of any law relating to courts of resident magistrate a gaol established to serve one or more districts, or a road camp, shall be deemed to be the gaol of the district wherein that court is sitting.”

said the sub-section raised a very good principle, and one which he believed the House would endorse, and that was: that no first offenders convicted of petty offences should pass through a gaol. It should be the aim of the Minister to prevent this, but he noticed that the words “as far as practicable” were used. That meant that several would pass through gaol. To obviate this, he would move that the words “as far as practicable”, be deleted in line 56.

said it seemed to him that the cardinal principle in the Bill was to prevent people getting into gaol. People in other countries were giving a great deal of attention to this question, and had established short detention schools. This would, he thought, meet a want which the road camps did not meet. In line 54 he moved to insert the words “detention schools or.”

supported both amendments. He believed the Bill was an excellent one, but there was one thing that the Minister had forgotten, and that was: that he had not the money to: put his good intentions into practice. The Bill would upon the Statute-book, but for years it would remain inoperative. This was a measure for which the Minister should demand the money, because if they did not pay in this way now, they would have to pay very much more later on. (Hear, hear.) It was quite delightful to see how many people were now taking such a lively interest in this prison reform. Everyone knew that when a child first went to gaol, it was with a feeling of horror, but after being there once or twice, gaol ceased to terrify, and the descent became easy. Anything almost was preferable to sending children to gaol, where they would associate with criminals of the lowest type.

moved a new sub-section 3, having formal reference to the “gaol of the district.” Dealing with the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. Jute), he said that if it were carried into effect 90 per cent of the first offenders would simply receive nothing but the sentence of the Court. A “road camp,” he went, on to explain, was a place of confinement near to the working place of the people who were there. It was a Transvaal institution, and was a safeguard against these people being contaminated by the vices of gaol-birds. Moreover these people —sent there for petty offences—did not bear the stigma of having been in gaol. European waifs and strays would be sent to an industrial home, and juvenile offenders to a reformatory. These boys at Heidelberg were put through a process which be believed was going to make them serviceable members of society. He thought this law provided for the class of people whom the hon. member for Queen’s Town wished to be provided for. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for the Harbour Division, as to the treatment of juvenile first offenders who had been convicted of a petty offence. General Hertzog drew the hon. member’s attention to section 50 (sub-section 2).

said that it was no use referring him to section 50, which was never going to be carried out. He appreciated the difficulty that the [Minister had in many places in this country, where an offender was punished, to get him at once into a road camp. He would, therefore, withdraw his amendment, to delete “as far as practicable,” but in order to ensure that the passing through a gaol should be temporary and not permanent, he moved to insert after “goal” the words “except for the purpose of transit from the place of punishment to the road camp.”

urged the Minister to take power to establish short detention schools.

said that the clause was one of considerable importance, and he would suggest that the Minister might allow it to stand over.

said that the hon. member for Queen’s Town should move his amendment when the House came to consider the question of reformatories. He promised that he would meet the hon. member if sufficient provision were not already made.

withdrew his amendment.

appealed to the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir Henry Juta) to withdraw his amendment.

said he hoped the Minister would accept, his amendment, because he had had experience as a Minister of Justice, and he knew perfectly well that unless the House insisted upon it, first offenders would remain in gaol. As they were now legislating on good lines, he thought they should do something to make the Act a practical Act, and not merely a paper Act.

said they must stick to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir Henry Juta). The intentions of the Minister were good, but what he lacked was the means of carrying out his good intentions. One sum of £50,000, spent in a few parts of the country in providing detention houses, was worth all they put on the Statute-book. They must have places where these people could be sent to. He hoped the amendment would be pressed to a division, if necessary.

said it was impossible to have road camps everywhere for people convicted of petty offences. What could they do at place’s like Stellenbosch and Paarl? Juvenile offenders were provided for later on in the Bill. He did not think the proposal to establish road camps was practicable. Some other way would have to be found.

thought they should make it imperative under the Bill to establish road camps in districts containing a certain number of inhabitants, instead of leaving it permissive.

said that if the Minister would give him a couple of hundred thousand pounds, he would give him something practical within a fortnight. It was a question of money.

referred to the difficulty of dealing with juvenile offenders. They could not be sent to gaol or to a road camp, but they might be sent to a detention school, which might be a private house. He hoped that the amendment of the hon. member for Queen’s Town would be adopted.

did not think detention schools were included in the scope of that Bill.

moved to report progress.

The motion was agreed to, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.