from A. A. Gollop, clerk, Railway Department.

from E. Goddard, who established a native township at Goddardton, and is now prevented from selling further lots.

from the Municipality of Marquard, Orange Free State, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

called attention to an error in the division list for the “Ayes” on the division yesterday on clause 7 of the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bill on page 528 of the Votes and Proceedings, upon which occasion he voted with the “Ayes” but his name is not so recorded.

having called upon the tellers for the “Ayes,” the list was corrected accordingly.

I wish to move the adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance.

What is the matter of urgent public importance?

The withdrawal of the East Coast fever guard on the eastern boundary of the Native Territories and the Cape Province proper.

ruled that as the subject matter of the proposed motion had already more than once been discussed by the House this session, it was not such a matter of urgent public importance as was contemplated by the Rules of this House, and notice must be given in the ordinary course.

Before the business of the House is proceeded with I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice, with reference to the reports as to one of the suggestions of the Union Government to the coming Imperial Conference. I think it would be advisable if the right hon. gentleman could see his way to lay on the table of the House, if he can, the agenda which the Union Government intends to lay before the Conference. I do not do this with any idea of raising a discussion on the question in this place. I think, except under very special circumstances, any such discussion would be extremely inadvisable, but it would allay the feeling of—shah I say?—curiosity of this House if the Prime Minister would lay the proposals on the table of the House (Hear, hear.)

said he would very willingly lay the proposals on the table of the House, and they would be published to-morrow (Friday). The Government intended to give the House the fullest information with regard to the points it proposed to lay before the Imperial Conference. (Hear, hear.)

moved the adoption of the recommendations.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee’s report was set down for consideration to-morrow.

had moved to omit the words “so far as practicable” in line 56, and in line 57, after “gaol,” to insert the word’s “except for the purposes of transit from the place of punishment to the road camp.” He said he noticed that the Minister of Justice, in the Estimates, notwithstanding that in this Bill he had got to make provision for increased accommodation, had diminished the amount that he had got to ask. Altogether there was a reduction of £42,000.

said the amendments which had been moved would be practically impossible in some country districts. Supposing a first offender was arrested, he would have to spend the first night in gaol, because there would probably be no other place to put him. If the Minister were to provide special accommodation in all the districts of the Colony there would be no end to the expenditure. He certainly did not think it was possible to accept the amendment.

was understood to say he did not believe the amendment was practicable.

moved: On page 10, line 2, after “describe,” to omit “it” and to substitute “the locality where the road camp is stationed.”

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice in lines 51 and 54 were agreed to.

The amendments proposed by Sir H. H. Juta were negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice on page 10 was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 14,

moved, after the word “Minister” in line 20, to insert “and authorised by Law.” Under the clause as it now read, he said, the gaolers were bound to receive anybody under a warrant signed by a Minister. He wished to qualify that by providing that the gaoler should only receive a prisoner under a warrant signed by the Minister when authorised by law.

said it was possible that a Minister might make a mistake, and the consequences of the amendment would be that they would make an unfortunate gaoler responsible.

said that the amendment really took away a burden which the Minister sought to impose on the gaoler.

said that under the clause, as it stood, the Minister was responsible.

said that under section 95 the gaoler, as an officer, was responsible.

said: that if a gaoler were to do anything illegal under a warrant issued by the Minister, he would certainly be protected by Parliament. His point was that they should not saddle the gaoler with the responsibility of deciding whether a warrant was authorised by law.

thought the amendment was reasonable. As it was, they give the Minister power to apprehend anybody, and did not fix the responsibility on him.

said the liberty of the subject was affected. In this clause, they proposed to take away the right of the individual. It was not a question of the gaoler’s position.

said the clause did not give authority to any Magistrate or police officer to arrest any person.

Such officer would still be responsible as under common law. The clause merely put the gaolers in the position of being able to harbour any arrested person.

Said that, as far as he understood the Act of Union, they kept the Minister of Justice out of all matters of this sort. Under this Bill the Minister of Justice could issue a Warrant placing any man temporarily in gaol.

That is a new point.

The whole object of the Act of Union was that the Minister of Justice should be entirely dissociated from any criminal work whatsoever.

It is purely an executive matter.

said he could not for a moment understand why the Minister of Justice resisted the introduction of the simple words which would compel him to act under the law. As the words stood at present, a gaoler must accept a man on the order of the Minister.

said he hoped the hon. member would understand the position. They had nothing to deter the Minister from issuing a warrant to detain a man They added nothing to his responsibility. ‘If he issued a Warrant he Would be liable not merely as a Minister, but according to law. A provision of this sort might be very important, say, in a time of mutiny. (“ Ah!”) The whole safety of the State might depend upon that act of the Minister.

said that the Minister of Justice had uttered sentiments which were about the last sentiments that he would have thought would have come from his mouth. Did he know that there was no tyranny that had been performed by Governments but had been justified by sentiments like that? To give Ministers the opportunity of issuing warrants and clapping people in gaol—what a convenient thing it would be to have his friends opposite, on the eve of an election, clapped in gaol! (Laughter.). Joking apart, they paid too little regard to the liberty of the subject and laws bearing upon the liberty of the subject in this country. In every other constitution he thought, the better part of it had been taken up by laws to safeguard the liberty of the subject, and here in this Country, where during the last few years they had had some of the most lamentable instances of tyranny and oppression, they were going to strengthen the hands of the people whom a political party may have put in power for a few moments. He thought they were indebted to the hon. member for the Harbour Division for having brought to the notice of the House a clause: like this Their notice having been drawn to it, do let them assert the rights of freedom in this matter, and that no man should be put in prison except by the proper law, and not at the will of a Minister, however powerful he might befor the time being. The more powerful he was the more dangerous ’he would be. Let them think of the things that had been done in this country alone, of the iniquities that had been done by Ministerial authority.

said that he agreed with a great deal that had fallen from the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken, but he did not think the amendment proposed by the hon. member for the Harbour Division would have the effect that they were seeking.

said he did not wish to express an opinion as to whether the power the Minister claimed was just pr not, but he did wish to point out that it was in accordance with the present law of the Cape. He was rather surprised to hear the hon. members for Victoria West and Cape Town, Harbour (Mr. Merriman and Sir Henry Juta), because under the old Cape system the present provision existed, and neither of them, as a Minister of the Crown or as a member of Parliament, had made any attempt to alter it.

Which law—where is it?

said that a Minister could issue a fiat to arrest a man on the affidavit of any private person.

Under martial law?

Not at all. Under the ordinary law.

said that a Minister should not have power to send anybody to gaol unless he had due authority under the law. He took it, that on that point the whole House agreed. As regarded the remarks of the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo), all he could say was that if such terrific things as he had described had taken place in the Cape, the time had arrived to put a stop to them. He was quite sure that the sense of the House would be in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir Henry Juta).

said the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo), who had spoken so learnedly, was Confusing the offices of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General. One of the best boons the Union had given was the distinction between the two. With regard to the accusation which had been made against himself and the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir Henry Juta), that they had been Ministers of the Crown and had allowed the law to which the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo) had referred to, all he could say was that the hon. member could not mention the law, and if there was such a law, well, there were a number of musty old laws which only required to (be brought to the notice of the House to be repealed. Why, only 100 years ago a man, charged with murder, claimed the right of ordeal by battle, and a law had to be repealed to defeat his object.

said the Minister of Justice had stated that he could only act within the law. Why, he asked, therefore, did he object to the insertion of the amendment?

moved an amendment: That the following be a new paragraph, viz.: “(g) When authorised there to by any law, or any order, rule or regulation having the force of law.” He said that under his amendment the right which the Minister seemed to value would be preserved to him. As the Jaw stood at present it was far too autocratic a power to leave in the hands of a Minister.

asked if the Minister had any precedent in the matter?

said that he would move an amendment which, he hoped would commend itself to the House. He did not want, and did not appreciate, the authority to issue warrants. His amendment was to delete the word “Minister” and to insert the words, “in any case upon the warrant granted under the hand of any person authorised thereby under the law. …”

and Mr. T. WATT (Dundee) withdrew: their amendments in favour of the Minister’s amendment, which was agreed to.

moved in line 6 to omit “and” and to substitute “or”; and in line-27, after “hospital” to insert “(other than a hospital used exclusively as an infectious diseases hospital).”

pointed out several discrepancies in the translation of the Bill. The translation was so had that the same set of terms was rendered in different ways.

said in the Transvaal it was possible to send a patient to a lunatic asylum for seven days, for the purpose of observation. It was unfair to the nursing staff of general hospitals to send lunatic patients to them. He was assured; that there were numerous cases of persons being despatched to asylums who should not have been sent there, as their mental trouble frequently lasted only two or three days, and ten they left the asylums with a stigma renting upon them. It would be better for such j patients to be treated in a special ward in a general hospital.

said a difficulty would arise in such towns as Kimberley, where a mental patient would be refused admission by both hospital and gaol.

said that a prison was not the proper place for a poor man or woman mentally deranged. In many cases hospital authorities refused to come to Government’s assistance in this matter, with the result that Government was constantly being embarrassed with such cases. Where there was accommodation, a hospital was the place for these people. (Hear, hear.) If the present hospital staff was not large enough to cope with such cases, the hospitals should get additional assistance. They asked the hospital authorities to supply this accommodation for lunatics, but he was afraid the hospital authorities did not like this class of patient, and did not like to take the trouble with him, and consequently they sent him to the gaol. This was a very wrong procedure.

said the Minister of Justice did not evidently understand the position of a great number of hospitals in this country. They were entirely unsuitable for the treatment of lunatics. They had no provision for male nurses, and so it was impossible for them to deal with male lunatics. Even to suggest that they should deal with this class of patient was almost in the nature of a scandal. It seemed to him that the poor lunatic would fall between two stools. The hospitals, as they were constituted to-day, were entirely unsuitable for lunatics.

said he entirely sympathised with the Minister of Justice in his endeavour to keep lunatics out of gaol, but he had not provided for their accommodation. This procedure would not bring pressure to bear upon the hospitals to make them take in lunatics. He did not believe that any district surgeon or magistrate would send a man to gaol if there was accommodation for him. The Minister of Justice was, in a sense, the father of all the lunatics in the country— (laughter)—and he ought to see that proper accommodation was provided for them. It seemed easy to say that they would only have to detain a man 48 hours or so in a hospital, but; in reality, it meant perhaps 48 days. A magistrate would not sign an order for a lunatic to go away until he was informed if they had accommodation for him. The real position was that this clause would not help one little bit; it would not put pressure upon the right people.

said he sympathised with the poor lunatic, and it seemed a pity that she should be sent to goal but he would point out that the pressure would some from the hospital authorities, who would instruct their members to move in the matter. He hoped the Minister would stand by the clause.

reminded the hon. member for Boksburg (Dr. Mac-Neillie), as one who had charge of a lunatic asylum, that the best thing to do, under the circumstances, was to leave well alone.

said if there was one thing that should not be done it was to open the wards of a hospital to patients suffering from mental afflictions to the discomfort and perhaps danger of the other patients. It was unfortunate that mental sufferers should have to be confined temporarily in gaol, but whatever the solution might be for the accommodation of lunatics, it should not be in finding them accommodation in the hospitals under present conditions.

said that the hon. member (Mr. Maydon) was labouring under a delusion in imagining that anyone suffering mentally was put in wards with other patients. Sufferers from acute delirium were always placed apart.

said he greatly sympathised with the desire to keep lunatics out of gaol. He was personally acquainted with cases up-country, where people from respectable families, suffering from mental derangement, had been forced into gaol to herd with criminals. If they had hospitals which had the necessary accommodation, surely it was reasonable to expect that anyone afflicted mentally should have temporary accommodation in an hospital, instead of shoving him into gaol. He had known cases in which most respectable persons suffering temporarily from mental diseases had been put in gaol and herded with some of the most degraded of the population. He agreed that if this were passed, it would have the effect of bringing pressure to bear on the responsible Minister, and that it would then become the duty of the Government to make adequate provision for special wards for people of that description. He would rather see hospitals put to temporary inconvenience than see respectable people, who had committed no fault, sent to herd with criminals in a common gaol.

thought that if the proposal were agreed to they would only be sacrificing the interests of the lunatic, for while they were making provision for his reception the lunatic would be wandering about between the hospital and the gaol. Surely, the best way would be to make it a condition of the grants to hospitals that they should make such provision.

said he differed from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Medical men, he thought, might be trusted only to send cases to hospitals or asylums, when it was absolutely essential. In his experience, lunatics were not herded with criminals in gaols: the patients were isolated in such cases He would agree to drop his amendment if the Minister would agree to add the words: “where provision is made for the reception of such cases.”

hoped the amendment would not be pressed. It would simply mean that the hospitals would say: “We have no accommodation”; and then the un fortunate lunatic would have to go to gaol. The only way to remedy the existing state of affairs was by bringing the pressure of public opinion to bear on the Government—first on the Treasurer, who had the money, and then on the Minister of the Interior.

favoured provision being made whereby a lunatic should not be kept in gaol for more than three weeks or a month. Then the Government would be compelled to provide accommodation in the asylums. He knew of cases in which lunatics had been kept in gaol for three months on the ground that there was no accommodation in the asylums.

said there would be a great difficulty in many of the smaller hospitals in providing accommodation for lunatics under existing circumstances. If the policy of having provision for lunatics in hospitals were adopted, provision should be made not only in the matter of room, but for nursing as well. It would not be right to tax the present nursing staffs with this further work.

said his point was that the hospitals were really the places where these lunatics should be, and if they had not proper accommodation in the hospitals, then they must provide it elsewhere. He knew that numbers of lunatics were kept constantly in gaol.

said that they were faced with a difficulty in connection with this clause, and now it was prepared to meet it by putting a spoke in the wheel. The thing should be settled between the two departments, or this clause was going to be a dead letter, or lead to ludicrous consequences. The gad was most inadequate, and in many cases the most improper place for cases of this kind.

Dr. MacNeillie’s amendment was negatived, whereupon he called for a division, but withdrew his request shortly afterwards.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 15,

said that in the Bill he found no provision made for the amount of bard labour which a person did being regulated by the medical officer. He moved the insertion of the words: “and approved of by the medical officer.”

thought that sufficient provision had already been made in the clause.

supported the amendment.

said that the superintendent might put the person detained to easy work. What the hon. member (Dr. Watkins) wanted was to give the medical officer the right to interfere.

said that under section 85 regulations were to be framed in regard to medical officers. The regulations which were to be framed were in force, and to-day a medical officer could say, and did say, from day to day with regard to any prisoner who was ill: “Don’t let him do this or that, or treat him in such-and-such a way.”

said that this clause did not refer to hard labour prisoners, but to people who were accused of a crime, and had not yet been tried. He thought his hon. friend (Dr. Watkins) would withdraw his amendment if the Minister would give the House the assurance that in clause 86 he would insert power to make regulations to give a medical officer every right which the Minister said the medical officer now had. Under clause 86 at present there was no such power.

referred to a difference in the English and Dutch translations.

said that it was the duty of the Government to see that so far as possible the Dutch and English wording of Bills should be exactly the same. He could imagine that if that were not done serious confusion would ensue.

drew attention to the defective translation of the Bill.

said he was quite willing to withdraw his amendment, on the assurance of the Minister that the matter would be dealt with in the regulations. It was hopeless to expect amendments to be carried when every suggestion that was made was taken as a party attack. He could not see why things should be put into regulations which should be part of the (Bill. Here was a clear and definite thing, which could be dealt with perfectly easily in the Bill.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 16, employment in gaols of civil debtors and certain other classes of prisoners,

said that in this clause it was provided that anyone detained in gaol should be called upon to do a certain amount of work. This also applied to civil debtors, witnesses, and men awaiting trial. He could understand a man awaiting trial at least doing such labour as would keep himself and his surroundings clean, but he did think it was going too far to make such a stipulation in the case of a man who was not accused of anything, but who was being detained as a witness, and whose liberty already had been taken away from him. The rule meant that the man would have to do all sorts of menial labour.

suggested the deletion of the words “and any premises adjoining.” Under the clause, a detained witness could be forced by the gaoler to perform the lowest of all duties a man could be called upon to perform in this or any other country. It seemed to him (Mr. Currey) a dreadful thing that a gaoler should have this power over a white man. He would like to see that power removed with regard to civil debtors (hear, hear)—and he hoped, before (Parliament broke up, the whole law with regard to civil debtors would be altered. It was a relic of barbarism to put a man in gaol because he could not pay his debts.

said, under the circumstances, he thought it was best, and would move, that the clause stand over.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 19, maintenance of civil prisoners,

said he would like to know what time constituted the first day’s imprisonment of a civil debtor. They must have some reasonable (hour on which a debtor should enter or leave the prison, and therefore he thought they should have some uniform time. He would suggest that the day be deemed at 10 o’clock to 10 o’clock, 24 hours afterwards. He would move also that the clause stand over, so that the (Minister could give the matter his consideration. The motion was agreed to.

Clause 20 was verbally amended.

On clause 23,

thought that the word “continuous” relating to separate confinement must have been inserted in error. As the clause stood, a prisoner could be separated from others for three years; then, after a month, he could be separated for a further period of three years. Thus, a convict undergoing a long sentence might spend practically the whole term in separate confinement. Out of a sentence of 15 years a man could do 14 years and seven months in separate confinement. It would tend to drive a prisoner mad, and was altogether too severe.

thought that one year was a sufficient period of segregation. The result of a man being segregated for even twelve months would be terrible enough. He moved, therefore, to make the first period one year instead of three years.

did not think the clause was necessary. The matter could be dealt with under inter-departmental regulations. He would suggest that the clause should be omitted altogether.

said he did not think the clause meant solitary confinement. He took it that it meant segregation. He moved to omit “continuous” from line 20.

thought that a clause of this kind was necessary.: Long periods of segregation had not given rise to insanity. He went on to quote the periods of solitary confinement taken in other countries. One country, he said, had ten years’ solitary confinement.

Russia, for instance. (A laugh.)

mentioned that Holland give five years’ solitary confinement, and that it was a very old system they had there.

Yes, very old, and very bad. (A laugh.)

I have always heard a great deal to the contrary. Ho added that in view of the scale adopted in other countries, and from what the results were said to fee, he did not think three years were too much. He was prepared to strike out the word “continuous.”

again pointed out instances of contradictions in the English and Butch texts.

maintained that the meaning was the same, though a different phraseology might be used.

It was agreed that the word “continuous” should be omitted from the clause:

Mr. Schreiner’s amendment was put and negatived, and clause 23 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 25, application of isolation and mechanical restraint,

said that a little while ago the Minister said he perpetrated a joke, and that he (the speaker) did not see it. Might he ask whether this was another joke? Under clause 25, where it was necessary to secure a prisoner, they might use irons or some other mechanical restraint. But upon whom? Upon a prisoner who had escaped. (Laughter.) To say more would be superfluous. (More laughter.)

said that he saw the joke, and Would move the following amendment: In line 39, to omit “escaped” and to substitute “been recaptured after escape,” and to omit “or” at the end of the line; in line 4G to omit paragraph (c); in line 49 to insert the following new paragraph, to follow paragraph (2): “(3) A superintendent, assistant superintendent, or gaoler may cause to fee isolated, and, if necessary, subjected, to mechanical restraint, any convict or prisoner if the isolation or restraint, is requested by the police authorities in the interests of justice, but the period of any such isolation or restraint shall not be longer than is necessary for the purpose required.” In line 63 after “death” to insert “or in course of transfer, or while temporarily outside the precincts of the convict prison or gaol”; in the same line to omit “there to” and to substitute “to solitary confinement by a Court of Law.”

said the effect of the amendment was very similar to the provision in lines 41 to 44.

said that in the English copy of the Bill occurred the phrase, “alleged lunatic and feeble minded,” while in the Dutch copy the phrase read, “alleged lunatic or feeble minded. Which was correct?

pointed out that, according to the amendment, an additional punishment was inflicted on Prisoners who escaped, because the Bill already made provision for dealing with escaped prisoners.

This is only in special cases.

Is this a, cumulative or a substituted punishment?

It is not so much a punishment—it is as little a punishment as the closing of a hospital door is.

said the intention of the clause 25 was simply to secure a man until such time as he could be brought before a Magistrate, because it was not always possible to bring him at once before a Magistrate.

moved a verbal amendment.

said he was prepared to insert the words “and long” after the word, “often” in line 36.

said that this was too much power to place in the hands of police authorities. He moved therefore, to delete the words “requested by police authorities” for the purpose of inserting the words “authorised by a Magistrate.” He pointed out that in the definition clause the word “magistrate” was Very wide it included five sets of officials. That was surely wide enough.

said he thought it was necessary to give the police authorities these powers. There were often instances in which the police could not get hold of a Magistrate.

moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Let us finish the section. (Hear, hear.)

complained about inefficient translation.

withdrew his amendment.

The other amendments were agreed to,

The clause, as amended, was adopted.

then moved to report progress.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.