from L. A. Burnell, Railway Department, accountant.

from voters of Boshof, for railway communication for the North-western districts of the Orange Free State (four petitions).

from the Charlestown Local Board, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from the Village Management Board and residents of Odendaalsrust, O.F.S., praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

moved that the first report on the Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities Committee be now considered.

seconded.

said before the House proceeded to consider the report, he would like the chairman to explain whether certain petitions from Civil Servants with regard to the privilege of paying back two years’ subscriptions for participation, in the benefits of the Pension Fund had been considered.

said he recollected some cases to which the hon. member referred, and which had been considered some time past. All he would say was, they were all carefully inquired into, and the committee had by a majority come to the conclusion that no redress could be given. With regard to these particular cases, they were all examined individually. It was found that the petitioners had the opportunities mentioned, but they had not taken advantage of them and on that ground the committee held that they could not grant them the privilege. He would like this to be perfectly clear, the applicants had in most cases a double opportunity of contributing, but they had not availed themselves of the chance.

The motion was agreed to, and the recommendations were adopted.

said he wished to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the Ostriches and Angora Goats’ Export Prohibition Bill. Many hon. members had been to him on the subject, and they were getting alarmed at the Bill gradually going lower and lower down on the paper. He had been informed that communications had been received by some hon. members that ostriches were actually being exported to German territory at the present moment. Therefore, those who were interested in the subject were distinctly anxious that this Bill should be brought forward as soon as possible.

said that the Bill would come up in the ordinary course of business, but there were certain matters which the Government had to take into account, which rendered it impossible for the Bill to be brought up just now.

proposed, as an unopposed motion that votes 1 to 12, inclusive of the Estimates for the year ending March 51, 1912, be referred to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration. The House would remember that when he moved for the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee, he intimated that it was the intention of the Government to use it for the purpose of considering a certain section of the annual Estimates, the Government’s intention being that the Estimates should be divided into three sections, and that one section should closely be examined each year by the committee. The section which it was proposed the committee Should examine this session included the votes for the Governor-General, the Senate, the House of Assembly, joint Parliamentary expenses, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of the Interior, Mines, and Defence. He did not know whether the Minister of Railways would follow the same course with regard to the Railway Estimates.

seconded.

hoped this would not be taken as a precedent. He thought these 12 votes would be as much as the Public Accounts Committee would be able to examine during the remainder of the session, but on future occasions he thought the whole of the Estimates should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. He hoped the Minister of Railways would tell the House if the Railway Estimates would be referred to the committee.

said he would tell his hon. friend when he (Mr. Sauer) laid his Estimates on the table, but he thought it would then be found that the Railway Estimates would be in such order that it would be a question whether it would be worth while referring them to the committee.

asked when the Railway Estimates would be laid on the table?

replied that they would probably be ready on Monday.

The motion was agreed to.

complained about incorrect translation, and said that this applied to several Bills.

moved in line 16 to omit “or by a visiting Magistrate,” and in line 24 to omit “and a visiting Magistrate.”

said that he did not see why a Magistrate should be less inclined to do justice in gaol than when he sat in his own court. In the circumstances of the country he did not think it would be wise to accept the amendment.

said that he hoped the Minister would not take these steps on their part to improve the Bill as irksome or objectionable. The Minister had not answered the one point of publicity. It was proposed in this clause to give the Magistrate additional power to inflict punishment up to two years’ imprisonment and 24 lashes.

said that in this clause they did not even provide that the Visiting Magistrate’s sentence should be reviewed by a judge. A moment later, however, he stated that he was informed that in another clause review by a judge was provided for. He thought that in all oases, except of minor offences, trials should be conducted in the courts, with the representatives of the press present.

said that he thought that at present a Magistrate had power to impose a sentence of two years, or inflict lashes, in certain cases. He did not see any new principle in the clause under consideration; and if that clause had to be amended, other matters had to be altered as well. He thought that there should not be a tendency to make prison life too much of a heaven on earth— (laughter)—because he knew that there were natives for whom prison life had no terrors at all; quite the opposite, in fact; and when they came out, they spoke loudly of the easy time they had had, the good food, better than they got from their masters, and so on. They often did their level best to get back to that Land of Cockaigne!

said that if they took the Dutch version of the Bill, hon. members on that side need not trouble about sub-section 3, because it was there said that the Resident Magistrate or Visiting Magistrate should “take cognisance.” Read in English, the clause sounded serious; read in Dutch, it was perfectly preposterous. It all depended, therefore, on which version the Governor-General would sign.

said he hoped the Minister of Justice would accept the amendment. It was desirable that these cases should be tried in an open court, so that there may be publicity. He did not object to that jurisdiction being conferred upon the Magistrate, because a case like that could not be conveniently held over until it could be tried by the High Court; but he thought that the trial should be open.

said that he sympathised entirely with the feelings expressed by hon. members opposite, and so did his hon. friend (General Hertzog), as regards an open trial of very serious cases. But he could not help feeling that rather too much had been made of these provisions in the Bill. The system of trying such offences within the prison was the one which prevailed all over the world. There was no publicity forbidden; and it was open for any member of the public to be present when the Visiting Magistrate held his inquiry at Tokai, for example. But he did not find people going to that court, which was quite open to them. (Laughter.) Theoretically, he was in favour of the views expressed by the other side, but in practice it was not convenient to the public at large that they should have such public trials of these offences, because it would mean battalions of convicts being sent to the Magistrate’s Court. He could understand the objections of the hon. member (Mr. Quinn) if the prison officials were to conduct these inquiries, but that was not the ease, and the Magistrate conducted the inquiry. They had a man from outside, who was supposed to be a critic of prison discipline and the prison authorities.

said that the hon. member must see that they were not dealing with ordinary breaches of prison discipline, but with a special offence, which was treated specially.

said that what was meant by publicity was the publicity given by the press, which could give a report of what was of public interest. He must take exception to what his hon. friend (Mr. Burton) had said. He had argued that the system in question prevailed all over the world; but because it prevailed all over the world, it was not necessarily good. They had had hideous revelations in past years of the prison system in England, and the dreadful things which had taken place in Van Diemen’s Land. The great moral was: “Don’t get into gaol ”—(laughter)—but one could not help feeling some sort of sympathy with those poor creatures who got out of it.

said that as regards Cape Town gaols, no one could get in without an order, and he was perfectly certain that in the desire of the superintendent to maintain order within the gaol it would be extremely difficult to get such an order, He thought that in a case where such severe penalties were provided as laid down in that section, they should adopt what the hon. member (Mr. Quinn) had proposed. It was right that trials for offences against prison discipline should be held within the gaol, for otherwise prisoners, for certain reasons, would take advantage of the trial being public, and the result would be an increase in the number of such contraventions of prison discipline.

said that he accepted the amendment, although he did not see that it would be advantageous.

The amendment was agreed to.

asked whether it was not too severe a penalty to impose 24 lashes for escaping or attempting to escape? Lashes were inflicted for certain brutal crimes.

said that the hon. member must not forget the class of offender they sometimes had to deal with. They might, in regard to prison escape, have to do with the very worst offenders, who had become so accustomed to prison life that it had no more terrors for them. They must be able, in certain very serious cases, to impose lashes, or otherwise hon. members would see what the consequences would be.

said that there was no provision for the sentence to be confirmed by a judge. (An HON. MEMBER: “Clause 57.”) Clause 37 did not do that at all.

pointed out two years and 24 lashes were the maximum penalty, and there was no doubt that a maximum penalty was necessary in the case of very hardened criminals.

wanted to know whether a man sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, who attempted to escape, was captured, tried, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and 24 lashes, would be be lashed at the end of his sentence, or when? (Laughter.)

said the lashes doubtless would be inflicted as soon as possible.

pointed but a discrepancy between the English and Dutch versions of the Bill.

said there was a worse instance in the clause as well as the next of the very slovenly way in which the two versions were drawn up. This was a responsibility that rested more upon the Ministerial side of the House than the other. It was extraordinary that hon. members would not see that there was exactness in the drafting of the Dutch and English versions. He would assure hon. members opposite that this was going to have a very serious effect upon the country. People might find that they had been looking at the wrong version all the time, and this would involve considerable legal expense. Surely it was the duty of the Minister to see that these Bills corresponded in the two languages as far as possible. It was not fair to the public to have these discrepancies.

An amendment to the Dutch version of the clauses, moved by Mr. C. L. Botha, was negatived.

said that if hon. members wished to criticise, they ought at least to be well informed. The hon. member objected to the expression “neemt kennis,” but this was equivalent, in the jurisprudence of Holland, to saying that there should be jurisdiction.

pointed out that they were legislating not for Holland but for South Africa, and in this country the words meaning “takes cognisance of” did not mean that there was special jurisdiction. Neither the Statutes of, nor the judgments delivered in, South Africa could be quoted in support of the Minister’s peculiar terminology.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 28, rewards for apprehension of escaped prisoners,

said the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Botha) bad pointed out defects in the Dutch Bill, but had overlooked discrepancies in the English Bill. The hon. member need not concern himself so much about the Dutch version, especially since he was such a strong advocate of the English tongue.

said the hon. member for Zoutpansberg had suggested that he (Mr. Botha) was known to be a strong supporter of the English language as against the Dutch. That was the sort of remark he (Mr. Botha) could treat with the contempt it deserved. So long as the two Bills corresponded, he was content. A Dutch person might get held of the Dutch version of a Bill and consider that it was the one that was in force, but he (Mr. Botha) assumed that in most cases the Governor-General-would sign the English Bills, English being the only language His Excellency knew. Be (Mr. Botha) was trying to help the Dutch, but the hon. member for Zoutpansberg did not like him to do that.

moved to insert in line 32, after “prisoner,” the words “or persons held under legal warrant.”

The amendment was adopted.

moved that the words, “out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund,” in line 33, be omitted.

The amendment was adopted.

The clause as amended was agreed to. On clause 29, powers of officers in reference to convicts or prisoners attempting to escape,

moved to insert in the second line, between “or” “and attack,” the words “threaten to attack,’’ and after “person” to insert “or in concert with others commit any act of violence.”

was surprised that an officer was empowered to fire upon a prisoner simply for attempting to escape.

said he thought there was something in what the hon. member said. It was for the purpose of not waiting until a violent attack was made upon a man in gaol.

The amendment was agreed to.

said he thought that there should be an inquiry provided for under the third subsection.

In every case there is an inquiry.

The clause as amended was agreed to. On clause 30, penalty for aiding escape,

said that they were going to create a new kind of crime in this clause. It was there laid down that a man may be dealt with for “showing a desire to aid any convict or prisoner in escaping, or in breaking any regulation.” He moved that the last five words be expunged.

said that they were proposing to deal with a purely mental crime. He would propose that all the words from “showing a desire” to “regulation” be deleted. They would never be able to obtain a conviction on this part of the clause.

said that if the clause were what the hon. member who had just spoken said it was, he would accept the amendment. The clause should read as a whole, and not split up into portions.

said he did not think it was desirable to extend the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate’s Court by putting little separate paragraphs into Bills

repeated that they were wanting to punish a man for a purely nebulous offence.

thought that from what the hon. member had said he had not read the clause. How often were prisoners not assisted to escape by means of signs? The guilty parties in such cases richly deserved punishment.

moved as an amendment, that the words “encouraging or inciting” be deleted; and the following be inserted: “which encourages or incites”; also that the “or showing” to taken out and “which shows” inserted.

considered that the clause was too vague. He hoped it would be deleted.

said that he could not agree to the clause being taken out, as it was essential. If a man wrote a letter to a convict, saying: “Kill your guard—

That is “incitement.”

Or stated that he had a horse waiting—

That is “encouragement,” which is provided for already.

said that, suppose such a letter encouraging a prisoner to escape did not reach the prisoner, but was intercepted by a guard, should not the sender of the letter be punished? He could not accept amendments simply because they arose in the minds of hon. members. He wanted good cause shown. (Hear, hear.) The Hill had been extremely well considered by the Commission, and he had carefully gone through it himself twice or thrice.

Suppose I write to a friend in prison that I wish he were out. I should come under this clause of yours. (Laughter.)

asked why the English version of the clause could not be divided into sub-sections as had been done with the Dutch version? If the English sub-sections had been drawn up to correspond with the Dutch, it would have simplified matters considerably. He agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Alexander) as to what he had said about “intention.”

said he quite agreed with the objections to the discrepancies in, the Dutch and English versions. Ho disliked these involved sentences as much as anyone. As far as the duplicated version was concerned, it would only be referred to by a Judge if he was in any difficulty or to guide him in any ambiguity.

thought it would be as well to leave out the words, “or breaking any regulation” from the clause.

stated that the reason the clause was drafted in that way was because there must be no commas or stops. Hon. members might smile, but he would point out that many persons’ property had depended on a comma. The hon. member pointed out also that in the clause there was no offence/in encouraging a prisoner to break, the regulations, but the moment there was a desire to do so there was the liability to punishment. He proposed, therefore, to insert the words “or break the regulation” after the word “escape,” and in line 54 to insert the word “knowingly.” It would be unjust to punish a person who was unaware of the contents of a letter. He proposed also to leave out the words “encouraging or inciting any prisoner,” for the purpose of inserting the words “for the purpose of inciting, aiding, or encouraging a prisoner to break the regulations.”

drew attention to clause 34, where it was also made punishable to break the regulations.

said he was beginning to feel very hopeless about the Bill. The lawyers were the biggest trespassers this afternoon. The hon. member for the Harbour (Sir H. Juta) came in after the clause had been discussed, and practically settled to the satisfaction of everybody but himself, and made new proposals. He (General Hertzog), however, did not blame the hon. member for Tembuland, as he was not a lawyer. The amendment would reduce the whole section to an absurdity.

referred to a visit he paid to some Hottentots at Roeland-street Gaol, who were to be handed over to the German authorities. One of the Hottentots asked him for a bit of tobacco, and as the poor fellow was not long for this world, he (Mr. Struben) would have given it had it not been against the regulations, and for the presence of a warder. Had he done so, under that Bill he would have rendered himself liable to two years’ imprisonment.

moved the insertion in line 51 of the words “or police cell.”

said the amendments he had proposed were not the result of a hasty consideration of the Bill that afternoon, but were the result of notes made by him after a careful perusal of (the Bill during the recess.

Made in a hurry.

I rather think the Bill was made in a hurry. (Opposition cheers.) Proceeding, he pointed out that the writer of a letter urging a prisoner to escape might have it conveyed to the prisoner by a person—a little child say— who was unaware of its contents. Under the Bill the writer would not be punished, but the bearer would be.

pointed out that there was a complete difference between the drafting of the English and Dutch versions of the Bill. The clause under discussion was printed with subsections in Dutch, but without sub-sections in English. If the Dutch copy were signed by the Governor-General, a person might be charged under a certain sub-section of the clause under discussion, but in the English version of the Bill there was no mention of sub-sections at all. The Minister said he would see that this sort of thing should not occur in the future, but why should mistakes be made now? He suggested that the Bill should stand over.

The amendment proposed by Sir Henry Juta to insert “to break a regulation,” in line 56, was agreed to.

The amendments proposed by Colonel Crewe and Mr. Clayton, and the amendment by Sir Henry Juta in line 54, were negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Alexander’s amendment to omit the words from “showing” to “escape” was withdrawn.

Clause 30, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 33, penalty of officers selling to convicts and prisoners, or being interested in supply of articles to them,

drew attention to several discrepancies between the English and Dutch versions of the clause. In one case they had three different expressions used in the Dutch for the same thing. They were, he added, reducing their ideal of the dual language to a complete farce. The hon. member accordingly moved certain amendments in the Dutch version of the Bill. He also moved in line 31 to omit “discounts” and insert “commission.”

said that he had listened very carefully and patiently, but some hon. members did not seem to appreciate the time of the House, and seemed to obstruct.

The amendment in line 31 was negatived.

declared, on the same amendment in the Dutch, that the “Noes” had it.

On this amendment I am going to claim a division.

The amendment was to the effect that in line 37(page 17) of the Dutch version, after “gevangene,” the word “ongemachtigd” be inserted.

The result of the division was as follows:

said if they were always to divide upon this subject of translation, they would find themselves in a very difficult position. He suggested before putting a clause where there was a word in the English that had no corresponding equivalent in the Dutch, they should leave the word out, so that the two versions might agree.

moved that the word “ongeoorloofd” be inserted in front of “gemeenschap.” (Opposition laughter.)

Well, I accept that.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 34,

moved to insert the word “knowingly” before the word “suffers.”

drew attention to the extraordinary differences in the marginal notes of the two versions.

said he was beginning to think there was a good deal behind all these amendements. (Ministerial cheers.) He was exceedingly sorry that the matter had been raised, because it was very evident that in English some part of the sentence had been left out in committee. If the hon. member would simply draw attention to any mistake, they would be only too glad to assist him in any way, but he was exceedingly sorry that there had been an evidence in this comparison of the two languages that afternoon and the day before to arouse a feeling— (Cries of “No, no.”)

he regretted extremely that his hon. friend (General Hertzog) should approach this subject in the manner he did. ‘That attitude would not facilitate the business of the House. (Hear, hear.) He denied most emphatically, on behalf of those on that side of the House, that it was their intention to try and arouse any comparison between the merits of the two languages. They were only trying to do their duty in connection with these differences. Were they to understand that when a Minister was dealing with a Bill with clauses that were not understood that hon. members were not allowed an opportunity of seeing that, as far as possible, the two versions were correct? That was all they asked for. Hon. members would recollect that although English was the official language in the old Cape Parliament, there was always a translation in Dutch, and if the two versions did not correspond, hon. members drew attention to the fact. Their only purpose in pointing out these discrepancies was to see that both versions were correct, and he did not think it was the duty of a responsible Minister to take up the position that his hon. friend had. (Hear, hear.) Surely it was their duty, especially when people outside the House were commenting upon these discrepancies, that they should point them out. What they wanted the Minister to do was, whenever there was a difference in the two versions, he would see that it was put right, but he (Sir T. Smartt) must protest against the insinuation that they were trying to make the dual language impossible. All they wanted was that the dual language should be maintained, so that anybody reading either one or the other language would know exactly what was intended. The hon. member regretted that his night hon. friend the Prime Minister was not present, because he would not have taken up the same attitude as the Minister of Justice. (Hear, hear.) He made certain allowances for the hon. member’s attitude, because, perhaps, he bad been a little bit annoyed at criticisms directed against the Bill, but he had no right to insinuate that hon. members were not doing their duty when they pointed out irregularities. (Hear, hear.)

said that he must admit that they, as members of Parliament, had a duty to perform in regard to the two languages. It was true that, as he had found, one language give the same sense as the other, but the terms were not exactly the same, and he had been considering whether they had been doing their duty. With all due deference he appealed to the Minister of Justice to see that they—on both sides of the House—were so careful that nothing should be placed on the Statute Book, the two versions of which might differ greatly from each other.

The amendment moved by Mr. Jagger was agreed to, and the clause was adopted.

On clause 35. Jurisdiction of superintendents to try breach of regulations by convicts,

moved in sub-section (b) to insert after “privileges” the word “gratuities.”

oved an amendment to omit sub-section (e), which give a superintendent power to inflict corporal punishment not exceeding six strokes if the offender be a convicted male prisoner apparently under the age of sixty years. He also proposed the omission of sub-section (g), which give power to a superintendent to order solitary confinement in an isolation cell, with or without light labour, for a period not exceeding 21 days, 14 days of which might be ordered to be passed on reduced diet.

said he had been a visitor to gaols, and be had seen isolation cells of a kind which would make General Hertzog’s hair stand on end. To give any superintendent power to! send any person to one of these horrible dens for 21 days was monstrous. He had seen a man brought out from one of these isolation cells, and the horrible expression on the man’s face when again he saw the light of day had remained impressed on his (Sir Bisset’s) memory. There were very few isolation cells in the country fit for the purpose for which they were intended. He moved in line 21, after “cell” to insert “approved of by the director,” and in line 25 after “cell” to insert “approved of by the director or medical officer of health.”

said that if the hon. member (Sir Bisset Berry) had considered the words of the whole of the clause, he would have seen that the amendment was superfluous. He sympathised with hon. members who held that, if possible, they should take all kinds of punishment out of the hands of gaolers. In the Transvaal many of the punishments were double those provided for in the section, and were in the hands of governors or deputy-governors. The operation of this, clause would be restricted to places where they had proper isolation cells.

said that the Minister seemed to have misunderstood him. His point was that the isolation cell should be approved by the Director.

said that provision was made for this in section 24. In regard to Mr. Nathan’s amendments, he thought there was need to give jurisdiction to both the superintendent and assistant superintendent. The power would only be given where the exigencies of the case required. He had not much sympathy with the power referred to in sub-section (e), and he would not mind if that portion were deleted. As to the proposal to substitute “two” for “six” days, in regard to sub-section (f), it was a matter about, which different, people held different views. In the Transvaal seven days was the maximum. He saw no objection to that amendment.

hoped that the Minister would stick to his clause, which was a very good one. It was necessary to inflict some corporal punishment in certain very bad or obstreperous cases.

thought that a medical officer should be consulted before a prisoner was sentenced to reduced or spare diet.

Verbal amendments by the Minister of Justice and by Mr. E. Nathan were agreed to.

Those by Sir B. Berry were withdrawn.

Others by Mr. E. Nathan were negatived.

moved certain amendments in sub-section (g) in the Dutch version, so as to make it correspond more with the English version.

suggested the words “op bevel” instead.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

moved to insert at the beginning of the clause, “save as is otherwise provided in this Act.” This amendment, he said, was necessary, in order to bring the clause into harmony with clause 27, as amended.

thought it would be better to add “subject to the provisions of section 27.” He moved accordingly.

said he would agree to that, and withdrew his amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

In line 37, to omit, “unless the Minister otherwise direct, either generally or specially,” and to add at, the end of the clause, “provided that such visiting magistrate or magistrates, as the case may be, shall not try or hear such cases in a, prison or gaol where the trial or hearing can be had in an open court of law.” As it stood, the clause, he said, was very vague. They should make it clear what, powers they were going to give the authorities, and what the power the Minister was to retain.

said he considered the clause provided the best means of dealing with the matter, pointing out the difficulties there would be in removing convicts from gaols to courts to be sentenced for small contraventions, if the amendment were agreed to. The clause was based on the Transvaal Act of 1906.

said that he could not agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), who was asking too much. He thought they must leave power to the authorities to deal with small contraventions, such as insubordination in gaol. He thought his hon. friend (Mr. Nathan) should be satisfied with the provision that had been made to have the more serious cases dealt with in open court.

moved that the words, “and shall have the following special jurisdiction,” be inserted in line 44, and the deletion of the words, “to sentence the offender in lieu of.”

said that the magistrate could give the first sentence, the second, or both.

said that there was no question of a man being sentenced twice.

’s amendment was negatived.

The amendment of the Minister of Justice was agreed to.

said that with regard to the question of collective sentences, hon. members on the other side assumed that the man had already been tried.

asked which version of the Bill would be signed by the Governor-General? If the English version was to be laid before the Governor-General, they need not trouble about the Dutch translation.

ruled that the question was not before the committee.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 37, review of sentences for prison offences by a judge.

Castle moved that the words, “or solitary confinement” be inserted after the word “punishment” in line 66.

The amendment was lost.

said that the punishment in clause 36 was very severe, therefore he moved to omit the words “and 36” from paragraph 3.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 38, jurisdiction of superintendents,

In paragraph (1) to omit the whole of line 6, and substitute the word “A ”; in paragraph (2), line 16, to omit “whether” and to substitute “either.” He pointed out that a prisoner who sought to gain some advantage from his superior officer might give evidence which might be to the detriment of the person charged, and advantage to the person giving evidence. Why could not these cases be brought before a Magistrate? All he wished to do was to obviate the possibility of any injustice being done.

considered that the accused should have the right to appeal to the Minister.

said he was prepared to insert after the word “director,” in line 14, the words may with the approval of the Minister.”

Mr. Nathan’s amendments were negatived.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 39,

moved an amendment in effect to allow any person awaiting trial an opportunity of obtaining legal advice.

said if the suggestion were for the benefit of the legal profession he would have much pleasure in supporting it. (Laughter.)

said that any man awaiting trial in gaol who wanted a lawyer was allowed to have one.

said the amendment proposed by his hon. friend was quite unnecessary. (Laughter.) His (Mr. Nathan’s) went far enough.

suggested that the clause should stand over.

said he was ready to do that, as he wished to consult additional authorities. He moved accordingly.

The clause was ordered to stand over.

On clause 40,

To add to paragraph (2), line 34, after “Court” the following: “Provided, however, that the accused shall in all cases at any hearing be entitled to have present and be represented by his legal adviser.”

In line 32, after “thereat,” to insert “or be the legal representative duly authorised by the person or persons charged,” and to add the following new sub-section, viz.: “3. Any person so charged shall, for the purposes of such trial, be allowed full liberty to communicate with, receive visits from, and be represented by such qualified practitioner as he may be disposed.”

After discussion,

On the motion of the MINISTER OF JUSTICE, the further consideration of this clause was ordered to stand over.

On clause 41,

An amendment was made in the Dutch which does not occur in the English version.

On clause 43, return to prison of persons removed there from on account of insanity,

moved to add at the end of the clause: “Provided, however, that the case of such convict or prisoner and all the attendant facts shall forthwith be brought by the person in charge of such convict or prisoner to the notice of the Governor-General for the exercising of his prerogative if by him deemed advisable,”

said he hoped the Minister would accept this very reasonable amendment.

said that a safeguard was provided by means of the Prison Board. Besides, the gaoler would have to submit a prison list to the Magistrate. It seemed to him that they had safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill against any injustice being done. Any prisoner could send a petition at any time to the Governor or to himself (the Minister of Justice).

said that the amendment made it perfectly clear that a man’s case Should not be over looked. The clause said that “the period during which he was detained in the asylum shall not be reckoned as part of his sentence of imprisonment.”

said that he would be prepared to accept the amendment if the words “by the person in charge of such convict or prisoner” were omitted, and “Minister” was substituted for “Governor-General.”

amended his motion to this effect, and the amendment was agreed to.

On clause 51,

moved a new clause 51 as follows: “Where any person, is convicted of an offence before any Court, and the Court is of opinion that it is inexpedient to pass sentence of imprisonment, the Court may direct (a) That the accused be remitted to the magistrate of the district within which his home is situate, who shall indenture him to an employer for industrial service within such district, for a period not exceeding five years, and shall determine the conditions of service and rate of wages to be paid to the parent or guardian of the accused (if he or she be less than 21 years of age), or to be deposited with the magistrate to the credit of the accused (if he or she be an adult), in which latter case the magistrate may at his discretion pay over to the accused a sum not exceeding one-half of the wages in hand at any time, the balance being paid over at the expiry of the period of service, (b) Further direct that a portion of the wages to be paid under the preceding paragraph be retained by the magistrate by way of fine payable to the Court, and/or of damages caused to the complainant by the offence of which the accused has been convicted.” He said there were many occasions on which a Judge or a Magistrate did not wish to send a first offender or a person not of vicious tendencies to prison, or to a reformatory. He wished to give the Magistrates power to deal with such cases otherwise. The tendency of all legislation was in this direction, and he hoped the amendment would’ be accepted.

said that no doubt there was a good deal to be said for such a provision, but it was foreign to the present Bill. The questions treated in the proposed new clause were dealt with by existing legislation in the different Provinces, which legislation was not here being repealed. In so far as any crime was dealt with here, it was confined to crimes committed in a gaol. The new clause would be quite in place when they came to deal with the criminal law next year, but it was out of place here.

said that, in regard to the matter of apprenticeships, this clause would fall within the provisions of this Bill.

referred to clause 2, and said he could see no difference in principle between this proposed new clause and clause 2.

said that the Bill did not deal with the general criminal law. It dealt with a special kind of criminal.

said that the principle contained in the amendment was in operation in other countries. The suggestion had this merit, that it relieved the State of the necessity of caring for these offenders. It was true ‘that the State would have to exercise some supervision, but so far as the question of care and provision was concerned, the Government was not called upon for one penny. He hoped that if the Minister would not accept the amendment that night, he would at all events allow it to stand over, as there was a great deal in it worth considering. As regarded the amendment itself, he found fault with it in so far as it said “that the accused be remitted to the magistrate of the district within which his home is situate.’’ He considered that the district in which the accused’s home was situated was the last place to which he should be sent. Instead of sending him back to the place of temptation, he should be sent to a new atmosphere and new surroundings.

said he was quite willing to allow the clause to stand over.

Tine clause was allowed to stand over accordingly.

moved: That the following be a new clause, viz: “52. Any person who may be dealt with under the preceding section shall be considered as coming within the operation of the Master and Servants Act of the Province within which he is resident, and shall, if occasion require, be dealt with there under.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF JUSTICE, the further consideration of this clause was ordered to Stand over.

moved that the following be a new clause, viz.: “53. The Governor of any gaol or prison may recommend to the Minister having jurisdiction that the course laid down in the foregoing sub-section (a) of section be followed in respect of any prisoner whose conduct warrants such modification of the sentence of imprisonment originally inflicted, and the Minister may at his discretion direct that the prisoner be so dealt with.”

On the motion of the MINISTER OF JUSTICE, the further consideration of this clause was ordered to stand over.

On clause 52, establishment of reformatories for juvenile offenders,

moved in paragraph (1), line 43, after “reformatories,” to insert “in which term shall be included detention schools, as well as training ships afloat in territorial waters.” He said that these young children should be sent to schools instead of being sent to a reformatory. They should not be allowed to be tainted by prison. Magistrates had often commented on the fact that there was no proper place where they could send these youthful offenders. In dealing with the question of training ships, he said that he hoped he would have the support of the committee. The subject was mooted in the old Cape House some years back, but he believed that the objection to the proposal arose from the fact that it ‘was only ‘being done with the idea of denationalising the youth of this country. He considered that the results would be worth the expense of establishing such ships. He thought that even the young criminals would prefer going to a training ship than a convict station, and he did think the question one worth considering. He would draw the attention of the Minister of Justice that in a country like England, and it was the same in France and Germany, these training ships had now become well-known institutions. In most of the large seaports of England training ships were established. The Metropolitan Asylums Board and the London School Board had ships of this description on the Thames, and that was a wrinkle that he would draw the attention of his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) to. He thought the time had arrived when they should establish one or two of these training ships. General Hertzsog pointed out that the Governor-General had the power to establish detention schools and training ships, but the amendment of the hon. member would abrogate that power. It did not matter whether they were called detention schools or reformatories, it was the same thing. The Hon. Minister give as an illustration what he would call a perfect system, the juvenile reformatory established at Heidelberg, which was based upon the American or cottage system.

There the boys were brought up just like a family, with the house father in charge. He did not think the hon. gentleman could wish for anything better. In substance this was the same as the hon. gentleman desired; then why put in an amendment?

thought the Governor-General’s authority would be required if training ships were included in the Bill, as that would mean additional expenditure.

urged the acceptance of the amendment, as it would open the door to getting a training ship. Someone might collect money for the purpose.

said he had no objection to the portion of the amendment referring to training ships. (Opposition cheers.)

altered his amendment accordingly.

said he would, in the definition of reformatories, have training ships included. (Opposition cheers.)

The amendment was agreed to.

moved to odd at the end of paragraph (1): “And may also establish reformatories for the reception and custody of juvenile adults ”; end to omit the word “juvenile” before” reformatories” or “reformatory,” whenever it occurred. He said that his object was to establish not only juvenile reformatories, but juvenile adult reformatories.

said that this was provided for, though in a different way, in clause 73. He did not think there was any need to accept the amendment.

was of opinion that clause 73 was not the best way of arriving at the result. He had put on the paper a new clause 73.

said that there appeared to be a good deal in what the hon. member had said, and he would, therefore, not raise any objection to the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 53, convicted juvenile may, in addition to or in lieu of imprisonment, be sentenced to detention in reformatory or to apprenticeship,

said that he desired to introduce a new principle in reference to offences committed by young children. He thought a magistrate or other special officer should have the power to try such cases in camera. The principle had been adopted with success in England. He moved to add a sub-section to the effect that the trial of any such juvenile may in every case be held in camera, and in some other place than an ordinary court-room, provided that in such case the parent or guardian, or other person interested in such juvenile, should have the right to be present thereat.

said he agreed with the principle, but there was just a danger in giving a privilege—and a very good privilege—and they must take care that it should not be ‘abused. He moved that the clause stand over, as there seemed to be something wrong.

This was agreed to.

suggested that the Minister move to report progress.

said he would like to meet the wish of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, but he would point out that the other House was really having nothing to do. Besides, if they did not get on, he was afraid some very important measures would be hung up.

On clause 60, Visitors’ Board and other visitors,

moved an amendment to the effect that ministers of religion should also be allowed to visit.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

Clause 65 having been agreed to,

moved that progress be reported.

The motion was agreed to, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.