from inhabitants of Bloemfontein and Brandfort, for railway communication from Brandfort to the Salt Pans (four petitions).

from inhabitants of Potchefstroom, for amendment of the Transvaal Field-cornets Act.

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

from William Barrett, gaoler, Clanwilliam.

from J. K. Beardmore, Post and Telegraph Department.

from P. Lamont and 188 others, residents and farmers of the town and district of Adelaide, praying for the proclamation of Adelaide as a separate fiscal division, or for other relief.

from inhabitants of Brandfort, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

similar petition from, inhabitants of Brand fort and Bloemfontein.

Minutes addressed to the Governor-General by Ministers, 20th January and 9th February, on the subject of the Government’s draft, resolutions for the Imperial Conference, 1911.

Report of Controller and Auditor-General, with Statements of the Revenue and Expenditure and Appropriation Accounts (Cape), 1st July, 1909, to 30th May, 1910; Fifth Report Committee of Inquiry into the Report of the War Casualties and Injuries Commission.

asked the Prime Minister when was it the intention of the Government to push on with the Ostriches and Angora Goats Export Prohibition Bill? His reason for asking the question was that hon. members were very much disturbed owing to information received by them that hundreds of ostriches during the last two months had been removed into German South-west Africa.

replied that the law at present in force in the Cape Province allowed such exportation of ostriches, and no change could be made until fresh legislation had been introduced. There was some difficulty in regard to the matter, because the Government, had entered into negotiations with the German and Portuguese Governments, and until these had been concluded the Bill could not be proceeded with.

moved that in line 50 the word “conclusive” be deleted.

Agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, was agreed to.

moved certain amendments in the Dutch versions of clauses 68, 70, and 71, which were agreed to.

said that in clause 71, in the English version of the Bill the punishment could only be inflicted “on conviction,” but the Dutch version did not say so.

It may be put in, but it is absolutely unnecessary. It can be put in. In the Dutch code we never use these words, because it is understood that a Magistrate can only inflict punishment “on conviction.”

In clause 72,

moved, as an amendment, that the words “a half of” be inserted, because he thought that the punishment of children should be lighter than that proposed in that clause. He did not think the punishment would be the same as that of adults, but, still, they ought to have safeguards.

said that the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) must not forget that even with juvenile offenders they had to deal with some fairly bad cases, and the punishment which the superintendent was allowed to inflict was very, very limited.

withdrew his amendment.

said that there was something wrong with subsection (d), which read, “provided that no punishment inflicted under any such jurisdiction shall exceed that which under this Act is conferred upon superintendents or assistant superintendents in respect of convicts or prisoners ….” Surely, it did not mean punishment itself was con ferret upon the superintendent! What he though was meant was the power to punish.

agreed that the reading was not correct, and moved to delete the word “is,” and to insert the following: “may be inflicted under the jurisdiction.” He stated that the subsection in the Dutch language was correct.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved another amendment, “and provided, further, that no solitary confinement shall be inflicted for more than ten days.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

New clause 73.

moved a new clause 73 as follows: “(1) The Court before which any juvenile adult is convicted may, instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, order that he be detained in a juvenile adult reformatory for a period of not less than one and not more than five years. (2) The provisions of this Act relating to juvenile reformatories shall apply mutatis mutandis to juvenile adult reformatories.”

said he had no objection to the new clause. It would, perhaps, be necessary to alter other parts of the Bill to conform to this; if so, he would take steps to have it done.

The clause was agreed to.

New clause 74.

moved a new clause 74 as follows: “(1) Subject to such regulations as may be made under this Act, the Director may at any time after the expiration of six months from the date of any order made for the detention of a juvenile or juvenile adult in a reformatory permit him by licence to be discharged from such reformatory on condition that he be placed under the supervision or authority of any society or person named in the licence; (2) a licence granted under this section may be revoked by the Director, and if not revoked shall be in force until the expiration of the term of detention ;(3) on revocation of the licence the person licensed shall return to the reformatory in which he was detained, and failing so to do may be dealt with as if he had absconded from the reformatory in which he was being detained.” The mover referred to the English legislation on the subject. It would be better, he urged, especially in the cases of very young children, that they should be placed in charge of some relative, or in the care of some, suitable organisation, than that they should be sent to reformatories.

said he ‘ was not much in love with the proposed new section. The juvenile adult offender was one of the hardest class to correct. Few of them give much promise of reform. To give such persons six months and then to allow them out under a licence would, he feared, do them a great deal of harm. The universal experience was that it did boys no good to be kept in a reformatory for a short time. Moreover, there was power under section 56 to remove or discharge a boy from a reformatory upon any conditions. It would be possible, therefore, to remove them to any institution. Why he did not like this proposed new clause with the Bill was because he feared it would be looked upon as the one right way in which to deal with these persons. It was very much the same system as the ticket-of-leave system. The best way was to try to make sure that when they released a man they had got him reformed.

said there was a wide difference between the ticket-of-leave system and the course proposed in this new clause. If this were regarded as the right way in which to deal with these people, after all was not that what they wanted?

said that his proposal provided a substitute for reformatories. He did not think the powers given under section 56 were such as would be applied to cases dealt with in his new section.

said that he had no objection to the proposed new clause being inserted in the Bill.

The proposed new clause was agreed to.

On clause 75, detention in industrial schools,

moved, after paragraph (j) to insert the following new paragraph(k): “has been lawfully bound as an apprentice, otherwise than under Chanter VIL, and has broken any provision of the contract of apprenticeship ”; in line 52, to omit “may be” and to substitute “has been ”; in the same line, to omit “by order” and to substitute “in lieu of serving the sentence of imprisonment and upon the recommendation ”; in line 53, to omit “or of” and to substitute ‘be sent by”, and in the same line, to omit “be sent.” He also proposed a further amendment to sub-section (4), to enable girls under 16 years of age to be sent to a Government Industrial School upon the recommendation of the Court before which such girls had been convicted, until the establishment of a reformatory.

moved: In line 20, after “who” to insert “habitually neglects the child in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary suffering or injury to health, or who ”; in paragraph (h) line 31, after “begging” to insert “whether or not there is any pretence of offering anything for sale ”; in paragraph (i), line 33, to omit “charged with” and substitute “convicted of”; in line 35, after imprisonment” insert“or”; in paragraph (j), line 36, before “within” insert, “is being or”: in line 40 after “school” to insert “or to a certified institution as hereinafter defined ”; line.41, insert a new paragraph (2) as follows: “(2) For the purposes of the preceding sub-section, ‘ guardian ’ shall include any person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of a child.” After sub-section (3) omit sub-section (4), and substitute a new sub-section as follows: “(4) The Judge or Court of Resident Magistrate, if it shall appear to be in the best interests of the child, may order that the child, instead of being sent to a Government Industrial, School or to a certified institution, be removed from the custody of his parent or guardian, and placed under the: custody of such other person and subject to such condition as the Judge or (Court may prescribe, and may at any time set aside or vary such order, or revive the same after it has been set aside, until the child shall have (attained the age of 21 years.” He said that in the Transvaal Act of 1898, when any man was convicted of a crime, the Judge or Court might order that his children might be placed under some responsible person. That position was being annulled by the present Bill.

Mr. Duncan’s amendment in line 20 was agreed to.

moved to insert, the word “habitually” before the word “deserts,” so that the sub-section would refer to any who habitually desert school.

Agreed to.

moved to insert, under sub-section (g), the words “known or reputed” before the word “prostitute.”

Agreed to.

On sub-section (h),

said he did not think they should penalise anybody because a child was permitted to earn money by singing. It was not right to send children out begging, and that certainly ought to be put a stop to, but parents sometimes allowed their children to sing in public, so that the family income might be supplemented. Of course, be quite understood that it was not the proper thing for children to be allowed to sing in public from day to day, but he saw no harm in them singing occasionally. He moved that the sub-section be altered so as to allow of a child singing with the written authority of the Resident Magistrate of the town or district in which the singing or performance took place.

expressed his willingness to accept the amendment

thought “public place” should be defined, otherwise children might be prevented from singing on behalf of a good cause.

said the object would be covered by Sir H. Juta’s amendment.

Surely it would not be necessary to get the Resident Magistrate’s authority for a child singing at a school entertainment?

No.

suggested that the difficulty might be overcome by excluding performances for Church, school, or charitable purposes. This exclusion existed in the Cape Act. He put his suggestion in the shape of an amendment.

said he had no objection whatever to accepting the proposal. He did not think any Magistrate would penalise a child for singing under such circumstances as a school concert.

said unless words such as he had suggested were inserted, all school concerts would be stopped.

The amendments of (Sir Henry Juta and Mr. Duncan were agreed to.

moved to insert in line 32, after “purpose,” the words “excepting for Church, school, or charitable purposes.”

Agreed to.

in section (i), moved that the words “convicted of” be substituted for “charged with.”

said that he thought the hon. member went further than the section intended. It intended to take hold of a child belonging to a parent or a guardian who stood charged for the time, or who had been convicted or was still serving a sentence. The child was assumed to be neglected for the time being. If the word “convicted” were substituted, he was afraid they would get a case where a man had been convicted and had served his time, and the child on that account might be taken away from him.

pointed out that, as the section stood, if a man stood charged with an offence, his children might be taken away from him, and sent to an industrial school until they attained the age of 18 years, when he might prove to be innocent of the charge. That seemed to him to be rather cruel.

said that a child might have a very good, mother, and here they would go and take away the children. It might be said that the Magistrate would not do it, but Magistrates did some very strange things sometimes.

said that the Minister evidently meant that the children should be protected during the time they needed protection. He would suggest that the words“ unless the child is not provided for” be inserted.

Mr. H. W. SAMPSON (Commissioner-street) suggested that the words “charged with” be deleted, and “sentenced for” substituted.

moved, as an amendment, that after the word “offence” be inserted the words “and is in gaol awaiting trial.”

said that the Government were doing the right thing in providing for the child, but if the child was otherwise suitably provided for the Government need not step in.

moved that the words “is being neglected because of his having” be inserted.

withdrew his amendment,

said that the word “unduly” was unnecessary, and suggested its deletion.

agreed to this.

moved the following amendment: “Provided that on the acquittal of such parent or guardian, such child shall be discharged.”

moved to amend the proviso to make it read that “such child shall at the request of the parent or guardian be discharged.”

said that he did not know whether they were not going farther than the purposes of the Act contemplated. The Act contemplated the establishment of industrial schools where children were to be committed by a Magistrate at the request of some person or society working for the reclamation of children until they reached the age of 18 years, and it would be a dangerous principle to allow children out of the schools at the request of the parent or guardian.

said he knew of a boy of 11 years whose mother could not get him to go to school, and whose father, he thought, was ill. The result was that the boy played about the streets, and there was no power to get him to go to school. Now, this Act give power to a certain extent. It referred to “some person or society working for the reclamation of children.” He did not suppose that that covered a School Board., and he moved to include such a body.

moved to amend Sir Henry Juta’s amendment by the insertion of the words “or discharged” after the word “acquittal.”

General Hertzog’s amendment was agreed to.

withdrew his amendment in line 33. With regard to the proviso moved by the member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir Henry Juta), he said that there might be cases where a parent, immediately after he was discharged from gaol, would demand to get his child out of the industrial school where it had been sent. He might be absolutely unfit to receive it back, and yet he would get it. Shortly afterwards the parent might be imprisoned again, and the mere fact that a parent was acquitted of one particular charge was no reason why he should get his child back.

The amendment moved by Mr. Meyler was agreed to.

said that the object of the amendment was to prevent the criminal escaping his liability, and so not force the State to undertake the bringing up of these children indefinitely.

said that the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir Henry Juta) did not hold good in regard to his proviso, because a man who wanted to escape liability was not likely to make a request to get his child out of school.

suggested that the Minister should withdraw the words “at the request of the parent or guardian.”

said he was not anxious to leave those words in.

said the amendment simply meant that the industrial schools were to be used as a temporary refuge for the children of persons detained on a criminal charge. There should be other provision for such children.

Sir H. H. Juta’s amendment, as amended, was negatived.

The amendment in line 35 by Mr. Duncan was agreed to.

On sub-section (j),

moved to amend the clause so as to provide that a child charged with a crime might be sent to an industrial school. That would make it possible for a Magistrate to send a child to a school without convicting the child.

moved an amendment to the effect that only a convicted child should be sent to an industrial school. Under the clause as it stood, a child who had been charged and acquitted might, six months afterwards, be suddenly taken from his home.

said the sub-section was very drastic, but the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) would mix up the industrial schools with the juvenile reformatories. The question was whether this sub-section ought to be in at all: it had been taken over from the Transvaal law.

withdrew his amendment, and moved that the sub-section be deleted.

referred to the English law on the subject, which, he said, contained la similar provision to this. The idea was to obviate the necessity for a Magistrate to convict a child.

said that if they added the words “and is not under proper supervision or control ”protection would be afforded. These few words would take away the whole sting of the danger. He moved accordingly.

said he thought the Minister would get enough in his net under the preceding section without having this clause.

said he thought there was a misunderstanding. It was education that was provided for. He thought this clause might, well be allowed to stand in the interests of the youngster. It would give him the chance of his life.

said he was surprised that his hon. friend did not know that parents were sometimes fond of trouble some children. (Hear, hear.) It might be for the good of the children, but parents, although they were what they might call objectionable people, were fond of their children. Mr. Merriman entreated the House not to go too far with these things.

said that if the Minister of Justice would accept his amendment, he would move that, the words “and if not under proper supervision or control” be inserted at the end of the sub-section.

said he could not accept this proposal.

said that he thought the committee were becoming needlessly soared over this sub-section. The Magistrate, before he sent children to an industrial school, would have to have evidence that it was desirable in the interests of the children, and upon the investigation of some society.

Mr. Duncan’s amendment in line 36 was agreed, to.

The amendments moved by Mr. Brown and Mr. Alexander were negatived.

Sub-section (j), as amended, was agreed to.

The new sub-section (k) was agreed, to.

moved, inline 38, after “children,” to insert “or in the case of habitual desertion from school, or refuses to attend school at the instance of the School Board for the district in which such child is resident.” This, he said, would give the power to a School Board, instead of a voluntary society, to take action in the matter.

Agreed; to.

moved a new sub-section (1) as follows: “is being nursed or maintained apart from his or her parent or parents, or properly-authorised guardian or guardians under such domestic circumstances as may fee deemed to be detrimental to the best interests of such child.” The object, he said was to give power, which was in existence in the Cape Province under another Statute, to magistrates to take children, after proper inquiry, from the custody in which they then were, and hand them over to proper persons. That was dealt with in the Infant Life Protection Act of 1907.

The new sub-section was agreed to.

drew attention to a discrepancy between the Dutch and English versions. He did not wish to make any trouble, but he thought it was a matter for those who spoke and thought in Dutch to see that these discrepancies were remedied.

said the hon. member had really nothing to complain about. The discrepancy did not exist in fact.

moved, in line 40, to insert the following words “or any certified institution hereafter defined.’ He said there were various classes of children who came under this clause 75 who could not be dealt with satisfactorily in industrial schools, as they would be: in other institutions. Many cases had occurred where children had been living in homes absolutely unfit, but they could not be dealt with, because they had nowhere to go. The amendment would be extremely useful also in dealing with girls under the age of 16 who had been convicted of a criminal offence. If this clause were altered as he wished, a magistrate, instead of committing them to industrial schools, would send them to these homes.

was afraid that the amendment was wider than the scope of the Bill contemplated. This amendment would exclude the parents from having any say as to where the child should be sent. A difficulty lay also in the fact that under the law the Government did not have proper supervisory powers. He thought that parents should have the right to say that their children should be sent to places over which the Government had control.

said the Government always would have power to certify such institutions, and that would be seen from the new clause he was going to move.

said he believed that the Government should have control over these institutions; besides, he believed that they would only be too glad to seek to obtain Government certificates.

said he was agreeable to accept Mr. Duncan’s amendment, which was put, and agreed to.

moved an amendment to the effect that “guardian” should include any person who had in law or in fact the custody or control of a child.

moved to omit sub-section 4 of clause 75, which read as follows: “Until a reformatory has been established under this Act for the separate treatment of girls, any girl under the age of 16 years who has been convicted of any offence for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed, may, by order of the Court by which she is convicted or of the Minister, be sent to a Government Industrial School, to be detained therein during the period of the said sentence.”

The amendment was agreed to.

next moved to substitute the following new sub-section: “(4)The Judge or Court of Resident Magistrate, if it shall appear to be in the best interests of the child, may order that the child, instead of being sent to a Government Industrial School or to a certified institution, be removed from the custody of his parent or guardian, and placed under the custody of such other person, and subject to such conditions as the Judge or Court may prescribe, and may at any time set aside or vary such order, or revive the same after it has been set aside, until the child shall have attained the age of 21 years.”

The new sub-section was agreed to.

On clause 76,

moved a verbal amendment, which was agreed to.

On clause 79,

moved the following new clause to follow clause 78: “79. (1) The managers of any institution which exists for the reclamation of children of immoral or criminal habits or for the maintenance of destitute children, may apply to the Minister for certification as an institution to which children may be committed under this chapter, and such certificate may be granted by the Minister and may be revoked by him if after inquiry it appears that the institution is being conducted in such a manner as to be unsuitable for the reception of such children. (2) Any institution to which such a certificate is granted shall be a certified institution for the purposes of section 75 of this Act. (3) The Court, in determining the certified institution to which a child is to be sent, shall endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion to which the child belongs, and the retention order shall, where practicable, specify the religious persuasion to which the child appears to belong, and a certified institution conducted in accordance with that persuasion shall, where practicable, be selected. (4) Where the certificate granted to any such institution is revoked, any children who may then be in such institution having been sent there under the provisions of section 75 may be removed by an order of the Minister in writing to a Government industrial school or to the custody of some person, as provided in sub-section (4) of section 75, and the provisions of this Act shall thereupon apply to such child as if he had been originally so dealt with.”

The new clause was agreed to.

In clause 80, penalties for inciting to desertion from industrial school,

objected to the clause as being too drastic, If a farmer harboured a runaway he would be liable to be punished, though he might be in complete ignorance as to the facts.

moved that the word “harbours” be deleted, as he said that it was not the intention to punish a person merely because he harboured someone for a night who had escaped from an industrial school.

This was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

ln Chapter IX., criminal inebriates,

moved that “criminal” be deleted and that “reformatories” be inserted after “inebriates,” which was agreed to.

In clause 81, section 2, establishment of inebriate reformatories,

dealing with the provision that males and females and white and coloured should, “as far as practicable,” be kept separate, said that black and white should always be kept separate. He hoped that there would be separate establishments.

said that it was preferable to have the word “treatment” rather than “custody” of such inebriatos. He moved to that effect.

said that he hoped that males and females would be kept separate, as well as white and coloured. Everything possible would be done to do so, and the regulations would authorise the Governor-General to have separate buildings erected.

Mr. Phillips’s amendment was carried.

Clause 81 as amended was agreed to.

In clause 83. detention of persons convicted of drunkenness,

moved that the words “and convicted” be inserted after “drunkenness.” He said that a man might be charged with drunkenness und yet not be found guilty.

moved that the words “has, during the 12 months immediately preceding, been twice convicted of drunkenness” be deleted, and the following substituted, “has been declared to be a habitual drunkard.”

said the question would then be: what is a habitual drunkard? and every Magistrate would give a different interpretation.

said this clause might not touch a habitual drunkard until he had been brought to the verge of ruin through over-indulgence in drink.

said this point was covered by clause 85.

said he knew of a case of a man who had brought his family to the depths of poverty through drink, and yet he had not been convicted once for intoxication.

said the difficulty might be overcome by the addition of the words, “or who admits or isfound by the Court to be a habitual drunkard.” He moved accordingly.

welcomed the clause. The great difficulty he had found as a medical man was that there were: cases of women who were habitual drunkards, and incapable of keeping their homes together. The trouble was to know what to do with such cases unless they were sent to inebriate homes, and that without publicity. The curse of drink had ruined many homes in South Africa and other parts of the world, and frequently men came to him and asked what they were to do with their wives, who were confirmed drunkards.

remarked that the clause provided for the rich man, while his amendment Would cover the case of the poor man.

agreed that many families had entirely been ruined through drink.

The first part of the amendment of Mr. Schreiner was negatived.

suggested that the further consideration of the clause should stand over so as to enable some solution of the difficulty to be arrived at.

did not think that would be necessary.

hoped they would allow the clause to stand over. (Hear, hear.)

The clause may stand over, but I hope it will be understood that the committee stage will be completed to-morrow.

It was agreed that the clause should stand over.

Clause 85 was negatived.

moved a new clause 85 as follows: “(1) The Governor-General may license private institutions or retreats for the treatment of persons not liable to be detained in an inebriate reformatory. (2) In any such licensed private institution may be detained: (a) any person who undertakes, in writing, to submit himself for a specified period (not being less than is prescribed by regulation made under this section) to treatment as an inebriate; (b) any person who is committed there to upon the order of a magistrate sitting in camera made upon the application of an inspector of police and after inquiry by the magistrate and the hearing by him of the evidence of near relatives or friends of the said person, and any person so detained may, if he depart there from before the expiry of the period for which he has contracted to submit to treatment therein or (as the case may be) of the period mentioned in the magistrate’s order, be arrested without warrant and brought back to the said institution or retreat, and detained therein for the remainder of the unexpired portion of the said period. (3) The Governor-General may make regulations as to the conditions of licencing, as to the inspection and administration of any such private institution or retreat, and as to the treatment, employment, control, conduct, and period of detention of persons detained therein.”

moved to insert after “persons,” inline 2, “afflicted with the drink or drug habit.”

said that he had no objection, to that.

asked whether it was not possible to make provision for receiving a poor man who bad not committed a crime? He thought the State reformatory should be made available for such a man.

urged that some protection should be afforded in regard to persons sent to a private asylum by stipulating that a Judge’s order should be obtained.

thought that such persons ought only to be removed upon the certificate of two medical men. He thought the clause was a step in the right direction.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he intended later on to move to report progress, and to leave the clauses which had been allowed to stand over for another day or so in order that he might consider them all. He thought it would be advisable at this stage to ask that this new clause 85 be also allowed to stand over. It would be necessary, he thought, to look into this clause, and to re-draft it. He moved accordingly that the clause stand over.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 86, Power of Governor-General to make regulations,

said he would like to have some information from the Minister as to whether provision had been made on the Estimates for subsidising societies for their services in connection with discharged prisoners. He noticed that provision was made in the Bill for regulations in connection with Prisoners’ Aid Societies, and and for the subsidising of their work.

replied that there was a sum on the Estimates for subsidising these societies. It was done last year. He moved: On page 36, line 31, after “detention” to insert “and the days and hours during which work or labour by convicts or prisoners may be suspended.”

Agreed to.

On clause 88,

moved: To add the following new sub-clause (4) at the end of the clause, viz.: “(4) Where no gaol has been established to serve any district and pending removal to a gaol serving another district, the prisoner may be detained in a police cell or lock-up.”

Agreed to.

On clause 89,

moved: In line 43, to omit “persons” and to substitute “prisoners.”

Agreed to.

On clause 90,

said he believed there was a very necessary amendment to the line beginning, “The Director may also cause an inquiry, etc.” Surely it should not be a question of “may,” but a question of “shall.” He moved that the word “shall” be substituted for “may.”

Agreed to.

On clause 91,

moved to delete the words “or with any person or body of persons” in line 54. It was not proper to let out the services of convicts, and the time had arrived when they should put a stop to it.

thought that the hiring out of convict labour to individuals was undesirable. A man might find himself doing work which he formerly did as a free man, and this might have a tendency to reduce wages. He believed it was native labour that was mainly used in this connection, but there were cases where white labour had been hired out.

pointed out that, as far as their short service prisoners were concerned, they had either to go to the road camp, or they were in some small village where they were put to work by the municipality in different ways. A large number of long-service prisoners —natives—were at present working on the mines, and these would be thrown on the Government’s hands, who would have no work for them to do. Many of these men were dangerous characters, and they had to be kept in a place where they were strongly guarded. To employ these men at ordinary municipal work would be rather risky, because it would be difficult to supervise them properly, or to prevent some of them from escaping. He agreed that there was a vast difference between the native and European convicts. To walk about the streets, and walk in the open did not tell on the native character to the same extent as it did in the case of the European. They were, however, dealing with both classes. So far as the public were concerned, he did not think it was an edifying spectacle to witness European convicts being dragged about the streets, or allowed to walk in the streets. It was certainly most degrading to the European convicts themselves. The result was that, the Europeans were kept as much in doors as possible, and there made to learn trades. With the natives things were different. Indoors there was not the same scope for them. To give them the same sort, of work as was given to the Europeans would really be to teach a large number of natives types of trades which would hardly be of any use to them when they came out of gaol. The result was that they had to keep the natives at work outside. A great many were kept busy on railway construction and many others were otherwise employed. In the Cape, owing to the scarcity of labour, native convicts were leased to farmers. If these convicts were not employed as they were at present, the Government would hardly know what to do with them.

said that the Minister’s explanation was not satisfactory. He contended it would be possible for the Government to find work of a public nature for convicts to do instead of leasing them out to private employers to make profit out of them, and at the same time interfere with the ordinary labour market. The problem of employing convict labour had been faced in other countries, but he had never heard of them being leased out to private employers of labour to make profit.

said he agreed with the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) with regard to the principle that prisoners should not be employed in private work, but in practice he entirely disagreed with him, because he was a taxpayer. He did not think that European convicts should be leased out to private employers but with regard to native convicts, he did not think the principle mattered. They were employed in work to which they were accustomed; the State lost nothing; and the employer found that the cost of native convicts worked out about the same as the cost of free labour.

Rather dearer.

said that farmers employed native convicts because they were unable to have a regular supply of gangs of natives. That convenience alone paid the farmers to employ them. What would become of these native convicts if (hey were kept in gaol? The Stale had to pay for their upkeep, and he world like some suggestion as to how they should be employed.

said that in other countries prisoners were utilised for public purposes, but only where free labour could not be obtained. At present in this country, criminals were employed in public work, irrespective of the question of free labour. In some Government departments a good deal of that sin was committed. In Great Britain, for instance, free men who were married and had families, applied for work, but could not get it. Criminals who had been in the army and had been kicked out were taken on in the railway workshops, whilst the free men walked the streets with no work to do. If they sent these prisoners to private employers, the latter were enabled to make big profits out of the public pocket. The Hon. the Minister would take a long view of the matter, and he hoped that the convicts would be employed on public reproductive works.

said that he would like to ask the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) what was the difference between prison and hired-out labour. He went on to say that the company with which he was connected had taken a certain amount of prisoners from the Government for the past five years, and the Government had approached them some months ago, wanting them to enter into another contract for the taking over of convicts, but they would not do it because he could assure hon. members that they had found that it had not paid them. The only point was: What were they going to do with their prisoners? He Thought that the Government could use them on public works and so save the public purse.

said that he would like to congratulate the hon. member (Sir George Farrar) on being a public benefactor if for the past five years the company with which he was connected had taken convicts off the hands of the Government without making a profit on them. As to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. Walton), he seemed to draw a hard and fast line between the demand for labour which affected the whites, and the demand for labour which affected the natives; but in, practice they would find that a shortage of native labour resulted in a greater increase of white men being employed, who then had an opportunity offered them. If the convicts were employed on reproductive works such as the hon. member for Roodepoort (Dr. Haggar) had referred to, he thought it would be to the greatest advantage of the whole country.

said that the maintenance of the prisoners was paid for by the Treasury, and he thought that the convicts should be made to work on public works, so that some return would be made to the State.

also spoke against hiring out convicts, and said that in his constituency the roads were in a shocking condition, and the convicts should be employed on public works, which would be of greater use to the country.

said that the Government were like other people— they liked to go on the line of least resistance. The large dam at Beaufort West, it was well known, had been constructed by convicts 30 or 40 years ago, and he asked why could other works not be constructed by them? He understood that 3,000 convicts were working for De Beers. (Dissent.) Well, he understood so, from what an hon. member had just said. He had been informed that native convicts were also employed at De Beers. He maintained that the best work which the convicts could do was to do work in the public interest, and many of their roads were bad enough. It was said that convicts were sent to prison to be reformed, but how were they to be reformed if they were sent to a private employer? (Laughter.)

hoped that the Minister would stick to his clause. (Hear, hear.) Public works could not be started at a moment’s notice and without money, and it was not a good principle to keep the convicts at work inside the gaol. Provided a fair return was got, he could not see what objection there was to hirng out convict labour

said it had not been because of scarcity of labour that convicts had been employed, but the one and only reason was, that convict labour was cheaper than free.

said the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had referred to natives employed in compounds as being slaves. Now, they heard that convicts were in competition with free labour. He (Colonel Harris) really did not see how the hon. member could reconcile one statement with the other. He (Colonel Harris) knew from experience that the hiring of prisoners by mining companies was no advantage to the latter at all in fact, it was an advantage to the State. When the late Mr. Rhodes was Premier there was a large number of convicts in the Cape, which the Colony scarcely knew what to do with, and it was at the solicitation of Mr. Rhodes that De Beers employed them. To-day De Beers had about 1,200 convicts in their employ. The convicts cost the country £30 per head per annum, so that if they were taken away from the employment of private persons and corporations, the country would be put to an enormous expense, not only on the maintenance of the convicts, but to provide them with gaol accommodation. On several occasions De Beers had applied to Government to take back the convicts. De Beers did not require them, and it was only because of the pressure brought to bear by various Governments that De Beers kept them. From an economical point of view the convicts were no asset to De Beers, for they cost the company far more than ordinary free labour, which the convicts sometimes disorganised, because the Government regulations were so strict that the convicts returned to their quarters while the free labourers were at work.

said the points mentioned by the hon. member (Colonel Harris) furnished another argument against convict labour, as it was not dignified for Government to be dependent on the good will of De Beers and other corporations.

said people in European countries objected very much to prison-made goods.

did not see how convict labour, being principally native, could interfere with the labour market, as there was a scarcity of native labour.

said that the Port Elizabeth Municipality, to oblige the Government, employed convicts, but found it so unprofitable that the Municipality refused to do so any longer. Why should the public pay to keep thousands of men in idleness when they could profitably be employed? (Cheers.) He had never heard of a more preposterous or foolish suggestion than that of the hon. member for Jeppe. (Cheers.)

said his suggestion was that convicts should not be hired out for the benefit of private corporations.

maintained that although people might object to having to pay for the maintenance of convicts, they would object still more if the convicts took away the work which the ordinary citizen obtained money with which to pay taxes.

said that whilst he entirely agreed that lit was objectionable to associate prisoners with free men, and while it was objectionable to enter them in competition, those men were going to be in competition in any case. (Cries of “No.”) They could not get away from this competition; they could only shift it. He thought the Government were bound to do something to relieve the general taxpayer by giving convicts employment. If it were profitable for private individuals to give those men work, surely there must, he some competition for them.

said it was possible to create work for convicts, and open up new avenues of employment where public money could be used upon reproductive works.

urged that this competition was not essential, and said that what they objected to was the putting of white labour out of the market by convict labour.

pointed out that he did not ask that these men should not be employed by Divisional Councils, Municipal Councils, or public authorities. All he asked was that they should not be allowed to hire out to private persons or bodies of private persons.

drew attention to the resolution adopted by the Cape Legislative Assembly on this subject in 1904, and moved that before “director,” “subject to the employment upon public works as far as possible” should be inserted. This, he said, would emphasise the fact that they thought the Government, should first employ convicts upon public works as far as possible.

said he hoped that the Minister would accept this. There was a strong public feeling against the private employment of convicts, and he believed that even those who had employed convicts did not care very much about it. They wanted the convicts to be employed on public works as far as possible.

said he could assure the hon. member (Mr. Sampson) that he was totally at one with him when he said that convicts should not be leased to private individuals, though not on the same grounds as had been raised by the hon. member. It was a very bad principle, but again he would say that they must deal with circumstances as they existed. Steps were being taken to get convicts settled at one station on a large scale. They could not do away at once with the principle that had been adopted in the past of having about 2,200 natives contracted out. They would require to find work for these men. He had not the least doubt that the policy of the Government would be gradually to withdraw these men, and use them for nothing else but the public service.

said that the Minister had not told them whether he would accept the amendment. He said that he was totally against letting out convicts to private individuals. Surely this amendment emphasised the fact that they ought to be employed as far as possible on public works.

said that his only objection was that when they legislated, the sections of an Act should not be the place to lay down precepts of what was desirable. He held that the law should lay down what must be done. That amendment might not have any effect upon any Minister who did not feel as he felt.

Mr. Struben’s amendment was agreed to. Mr. Nathan withdrew his amendment.

On clause 93, services of process of Courts within convict prisons and gaols,

moved several minor amendments and an amendment providing that the accused in a criminal case requiring the attendance of a witness who is a convict or prisoner shall be allowed to subpoena such witness, if the witness’s evidence is deemed material by the Court.

thought it should be left for counsel in the case to certify to the Attorney-General that the evidence of such a witness was material, and that it should not be left until the Court sat to determine whether the evidence was material.

said he was prepared to allow the Attorney-General to be substituted for the Count, in the event of the case being before a High Court, and to make the authority the magistrate in cases in the Lower Courts.

moved accordingly.

The amendments were agreed to.

On clause 94, juvenile offenders,

moved to add the words, “unless there is no other acommodation available” at the end of section 1.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 95, non-liability for acts done under an irregular warrant,

said that there was no provision by which an unfortunate person who was lodged in gaol on an illegal warrant and had has reputation, and perhaps his business, shattered, could sue the person who issued the illegal warrant. He did not wish to see the unfortunate police officer, who issued the warrant, sued. He contended that if a warrant were issued illegally, the Government should be reponsible for the act done by its officer, and that some means should be provided by which the unfortunate man could obtain compensation. He moved as a proviso: Provided that nothing herein contained would affect the liability of the Government in damages to the person bringing such proceedings.”

I hope the hon. member, as a lawyer, really will not insist upon this amendment, ‘it is really too ridiculous that we should be asked solemnly to declare that the right of a private man against the Government or anybody else which is not in the least taken away should be inserted here in a Prisons Bill at the end of a clause which has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.

Look at clause 96, and you will see why I move the amendment. Clause 96 takes away the rights of everybody.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 96,

A motion by Mr. OLIVER to amend the clause was negatived.

said that he had tabled a notice to omit the whole of the clause. He did not know why any prisoner or convict, or any other person who had been wrongfully imprisoned, should be deprived of a right of action against the Government. Proceeding, he said that the Government did not always treat its officers fairly; there was a case which had already been mentioned in the House—that of Burton—who had been killed in the execution of his duty, and whose widow had received only £51 as compensation, while if the man had been ordinarily employed by any of the companies his widow would have received £750, or, in case of total permanent disablement, he would have received the same sum, and £375 in case of partial injury. He hoped that the clause would be deleted; or, if the committee would not agree to that, that the amendment of the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Oliver) would be agreed to.

who agreed with the previous speaker, said that in that clause the Minister had taken away existing rights, although perhaps he was not aware of it. The Cape Workman’s Compensation Act (40 of 1905), section 5, specifically recognised certain rights of certain servants of the Crown in regard to compensation. He took it that the House would never agree to these rights being taken away. If a policeman, in attempting to arrest a dangerous criminal, were murdered, his widow and children would have no compensation whatever if that clause were passed.

who agreed with the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), said that a warder in a prison had to do with very dangerous men sometimes. There was also the case of the convicts themselves, and their dependents: they must be safeguarded in case they might be employed on public works, in case an accident were met with.

said that he was not in love with that clause, and he was quite prepared to have it struck out. (Opposition cheers.)

Clause 96 was accordingly negatived.

On clause 97,

moved as an amendment: In line 10, to omit “against any person ”; in line 12, after the word “of” to insert “provided the cause of action has come to the notice of the party complaining within that period, but in no case may any action be commenced after the expiration of one year from the date of the act or omission complained of.”

proposed a proviso that in the case of a convict, prisoner, or other person liable to detention under this Act the time should be reckoned from the date of his release.

suggested that “week” be inserted in the clause in place of “month.”

said he did not see the necessity for Mr. Nathan’s amendment. He could not see that in any case more than four months would be required in which to bring an action.

said that the case he wished to preserve was that of the absentee.

said that his amendment provided for the right of action dating from a prisoner’s release.

Mr. Nathan’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Alexander’s proposed proviso was adopted.

Clause 99 was verbally amended.

The schedule was agreed to.

moved to report progress, and ask Leave to sit again in regard to the clauses standing over.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again on Thursday.

moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon an application submitted, in terms of Act No. 15 of 1909, (O.F.S.), for the establishment of a township on the farm Zand Rivier, district of Senekal, Orange Free State, with power to take evidence and call for papers in connection with such application, and to consist of Messrs. C. L. Botha, Brain, Currey, Sir Thomas Smartt, and the mover.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Draft regulations in connection with cattle cleansing, and moved that they be referred to the Select Committee on the Diseases of Stock Bill.

seconded.

Agreed to.