from M. Ferguson, Postal Department.

from W. R. D. Fynn, who served under the late Cape Government.

from residents of Waterberg, against the legalisation of marriages between European and coloured persons.

from Hester Fife, pension.

from the Municipality of Ficksburg, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

similar petition from the Village Management Board, Waterkloof, O.F.S.

For construction of wagon-bridge over the Vaal River, at Paris.

First and second reports of the Commission appointed for the reorganisation of the Departments of the Public Service.

Papers and contracts having reference to the erection of the Union Buildings in Pretoria.

moved that the petition from W. Gasson, Mayor, and 2,739 others, residents of Kimberley, against the proposed abolition of the Master’s Office, Kimberley, presented to the House on February 22, 1911, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

said it was very dangerous to hand over large powers to Government to be used in the making of regulations. The principles and limitations of Government’s power in the matter should clearly be set forth in the Bill. It was very necessary that there should be some chain, of responsibility.

Is the hon. member in order in discussing regulations not before the committee?

The hon. member is quite in order.

The hon. member is going further. He is discussing specific regulations which cannot be framed until the Bill is passed.

I am most anxious not to transgress in any way, but T understood from the Minister that he had no objection to our discussing these things.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause under consideration.

I protest against the Bill being discussed until the regulations are laid before the House.

moved that progress be reported, and leave obtained to sit again. It was only fair, he said, that the House should know exactly what it was doing in this matter. Most drastic and exclusive powers were given to the Minister under the Bill, and there was no reason why the House and the people should not know what they were doing in this matter. (Opposition cheers.) It was only a fair request that the Bill should stand over until the draft regulations were before the House. (Opposition cheers.) That course would not entail the loss of any time, as there was plenty of business on the paper. (Hear, hear.)

suggested that the regulations should stand over, and the committee proceed with the rest of the Bill. (Hear, hear.) He also suggested that the regulations should be referred to a Select Committee.

said it might be the desire of the House that some things in the regulations should be omitted from the Bill. (Hear, hear.)

The motion of Mr. Jagger was negatived.

moved that clause 4 stand over.

The motion was declared carried.

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

said that he wanted to appeal to the Minister to allow them to discuss this legislation that he had introduced. (Hear, hear.) He wanted to appeal to hon. members on the Ministerial benches to see that they, on the Opposition side, at all events, had fair play in a matter which affected the greater part of the workers on the Witwatersrand. The Minister knew the tremendous interest taken in these regulations. He knew that he had asked them to give him very wide powers for what was practically legislation in these matters. He could not help noticing the wonderful change that had come over the spirit of their dream during the past fortnight, since he (Mr. Creswell) was anathematised in various quarters of the House. He did not know how far that change might be attributable to the whispers which had been going about the lobby in regard to Sunday labour.

said that the regulations which were going to be drafted, and had practically been drafted already in terms of this clause, when it became law, would be laid on the table of the House, and discussed by any member of the House. That would be the proper opportunity for dealing with the regulations. They were now in committee on this Bill, and they were dealing with this section in committee. His hon. friend should understand that it was hopeless—entirely hopeless—when they were dealing with a Bill like this in committee, to rush off front the clause they were dealing with, and start a discussion on a body of regulations. If there were one measure that was urgently before the House to-day it was this Bill. He was surprised at the attitude of hon. members opposite. They had a state of affairs on the Witwatersrand which necessitated legislation. Inquiries had been going on for years, and people were perishing in the mines through the state of affairs. Instead of the representatives who posed there as representatives of the working class on the Witwatersrand helping them with this legislation, they were adopting tactics which may only lead to this Bill not passing this session. Only after passing that Bill could they deal with regulations. He thought his hon. friend ought to be satisfied with this assurance. When they came to the actual regulations, he and his friends, and everyone in that House, would have the fullest opportunity of discussing them.

said he thought the Minister was hardly fair to them. He had in his hand a copy of the draft regulations. Here was a body of legislation which the House had no opportunity of going through until they had passed this Bill, and the Minister knew full well those rare occasions when a private member had an opportunity of discussing anything in that House. They did not want to delay this Bill. They did not want to delay remedial legislation that the Minister spoke of, but they did want to be sure before they give those powers that that legislation was going to be remedial legislation. The hon. member went on to refer to the recommendations of the Mining Regulations Commission in regard to the issue of blasting certificates.

The hon. member cannot refer to the regulations now; they are not before the committee.

Well, how am I to make my point clear?

was understood to rejoin that he could do so when the regulations Were laid on the table of the House.

said that, as far as the evidence went, the Minister apparently did not intend to carry out the recommendations of that Commission.

said that he hoped that the Minister was going to make some definite statement. All he could gather was that there were regulations, and that they were practically in a form in which they could be laid upon the table of the House. Why, then, did he not do so now? If they were laid upon the table, they could be discussed. The best thing to do was certainly to allow this clause to stand over.

said that the position was this: that the clause give them power to provide for these regulations, but these regulations would perhaps take years to draft entirely. A certain body of regulations had been investigated by the Mining Commissioner in the Transvaal, and had been reported upon, but they were not yet ready, and he was not prepared therefore to lay them on the table of the House. There seemed to him a movement in the House to wreck the Bill—(Opposition dissent)—and he was only sorry to see that members on the cross-benches should have taken part in it.

said he was surprised at the attitude of his hon. friend (General Smuts). He asked them to agree to a clause which said that the Governor-General might frame certain regulations. If that clause were passed, there was no power that could compel his hon. friend to put these regulations on the table of the House, unless the Government give a solemn assurance that they would give the House time to discuss these regulations. He would point out also that this Bill did not alone refer to mining, but also to other machinery — agricultural machinery included—and they desired to know also what were the regulations that would apply to these other kinds of machinery. He thought his hon. friend would be well advised to allow this clause to stand over until a chance was given to discuss these regulations.

said the request was a very reasonable one, and he did not think the Minister should have reproached them with endeavouring to wreck the Bill. He would assure him that they on the cross-benches had no such intention. Unless they saw these regulations, they would have no chance of making alterations or seeing that matters were put in which they desired.

said he could not understand the objection of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, because he seemed to be putting the cart before the horse. He was asking them in a Bill which provided for certain regulations to have the regulations before the Bill to provide for them was passed. Surely it was easy enough to provide that these regulations should not have the force of law until they had been, laid before Parliament. It was easy for them to move an amendment to that effect.

said the idea of his hon. friend was an admirable one, and he would withdraw everything he said. (Laughter.) He understood that the Minister of the Interior was therefore prepared to propose an amendment, so that these regulations should be laid on the table, and that they would not have the force of law until they were discussed.

If his hon. friend bad only said that a little while ago, there would not have been any necessity for a division. (Laughter.)

said what he believed, he said was that it was quite competent for the lion, member to move an amendment. (Ministerial la Laughter.) If he could not do this he had nothing further to say.

urged the Minister of the Interior to abandon this attitude of Oriental despotism. The Bill was to amend certain laws in force in the operation of mines in the Union. He would point out that one of the most vital matters affecting miners was the question of certificates, and he saw no mention of that except in one clause, and they desired to know what were the regulations affecting these. There was every desire on those benches to make this a good measure which would be fair to the workers, but these regulations gravely affected thousands of men.

said the Minister of the Interior had suggested that there was obstruction on the part of that side of the House. He could assure the Minister that there was every desire on their part to help him in getting through this Bill, because they believed it to be on the whole a good Bill. At the same time there were certain amendments which they thought were desirable, and it was not right to suggest that they were obstructing while they were endeavouring to get these amendments adopted.

said the Bill give absolutely autocratic powers to the Minister to deal with interests of the most diverse character without there being any possibility of those interests being able to put their case before those who would have to adjudicate.

moved that progress be reported until the regulations were placed on the table of the House.

said there seemed to be some misconception as to these regulations. The regulations which were being framed referred only to a small though important part of the business with which this Bill dealt, viz., to the Witwalersrand mines; they would not deal with the whole body of industries throughout the country. It would take years to frame all the regulations which would be necessary under clause 4. No regulations would ever he passed by him without ample consultation with all the interests concerned. As to the regulations dealing with the Witwatersrand mines, he would, with pleasure, give opportunity for a discussion of any amendments after the regulations were laid on the table.

thought that if am opportunity were given for a discussion of the regulations at some future time, the committee might get on with the Bill. He wanted to see the Bill passed. He added that his experience in the Transvaal was that when regulations were framed they were submitted to the parties concerned before being put into operation.

said he was quite satisfied with the statement of the Minister of Mines that he would lay the regulations on the table of the House, and give hon. members an opportunity of discussing them. He would like the Minister, however, to accept a new clause providing that no new regulations would be enforced without first being published for public information and for purposes of objection.

The motion was withdrawn.

moved an amendment: “Provided that such regulations shall not have the force of law until they have been approved of by Parliament or until they have been laid on the tables of both Houses of the Legislature for fourteen days without any notice of a motion of disapproval having been given. The approval of either House to be presumed when the regulations have lain upon the table of the House for fourteen days without any notice of a motion of disapproval having been given by a member of the House. If notice be given, and thereafter it is withdrawn within the fourteen days and no other notice be given within that period, the approval of the House shall be presumed.” He said that that was done in connection with a very important measure dealing with the water laws in the Cape Province, and in connection with other measures in which the regulations were almost of greater importance than the measures themselves. He did not think his amendment would delay the Bill.

said he could not accept the amendment. The object of the Bill was to secure that no regulation; should become law until sanctioned by Parliament, and he wished to remind the hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt) that Parliament was not always in session, and what had to happen in the recess? Circumstances might arise necessitating regulations being framed, and if the amendment were agreed to nothing could be done until Parliament had met arid ratified the regulations. Surely that was going too far. All that was required was that an opportunity should be given for discussion and amendment. Such opportunity would be given, and he hoped the hon. member (Sir Thomas Smartt) would be satisfied.

said that immediately Parliament rose new regulations could be drafted, and Parliament would be powerless, and he thought the committee was laying down a dangerous principle; and when some gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial benches found that the regulations dealt with their vested interests, they would be sorry that they had supported the Minister. He was extremely anxious to see the Bill go through, but he objected to such large powers being given to the Government.

said that he was surprised at the attitude of the hon. members for Fort Beaufort and East London (Sir T. Smart and Colonel C. P. Crewe), in view of what was done in connection with the Education Bill of 1905. After Parliament rose, regulations were framed, and hon. members did not see them. What was worse was that some of the regulations were in conflict with the Act.

said that the committee could not have a better argument in favour of the amendment than the hon. member for Somerset’s speech. He said that they made a mistake in 1905, and he proposed that a similar mistake should now be made.

agreed with the Minister of Mines to a great extent. If the amendment were agreed to, it would be found that they wore going on with no regulations. As the Minister had said, Parliament was not sitting all the year round, and certain regulations were necessary.

said the House would have the opportunity of discussion and alteration.

said that that did not meet the case at all. They wanted to have the right to say that such and such a regulation should not have the force of law. He moved, as an amendment to the amendment, to add at the end: “If Parliament be not in session such regulations as may be necessary may be published and enforced until Parliament assembles, and shall be laid upon the table within a week of Parliament assembling, whereupon they shall only continue in force subject to approval as aforesaid.”

said that if he understood the Minister aright, Parliament would have the opportunity of moving a resolution in connection with these regulations. That was what they wanted, and therefore, he would withdraw.

Both amendments were withdrawn.

The clause was agreed to be taken in subsections.

On sub-section (1),

said he would like to point out the absurdity of making subordinates carry out the duties of policemen. It was absurd to place responsibility on the shoulders of these men, because they must be careful about placing responsibilities on men who Could not comply with them. He went on to draw the attention of the Minister to some of the regulations which were bound to become dead letters. But, he said, the main point he wished to make was that they should not make policemen of men over those to whom they were subordinate.

said that they had to allocate certain functions—to set every man his duty-—so that in the case of accidents the responsibility could be pinned down to the proper persons. He pointed out that they were now following the English system of making the mine managers carry most of the responsibility. They could not, he said, have too much State supervision.

moved for the deletion of the word “works.”

said although large powers were taken, it was not intended to interfere with small works. But there were great works like the Victoria. Falls Electric Works, which would require supervision. There was no need to fear rules being laid down for motor cycles, for instance.

said there had been fatalities in such places as jam factories, there was no reason why precautions should not be taken in such places.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On sub-section (e),

asked if it were proposed that appeals should lie in every instance from the decision of the Government Mining Engineer to Magistrates’ Courts?

said that point might be considered when they got to the actual procedure.

said an inspector might order a mine to be closed, and if there were no appeal a lot of men might be thrown out of employment.

The sub-section was agreed to.

On sub-section (f),

proposed that clause (f) should read: “The storage, receipt, distribution, transport testing, and use of explosives.”

said the general question of dynamite would be dealt with in the Explosives Bill.

pointed out that accidents very frequently were caused through defective dynamite.

said this point was covered in the Explosives Bill. He did not think the amendment was necessary.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On sub-section (l),

hoped that the regulations would be carried out absolutely and impartially. One great disability was the absence of a supply of clean, pure water at the stapes, There was also the matter of respirators. He mentioned these matters so that they could be borne in mind by the Minister in connection with the regulations.

What is “public traffic”?

said that they had a line serving the mines. The traffic on the line had to be specially regulated from a mining point of view. He moved to omit “licence or” in line 21. Agreed to.

drew attention to the need of regulations which would ensure a thorough system of ventilation. He hoped the Minister would have regulations dealing with the scientific diversion of the air through the working places. Sub-section (1) was agreed to.

On sub-section (m),

asked for information with reference to trials by inspectors under the Act.

explained on the Witwatersrand they had a system of trials by inspectors of minor breaches of the regulations, instead of taking these cases into the Magistrates’ Courts, which were already crowded with work.

urged the need of provision being made in the regulations, so that at the preliminary examination, at the instance of any person concerned in an accident, the inspector should have power to call for all necessary papers and documents, and that when any accident occurred, the person concerned should have the right to be represented at the preliminary examination, besides being present himself.

The sub-section was agreed to.

On sub-section (n), dealing with the grant, cancellation, and suspension of certificates of competency,

said he hoped there would be no certificate required from men who were engaged in driving small oil-engines and other agricultural machinery on farms.

said he hoped it was not the intention of the Minister to make it compulsory for all engine-drivers to have a certificate of competency. A large number of men in his constituency, who were engine-drivers, were very much disturbed in their minds in regard to this clause, feeling that it would be made compulsory for them to pass an examination, so that they might continue to work for their present companies. There were a large number of engine-drivers on the Diamond-fields, who managed the largest hauling engines in the world. Some of them had been in their present employ for twenty years, and no accident had happened. He thought it would be wrong if those men should be called upon at their time of life to pass some technical examination, when they bad, what was far better to his mind, a thorough practical knowledge of their work. Where a man was already engaged, and where he was considered qualified by his employers, he should be allowed to work without a certificate. He drew an analogy in the case of the law agents, who, being already in practice, were allowed to continue to practise without having to pass an examination.

trusted that the Minister would take no notice of the suggestion. There was no similarity between law agents and engine-drivers, who were responsible for the safety of others.

If these men were afraid of examinations, which would be of a practical nature, then he was afraid that they were not competent men.

also entirely disagreed with Colonel Harris. Engine-drivers had a great responsibility laid upon them, and it was essential that they should know their business. They were therefore within their rights when they demanded the deletion of this subsection. Again, with regard to the cancellation of certificates, he believed in no country in the would was a miner required to have a certificate, but as the law laid it down that he must have one, then it was essential that it should not be taken, away, except by those who were competent to judge. The interests of the miners should be as well safeguarded as the interests of any calling so regulated by legislation.

Do I understand the hon. member to be in favour of doing away with these certificates?

No; I merely said in no other country was it necessary to have these certificates, but under the conditions prevailing in this country, he could quite understand that it was necessary.

contended that if the sub-section was withdrawn, very competent men working upon the mines would, nolens volens, have to be discharged. If a man was fully competent, to do what was required of him, he should be allowed to do so. It was not right that he should be ousted by men coming from oversea with these certificates.

said the certificates issued were to men whose duties brought about such conditions that human life might be endangered. He would point out that the certificates would have to be obtained in South Africa.

said there were a large number of men engaged in driving large hauling engines, and who were fully qualified by experience, but who might be plucked on a small technicality. He knew cases where very excellent solicitors had failed year after year in their Matriculation examinations. He hoped that the Minister of the Interior would allow these men who were giving satisfaction to remain at their work without examination, and only make it compulsory for new men to obtain certificates.

considered that a Board should be constituted to deal with miners’ certificates, and that it should not be left solely in the power of the Government Mining Engineer to take them away.

said that the managers saw that only properly qualified men were employed in responsible work, such as in the shafts, and he did not think that the men now engaged in this kind of work who had not certificates should be required to pass an examination.

said it would be an injustice to require that men who had been engaged in certain work for long periods should be dismissed, or that they should pass an examination.

said he would move the deletion of this clause with a view to embodying in the Bill provision in regard to the granting and cancellation of certificates.

said that drivers of small farm engines would not require to have a certificate under the Bill. In cases where persons like engine-drivers had been exercising their duties competently for a number of years, probably no examination would be necessary. The man would be given his certificate at once. It was impossible to make provision in the Bill itself in regard to the granting and cancellation of certificates. It was a matter for the regulations.

The sub-section was agreed to.

On sub-section (p) relating to underground contract work, its measurements, etc.,

said he welcomed the clause. Very often the loosest and basest charges were made in connection with the measuring of work. The mining companies employed skilful surveyors, and the last thing they would permit was that the surveyors should fraudulently measure work with a view to cheating the employees. He hoped provision would be made in the regulations that where there was a dispute there should be a re-measurement, and that where such a re-measurement showed that the charge was vexatious and groundless, the complainant should be made to pay the cost.

In reply to Mr. T. WATT (Dundee),

said it was not intended by this clause to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts.

referring to the question of the measurement of underground work contracts, said that here and there a case occurred where a manager, in order not to pay a high cheque, did not pay a man what was due to him. He considered that such cases should be treated as fraud, and criminal proceedings instituted. He hoped that the Government would make regulations to make fairer the underground work contracts.

said he would be only too glad to see facilities given for re-measurement when there was any doubt on the subject. As regarded the contracts, these were not cancelled because a man was taking too much; they were only cancelled when it was found that the yield, was poor. The mines reserved that right to themselves. As regarded swindling, he said that in the event of any manager falling so low as to reduce the amount due to a man, he was liable under the ordinary law, and if he were found guilty of such conduct he would not be retained in the service of the mines for a single hour.

said he hoped the Government would frame regulations to see that the contracts were genuine.

said that they were going to have two procedures in regard to the settlement of disputes, and he considered it would be much better to have one only.

said he did not anticipate any difficulty in the matter.

said that the hon. member for Yeoville was apparently not aware of a good deal that went on in the administration of the mines. With regard to contracts, he knew that in cases of monthly contracts, the price arranged upon between the miner and the mine manager had been cut during the month. In many a case the miner had not known that the price had been cut till he went for his money at the end of the month.

Absurd.

pointed out that in the case of a decrease of wages, a month’s notice would have to be given. If notice was not given an inquiry would be held into such a case.

One man or ten men?

pointed out that under the law ten men must be affected. One man would have no remedy. Even if he did move, the machinery was so cumbersome that he would hesitate before he did anything.

pointed out that if a man had a monthly contract he had a common remedy.

said he had been told by miners that this had been done. It was not a case of monthly contracts, because the men were paid so much a fathom. He moved a subsection: “(q) The conditions governing the payment of wages.” He wanted to get at some good cases of payment, and there was a general desire for these fortnightly payments. Monthly payments formed the basis of the credit system. He thought that the amendment would be most beneficial. Then there was the point as to whether men should be paid by cheque; men sometimes had to go a long way to town in order to cash their cheques.

said that the mines would be prepared to pay weekly if the men so desired. But, before the Minister placed it in the regulations, he should certainly consult the men. He believed, however, that the men were averse to such a system.

said that perhaps it would be conceded that he knew something about the matter, and he give the committee the opinion that the men really wanted the system carried into effect. It was moist important that, wages should be paid weekly, and if not weekly then fortnightly.

said the feeling right along the Reef was against weekly payments, monthly payments being preferred by the men on the ground that they were better able to save when they were paid monthly. Then it would be impossible for the mining contractors to pay their men monthly, owing to the difficulty of measuring the work up every week.

said that at every election meeting he addressed he was asked if he would support weekly payments. No; the same men were not at the different meetings, and he did not pack the meetings. (Laughter.)

said the argument mentioned by the hon. member for Boksburg was a most convincing one in favour of weekly payments, as owing to some of the miners not being able to measure up their work they did not know how they stood financially.

said he did not think that a strong case had been made out for the amendment. To go into an economic question as to whether wages should! be paid weekly or monthly would be assuming a function which, he thought, would be a new departure even in a far reaching Bill of this character. They must not attempt by legislation to do too much. Upon this question, at any rate, there had been no inquiry by a Commission.

said that surely the Minister was, going to show them some other remedy.

said that his objection against the amendment was two-fold. He bad indicated one side. The other was that it was an ill-considered amendment. The hon. member, although this Bill had been standing on the paper for a long time, now came with this amendment, and he saw him write out an amendment just now.

No.

said it seemed to be an after-thought that they should cover such a wide field. When they interfered with ordinary economic arrangements, he thought they should deliberate a good deal.

said the Minister was under a misapprehension in supposing that this had been brought forward on the spur of the moment. He must know that it was a perilous thing for a man on a mine to advocate a reform which did not fit in with the ideas of those over him. Was the Minister not convinced that the payment of weekly wages would be an acceptable and good thing to all the men concerned? If he were not, let him refuse to exercise his powers, but they said, let him take this extra power to himself to regulate this matter.

said that some of the greatest reforms had come about by voluntary effort between masters and men, and this was a ease in which, if it were left to voluntary effort, good would, he thought, come out of it. He thought, in spite of all the efforts of the members on the cross-benches, a great deal of good had been done on the Witwatersrand between employers and employed long before these gentlemen came on the scene.

said he quite agreed with the Minister that it would not be advisable for him to accept the amendment in its present form. He had heard a great deal about this question both during the campaign and since, and, so far as he could make out, there was a very strong preponderance of opinion in favour of weekly payments. It was proved to his satisfaction, at any rate, that a system of weekly payment would be far more beneficial to the people generally than the present system of monthly payment. He thought those who were responsible for the management of the mining companies would do well to make, it quite clear whether there was any real opposition on the part of the men themselves.

said this was not a very revolutionary point. In New Zealand, for many years, they had not only prescribed the time of payment, but the coin in which it had to be paid.

said they did not ask the Minister to say that he should institute a weekly wage; they simply wished him to take power to do so.

said the hon. member failed to see that the power he sought to give the Minister was much more than the weekly payment of wages. The amendment, as it was worded, included the power to regulate wages and other things, which he was sure the hon. member did not want the Minister to control.

When the Minister said this amendment had not been properly considered, he was not speaking the truth.

Order, order.

Well, if I have said anything wrong, I will withdraw it. It is merely a matter of difference of opinion. (Laughter.) Continuing, the hon. member said the whole question could be peaceably arranged. Why should they bind the men to receive their money monthly? By paying a man weekly he would be able to get his goods cheaper, and his money would go further.

said he did not wish to belittle the importance of the subject, but he was sure that the matter had not been fully considered.

Will the hon. member accept this alteration: “(2) Weekly payment of wages”?

said that the cross-bench party were opposed to the wide powers conferred on the Minister by clause 4. Now, however, they wished to force on the Minister more power than was sought by the Latter. He (the speaker) objected to empowering the Minister to regulate the method of payment.

said he could not understand how it would be possible to apply such a resolution to the payment of Indians and natives by means of weekly wages.

The new paragraph: moved by Mr. Sampson was negatived.

Old sub-section 2 was negatived.

moved a new sub-section 2 as follows: “Different regulations may be made in respect of different Provinces or mining districts of the Union.”

moved to add: “or for different industries.”

said the amendment was unnecessary. Power was taken under the Act to frame regulations which would deal distinctly with the different industries.

withdrew his amendment.

The new sub-section was agreed to.

moved a new sub-section 3 as follows: “The regulations may prescribe penalties for any contravention thereof or failure to comply therewith, not exceeding the penalties mentioned in section 16; and daily penalties may he prescribed for a continuing contravention or non-compliance, or increased penalties may be prescribed for a second or subsequent contravention or mon-compliance, subject always to the limitations mentioned in section 16.”

The sub-section was agreed to.

moved a new sub-section providing for publication of notice of the regulations at least three times in a newspaper in the locality affected.

said it would be better if the hon. member put the amendment on the paper. He moved to report progress.

This was agreed to, and leave granted to resume to-morrow (Friday).