from Mark Garrett, Principal Clerk, Minister of Justice.

from residents of Queenstown, Tarkastad and Wodehouse, praying that the Assistant Magistracy of Sterkstroom he converted into a Fiscal Division (two petitions).

called attention to an error in the Division List for the “Noes” on the motion in the Committee of the Whole House yesterday, that the further consideration of clause 4 of the Mines, Works, Machinery and Certificates Bill, stand over, his name not appearing therein, although he so voted.

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

as Chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Zand Rivier Township, and moved that the report be printed and considered on Thursday.

seconded. Agreed to.

moved a new sub-section 3, providing that no regulations, subsequent to those first mode under this section, should come into force until three weeks after publication of notice in the “Union Gazette.”

said he quite realised that three weeks’ notice was insufficient, and, wherever possible, a notice longer than that time should be given.

said that under the circumstances he would withdraw his amendment.

objected to the withdrawal. Although he believed the present Minister would follow out what he said, still it was purely a personal matter, and there might be another Minister who would not do so. The principle was a very sound one.

said if the Minister would give instructions to his department that no regulations should he put in force without due notice being given, that would meet the case.

said the suggestion was a very fair one under the circumstances. His hon. friend (Sir E. II. Walton) knew very well that it was impossible to bind themselves too closely to statutory rules.

said he had been looking up the English Acts, and found that they laid down there certain rules with regard to light and storage of gunpowder underground, but they go further, and say every mine-owner can frame rules for the management of the mine and so forth, and for the internal arrangements of the mine, to be approved of by a Minister; Here they went upon a different basis. They had an excellent Minister now, but they might have one who, like himself, knew absolutely nothing about mining—(laughter) —and who would be absolutely in the hands of his officials in makiug regulations affecting life and limb. Regulations might be laid down which mine-owners considered expensive. For instance, under the English law, there was ample provision laid down, not only for underground ventilation, but to secure proper means of escape. Such should be laid down in all Parliamentary regulations, but the ordinary working of the mine should be brought out under agreement with the Minister and the mine-owners. Therefore he regretted very much that his hon. friend had not allowed the clause to stand over, because busy members of Parliament had no time to go thoroughly into the matter.

moved to add at the end of the clause the following proviso, viz.: “Provided that when copies of regulations made under this section shall have been laid upon the tables of both Houses of Parliament tin terms of section 17 of the Interpretation Act, 1910,’ it shall be open to any member within fourteen days thereafter to object to any one or more of such regulations, and any regulation or regulations so objected to shall thereupon, ipso facto, become suspended until the same shall have been confirmed by Parliament or until the said objection shall have been withdrawn.” He said it seemed to him on reflection over the situation that they would be investing the Minister with very full powers of legislation upon these important matters, and the only possible check they could have was that an opportunity would be given for discussion. They knew how very ineffective such an opportunity for discussion often was, and he submitted that his proviso was a fair and reasonable one. There were a number of things on which the House ought to have an opportunity of saying whether it approved or disapproved.

said he hardly thought it was necessary to raise the question of principle. The principle was discussed very fully when they dealt with the Interpretation Bill. They need not go back on the matter, as it was then settled. He was sure that his hon. friend did not understand the significance of his own amendment. What did that amendment mean? It said that no regulation put before the House should become of force or effect until it had been approved or confirmed by that House. In effect, the hon. member said that any member of that House would have the right to object in toto to this whole body of regulations, and they would then have to discuss them point by point from start to finish. The effect of his amendment would be that they would not pass the regulations this session, or next session, or the session after that. He would ask the hon. member what was he going to say to the workers of the Witwatersrand, whom he represented in that House? There was the most urgent demand for this legislation. His hon. friend on high constitutional grounds wished to have an amendment accepted which would make those regulations, which were so much needed by the workers on the Witwatersrand, absolutely nugatory. He noticed that his hon. friend shook his head. Did he stand surety for every member of the House? He (General Smuts) knew there were members of the House who objected to all these regulations. Was the hon. member going to run the risk of an objection being entered to all the regulations or the regulations which he (Mr. Creswell) considered most important? He would rather withdraw this Bill and introduce a Bill which would be a volume by itself, containing as the law of the land every regulation. He knew that would be impossible. No person in his sound senses would dream of such a procedure. But he would rather do this than face the anomalous position, that not one of these regulations should have the force of law until it had been approved by Parliament.

May I ask where we are? There is one amendment put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town, and we have just had another. Are they both before the committee?

They are.

It seems to me that the second one has knocked out the other.

said that he was going to say, when he was interrupted by his hon. friend for the purpose of making that valuable remark— (laughter)

denied that he interrupted the right hon. gentleman.

said he did not think the Minister need frighten Parliament by talking about having a volume. In England they had legislation which dealt with the life and welfare of the workers underground in mines in an efficient manner, and surely they in that Parliament of South Africa, in a country that depended so entirely upon the proper working of the mines, ought also to be able to devote a little time to it. As a matter of fact, the whole of the rules under the Coal Mines Act in England were contained in one clause. There were 39 rules. There were laid down many things which Parliament would enact. They ought to be laid down by regulation, but they had got no guarantee that they would be laid down by regulation. The Minister was rather wrong when he tried to frighten them by saying that they would be kept there so long by discussing those rules.

said he agreed with the right hon. gentleman that the Minister was trying to frighten the House. The Minister had the power to-day under the law, that was, by the Transvaal Act of Parliament, to promulgate all the regulations he wanted to deal with this matter of urgency. He had power already to deal with this very urgent position. There was nothing in the present Bill which was any concession to the workers whom they on the cross-benches represented. They vastly preferred to safeguard the principle that real legislation affecting their interests should be carried out in Parliament, where those who might elect Parliament could voice their views, than be patched up in the privacy of the office of any technical head of department however efficient he might be.

said he had not intended to interrupt the right hon. gentleman: and he (Sir Percy) happened to be standing before the right hon. gentleman got up, so that he did not see how he had interrupted him. What he wanted to say was something perfectly sane. It was this—that the two amendments had better be separated. The fear of having an exception was no reason why he should have no rule.

The proposed new sub-section, moved by Mr. Maydon, was withdrawn.

said that if the amendment was carried it meant that it would render the Bill absolutely ineffective. If they had 74 pages of regulations, and an hon. member objected to one of them. It meant that all the regulations would be of no effect. The hon. member (Mr. Creswell) had said that the Bill give no benefit to the workers whom he represented; the Bill, therefore, was of no use to him, and he did not care whether it was shelved. He (Sir George) differed He represented, he thought, a larger body of workers than the hon. member did and he said that that Bill was a greater advance than anything which had gone before. The question of regulations generally was a very important one indeed, and if the principle was to be Laid down that technical Tegulations like these had to be laid on the table of the House, and could not become law if any member objected to a single clause, the whole mining industry would be absolutely paralysed.

said that he agreed in the main with the contention of Mr. Creswell, but if the effect of his amendment was that if any member objected to one of the regulations the whole lot would be of no effect, he must differ; and it would prevent him from; supporting the amendment; although he hoped that the hon. member would move another which would not have such an effect. He did want to protest against the attempt to do so much by means of regulations. (Mr. JAGGER: Hear, hear.) They wanted to feel that before any regulation was put-into force there should be an opportunity for the representatives of the people to discuss the value or the worthlessness of that regulation before it became law. The interpretation of some of these clauses in the Bill by regulations might be astounding. They had had some experience of regulations in the Transvaal, and on the whole they had worked very well; but in regard to the Education Act there were an immense number, and when they saw them some of them were absolutely illegal, and not at all in keeping with the provisions of the Act. That bad taught him a lesson, which was that in future, when he was concerned with legislation at all, he would see that be got some knowledge of the regulations before the Bill was agreed to. (Hear, hear).

said that it was really a very simple principle in that matter. The Bill must deal with principles, and the regulations must contain interpretations of what was contained in the Bill. Mr. Creswell’s amendment, if carried, would make the Bill unworkable; and the possible effect would be to suspend all these regulations, if an hon. member objected to one of them. He was going to support the Minister, because it was essential to have the power of framing regulations when they were going to carry out a Bill like that. As to what Mr. Merriman had said about the coal mines in England, they were dealing with a particular industry there, where they could incorporate the regulations in the bill.

said that the difficulty was that the regulations were only seen after the of had become law, and so they did not have a proper opportunity of seeing whether they were in agreement or not with the principles of the Bill. Sometimes regulations were framed by the technical heads of departments, and in opposition to the spirit of the Act. He thought that they must be exceedingly careful as to how much power they give to officials in regard to making regulations. It had happened that people were punished because they were unacquainted with amended regulations, which had come into force without notice being riven.

said that he was surprised at not getting the support of Sir Edgar Walton, because he thought that he had been going on Cape lines. He wished to point out that what he (Mr. Creswell) had advocated was not an un workable thing at all; and it might be inconvenient to try to reserve the power of making law by means of regulations instead of in the Bill; but if any hon. member would show them the way, once and for all, of putting an end to that position, he would foe delighted to withdraw his amendment in favour of the other. It was the duty of the Government to embody the principles of the Bill, and to leave as little as possible to regulations. (Cheers.)

did not agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. There were many things in the regulations which ought to be in the Bill. He would support the amendment simply as a check to the vast powers the Minister had taken to himself. He (Mr. Jagger) objected to leaving too much power in the hands of officials.

agreed that they were legislating far too much by regulation—(cheers)—but the difficulty was to know where the line was to be drawn. Much as he objected to legislation by regulation, he was not prenared with any solution short of “scrapping” the whole Bill. The amendment, however, went too far. Perhaps lit would be better to withdraw the Bill, and reintroduce it with the most important of the regulations embodied in it.

said he was in a very serious difficulty over this matter, and he would move as a further amendment the omission of all words after “ipso facto,” and to substitute for them “unless confirmed by Parliament within three months after objection made, lapse and become null and void.”

said there was a good deal to be said for the principle enunciated by the right hon. member for Victoria West. The question was whether it was better to have the Bill as it stood, or to have no Bill at all. He thought it would be better in the interests of the men to have the Bill, incomplete as it was. Parliament would meet again within twelve months, and if the regulations were found unacceptable they could foe altered next session. He intended to support the Minister on this matter, not because he thought the Bill was sound, but with all the work before Parliament it would be absolutely impossible adequately to deal with the matter this session.

opposed the amendments because experience had convinced him that an Act of the land they were dealing with now could not be carried out except by means of regulations. It was not a system he was in favour of generally, but this was a genuine exception.

said that, although no other course might be possible in this instance, he strongly objected, on principle, to government by regulation. Regulations were framed by officials intensely ignorant of the condition of affairs in the country. Though he would not endorse every word of what the hon. member for Jeppe had said, he thought the amendment a harmless one, and he could not see great urgency in connection with the Bill.

said that if there were any objection to the principle of regulations hon. members should vote against clause 4. Then the Bill would drop, and it would be necessary at some future time to bring up a new Bill. These regulations would be laid on the table of the House, and if there were objections a day would be set apart for the discussion of the objections. If the amendment was adopted it would be in the power of any member to make objections purely for purposes of obstruction, and the Bill would be nullified. The simple thing would be for members who objected to the principle of regulations to vote against the whole section. Many of the regulations would deal with highly technical matters, and could not be discussed with utility in that House. He thought if ever there was a case for regulations this was one. He assured hon. members, from his official position, that it was necessary to pass this Bill. He hoped that he would not be compelled to abandon the Bill; if he were he would be obliged to put the Transvaal Act of 1909 in force.

said that not a few members of the Transvaal Parliament had objected to the practice of the Minister of Mines doing everything by regulation. At the same time, he appreciated that there were difficulties in this case. If they were only dealing with regulations with regard to the Transvaal it would not matter so much, because the Minister could let them have the regulations connected with the Transvaal Act, but there was something in his argument that these regulations applied all over South Africa, and therefore they would take some time to draft. On the whole, rather than see the Bill wrecked he would suggest that if the Minister give them the necessary undertaking that there would be a day set apart for the discussion of these regulation is, they should let the clause pass.

said he wanted to assure the Minister of the Interior that so far from having any murderous feeing towards the Bill, he thought it was a necessary and desirable Bill. They were only at issue with regard to the form. It was a matter of the deepest regret that a man of such Parliamentary knowledge and intellect should lead the House in such an absolutely wrong direction in the way of legislation. He knew there were a number of regulations that need not be embodied in the Bill, but there were certain definite matters like life and limb, which should be in the Bill. Take the appointment of mine managers, again. These things were embodied in the English Acts, and there were certain rules laid down by which certain mine managers should receive their appointments. If he had the slightest hope of getting his desire, he would appeal to the Hon. Minister’s sweet reasonableness to let them pass on to the next clause. He could assure them that there were hon. members on his side of the House who were anxious about this clause, although he suspected that some hon. members on the opposite side of the House might prefer government by officialdom.

thought his hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) might have avoided his usual diatribe in this instance. It was entirely uncalled for to suggest that hon. members on both sides of the House had the means of getting at officials. He protested against such a statement. If this amendment were agreed to, the time of the House might be taken up by captious critics of these regulations, with the result that regulation which were already in operation would have to be suspended.

said what they really wanted to know was whether his hon. friend, if he would not accept the amendment, would accept the principle? That was really all they wanted to know.

said has hon. friend (Mir. Hull) had accused him, and had put words into his mouth which he had not used. He had rever suggested that hon. members could get at officials who were in honourable body of men. His hon. friend had read into his words the most offensive meaning possibile. The fact was, his hon. friend had lived in an atmosphere where he believed there was only one way of dealing with a man. (Laughter.)

land that he would like to ask the Minister whether, after he had laid the regulations on the table, he might during the recess frame other regulations that they would now nothing about?

explained the effect of his amendment, and added that he did not wish to see the Bill drop, not did he wish to deprive the Minister of the right to make regulations. The only object of the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe, coupled with his own, was that the Government should be compelled to bring the matter for discussion before the House.

moved to omit all words after “provided that” for the purpose of substituting: “The regulations proposed to be made under the provision of this section shall be laid on the table of the House before the close of the present, session, and: it shall be within the power of Parliament to confirm, alter or reject any such regulation, and the regulations made between sessions and laid on the table of the House, in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the interpretation Act, 1910, shall be of force until suspended, altered, or rejected by Parliament,” He said that he did not believe in too much government by regulations, and he thought his amendment would meet the situation.

ruled that he could not accept the amendment in its present form.

thought that the committee was somewhat losing its head over the section. He urged that they should adhere to their present Parliamenary practice, and allow the regulations to remain until the House disapproved of any of the regulations.

said he thought the amendments which had been moved did not touch the difficulty. The position, as far as he understood, was not that the Minister might make regulations dealing with too many subjects, but that he may not make regulations dealing with certain matters. If the alteration was not accepted, his only course would be to vote against the clause altogether.

congratulated the hon. member on his political progress. He referred to Ordinance 54 of 1905, which Mr. Duncan had introduced in 1903, and read some clauses of it.

pointed out, however, that in 1903 there was Crown Colony Government, and quite a different state of affairs was in existence. Since then they had had seven years’ experience, and they knew what was to be provided for.

said that he thought Mr. Watt’s remark as to detail was the best illustration of the difference of opinion in the House on that matter. Surely, matters of Life and property were not matters of detal.

was understood to say that he did not trust the assurance of the Minister of the Interior. Probably, if these matters were discussed, the leader of the Opposition might get up and Say that it was an academic discussion. (Laughter.)

said that according to what he had heard of Mr. Creswell he thought that if they had these 265 clauses, he would get up 265 times. Well, if they had to have a discussion on all these matters, they would take, not days, but weeks and months, and, in the words of General Smuts, the Bill would be rendered nugatory. He did not know whether that was what Mr. Creswell and his friends on the cross-benches desired; but that was not what he (Sir Starr) desired to see. He agreed with Mr. Merriman in this, that none of the amendments met the difficulty, but he did not go so far with him as to say that the clause should stand over, because if it did they would have all this over again. He thought clause 4 might have been amended in other directions; but he thought that after that discussion General Smuts would take care to lay down some regulations in regard to that matter. His hon. friend must trust the Government—he (Sir Starr) did not trust it very much himself, or he should not be sitting where he did. (Laughter.) They must trust the Government that the regulations would be laid on the table of the House. He would vote with the Minister of the Interior for that clause.

put the question: “That the words proposed to be omitted in the amendment by Mr. Neser” stand part of the proviso, which was negatived.

then put the substitution of the words proposed to be inserted in lieu thereof,

Upon which the committee divided:

moved that, except in cases of extreme urgency, no regulation should come into force until three weeks after publication in the “Gazette.”

said the one objection to that was that in some cases three weeks would be too short. He did not see how he could accept the amendment.

said there were many points on which the Bill was absolutely silent.

asked the Minister if he would allow the clause to stand over, otherwise they would have to put it to a division. They absolutely disapproved of giving the Minister such powers at all.

said there was nothing whatever in his amendment to prevent three months’ notice being given in the “Gazette.” However, he would withdraw the amendment.

then put clause 4 as amended, and declared it carried.

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

moved to omit the words “maintenance of order and discipline.” He contended that a manager should not be able to make disciplinary rules hanging upon which there was a fine or imprisonment. It was a new departure in South African legislation.

said he could not agree to the amendment. The manager was going to be held responsible for the conduct of the mine, and he must have power to make rules for the maintenance of order and discipline. Otherwise he would not Be able to maintain his mine in order. Mining was a complicated business, and different functions had to be allotted to different men. It could not be done by Government regulations, because the conditions might vary as between mine and mine.

said he would suggest that in this clause 5 there should be some words put in so that these rules, after being seen by the Mining Engineer Should be sent to the Minister for approval.

said he was going to move an amendment on similar lines. The House had no authority over the Mining Engineer, but they had authority over the Minister.

pointed out that it might mean that there were differences between the employer and employees on a mine, and these rules might come in conflict with these differences.

said, as he read the clause, the rules could come into force without even the approval of the Mining Engineer. He strongly supported the suggestion of his hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) that these rules should first he sent to the Minister for approval.

pointed out that one of the contingencies that might arise might be that the mine manager might want to make a rule, for instance, that the company’s mechanical engineer was to be the person responsible for making out the examination prescribed by the regulations.

Every Bill is acceptable of improvement, even Bills introduced by myself. (Laughter.) Whether they were improved or not, that is another matter. (Renewed laughter.) He begged to move an amendment to the effect that all rules, after being approved by the Mining Engineer, shall be sent to the Minister for final approval.

thought the amendment a very good one. In any large undertaking there should be large powers given to managers for keeping order on the mines

said he was connected with a mine where 12,000 men were employed, and it was necessary, where there was a large number of white and black workers, that the manager should have large scope in the management of his mine.

referring to the statement by the previous member who Had spoken, said his remarks were irrelevant. Disorder on the mines was a police affair.

said a manager had often to act on the spur of the moment, and had to make regulations right away.

Mr. Madeley’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Merriman’s amendment was agreed to.

moved the following new sub-section: “(3)

Any objection to such rules may be lodged at the office of the Inspector of Mines, and shall be forwarded by him to the Government Mining Engineer, who shall submit the same, with his remarks thereon, to the Minister, who may either confirm or alter the rule regarding which the objection may have been lodged.”

did not think the amendment went quite far enough.

said that there was a weak spot in the amendment, inasmuch as there was no time within which an objector could raise an objection.

Why should there be a time limit?

moved to omit. “Government Mining Engineer,” and substitute “Minister.”

said that the amendment was much narrower than the sub-section as it stood. He suggested that Mr. Neser’s amendment be adopted, and that the amendment moved by Mr. Merriman should form a separate sub-section.

Mr. Neser’s amendment was agreed to.

A verbal amendment by Mr. Jagger was-agreed to.

The new sub-section proposed by Mr. Merriman was agreed to.

said that such rules would not be laid on the table as the regulations were.

Clause 5, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 6, work on. Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday,

moved that the words “or works,” after “mine,” in line 89, be omitted. He said that as it was the intention, if possible, to introduce factory legislation next year, which would provide for the cases of “works,” the simplest solution was to eliminate that bone of contention in the present Bill.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved to delete “Christmas Day” and “Good Friday,” and substitute “or public holidays.” He considered that the workers should have a day off for public holidays, such as were laid down by Statute.

suggested as an amendment the following as a further sub-section to the clause; “Every worker on the mines shall be entitled for a year to a continuous holiday, equal to the sum total of all other public holidays.”

said that the proposed new sub-section would be against the rules of good grammar, and might offend the hon, member for Cape Town. (Laughter.) He suggested that the hon. member should move it later as an additional proviso.

said that if Dr. MACAULAY considered the matter, he would see that his amendment did not secure the ten days’ holiday at all, because men were not usually continuously employed on one mine throughout the year.

said that he did not think the loss in pay sustained by the men as a result of those holidays throughout the year was not commensurate with the benefits which might be received.

said that the hon. member was confusing two principles: that of payment and opportunity of obtaining holidays, such as those men in other trades had.

said he did not see why workers on the mines should not have the same opportunities for holidays as other workers. He cordially supported hon. members on the cross benches.

said he could not accept the amendment that all public holidays should be observed on the mines. He was anxious to help the workers on the mines as far as possible, but he could not accept an amendment which would affect their wages, and for which they had not asked. He believed it would be most undesirable to accept the amendment. They ought to adhere to the practice which had been adopted on the mines in the past in regard to holidays.

said he was loth to join in the waste of time which had taken place there that afternoon. (Hear, hear.) One point was: did the miners know their own mind, or did they not? At one of the biggest meetings he had held on the West Rand, the men asked for public holidays, and recognised that they would lose their wages. Right through the constituency he represented, the men asked for the public holidays, and they did not ask that they should be paid for those holidays.

said the law did not prevent shopkeepers keeping open on public holidays. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) was therefore trying to impose conditions on the mines which did not apply to the community generally.

said he congratulated the hon. members on the front Opposition benches on the great preference they had received from the Government as compared with the Dutch Reformed Church. The Dutch Reformed Church had to have their measure brought in as a private Bill; the mining members’ Bill was brought in as a Government measure by the Minister. (Laughter.)

asked whether it was intended that the men should be paid for these holidays.

said, as far as he was concerned, he would submit to any law that was passed.

That is a matter that will be settled.

moved to omit “unless the work be,” and substitute “except the minimum of such work as is necessary for.”

Mr. Creswell’s amendment was negatived.

moved to add May 1 to the other holidays allowed.

said that the matter of having the 1st of May as a public holiday had been fully thrashed out already. It was not right that Parliament, having pronounced against that, the hon. member, should now seek to establish it, not a section of the community.

said the Minister had told them previously that, in his opinion, there were too few holidays for this class of people.

The amendment was put and declared to be negatived.

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

said there was a very general feeling that mote work was being done than was necessary on Sunday. He considered that the minimum of work should be specified, and should mean the necessary work, If this were not done it would be quite possible for some mining authorities to do more work than was necessary.

said the amendment would not make any difference, because the Bill already specified what could, and what could not, be done.

asked what was the difference between minimum and necessary work?

The amendment was negatived.

On sub-section (b),

moved to delete all the words after “damage” in line 63, and down to and including the word “works” in line 1, page 6. for the purpose of inserting the words “or danger to life, health, or property.”

said this was an important amendment, and one which, on inquiry, he was going to accept. There was no doubt that there was a tendency to accumulate repairs during the week for the purpose of disposing of them on Sunday, and he thought something should Be done to remedy that. He would move also as a proviso the following: “If any question arises as to repairs under paragraph (d), the opinion of the Government Mining Engineer shall be final.”

said it was to the detriment of the mine-owners to allow repairs to accumulate till Sundays, because on Sundays they had to pay time and a half for work done.

said on none of the mines was work that could be done in the week left over for Sundays for material reasons.

The amendment moved by Mr. Sampson was agreed to.

moved to omit “or works.” but after wards withdrew it.

On sub-section (c),

moved that after the word “or” the word “seriously” should be inserted.

What does seriously mean? (Laughter.) It is all very well for a platform, but it is different when you come to an Act.

supported, saying that they wanted something to show that the diminution was material.

asked what process would be diminished in its effectiveness by the stoppage of the mills on Sunday?

said he thought the law was strong enough; they were not dealing with trifles. He pointed out that “seriously” would have to go into a good many of the clauses.

said his point was not so trifling as the Minister seemed to think.

What (Laughter.)

Not so trifling as the Minister thinks!

Oh!

said he thought he was entitled to an answer to the question.

said that the amendment would make no difference, because he had not given a definition of the word. He pointed out that this only applied to continuous processes.

pointed out that it was true that the wards “seriously” and “diminished” were not defined, and that was also the case with a number of other words, but the interpretation could safely be left in the hands of the South African judges.

The amendment was negatived.

Sub-section (c) was agreed to

In sub-section (d),

moved that after the word “ore” the following words be inserted “amid erected before the commencement of this Act.” He thought it was a far-reaching amendment, but it was necessitated by the necessities of the case. The result of the amendment would be that as the years went on they would gradually get rid of Sunday milling by this artificial limit introduced.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved as a further amendment to the amended sub-section, that at the end the following words should be added: “Provided that in no case shall the exception contained in the paragraph apply for more than one year from the date of the passing of this Act. The hon. member spoke of Sunday mining, asking whether the mines should be allowed to continue milling on Sunday, or do all the work on the six days of the week. He contended that all that work could be done on the six days of the week: he was not talking on grounds of theory, but from actual practice. The Durban-Roodepoort mine, to give an instance, had always shut down its mine before the war on Sundays. It was simply a question of turning the steam-on and off, and there was no question of any other results being entailed. He said that there was no difficulty. They could turn off the steam-at half a minute to midnight on Saturday and turn on the steam at half a minute after midnight on Sunday.

How about raising the steam?

replied that many of the mines were receiving, he understood, electrical energy from the Victoria Falls Power Co., whilst it was possibile to keep up steam. So that it could be turned on without loss of time. Turning to the statement of the Minister of Mines that the stoppage of milling on Sundays would result in an increase of two and a half per cent, on the cost of production, the hon. member said that it was absurd to say that that increase would be a shook to the industry. Four or five years ago the average cost of production was 22s. per ton. Subsequently the costs were reduced to 17s., and quite recently they had again risen 1s. But did they hear of any great shock to the industry on that account? No. The mines went on merrily, and more stamps were being put up. Two and a half per cent. was a negligible quantity; it was not going to deal a blow to the industry. He referred to companies which could mill in six days all the rock they mined in six days. As to the statement of the Minister of Mines that the stoppage of milling on Sundays would mean a reduction of 14 Per cent. on the output he said that was based on the assumption that every company was work: ng all its stamps to their full capacity in, the time available, but if the Minister took the trouble to make inquiries would find that that was not so. He contended that the reduction would not be 14 per cent., but 7 per cent. He said that the proper course to take was to lay down that within a year from the passing of this Act no mines should be allowed to work on Sundays. The reason he said that was because he believed a year was ample notice to give. Mines were certain to take measures within that time to maintain their output and Pofits. For instance, they could add 16 per cent, to their stumps, and so ensure that they were able to crush in six days what they were able to hoist in six days. He put it to hon. members: was it reasonable, was it not absolutely certain that mines which had to-day long lives before them, and which were making considerable profits, would most decidedly, knowing that their milling capacity was to be limited, put up the number of stampe necessary to mill in six days What they mined in six days? Hon. members would agree with him that companies in the position he had described would certainly take those measures.

Where is the money to come from?

They are turning out ten millions a year in profit, and they ask: where is the money to came from? (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that he did not think it was part of the duties of the House to suggest to those who had the financing of this industry precisely how they could raise the money to carry on the industry. He believed that the profits were quite sufficient to induce their friends to find the money. Was it reasonable that companies turning out £816,000 worth of gold a month were going to jib at spending a few thousands in putting up sufficient stamps to enable them to mill in six days what they now milled in seven? Only 1,200 extra stamps would be required, and the cost per stamp would be £1,000. The question of Sunday milling was a relic of the days when people looked upon the country as one in which to make as much money in as little time, and then clear out. He thought so himself at one time. But we had got past those days—(cheers)—and the mining industry should be regulated for as other industries were. In 1895 and 1896, the late President Kruger was anxious to put a stop to Sunday milling, but was put off with the same fallacious arguments as were used now-. If the Republican-Government had stood firm then, the extra tamps would have been erected, and the miners would have had their Sunday rest, to which they were as much entitled as any member of that House. He did not pretend—and he wished to avoid any appearance of slighting any man’s motives—to be fighting this on purely humanitarian principles, and any hon. members who might be swayed by the specious plea that the stoppage of Sunday work would do irreparable harm to the industry were playing with their own consciences. (Cheers.)

desired to give a concrete instance in which a very great injustice would be done if the amendment were adopted. The mine to which he referred—the York— never paid its expenses from. 1887 to 1909. It was purchased by a syndicate, and if that syndicate had understood that there was to be no Sunday milling, it would never have dreamed of entertaining the purchase. He did not think it was possible to get additional capital with which to erect extra stamps for the mine.

said He had been converted by the hon. member for Jeppe ’ (Mr. Creswell). Did the hon. member (Sir A. Woolls-Sampson) think that he was going to save the hon. member’s victims from his wiles? (Cries of “Order.”)

objected to the use of the word “wiles” by the hon. member.

said if he induced people to subscribe to the capital of the concern, because he said Parliament would not change the law, all he could say was that the hon. member had induced them to subscribe on false pretences. (Opposition cries of “Order.”) Parliament was invited to save these lame ducks because a law bad been passed, but Parliament had the right to alter the laws of the country. Whenever any changes had been proposed with regard to alterations relating to the laws regarding working men, they were constantly told that they were not allowed to interfere, because these industries represented vested interests, and that they were started on the supposition that the Legislature was not going to interfere. It was not a question of money they were discussing, but a question of principle—a principle which was dear to the hearts of hon. members, and they were asked to let their principles go by the board. This was a far-reaching matter, this matter of Sunday labour. It was a matter which may extend to all sorts of concerns. It was a matter which the House must ponder over very carefully before it interfered. The hon. member (Sir At Woolls Sampson) had asked them to set a very dangerous precedent to ask the House to set upon such flimsy and almost despicable grounds, and he asked hon. members to think twice or thrice before adopting it.

said he thought this discussion would have enabled hon. members to give them some light and leading as to how they should vote. What likelihood, however, was there of this after hearing such epithets as “victims,”, “wiles,” “false pretences,” and “despicable,” applied to one hon. member by another? The whole thing was absurd, and he hoped that the example would not be followed that night. To be called upon to listen to venom such as that was an insult to the whole House, and particularly to the hon. member who sat on his left. If he knew his hon. friend he would not have stooped to such language.

said be fully admitted that there was some work which had to be done on the mines on Sunday but he certainly did not think that it was necessary to mill on Sundays. The State taxed the profits on mines, but he thought that the State should not get revenue from such Sunday work. There was a great feeling in the Transvaal against Sunday milling, and he hoped that his hon. friends opposite would listen to the demands made for the cessation of unnecessary Sunday work. His conscience would not allow him to vote for any measure which allowed Sunday work to be done which was not absolutely necessary. That milling was not necessary on Sunday had been absolutely proved by Mr. Creswell He would vote for the amendment by the hon. member, and was glad that the Minister had gone beyond the position taken up at the second reading. The specious pleas on behalf of poor mines had been fully exposed. At present miners were being forced to work on the day of rest. The mines were not the greatest sinners, but everyone would have to listen to his own conscience. Government should set an example; Sunday work might provoke Providence and lead to all manner of misfortune. The mines were stronger than ever, and no appeals ad misericordiam, would influence him.

complained of the lack of courtesy with which he had been treated by an hon. member opposite. He had, he said—and he thought that hon. members opposite must admit it—always treated his opponents with, courtesy. Such language as had been used was quite uncalled for. He had always been treated with great courtesy by Dutch South Africans, in peace and war, but he was glad that the hon. member of whose language he had to complain was not a representative of the old fighting Boers.

said that everybody should make up his mind for himself on a question such as the present one. He would support the Minister, because the mills had, run; on Sundays ever since mines began to work on the Rand. It would not do for hon. members who were unacquainted with the needs of the industry to interfere in a 23-year-old custom because they were unable to foresee the consequences. It had been argued that no high grade mine would suffer if it had to increase its plant, but what about the mines whose lives were not expected to exceed a couple of years? If the amendment was carried, they would have to close down, and many people would be without a living. Not every mine could work at 17s. a ton; in some cases the figure was 22s. The Transvaal contained a vast quantity of minerals, for the working of which a large amount of capital was required. If they changed institutions that were as old as the industry itself capitalists would steer clear of South Africa. Capital was sensitive all the world over, and they should deal with it in very gingerly fashion, so as to attract it. He was surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Uitenhage. The late President Kruger was a highly religious man who would not neglect to interfere with anything that went against his scruples, but even he could not see his way to alter the law. The then Government Mining Engineer was not a friend of the mines, but considered Sunday labour necessary. The South African Republic legalised Sunday milling in 1898. The Minister restricted Sunday labour more than any previous legislator had done, and if the present Bill had been adopted years ago, there would have been no question of Sunday labour now. A, subject such as the one they were now discussing should be dealt with seriously, and hon. members should not talk to the gallery.

said that the clause flagrantly violated the national sentiment. Customs and traditions, which largely constituted the nation, were simply pushed on one side, despised and scotched. God’s law, which was a guide to the Chosen People, was looked upon as having been abrogated by human ordinances. It was true that a certain class of work had to be done on Sundays, but they should confine themselves to that. She would vote for the amendment, because, if the workers wore to retain their vigour, they required one day’a rest in seven.

said Australia was a large gold producer, but the stamps on the mines there wore not allowed to work on Sundays. If they were going to follow the argument that, because Sunday milling had gone on for 23 years, they would never have any reforms at all. (Cheers.) The same argument was used in England when the Factory Laws were introduced. Yet the factories were Still going on, and were more prosperous than ever. However, he did not altogether agree with the hon, member for 11 tenhage (Mr. Fremantle); the hon. member did the clause damage by the violence of his speech. He would move to amend the amendment by inserting words to prohibit Sunday milling after January 1, 1914. That would give the mines three more years Sunday milling. It was not a question of mining alone, for the matter affected the good of the whole of South Africa. (Cheers.) So far as he could understand the arguments against the amendment, it was entirely a matter of money. (Cheers.) The feeling was that they were going to make less money if the stamps did not work on Sundays. If they were going to give the privilege of working on Sundays to the gold mining industry, why did they not give it to all? There wore scores of cases of business men and manufacturers who were exactly in the Baine position as some of the mines, and if they were allowed to work on Sundays they would turn their enterprises from unprofitable ones into profitable ones. In England some industries had such valuable machinery that they were run night and day by three shifts of men, but there was no question of working them on Sunday. It, bad been said that many of the employees preferred to work on Sundays. There had been a great deal of conflict of evidence about that, but so far as he could learn, the majority of the employees were against Sunday labour. (Hear, hear.) Sunday work would appeal to those men who wanted to save money and clear out in the shortest possible time. The men who wanted to settle in the country wanted to have one day’s rest in seven. The whole argument all came book to one point—increase the output. There could be no question, at any rate, that it was better for the country that they should have one day’s rest, in seven. From every point of view this was necessary.

said it that after hearing arguments on both sides, he had come to the conclusion that the whole matter was merely one of pounds, shillings, and pence. The Holy Scriptures kid down that one day out of seven should he kept holy, and so he was against work being done on Sunday. If one section were allowed to work on Sunday, it would only be fair to allow other sections to come and ask for the same thing from the Government. The antiquity of the evil was no reason for its perpetuation—the contrary was true. They could not stop trains, but the batteries interfered with Divine service. He supported the hon. member for Jeppe. One year was a reasonable time to allow; three years was too long.

said the hon. member for Jeppe had given them figures in support of his argument, and he admitted that there would be an appreciable loss. It was quite likely that he would put that loss as lightly as possible. He had no sympathy with an hon. member, like the hon. member for Uitenhage, who used such arguments as he had done. It was not playing the game fairly. In these days of modern civilisation iit was, impossible to observe the Sabbath as was done in the olden days.

Why?

There are all sorts of things that must be done on Sundays. On the previous day the committee exempted certain works from the operation of the Act; would anyone say that there was not a considerable amount of Sunday labour involved in the works so exempted? Yet the hon. member for Gape Town, Central, was in a terrible fright lest these should not be exempted, and in response to his appeal, the Minister of the Interior softened his heart, and exempted these works. Now the hon. member for Cape Town was happy, having got his way, and having got what he wanted out of the Act, he was only too anxious to help the hon. member for Jeppe to do things that would hurt other people. He was not able to sell goods on Sundays, and, therefore, he wanted other people—who had had the privilege for years—to be prevented from making a profit. It was no question of getting an advantage over other people. He endorsed what had been said, that the law laid down in this Bill would be the same as had been in force for many years in the Transvaal. An hon. member had proposed that the limit should be extended from one to three years. That would not remedy matters, for it would fall with great, severity upon companies with short lives. Would they be in a better position in three years? On the point as to whether greater expenditure would be incurred, he would not go into-minute details. But he would like to tell the committee, however, that there were one or two companies which were not in a position to find money to erect the extra plant that would be required to crush sufficient to make up for the day that would be lost.

Names?

I am not going to name companies in this House. Continuing, he said he had the advantage of having the advice of good, experienced men. He said that the effect of such legislation as proposed by the hon. member for Jeppe would be that capital would flow elsewhere. The point he would like to make was this: that in the opinion of the best engineering experts on the Rand, the enforcement of that law would cause a very serious loss. It had been calculated that there would be a loss of about 37 days net; he was not saying that it would be 52 days which would be taken off the time during which the mills now crushed. It was obvious that if these 37 days were taken off. There would be considerable loss. If such amendments as those were carried, there would be very important speculations, which the people would have to face: whether low-grade mines would be able to make a profit or not? For the benefit of persons who were not conversant with mining conditions, such as his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), he would say that it was not merely the actual loss of gold in the lesser number of tons which were not crushed which had to be considered, but the extra cost entailed in crushing a smaller number of tons, because it was clear that they had on every mine a large amount of standing charges, which went on whether they crushed 10,000 or 30,000 tons per month. The moment the tonnage was reduced, it was obvious that all these costs had to be spread over a smaller tonnage, and would greatly detract from the profits. They could not, as Mr. Creswell did, reduce everything to an average. It was a very serious thing. The profits in 1910 had fallen off by £500,000, owing to increased working costs, and yet the members on the Labour benches always talked with their usual jargon of the “rich mining companies.” As to capital, which Mr. Grobler had alluded to, it was not a question of taking it out of the country, but a question whether new capital raised in England, France, and Germany for mining purposes was coming to this country or not. It was a question whether that section of the public in European countries who were willing to risk their money in mining industries were willing to give it to the people here, or to risk it in other countries. It was not a question merely of a few thousand pounds, but a question of confidence—(hear, hear)—and confidence was a thing which they in this country could not do without. Mr. Jagger had said that there were people on the Rand who did not want to continue Sunday labour, but the vast majority of his (Mr. Chaplin’s) constituents were in favour of continuing the present system. It was not surprising that they were, because most of them were daily-paid men.

How much?

said that most of them got £1 a day, so that they would lose £3 a month on the average. If the proposal of Mr. Creswell were carried, it would reduce the payment of a number of men, and throw a considerable number of men out of actual employment, and prevent a considerable number of men getting employment which they might otherwise have got. If the mining enterprises were stopped or checked—and they all knew, as Mr. Merriman had said that afternoon—that the mining industry should be properly conducted—it was going to set back the progress of the country. Let them not think that that was a light matter, and let them frankly recognise that although there were a number of honest people who had a respect for Sunday and objected to any work being done on that day, let them bear this thing as the lesser evil; for if this work was stopped on the mines they might embark on an experiment which might have disastrous results, which it was impossible to foresee.

said that the logic of the proposals of the Minister of Mines was that it was wrong for new stamps and mills to be worked on Sundays, and that it was right for old stamps and mills to be worked on Sundays. He hoped that if the committee took a vote, it would accept one or other of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). He had listened very carefully to the speeches of those who had spoken from the mining point of view, and he was entirely unconvinced that there would be a great calamity to the industry if Sunday labour was stopped. There would be a loss, but it would be comparatively small with the large and wealthy industry which was affected. He failed to see why other industries should be prevented from working on Sundays, and that the mining industry should be allowed to work. It could only be because it was a very large and powerful company, and that was not a good enough reason.

said they had come to a sorry pass when the representatives of two races, professedly Christian, as much as discussed Sunday labour. No profit-making should be allowed on the day of rest. He was surprised that the hon. member for Rustenburg, a grandson of the late President Kruger, should have spoken as he did. The late President made a mistake when he allowed Sunday milling. During the Anglo-Boer war the burghers were convinced that their troubles were chiefly due to national sinfulness; desecration of the Sabbath and liquor were blamed especially. The hon. member had warned them that capital would fight shy of the country because confidence would disappear, and that the farmers would lose markets for their produce. When he the speaker, heard an hon. member arguing like that, he wondered what had become of his faith. He would certainly advocate the abolition of many superfluous Sunday trains. The hon. member for Rustenburg had trotted out many bogeys. What would become of the country if they resorted to such tactics? He could not reconcile himself to the Government’s policy in the matter. The Churches felt compelled to enter a protest against the constantly-increasing Sabbath desecration. They recognised the necessity of certain work, but they did not recognise the necessity for Sunday profits. Once the people abandoned their religious principles they would be lost, and Parliament should be careful how they stultified themselves by departing from them. If the country were to become dependent on Sunday labour, they would have to write “Ichabod” over their doors. (Applause.)

pointed out that even farmers had to do a certain amount of work on Sundays. To stop the mills would be too detrimental to all parties concerned, including the Government. He supported the clause as printed.

supported the hon. member for Cape Town,; Central. Sunday desecration had led to numerous visitations, past as well as present. The House bad a great responsibility in the matter, because it could not afford to sacrifice the country’s weal to the capitalist’s pocket. He would rather have the industry disappear than not honour the Sabbath. No farmer would perform any but urgent work on Sundays. The time limit in the hon. member for Jeppe’s amendment was inadequate.

said no argument had been adduced to convince him that they had the right to put on the Statute: book a provision which was going to legalise any work being done on Sundays—(cheers)—in other words, to destroy Sunday observance, which, as a State, they were in duty bound to uphold. He had waited for hon. members to give some reason to convince the House that it was absolutely necessary in order to prevent unavoidable loss to have work done on Sundays; this would be the only justification for permitting it. But no argument whatever of that kind had been adduced. The question simply had boiled itself down to one of how much money was going to be lost. Parliament had no right to pass any law which would allow profits being made on Sundays. (Cheers.) If they did not have this Sunday observance, he believed it would be a bad thing for South Africa. There was a great deal in the argument used by the hon. member for Jeppe, that if they give the gold-miners time they would be able to regulate matters so that they might be able to do in six days what they took seven to do now. If a man could not earn his livelihood, well, in the Words of a friend of his, that man was a fool, and not a man at all. The hon. member for Germiston had said that, because it was laid down in the Transvaal, vested interests were concerned in this question. That was no argument at all, because they Were going into a new phase of existence. They were not going to be carried away by talk that there might be some monetary loss, not be frightened oy it.

moved to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

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