from W. Fisher, Shedman-in-charge, Bechuanaland.

from J. T. Paynter, Civil Servant.

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

from W. H. Hinton, pensioner.

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

said the opinion had been expressed by the committee that the clause might be altered in regard to the work required to be done by civil debtors and detained witnesses. He would like to have some information from the Minister as to this point.

said that after consultation with the prison authorities, he had come to the conclusion that the wording of the clause should, not he altered. He was advised that considerable difficulties would arise in prison administration if the suggested amendment was agreed to. A detained witness was exactly the man who would be detained at some outside place to give witness where they had no other staff of men who could otherwise do the work which would be required from him under the section. There was no necessity for convicts to be called upon to do the work in the cell or in the gaol for other persons, who were detained there as much in consequence of the breach of the law or the desire to break the law, as the convicts themselves. The State would be incurring expense to meet these men whom the law locked up, because they did something that was contrary to the law. He did not see his way clear to relieve them of this work.

said that the explanation given by the Minister was about as unsatisfactory as it could be. The whole of his intention seemed to be to place a detained person in exactly the same position as a man who had committed a crime. It appeared to him that the detained witness was regarded by the prison authorities in much the same light as a convicted prisoner. If the State insisted on detaining a man in order to carry out the law, the least it could do was to make his stay in prison as pleasant as it could be under the circumstances, not as unpleasant as it could be He added that he had heard some weak arguments from the Minister of Justice. These, however, that they had just had were weaker than any yet, “and,1” said Mr. Quinn, “upon my word, he ‘has given a number.” (Laughter.)

reminded the Minister that they were dealing in this clause with purely innocent persons. The civil debtor, after all, had committed no crime. He had no objection to the detained witness and the civil debtor cleaning out their own cells, but he did say there were certain duties which they would have to do under this Bill, and which a man wholly innocent of any crime should not be called upon to perform. He suggested an amendment with a view of securing exemption to these men from such duties.

appealed to the Minister to accept the amendment suggested by Mr. Currey.

said he would go further than the hon. member for George, and suggest that the words “civil debtor and detained witness” be struck out of the clause. He did not think that men who were detained under those circumstances could be expected to perform the duties which had been mentioned.

said that what hon. members were now complaining of was the existing state of affairs, and if it, were such an enormity as some hon. members seemed to think, they had not heard so much about it. Hon. members had said that the civil debtor was an innocent man. If so, then why keep him at all?

“Hear, hear.”)

The law sanctioned the detention of the civil debtor, and because that was so, they could not expect the gaoler or the warder to do that work for him which was necessitated by the debtor’s own fault. The same applied to the detained witness, who was detained because it was feared that he would not be there on the day of the trial to give evidence; and they had to deal with a class of witness who, by his character and action, had given reason to fear that he would not be at the trial to perform his duty, unless he were detained. The Hon. Minister added that he had previously been speaking of out-of-the-way places where they could not get a man to do that work; and in larger places they would not have the difficulty to the same extent. As to what had been said about free labour, fancy free labour being called in to do the work necessitated by a class of man detained because there was a suspicion or indication of his doing something which the law considered necessitated his detention. After the warning he had received from the prison authorities, he could not no further; and he was afraid that if they started running, they would find ft impossible to stop before they were over the brink of the precipice.

said he had been told some time ago, when they were on another clause of the Bill, that they had to farm out prisoners because they had not sufficient work for them. He would like to ask the Minister whether he could not put some of these prisoners, who were now farmed out, to do some of that work? He agreed with Mr. Currey’s amendment, and thought that they should not pamper the civil debtor too much, and that the least which could be expected from him was to maintain the cleanliness of his own room, and the same with regard to the detained witnesses.

further moved that in line 38 the words “of any premises adjoining or in any way subserving or” be deleted.

said that as to what the Minister had said about the present state of the law, they all admitted that, but wanted to ameliorate it. The hon. member caused some laughter by saying that supposing the Minister was travelling in Japan and detained as a witness, a photograph of him doing menial work, published in the illustrated papers, would prove very diverting to the hon. gentleman’s opponents, and the opposite to his supporters. The hon. member said that there might be cases where making a detained witness perform such menial jobs would lead to great hardships, especially if the witness were a respectable man. The Minister was sitting on a stool making a great fuss about nothing at all. He (the speaker) considered it would be a great injustice to make detained witnesses do menial duties.

said he quite agreed with the last speaker (Mr. Brown). Acts of injustice had been done by the detention of witnesses. He knew of a case at Christiana where great injustice had been done to two Dutchmen working on the River Diggings. They were called by the Crown to give evidence in a case in which a, man who had worked near them was charged with illicit diamond buying. They went to court, give evidence, and were then bound over by the Magistrate to appear at the trial. The Magistrate insisted upon security, but they could not find it. The result was that they were detained in prison. Considering the case as one of great injustice, he (the speaker) wrote to a friend of his, an editor in Pretoria, and after some trouble and agitation the two witnesses were released. If someone had not intervened, these two Dutchmen would have remained in prison, and would have been separated from their families at Christmas time. He thought that in cases where men were born in the country and were known in the country, the Magistrate should not be so very strict in insisting upon security being given. Why a detained witness should be treated as a prisoner he did not understand.

said it would be degrading to an honest man, who might be forced to give evidence in a case, and detained in prison, to be made to do prison work. Sometimes, witnesses were detained for no other fault of theirs than lack of permanent domicile.

agreed it would be a hardship to make detained witnesses do menial work, although he did not think so in regard to civil debtors. The latter had only themselves to blame for getting into gaol. He moved as an amendment, that only civil debtors should be made to perform the work in question.

said he would withdraw that part of the amendment dealing with civil debtors.

accepted the amendment deleting “detained witnesses.”

withdrew his amendment, and the clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 19,

moved in line 64 to omit “on the day previous” and substituite “before 10 o’clock in the forenoon of that day ”; and that the following be a new sub-section 4: “E very period of detention under this section shall be deemed to commence at 10 o’clock in the forenoon.”

Agreed to.

Clause 39 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 40, procedure in cases tried in prisons to be as in Court of Resident Magistrate,

said that he was prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan): “Provided that the accused shall in all cases at any hearing be entitled to have present and be represented by his legal adviser.”

did not know that the amendment made specific arrangements for a legal adviser to have access to accused. It would facilitate business very much if the Minister’s amendments were put on the paper. He (the speaker) withdrew his amendments.

said it was contemplated to take over the existing regulation, which permitted access to accused by his legal adviser.

moved to add to the proviso the words, “or the representative of any newspaper.” The mover said he was told that one of the Cape Town newspapers recently applied for permission to have one of its representatives at the trial of a prisoner, and that the request was refused. If anything wrong was going on in gaol, what chance had a prisoner of getting the facts made known except through publication in a newspaper? Why should there be a secret chamber trial? It might occur that it would be in the Minister’s interests to have the press present at these trials.

The amendment of Mr. Brown was negatived.

The proviso moved by Mr. Nathan was adopted.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

moved the following as a new clause 51: “51. Where any person is convicted of an offence before any Court and the Court is of opinion that it is inexpedient to pass sentence of imprisonment, the Court may direct: (a) That the accused he remitted to the magistrate of the district within which his home is situate, who shall indenture him to an employer for industrial service within such district or elsewhere for a period not exceeding five years, and shall determine the conditions of service and rate of wages to be paid to the parent or guardian of the accused (if he or she be less than 21 years of age), or to be deposited with the magistrate to the credit of the accused (if he or she be an adult), in which latter case the magistrate may at his discretion pay over to the accused a sum not exceeding one-half of the wages in hand at any time, the balance being paid over at the expiry of the period of service. (b) Further direct that a portion of the wages to be paid under the preceding paragraph be retained by the magistrate by way of fine payable to the Court, and (or) of damages caused to the complainant by the offence of which the accused has been Convicted.”

was very sorry, but he could not see his way clear to accept the amendment, which was foreign to the objects of the Bill. The hon. member would have his opportunity next year when a Bill to which the matter could more properly be applied would be before the House.

said the Minister had introduced this principle into the previous clause, where it was laid down that a magistrate having jurisdiction to impose a sentence of imprisonment might sentence the offender in lieu thereof to be detained in a reformatory.

Said it should be the aim of Parliament to discourage as far as possible the manufacture of criminals. To that end they should endeavour to prevent the comparatively innocent being influenced by mixing with hardened criminals. He thought they should adopt this means of enabling young people to escape from the contamination which must result from their being herded with the common criminal.

said the clause was quite foreign to the Bill, quite in conflict with the object of the Bill. It was sought to establish here that a magistrate should have the power to apprentice any man brought before him. It would be a serious infringement of what was always considered to be the liberty of the prisoner, and was something absolutely novel in the history of legislation affecting crime. It was only when they came to consider the whole process of the criminal law that they could deal with a provision like this; it did not touch the administration of gaols and prisons.

said that in clause 58 the principle of apprenticeship was recognised.

The proposed clause was negatived.

Proposed new clauses 52 and 53 dropped.

On clause 53,

intimated that he would be prepared to accept the amendment moved by Mr. Struben with regard to the trial of juveniles in camera.

This amendment, and also an amendment moved by the Minister to omit certain words in lines 57 and 59 were agreed to.

On clause 83,

said that he would be prepared to adopt the amendment moved by Mr. Schreiner.

preferred that the amendment should not be made in this clause. He said it seemed to him a pity that they should put into one clause men who had never been convicted of drunkenness, though they were victims of drink, and men who had been convicted of drunkenness. Hence the amendment which he placed on the paper. He preferred, however, that his amendment should come at the end of new clause 85, moved. By the Minister. He hoped the Minister would allow him to withdraw the amendment until they came to new clause 85.

said he could not quite appreciate the difficulties of the hon. member. Section 85 dealt with quite a different class of persons. He however, quite prepared to meet the hon, member, if he wished his amendment to stand over until clause 85.

said that the clause dealt with convicted drunkards, but there was another class of persons whom they could not possibly call criminals, yet who were victims of drink. They were confirmed inebriates. They must provide for these people, and on the spur of the moment he put forward an amendment, thinking it might cover these people. He found, however, that it would not.

considered; the clause too drastic. If A had a grudge against B, nothing was easier for A than to ply B with enough liquor to intoxicate him a few times in succession, and then, under the Bill, B would be confined for three years. If a man were sent to an inebriate asylum for three years, would the Government look after his family?

thought that the hon. member misinterpreted the clause, which provided that a magistrate could send a man to an asylum on his being actually convicted for drunkenness for the third time within a year. The person concerned, therefore, had to be in gaol twice before he could be so sent to an asylum. He accepted the hon. member for Tembuland’s amendment.

said that punishing a criminal was a thing he could understand. A drunkard, however, was merely a weak-minded person, who should not be dealt with as a criminal. If they did consider it necessary to confine him for three years, his family should be provided for.

asked whether it was not better to provide that a man could be sent to an asylum “for a period not exceeding three years” instead of for three years, as provided by the clause.

pointed out that the English version of the Bill contained the words advocated by the previous speaker. He moved a corresponding amendment in the Dutch version,

hoped that the clause, as amended, would be passed. It was, he said, an honest attempt to reclaim a man, and it might not only save a man from himself, but also prevent him from wrecking the fortunes of his family.

accepted Mr. Cronje’s amendment, which, together with Mr. Schreiner’s amendment, was agreed to.

Clause 83, as amended, was agreed to.

The new clause 85, together with the amendment by Mr. Phillips, was withdrawn.

moved a new clause 85, as follows: “(1) The Governor-General may license private institutions or retreats for the treatment of persons not liable to be detained in an inebriate reformatory. (2) In any such licensed private institution or retreat may be detained: (a) any person who undertakes in writing to submit himself for a specified period (not being less than is prescribed by regulation made under this section.) to treatment as an inebriate; (b) any person who is committed there to as an habitual drunkard or a confirmed inebriate upon the order of a magistrate sitting in camera made upon the application of a near relative or friend or of an inspector of police, and after inquiry by the magistrate and the hearing by him of the evidence of near relatives or friends of the said person and of a duly qualified medical practitioner, and any person so detained may, if he depart therefrom before the expiry of the period for which he has contracted to submit to treatment therein or (as the case may be) of the period mentioned in the magistrate’s order, be arrested without warrant and brought back to the said institution or retreat and detained therein for the remainder of the unexpired portion of the said period. (3) Any person liable to detention under sub-section (2) who cannot owing to want of means or any other sufficient cause be detained in such a licensed private institution or retreat may be committed upon the order of a magistrate to an inebriate reformatory established under section 81 for a period not exceeding three years. (4) The Governor-General may make regulations as to the conditions of licensing, to the inspection and administration of any such private institution or retreat, and as to the treatment, employment, control, conduct and period of detention of persons detained therein.”

said he agreed with the new clause, which covered, with one exception, the amendments he had tabled. He wanted to have some provision made, however, for the discharge of a person who, although sent into the home for a period of not less than three years, might be cured in three or six months. He moved to add at the end: “provided that such person may at any time be discharged as cured on the certificate of the medical officer of the institution.”

said he hoped the Minister would accept what had been proposed.

said he hoped the Minister would stand by his new clause, and accept no amendment. They were dealing with the hopeless drunkard, who must be put away for a long time in order to have an opportunity of curing him.

said the time had come to deal with inebriates. Why should there not foe some place to which these people could be sent?

wished to know if the question of liberation of cured inebriates would be dealt with on a warrant by the Governor-General?

replied in the affirmative. There would be no desire to keep these men a day longer than was necessary.

The proviso was negatived, and the new clause was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Monday next,

laid the Railway Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1912, on the table. (Cheers.)

asked if the Estimates would be referred to the Railway Committee.

replied that if his hon. friend would leave the matter over until tomorrow, he would be in a better position to reply. Generally speaking, he had no objection to his Estimates going to the Public Accounts or the Railway Committee.

referring to Sunday labour, said they had come to a rather difficult problem, which would require some consideration, and some cooling off also. He thought the best way of dealing with the clause would be to postpone it until the others had been discussed. He moved that consideration of the clause stand over,

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 8, employment of juveniles and females forbidden, and restriction upon hours of employment,

moved the insertion of the words “or cause to be performed underground any work which can be performed on the surface.” The mover explained that the object of his amendment was to prevent doing underground such work as drill sharpening and machine repairing. The conditions down in the mines were always-more or less unhealthy, and so it was desired that no work should be done underground which could be performed on the surface. He especially instanced the cases of drill sharpeners and machine fitters. Rather than perform that kind of work down below, men had taken smaller wages for doing other work. The principle of doing this kind of work on the surface ought, he maintained, to be extended all along the Reef.

asked if the Minister was willing to exempt coal, etc., mines from the operation of these provisions?

opposed the amendment. It would mean enormous expense, and would be an interference with the mining industry beyond all reason. If they compelled all work to be done on the surface which it was impossible to do there, it would cripple the industry. He was quite sure the tendency would be to do all work on the surface, which reasonably could be done there. The amendment would cause the greatest loss and inconvenience to the industry.

said that to say that all work which could be done on the surface should be done there might mean a lot more than they bargained for. The hon. member would have an opportunity of dealing with the question of drill sharpening underground when the regulations came to be considered. He thought it would be a mistake to put this in the Bill.

said that undoubtedly if drill sharpening underground were an unhealthy occupation. It should be stopped, but unfortunately there were few in the House who were in a position to say whether it was so injurious. He wanted to draw the Minister’s attention to the report of the Government Mining Engineer, relative to breaches of the regulations, and the way in which they were ignored. The only way to remedy this, he pointed out, was to make the mine manager responsible for an infraction of the regulations. He regretted that the Bill had not been drawn so that it should embody matters affecting life and limb, and health, such as drill sharpening, if necessary. He give the mine-owners credit, of course, for doing all they could to check the hideous death-rate, but still, it was appallingly high—on some mines as high as 10 per cent. He did not think that sort of thing should be tolerated. He noticed what minute provisions were made in the Victorian and English Mining Acts with regard to the safety of life and limb. He thought that the South African Act should be on those lines, for he was convinced that the system of regulations which they were trusting to was indeed a broken reed.

pointed out how difficult it would be to carry out such a clause as had been suggested in regard to managers’ responsibility. In regard to drill sharpening underground, he quite agreed that drill sharpening under ground should only be carried out in places selected by the inspector. He thought there was no need to prohibit this work underground.

said he thought the hon. member for Victoria West had done the House a service by calling attention to this portion of the Government Mining Inspector’s report. A manager could not be in two places at once, and he could not possibly see what every man was doing, but the responsibility should rest upon him, seeing that, as far as possible, his discipline was such that the regulation was carried out. In regard to the question of drill sharpening underground, he could only tell the committee that, as far as the men themselves were concerned, they had the most strenuous objection to it. He hoped the hon. member’s on the front benches would be willing to forego that trivial advantage.

said that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for dealing with drill sharpening, would cover all sorts of imaginable operations underground. It was an unfortunate thing that they had in that House such a limited number of members who were personally acquainted with the mining industry. He hoped they would not pay too much heed to what was said from the cross-benches He did not know where the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had got his information from about a death-rate of 10 per cent. Now he (Mr. Phillips) did not for a moment say that the death-rate on the Rand could not be improved. They were improving matters all the time. One would think by all they heard in that House that the mines of the Witwatersrand were a sort of cemetery for our men. Nothing of the sort was the case. He had the latest report with regard to the mortality rates on the Rand, just issued over the signature of Dr. Maynard. The death-rate for the year was found to be 32.17 per thousand. The total death-rate given of the native labourers for the same period was 33.64 per thousand. In the first half of 1910 the death-rate was 32.04. He admitted frankly that the death-rate was high. They knew, however, that there were a number of contributing causes, apart from the state of affairs in the mines. Many of the natives themselves were unhealthy. There seemed to be a tendency to seize upon the highest possible death-rate, and flaunt it in the faces of members of that House. It was most unfair; it was most improper. The allegations which had been made in regard to drill sharpening underground had very little fact to rest upon. As a matter of fact, a blacksmith, whether employed on the surface or underground, was exposed to hot furnaces, and was susceptible to chills. Mr. Phillips added that he did not want to claim for their industry that it should be carried on by anything that would be against the health of the men employed. He besought the House not to over regulate the mining industry. They were playing with the most valuable machine that they had in the country, and they ought to be very careful.

I did not say you had a death-rate of 10 per cent on the Witwatersrand. I said that it was on some mines.

Which are the mines?

Well now would you like me to say which are the mines?

Yes.

You have got the thing published in the Native Labour report. Some of the mines have a death-rate of less than 10 per cent.; others have a death-rate of over. The average works out at 36 per 1,000.

Thirty-two.

retorted that 36 was the rate given. Proceeding, he said that in some of the mines the death-rate was appallingly high, and it entirely arose from unhealthy conditions in the mines. That showed the necessity for great precaution being taken. All these things were brought forward to bring home to members the seriousness of the matter with which they were dealing, and he regretted more than he could say that he had not got the power of addressing some of his friends on that side in Dutch, so that they might see that it was not an idle matter of talking about pounds, shillings, and pence. It was a matter of men’s lives and the welfare of those people, to whom we were always proud of saying that we were exercising a paternal government, and looking after their interests, that they were children and could not look after themselves. Those people’s interests were in their hands, and it was necessary that one should especially call attention to what was contained on page 40. He did not think that many people would take the trouble to read these reports.

Why not?

Do we read everything? We do not, and it, is rather laborious. Proceeding, he said that at the middle paragraph they would see the whole system brought out, and it was distinctly shown. They saw that they were face to face with two things: either the present system as laid down by law, which was that the inspector was responsible and they took their chance of being caught once or twice in the year; or the other system. If they had a thorough inspection, they would have double government of the mines: the manager and for inspector. There was no more difficulty if they made the manager responsible for that, and in seeing that all these regulations were carried out as well. He did ask hon. members to read that page, because they could not take one section out of it and say that everything was going on splendidly. If they read the whole, they would come to the conclusion that they were living in a fool’s paradise.

read an extract from the report of the Mining Regulations Commission, which stated that when the conditions under ground were healthy, there was no valid reason why that work should not be done underground. The tendency of the Government Mining Engineers was not in a direction of extending that practice, presumably because it did not pay. As regarded the death-rate quoted by Mr. Merriman, the fact was that the average was nothing like the figures which had been quoted, and the average rate for natives in 1909 was 32.18 per 1,000, while up to October 31, 1910, the rate worked out at 30.75. Taking the natives who came from territories south of latitude 22, the rate was 25.52, which was not such a surprisingly high rate. In 1905 it had been 38.8, and since then it had steadily decreased. What the right hon. gentleman had been thinking of was mines where there had been a very large percentage of deaths, owing to there having been an epidemic amongst the natives or an accident special circumstances existing in a particular mine at a particular time; but to say that that was a true picture of the state of the mines as a whole was preposterous.

said that the figures just quoted differed to some extent from those given by the Native Affairs Department. The hon. member could not have it both ways, now quoting an average and on another occasion objecting to an average and quoting particular cases. He thought the language of Mr. Phillips was exaggerated; and as to the new clause, it would certainly not mean that all work would be stopped. It would mean very little difference to the work, and all his hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) meant was that work which could as easily be done on the surface should not be done underground.

thought it was unnecessary to quote all these statistics, because it seemed to be within anybody’s reason that if that work was done on the surface, it would be much healthier than underground. The hon. member had said that the death-rate was maintained by a number of contributory causes. Well, he agreed that the death-rate was not caused by one thing alone, but by a number of things, including the performance of work underground, and it had not been shown that there would be any great loss if the amendment were agreed to.

said that in regard to clause 9 there seemed to be no doubt that that should not be made applicable to coal mines. On the second reading of the Bill, he explained fully why he thought coal mines should be excluded from clause 9. Clause 8, however, stood on a different footing, and hon. members would see that there was no reason why that clause should not Be fairly applied to coal mines. They did not want very young boys or girls to work underground in any mine. The same applied in regard to very long hours. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. H. W.Sampson), be said that he thought it would, be a great mistake to try and have sharpening on the surface provided for by a sweeping clause such as be had proposed. The mine underground was full of machinery, and when any breakage took place it would mean an extraordinary amount of inconvenience to bring pieces of machinery to the surface to have them repaired. He could not accept such a sweeping amendment. With regard to what his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman) had said, he wished to say that the whole object of the now policy was to hold the manager responsible wherever possible for proper supervision, but it was only possible to do so by regulations. In clause 4 they had provided that regulations could be made fixing the duties and responsibilities of managers.

said that they were conferring powers by regulations which could be altered. He contended that the throwing of responsibility upon the mine managers, and mine owners for that matter, should be done by legislation, and not by regulations.

said that if the clause was passed as printed it would inflict a tremendous hardship upon coal mines, particularly in Natal, where a large number of boys under the age of 16 were employed. The result would be that these boys would be thrown out of employment, there would be a very considerable diminution in the amount of labour available at a time when every source of labour was badly wanted, and there would be an absence of training of these boys. Consequently, he would move the deletion of the words, “under the age of 16,” for the purpose of inserting the following words “not having arrived at the age of puberty.”

said the hon. member had pointed to a difficulty that had already been felt, not only in Natal, but elsewhere. In the case of a Kafir boy, it was impossible to state his age, except from his physical appearance and development. In the recruitment which took place on the East Coast, in the Mozambique Province, the Portuguese authorities only allowed the recruiting of boys who apparently had reached the age of puberty. He had no objection to the amendment, which made the clause more workable, and fitted in with the existing conditions in the Transvaal and elsewhere.

asked if he had to understand that the Minister had accepted the amendment, and that youngsters of 14 and 15 years of age would be allowed underground?

pointed out that they had only to deal with native boys, and he considered the amendment fell in with the existing state of affairs.

said it would be impossible to say whether the law was being complied with.

said there was no process of investigation which could tell one the age of Kafirs from the East Coast. There were no records—birth or baptismal certificates—(laughter)—and it was impossible to specify an age limit. Therefore, they could only go by some general rule which pointed to physical development.

observed that if the arguments adduced by the Minister were correct, then the words would not prevent Kafir boys working in the mines. (Hear, hear.) The time might come when European boys might be employed, which would be most undesirable. Under these circumstances, why take out the clause? (Hear, hear.)

pointed out that boys of 14 were allowed to work underground in England.

asked if the Minister could point to any precedent in any Act of Parliament where a phrase of that kind was employed—a kind of movable feast. ((Laughter.) The phrase had no logical, medical, or biological definition. He did not think it was a workable provision at all.

suggested that the difficulty could be met by the insertion of the words “under the apparent age of 14.”

maintained that there was no better standard than that of the age of puberty.

mentioned that he had seen coolie girls of not more than 10 years of age working underground in the Natal coal mines. He added that a very large number of boys reached the age of puberty by the time they were 10. The amendment was a most silly one. (Laughter.)

thought some explanation of the amendment would be required, as very few people would understand it. He would prefer the same age limit as in England.

said the age difficulty in regard to the age of natives existed in all sorts of laws, but, still, ages were inserted in those measures. The proposal was tone of the most retrogressive that had ever been suggested in the House. He proposed as an amendment the insertion of the words “appear to be under the age of 15 years.”

Why not 14? That is the age in the Australian Act. In England, I am told, it is 12.

Half-timers, 12.

One of the greatest engineers we have ever had in England began to work in the mines at eight years of age. It did not seem to damage his intellect or his physique very much.

That argument may be perfectly true; but it does not explain the fact that hundreds of other boys who began to work at the same age did not rise to eminence, but went to an early grave. (Cheers.)

Why not 14

Why the Minister has gone back on this clause, whim he has been so adamantine on others it is impossible to say.

said that in the Transvaal Bill the age was given at 17.

said he was as much against child labour as anybody, but he thought the age of 14 was a sufficient limit.

put the first part of the amendment to omit the words from “under” to “years,” which was agreed to.

moved: To insert, in lieu of the words omitted, “apparently under the age of 14 years.”

The second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Maydon and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley, were withdrawn,

The amendment proposed by Mr. Duncan was agreed to.

moved to omit the words “or works.” Works, he explained, would be better provided for under a Factory Act.

said under this a boy on the surface of the mine, if under 17 years, would not be able to be employed more than 48 hours a week. That would be a distinct discouragement to employ white apprentices, the usual working time of the mines being 50 hours.

In Australia under the Factory Act, the age limit was 16. This clause would mean that no boy under the age of 17 could be employed for the usual mining period of. 50 hours and thus they would be unable to employ white apprentices. He thought they should make the age 16 years.

contended that there should be an eight hours day for all workers on the mines. The universal tendency was to reduce the number of working hours. He moved an amendment providing for an eight hours day on the mines from bank to bank. That was the desire of the men. If it, were done the mining companies, he was sure, could do much to facilitate the getting of the men from the surface to their place of work. Eight hours underground was sufficient for any man in a day, especially in such a climate as this country had.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that experience elsewhere had shown that where the hours of labour had been shortened, production had not been lessened; production had increased, and the social, intellectual, and physical life of the people had also been improved. In Australasia the eight, hours day was in vogue, and in many cases the miners worked 44 hours per week only, and had better health than before. Not was the production lessened. Nowhere in the world has the lessening of the number of hours of work been attended with evil consequences. He was not one of those who always spoke against capital, for the considered that capital and labour were complementary. (Hear, hear.) He quoted statistics to show that the lessening of the number of hours of work per week had resulted in better work and in the workers being in better circumstances mentally and physically. The hon. member quoted from a number of papers to show that the eight hours day was the best for the workers, and went on to deal with the condition of workers generally. It was asked: What did the men say? An in portant point; but what he asked was: What was the best for the nation as a nation? (Hear, bear.) There were certain mines which did give their employees short hours and good wages. He supported the amendment of Mr. Sampson.

said that in the afternoon he made a few remarks principally connected with the death rate, and that evening he wished to go more fully into the matter, because he thought the House ought to understand some of the conditions of the mining industry, which many hon. members did not at the present time. He would like to make clear the position of the mining industry in relation to the country, because they had in this matter an important departure from the conditions as they had hitherto existed. He wished Hon. members to understand what the mining industry of the Witwatersrand was to this country. He particularly dealt with the Witwatersrand, because the Bill had developed practically into a measure concerning the Witwatersrand only. Little by little the coal mines of Natal, works, and other things dealing with various other interests had been exempted until they found the Bill narrowed down to a measure affecting only the Witwatersrand mines. The Witwatersrand Mines produced gold, which was as much the foundation of the sustenance of the people of this country as agricultural products. (Hear, hear.) That, was to say, anything that they took out of the earth in the nature of a raw product, whether it be gold, tin, or anything that could be grown on the surface of the earth, such as cereals, it was the same thing. Such a business as that of his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), was one of distribution, but gold and agricultural products were actually wealth-producers, and unless they had these things they would have no commodities to distribute at all. Therefore he wished to make it quite clear what the value of the production of gold in this country was to the country as a whole. If they were to reduce the quantity of precious metal they turned out, they would actually be depriving South Africa of a certain proportion of actual wealth, which was the foundation of their prosperity. He dwelled upon this matter so insistently because be believed if they hoped to see greater progress in South Africa, greater expansion, and a larger population in this country, they had to get more actual wealth produced. With regard to the measure before them, let him say at once that he believed that, without serious injury being done to the mining industry, they could have an eight-hours’ day underground. It would, however, necessitate a considerable amount of reorganisation, and he sincerely believed that if any attempt were made by the committee to restrict the hours of labour to eight hours bank to bank, disaster would result. They would have disaster in a double sense. First of all they would find it would be necessary to pay the employees less than they were paid to-day, and in the second place they would find they would not get anything like the output they were getting to-day, and both of these would contribute to disaster. It was no good their having ideals in this practical world if they were not practical. They had to deal with sets of circumstances as they existed. They could not put into the Witwatersrand Mines more gold to the ton than they could carry, and that being the case, they could not put restrictions upon the industry. Most of them there, especially the Cape members, would remember that not very long ago they had a very severe depression in the Cape Colony, resulting from the contraction of business. If they had a contraction of the gold mining industry, they would have a greater depression. The selfish investor did not put his money into a country for a philanthropic purpose. He put it in simply to get something out of it, and if he did not get anything out of it he would see that it was taken elsewhere. He felt bound to say that the signs pointed to capital being a little bit shy at the present moment, and there was some considerable cause for this shyness, as he would endeavour to show. In 1909 the gold mining industry of the Rand crushed 20,543,759 tons, 1910 there was crushed 21,432,541 tons, and the profits derived were £11,794,376. In 1910 there was crushed 21,432,541 tons, and the profits amounted to £11,216,105. So that although they crushed 888,000 tons more, the profits were £578,000 less. They might put the profit roughly at 10s. a ton, and that would mean £444,000 on the 888,000 tons less one crushed. To that they must add the £578,000, and they got an amount of £1,022,000, and even if they were receiving a little less for their gold, there was the balance of £575,000 less profit than the year before. This was due to increased cost of working. The working costs had increased by 21/2 per cent. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) sneered at anything so small as 21/2 per cent., but in this case it meant something like £600,000. Then the hon. member had said they were wrong about the Chinese.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member says “Bear, hear.” Well, all I can say is, we were not wrong about the Chinese; we were quite right. If the Government had refused to replace them, there would have been disaster. The Government were only able to give them raw natives in exchange for the Chinese. He did not say they would not get over that he believed that they would, and that they would gradually turn these raw labourers into capable labourers, and he believed that any impartial person would say that they were perfectly sound in their ideas with regard to these Chinese. There was a tendency to-day to put disabilities upon the mining industry. (Hear, hear.) It was quite easy to put exactions and duties upon it beyond its capacity and support, and if this time should arrive-which he hoped the good sense of the House would prevent—they would have such a disaster in this colony as they never had before. Some hon. members were inclined to look at this gold mining industry as some sort of alien enemy. (Hear, hear.) Insults were hurled at the capitalists, and they were looked upon as monsters in some form or other. (Laughter.) It was easy to see why people little bit chary of this country. There were so many unjust suspicions held against industrialists in this country, and there was no doubt that people were shy, and he said they would have to alter their way or the country would undoubtedly suffer. If they wanted people to have faith in this industry they must have faith in it themselves. (Cheers.) They had been twitted that in regard to this Bill they had entered into an unholy alliance with the Ministerial benches, but if they had studied their own interests they would have tried to scrap the Bill; but they believed it was a good Bill, and they supported it. They have accepted the eight, hours in a spirit of sweet reasonableness, but he would warn the House against placing too much weight on the opinions of the triumvirate on the cross benches. (Laughter ) There were 25,000 white men working on the Rand Mines, and the three hon. members on the cross benches represented but, an infinitesimal proportion of these. Continuing, he said there was a time when depression hung heavily on the land, and he was one of the most prominent of the men who brought hope and courage to the people of this country. That was why that day he ventured, in their times of prosperity, to utter a word of caution. They bad on the Hand wonderful mines—wonderful in the way of consistency of yield and the permanency of the deposit. But they were poor rather than rich mines-—poor in comparison to mines in other parts of the world In 1909 the value yield of gold was £1 9s 1d. per ton on the Witwatersrand; in 1910 it was £1 8s. 8d. That might seem to some people a great deal of money per ton, but if they would look for a moment at mines in other parts of the world they would be able to note the difference. The hon. member then went on to refer to mines in New Zealand at 55s. a ton, in Queensland 109s. and 102s., and went on to say that they would find that the yield of the lowest worked out at something like £2 10s. per ton. They had mines that give them a yield of 28s. 8d. per ton, and if they were going to make a profit they must economise; they could not play ducks and drakes with them. His hon. friend, he went on, made a grave mis-statement the other evening, to the effect that the industry was making a profit of a million a month. That was not a correct statement. He warned the House that if things of that sort were directed against the mines they would find the investors going to other countries. And no greater disaster could befall this country. If they went on at that rate they would have another period of depression, depression which all of them would regret.

said that the hon. member had done them a service—the full weight of the authority they recognised—by giving them the orthodox point of view as regards the whole problem presented by this gold mining industry. He would like to attempt to put forward the views which they on that bench thought the House should take, in contradistinction to the view which the hon. member took of what at present was the great national industry, so far as the industrial world was concerned, at any rate. He would like at first to deal with the statement of the hon. member that the mines were not turning out a million pounds profit per month. The hon. member had called it a mis-statement. He could only say that his authority was the Chamber of Mines, an authority which he thought the hon. member would recognise. Those monthly statements put the average at about £950,000—in round figures he called it a million. The hon. member complained that that did not represent the dividends paid. He agreed with that; but the hon. member should agree with him that there was a certain margin between working profits and dividends paid. He wanted merely to show that the facts were as he had stated, that the working profit was in excess of yield over expenditure.

Not profits.

said that if the excess of yield over expenditure was not profit, then he was afraid that he would have to take many more lessons in the English language. He warned the House, however, against forming too rapid a judgment upon a host of figures dealing with a complex problem. Continuing, he said the hon. member had stated that the average yield on the Witwatersrand was 28s. 8d. per ton, and contrasted it with the yield from mines in other countries, saying that the lowest was £2 10s. per ton. The speaker then referred to mines which yielded 10s. and 11s., and asked the hon. member if he had heard of the North Bloemfield, where they got something like 3d. a ton. But he pointed out that the mines quoted by the hon. member were of an entirely different stamp to those on the Witwatersrand. The advantage of the mines on the Witwatersrand was the consistency of their yield, and the fact that they were spread over a wide area, which enabled the ground to be treated on a big scale. That was the secret of the opulence of the Witwatersrand. Their point was that the gold-mining industry was an extraordinary opulent one, and one which would require immensely vindictive legislation on the part of that House to injure it. It was not for hon. members to look at the matter from the point of view of the mine managers, but as statesmen. In almost every sentence the hon. member (Mr. Phillips) had begged them not to put too great exactions on the gold-mining industry. But if there had been a disability placed upon that industry, it was placed there by the mining people themselves, and by the over-capitalisation of the companies. Much had been made of the point that if they touched the industry, they would shock the investors. But it was proved that there was a vast difference between frightening away the investor and reattracting him by better terms which the mines could offer. Hon. members on the cross benches regarded the industry as one which give occupation to a vast number of men, and they did not believe that they could reckon the prosperity of the industry purely by the profits made out of it. A change had come over the labour market during the past fifty years. Now, in the mining industry there was very little of the humane factor entering into the relations between the employer and the employees. Unless legislation stepped in to grant the reasonable demands of the men, there would be labour troubles. The men all along the Reef were asking for an eight hours day, and a real one, too. The men were entitled to a certain amount of leisure, and if the amendment were passed, the output would not be diminished. If an eight hours day from bank to bank was decided upon, the mine managers would adjust themselves to the new conditions, and would see that there was as little delay as possible in the men going down and getting to their work, and also in leaving work and getting to the bank again. The health, happiness, and contentment of many thousands of men ought to weigh with that House against the convenience of those responsible for the management of the mines. The largest proportion of the gold mined should be kept here for the maintenance of the people, and a close investigation would show that we had to pay exorbitantly for the actual cash capital invested in the mines. (Cheers.)

said a question had arisen as to the age at which boys might be recruited by labour agents for the mines. It struck him that as the clause stood it was possible that boys of just 14 years could be recruited for certain work underground. He thought some provision should be made against the recruiting and employment of boys of tender years for work of this description.

said he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson), which really meant a general eight hours day on the mines. He did not think that to confine such a law to the mines would be fair. He could understand the logic of the argument that there should be an eight hours day for workers underground, but when they came above ground he did not see why they should confine the law to the mines to the exclusion of all other classes of work. He did not think Parliament was ready to agree to a universal eight hours day. As to the point raised regarding the limit age, he agreed that the age of 17 was too high, and if an amendment were moved to substitute the age of 16 he would accept it.

moved accordingly to substitute 16 and insert “apparently.”

moved the deletion of the whole of sub-section 2. He said he did not see why they should be continuously penalising the mining in-, terests, which were already sufficiently burdened by taxation, and in other ways,

said that the amendment was intended by him to apply to all works; but the amendment previously moved by the Minister of the Interior had the effect of confining these provisions to the mines. He assured the Minister that at no distant date a Bill would be introduced to provide for an eight hours day for workers in all industries. In adopting his amendment, South Africa would only be following the example set in other parts of the world.

said that he was strongly in favour of the eight hours day underground on the gold mines, as he had said at the second reading of the Bill, but if the principle were made to apply to all mines he thought that there would be difficulty. What the hon. member for Yeoville had said about the value of the gold was no argument against protecting the miners, who worked hard, and whose trade was a perilous one. The hon. member had not shown cause why they should not follow the Australian example. He opposed the amendment.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was carried.

General Smuts’s amendment was carried.

Mr. Sampson’s amendment was negatived.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Fawcus was negatived.

Sub-section 2, as amended, was agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, was agreed to.

The old clause was deleted.

On clause 9, employment of persons underground in mines in unhealthy occupations,

moved a new clause 9, as follows: “(1) No person employed to perform underground work in any mine shall work, and no person shall cause or permit any person so employed to work underground, for a longer period than eight hours during any consecutive period of twenty-four hours, exclusive of the time occupied in going to or from the working place. (2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply: (a) To work necessitated by accident or other emergency; or (b) to the work or services of any class of mine official exempted by the Minister by notice in the ‘ Gazette ’—such as mine managers, mine captains, mine overseers or shift bosses; or (c) to work in any coal or base metal mine; or (d) to any particular mine or particular class of underground work, outside the mining districts of Johan nesburg, Boksburg and Krugersdorp, exempted by the Minister by notice in the Gazette ’: Provided that the Governor-General may make regulations limiting the hours of underground work upon any such mine as is described in paragraph (c) or (d) of this sub-section.” The mover said that at the second, reading it was found that there was an alternative idea suggested, and that it was better, if possible, to settle that question of underground employment, and to fix the hours for it. To give effect to that idea he-had moved that new clause, the principle of which was that it laid down the eight hours principle for all forms of underground employment on the mines. If that was done it was necessary to move certain exceptions, as he had explained at the second reading. There were certain classes of mines where the eight hours day could not be applied, such as the coal mines of South Africa, which were on an entirely different basis to the gold mines, and which did not have the deleterious dust which caused miners’ phthisis. It would therefore, be necessary to exclude the coal and the base metal-mines, such as the coppor mines of Namaqualand, and the tin mines in other parts of South Africa, which fortunately had an absence of that dust which led to miners’ phthisis. Then it was further necessary, even in respect, to gold mines, do make further exceptions, and to give gold mines in parts of the country where there were small propositions in the earlier stages of their carear, greater flexibility and latitude of employment, and conceding in their cases a longer period than eight hours per day. There were also cases of emergency which might arise on the Rand, and it might also be found necessary in those cases to go further. It had been pointed out to him quite correctly and justly that that eight hours rule could not be applied to officials of the mines, such as overseers and the like, and therefore there was no necessity to apply that rule to them. It might be necessary for them to go down the mines at any hour or at all hours. It had been pointed out to him, that he must go even further, for if workers had to work eight hours underground at the face, there were others, like shiftmen, for example, who would necessarily have to work longer. He excepted mine officials and workers who were busy with the transportation of the men to and fro. Without these exceptions the result would be, not an eight hours day at the face, but a smaller period, because if the hours of these men whose duties governed the transportation of the men to and fro were eight hours, then the hours of the men underground would be shorter. He would move an amendment which would work more equitably, and at the same time leave untouched the general principle that an eight hours day would be the period of underground employment in all mines excepting the few classes which were executed.

It was agreed to take the sub-sections seriatim.

asked the Minister if he intended to add in the new clause, after the words for a longer period than eight hours during any consecutive period of 24 hours” the following: “or for a longer period of 48 hours during any consecutive seven days”?

replied in the affirmative, and moved accordingly.

moved an amendment to make the eight hours day begin from the bank and end at the face for the actual underground drillers as follows: To add to sub-section (1): “Provided, however, that no person engaged underground or on any rock-drilling machine shall, except in cases of accident or other emergency, work longer than eight hours during any consecutive 24 hours, such time to (begin at the bank and end at the face.” As he understood the amendment of the Minister, the eight hours would apply to all workers, both black and white, and that it would mean an eight hours day from face to face. He would like to point out that the machine men were the actual workers on the mines, and that they worked in the most unhealthy portions of the mines. He did not think any concession was necessary for the ordinary overseers, because the conditions of their employment were neither so arduous not so dangerous as those of the machine workers. The same applied to the native. He worked for a period of three, six, nine, or 12 months in extreme cases, whereas the rock driller worked all the year round. A fact which hon. members seemed to overlook was that the overseers were not the workers, and that there were no better paid overseers anywhere than on the Witwatersrand. The rock drillers occupied the most unhealthy parts of the mines from the beginning of their labour to the end, and some provision should be made for those men Who were doing more actual labour and were incurring a vast amount of responsibility so far as their health was concerned. Many statements had been made with reference to the policy of gradually displacing the native labourer by white men, and unless the white men were going to receive more sympathy, and if they were going to be false to their platform speeches made in the Transvaal they would not be able to make this the White man’s country they intended. There was no class of men more deserving of their sympathy than these underground workers, and if they could do something to mitigate the conditions and hours of labour they would be doing something that was really benevolent. They must let the worker understand that he was not being overlooked, and that they were doing something towards the suppression of the disease which was making such havoc.

pointed out that a miner who had charge of boys had to be in the mine before them to see that everything was safe, so that if his time was only eight hours, then the boys would work less than that. The conditions of work underground were very injurious to health, and give rise to miner’s phthisis. The great point was that the miner at present did not work eight hours at the face, but the Bill would make him do so. (Cries of “No.”) The Bill did not actually say that, but the mine managers would see that the man did. He moved to omit “exclusive,” in line 4, and to insert “inclusive.”

The amendment of General Smuts was adopted.

said the whole of the clause elaborately pretended to give something, but in reality gave nothing at all. Hon. members who had been elected to represent mining constituencies had been very silent during that debate.

said a few minutes ago they had a great oration from the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), who said that, “We demand this, that, and the other,” and maintained that the mines were national assets. The miners on the Rand were paid the highest wages in the world. But the hon. member for Jeppe was not satisfied with that. Then the hon. member for Jeppe had said that hon. members who represented mining constituencies had been very silent during that debate. Well, they were more in touch with their constituents than the hon. members on the cross-benches were with theirs. (Hear, hear.) The conclusion he (Sir George) had come to was that Messrs. Creswell, Madeley, and Sampson did not represent anyone but themselves. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Jeppe had never addressed a mining constituency.

What about the member for Springs?

Well, he does represent a mining constituency; but I have been thinking in whose interests he really speaks. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the coal miners’ Eight, Hours Act in England had ended in chaos and confusion. Perhaps here, if they had only white miners to deal with, it might be possible to have an eight hours bank to bank day; but there was a great amount of coloured labour underground, and it took a great deal longer to shift them from place to place than it would intelligent white miners. The whole thing was that if they had a bank to bank eight hours people would not get through their work in the specified time. He thought the proposal of the Minister was a fair one. The tendency was to reduce the hours of labour where conditions allowed. If the amendment was carried it would mean a great loss and dislocation of the work.

said he represented a large body of miners, who were very vigilant in the matter, of the hours of labour At any rate, it came very badly from the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir G. Farrar) to twit the Labour members with not representing mining constituencies. He wondered what the hon, member’s constituents YY would have said to him if, on the eve of the election, he had made the speech he had just delivered? There was no doubt that there was a general requirement on the part of the men for an eight hours day; and that was even the desire on the part of piece-workers.

asked whether the hon. member had properly considered his amendment, because if they accepted it, it might mean that the time a man took to come from and go to his louse would be included.

said that he could not accept the amendment. There were, it was true, a number of mines where there was an eight hours day, hut there were also a number where there was a nine hours’ day face to face, and even more than that. These underground workers would now be limited to eight hours, and be thought that a very substantial concession had been made, although it had not been very thankfully received. He thought it was a considerable boon, and that it was not a sham, as the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) said.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley was negatived, whereupon

A division was called for.

put the question: That the word “exclusive,” proposed to be omitted, stand part, of the clause.

Upon which the committee divided:

moved, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Sir A. Woolls-Sampson, to add at the end: “The period of work shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to begin at the time of leaving the surface and end at the time of leaving the working place.”

The amendment proposed by Sir A. Woolls-Sampson was negatived, and that proposed by Mr. H. W, Sampson dropped.

Sub-section (1), as amended, was agreed to.

moved: To omit paragraph (b) of sub-section (2), and to substitute: “(b) to the work or service of any mine official or of any special class of underground employee exempted by the Minister for the reason that such work or service is performed or rendered for the purpose of securing safety or of transporting employees to or from their working places underground in the mine.”

moved: To add at the end, “but no exception shall apply in the case of persons employed as skipmen.”

said that all through the Bill they had been met with the same thing. The Minister went a little way in one direction, and then got so frightened of representations that he made exceptions and exceptions until nothing was left. Don’t let them have these continual exceptions to meet every twopenny inconvenience to the mines, he pleaded. He would move the deletion of the whole of the sub-section, and would divide the House upon it.

supported the hon. member for Boksburg, because lie considered it undesirable to exact more than eight hours’ work a day from men on whose accurate working of machinery the lives of others depended. Hon. members on the cross-benches, however, took up an intolerable attitude. They were always complaining about the employers, and were going much too far, because the Government and the mines had conceded a good deal.

The amendment of the hon. member for Boksburg was put, and declared Lost

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

asked the Minister to fix the maximum number of hours which a man should devote to his work.

said he would go into the matter.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Wednesday.