for amendment of the Scab Act, and creation of a fiscal division of the Field-cornetcies 3, 4, and 5 in the district of Fraserburg.

from the Municipal Council and residents of Carolina, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped (two petitions).

from W. R. Spratt, a guard at the Kimberley gaol.

from D. B. Hook, Cape Civil Service.

from residents of Lake Chrissie, Transvaal, for extension of railway line from Breyten,

from the Mayor and residents of Aberdeen, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

similar petition from Bethlehem, Orange Free State.

from R. E. Brounger, late Agent-General, Orange River Colony.

from E. J. Pavey, of Kimberley, for compensation for alleged loss sustained on ground expropriated by the Railway.

from R. Lavers, of Johannesburg, injured in jumping off a train.

from residents for construction of a railway from Wepener to Alliwal North, via Zastron and Rouxville (two petitions).

Petition from inhabitants of Griqualand West, for construction of railway from Belmont to Douglas, presented to the House on the 9th December, 1910.

Papers and correspondence in connection with the retirement of Mr. H. le Riche, late assistant chief scab inspector, Griqualand West.

Final report of the Mining Regulations Commission (Transvaal).

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the sixth order of the day (the adjourned debate or motion on employment of white labour, and on curtailment of importation of alien native labourers) be discharged, and set down for Wednesday, February 15.

said he objected. He expected that the objection would have come from the Prime Minister in the interests of public business. He thought that this academic discussion should not go on at the expense of the practical business before the House, of which the Right Hon. the Prime Minister was more cognisant than he was. He believed he was not allowed to give his reasons for his present action, but should the motion come on in the ordinary procedure he hoped to have an opportunity of doing so.

Does the right hon. gentleman object?

Yes, even at the risk of pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for the Government, and of offending the fourth party on my left. I object to this unopposed motion.

Well, the order shall stand.

said that, with the leave of the House, he would ask the Minister of Justice a question with reference to a matter of grave public importance. He had already given the Minister notice, and the latter had signified his willingness to reply.

Leave was granted.

said that he wished to ask the Minister of Justice if his attention had been directed to further cases of outrages upon white women; and, if so, would be take steps to cope with this apparently increasing evil?

I might inform the hon. member that I have received no further information of outrages on white women since my last answer to the hon. member. I wish, however, to assure the hon. member that everything in my power will be done to prevent, through the instrumentality of the police, any such outrages. I wish at the same time to assure the hon. member that I am deeply conscious of the enormity of these outrages, and equally so of the extreme gravity of the whole question, which involves not only the safety of the European women, but also that of the innocent natives. For that reason I cannot hut deplore the tone of the exaggerated alarm which has been adopted by the press, a tone which, if responsible members of society are not careful, may lead to grave injustice and a feeling of contempt for the authority of the law, which is bound to react in a most injurious manner upon the character of the people as a whole. (Hear, hear.) I may say that I would have answered this when the hon. member put the question to me, but I thought, under the circumstances at the time, the less said about the matter the better.

said he wished to give notice to ask the Speaker when the House might expect the report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the question of Hansard.

I must inform the hon. member for Roodepoort that it is not customary to give notice of a question to the Speaker of this House; consequently, I cannot allow it. (Ministerial hear, hear.)

At a subsequent stage of the sitting,

said he would give notice to ask the Prime Minister when the House might expect the report of the Select Committee on Hansard.

said he could not accept the notice. The matter was in the hands of a committee over which the Prime Minister had no control,

moved that the South African College Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved to omit all the words after “Governor-General” to the end of the clause. He objected, he said, to the Government having the power to increase the High Commissioner’s salary to more than £3,000.

moved the deletion of the words “subject to the provisions of the last preceding section.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill, as amended, was adopted, and set down for third reading on the following day.

moved the second reading of the Bill. He said he did not think any hon. member would object to the Audit Bill, and therefore he did not think it necessary for him to say anything in support of the principle of the Bill. The machinery provided for the receipt and custody of the public funds of the Union, and the machinery for the audit of the public accounts should be adequate. That, to his mind, was the most important part of the measure before the House. It was entirely a technical measure, but although it was technical, he ventured to think that it was one of the most important measures this Parliament would be called upon to deal with. He hoped that the House would scrutinise the measure, and see that every safeguard had been provided. One of the most important questions that was exercising the attention of Parliament was the question of comparing greater and more effective control over the public moneys and the public accounts of Governments. He thought that, perhaps owing to the enormous increase that had taken place in the revenue and expenditure, the safeguards that at one time seemed adequate had now become less effective. One of the safeguards usually provided was through the control exercised by the Controller and Auditor-General. The Bill he was submitting to the House would, he hoped, provide the necessary safeguards, so that Parliament would be assured that public money would only be expended according to the directions of Parliament and in no other way. This Bill had been prepared upon the lines of the English Exchequer Audit Act, 1866, but at the same time he had had the advantage of being able to draw very largely upon the provisions of the Audit Act of the Cape of Good Hope, the Transvaal, and Orange Free State. The Bill, like all other Audit Bills, made provision for the appointment of a Controller and Auditor-General. He was the most important officer, he supposed one of the most important officers, if not the most important officer, under the Union. Under this Bill his position was made absolutely independent of any Government which may be in office at any time. He was an officer of Parliament, his salary and pension were assured to him under the Bill, and he was as independent as any judge on the Bench. He would suggest to the House that they should agree to the second reading without any elaborate discussion, and also agree to a resolution which he should move immediately afterwards, that this Bill be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, which, if he might be permitted to say so, consisted of all the financial experts in the House.

rising after a pause, said he did not as a rule address the House on financial matters, because he thought there were a great many hon. members who were more competent to do so than he was, but as nobody else rose to say a word on what was an important measure, he thought he might be pardoned if he said a word or two on the somewhat astonishing speech of the Treasurer. He had rather indicated that his object had been to strengthen up the control that existed over the accounts of the country. If that had been the case he did not think he (Colonel Crewe) or anybody else would have said a word but of praise. He had read the Bill carefully, and what he found throughout the whole of the Bill was that the Treasury was put in command of the Auditor, and as much of the control of Parliament was taken away as possible. The general trend was to strengthen Treasury control and weaken Parliamentary control. He had looked through the provisions of the Cape Bill to see whether the Treasury was really strengthened up, as it was suggested the Cape Bill should be strengthened by the Civil Service Commission that sat. All he found was omissions from the Cape Act. He found that the Treasurer had taken away certain control and certain checks that existed even in the Cape. In the first place, in the Cape no Minister could waive by himself the surcharge that was put upon his department. In the present Audit Act, for which the Government must take responsibility, they said that in the opinion of the Treasurer and the Government it was the desire that each Minister should be able to waive the surcharge upon his department. Another thing that he missed was the penalties provided in clause 65 of the Cape Act in the case of officers who misconducted themselves. He thought, especially in the Railway Department, it was absolutely essential that there should; be most careful control, and that, therefore, the Minister for Railways for the time being should not be allowed to waive surcharges in a department of that kind. He was glad to find that the Government, finding itself in a difficulty over this Audit Bill, as no doubt it was, had at once taken the easiest line of retreat and sent it to a committee.

said that the Minister of Finance had adopted a similar course to that adopted by his hon. friend (Mr. Walton), except that he sent the Bill to the Public Accounts Committee before he introduced it into the House. The Minister of Finance had very properly decided to send this Bill to a Select Committee, and he (Mr. Merriman) thought it would be useless to take up the time of the House by discussing the fine points which could be thoroughly thrashed out in committee. He was glad that the hon. member for East London (Col. Crewe) took such a lively interest in this Bill. He wished every member of those (the Ministerial) benches took the same lively interest in the Audit Bill.

said that the hon. member for Victoria West had made exactly the point that the hon. member for East London had made, that this Bill should have been sent to the Public Accounts Committee before it was brought to the House for second reading.

No.

The hon. member for Victoria West said that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) adopted that course.

I did not say it was right. (Ministerial laughter and cheers.)

I say it is right. (Opposition cheers.) If the Government bring a Bill; before this House, which requires undoubtedly to be re-modelled, surely it is an idiotic proceeding to ask this House to agree to a second reading. The House should know what it is really passing. From the remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria West, we are asked to pass a Bill that we know absolutely is going to be changed. What we do desire is that the control should be taken out of the Treasury and absolutely put into the hands of the Auditor-General. Therefore, I say every word said by my hon. friend the member for East London is perfectly justified.

said that the practice of that House in regard to almost every Bill was to take the second reading, and then send it to a committee.

protested that the time of the House was being wasted by the leader of the Opposition over a perfectly technical discussion. The right hon. gentleman wanted to go on talking about a Bill which he knew would be fully discussed in Select Committee. “I protest,” he solemnly added, “against this further waste of the time of the House.” (Laughter.)

proceeding, said there seemed to be her who had just spoken so feelingly about the waste of time, and he could assure the hon. member who was waiting for the discussion on the white labour question—

rose to a point of order, and said that they were not now discussing the white labour question.

The hon. member for Georgetown is quite in order.

proceeding, said there seemed to be a slight difference of opinion on that side of the House. They who sat on the Public Accounts Committee thought it would be better to adopt the procedure which had been adopted, and that when the Bill was before the House they should be asked to send it to the Public Accounts Committee. There was a difference of opinion as to the audit and management of finances.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

moved that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

in moving the second reading, said the Bill, although comparatively short, was a very important one. It was intended to regulate the organisation of the Mines Department of the Union to a great extent, and also to regulate the working of the mining industry all over South Africa, and, beyond that, it involved certain other important principles. Now, the Mines Department consisted of various branches. In the first place, there was the more or less legal department, which involved the registration of mining deeds and so on. Secondly, the Mines Department had a technical branch, which concerned the major portion of its activities. That branch had to do with the control of mines, machinery, and explosives, not only in regard to the working of mines, but also in regard to the working of all industrial machinery throughout the Union. Thirdly, the Mines Department dealt with questions of white labour; matters regarding native labour wore considered by the Native Affairs Department. The first and third branches he had referred to were dealt with under separate Statutes, and the question the House would have to consider that day was the purely technical work. The object of the Bill before the House was to extend over the whole Union the system which had hitherto obtained in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal, largely owing to the efforts of an able gentleman now dead, the Transvaal very early got a close grip of all mining operations, and the gentleman he had referred to was responsible for much of the technical legislation in force in the Transvaal today. The system was simply this: that an Act regulated the fundamental principles of the working of the mining industry, and all detailed work was left to be settled by regulation from time to time. Under that simple law and the vast, body of regulations, the central authority had a very close grip on the working of the whole system; but in other parts of South Africa there had been less care in that respect. In other parts, it was not possible for the State to exercise the same control as in the Transvaal, but when this Bill became law, they would have in operation a closer and, he believed, better system all over the Union. From time to time Commissions had sat, and had gone into the working of this industrial system in the Transvaal, and the last Commission, appointed in the Transvaal in 1907, had brought out a most voluminous report, which he had laid on the table, but which he presumed hon. members had got months ago. That report was a most valuable one. The members of that Commission went thoroughly into the various questions referred to them, such as the prevention of accidents, the ventilation of mines, and so on. The Commission drafted a Bill which was almost identical with the Bill now before the House; they drafted also a large body of regulations, which, with necessary amendments, would also become Law in due course. The Bill they were dealing with to a large extent embodied the recommendations of that Commission. He might say another Bill would be brought before the House shortly, which would deal with another aspect of the work of the Commission—the Miners’ Phthisis Bill—which would cover more particularly the questions affecting miners’ health, so far as they were gone into by the Commission. It Would be unnecessary, therefore, now to go into that branch of the subject. This Bill, in the first place, dealt with the technical organisation of the Mining Department. It would be seen that there were some provisions which give the State very adequate control over all the mining industries. It was provided that there should be a Government Mining Engineer, who should be the ultimate technical authority on all mining questions which should arise. Under him there would be inspectors of various kinds, such as inspectors of mines, inspectors of machinery, and inspectors of explosives, and there would also be, though not under the Mining Engineer, medical inspectors. The inspectors of mines would be responsible for the inspection of the mines. The work of the inspectors of machinery would not be confined to the mining industry, but would extend to industrial machinery over the whole Union. There were various sections in the Bill giving ample power to those officials to enter a place, and to make the necessary investigations, and to control, as far as possible, the working. The medical inspector had so fair not been known in the Transvaal, and was a novelty in the system. That also was a result of the work of me Commission. He would be an officer in the Health Department of the Union, but he would work in close cooperation with the Government Mining Engineer. The inspectors, besides doing inspecting work, would also have other powers. They would try the small cases which arose under the mining regulations, and they would have power to inquire into accidents which happened from time to time. There had been some difference on the question of whether these inquiries should be conducted by Magistrates or by inspectors. The system they had tried in the Transvaal had worked very well indeed. Many of the accidents which occurred involved to a large extent, purely technical questions with which the highly-trained engineer was more competent to deal than the Magistrate was. With regard to the inspection of mining and other machinery, there had been a fairly efficient system in the Transvaal, and in Natal there had been some system of inspection, but in the Free State and the Cape very little of this sort of inspection had been carried out so far. Now that machinery was being employed so largely in the development of the country, an efficient system of inspection had become absolutely necessary. Another matter dealt with in the Bill was that of regulations. Hon. members would see in section 4 that a vast number of very important matters were to be dealt with by regulations. They would see, for instance, such important subjects as the surface of mines, the protection and preservation of the surface of mines, the keeping of mining plains, the beeping of all statistics in regard to the working of the mines, responsibility of owners and managers of mines, the various inquiries which are to be held by inspectors, the question of ambulances, medical aid, use of roads and railways which are constructed on mining areas, health generally, the question of certificates and contract work to be done, and so on. A vast amount of work was intended to be covered by these regulations. A great difficulty arose which they had felt very much, especially in the Transvaal. Hon. members would, understand that where they had an industry of the enormous dimensions of the gold industry, they must, of necessity, go into details and have many regulations. In fact, regulations became a fine art, but when they applied them to small industries they might kill them. Of late years it had been laid down that these rules for highly technical and developed industries were not applicable to small concerns such as existed in some parts of the Transvaal, such as coal mines. That had been a misfortune in the post, but the question had now assumed a new aspect altogether. It had become necessary to frame regulations not only for the different industries, but for the different portions of the Union, and he thought, when the regulations were published, hon. members would find they were very much simpler for some parts of the country than others, and some industries than others; and that they would not be an incubus to mining, but would assist, as far as possible. Hon. members would see also a clause which give the right to mine managers to frame rules which would also have the force of law. It was for mines situated in a peculiar way, and for which it was not possible to prescribe general mining regulations. In such cases the power was left in the Bill to the mine manager to frame rules for his particular mine. They would be revised by the Government Mining Engineer, and, if approved, would also become law. He thought that would also work well. He now came to two important questions, which were dealt with in this Bill. The first was the question of Sunday work, and the other was the regulation of the hours of labour. Both questions would no doubt be carefully considered by members of the House. Hon. members, if they would turn to section 6 of the Bill, would find certain provisions laid down in regard to Sunday work on mines. It was laid down that “no person shall perform or cause, or permit to be performed, any Work in or about any mine or works on Sundays, Christmas Day, or Good Friday, unless the work fell within certain four clauses.” These were: (a) Attending to and working pumping machinery, ventilating machinery, or machinery for the supply of light, heat, or power, or steam boilers belonging to any such machinery; (b) such repairs above or below the surface as cannot be delayed without causing damage, or as cannot be done upon any other day without unduly interfering with labour on or in the mine or works; in that class of work shall be included labour in workshops necessary and incidental to any such repairs; (c) any continuous chemical, metallurgical, or smelting process if a stoppage thereof during the whole of any such day would dither prevent its immediate resumption on the next succeeding day, or diminish the effectiveness of the process; (d) the running of stamp mills or other machinery used for crushing, ore. Hon. members would see that the first exception was for machines which it was practically impossible to stop. Pumping had to go on all through the week, and the ventilation of mines went on all through the week, and so also in regard to the other works referred to in that clause. They were works which were imperatively necessary. The next clause referred to repairs above or below the surface, which could not be delayed. It was, of course, possible that under this section such latitude might be allowed that abuse might be the result; but the matter was always within the control of the Government Mining Engineer, and exceptions of that kind were necessary. Certain repairs could only be made when, the machinery broke down. The third section referred to any continuous chemical, metallurgical, or smelting process, the stoppage of which would result in the prevention of immediate resumption, or diminish the effectiveness of the process. Hon. members would understand that these were processes which were in motion from day to day, week to week, and month to month. There was no stop to them, and they had to have their superintendents at these works all through the week, and even on Sunday. These were continuous works which could not be stopped, and must therefore be an exception to any law in regard to Sunday labour. With regard to these three clauses of exception, no difficulty had been experienced in the past in the Transvaal; but the real difficulty was in connection with the running of the stamp mills and other machinery used for crushing ore, which was dealt with in the fourth clause. The running of these works on Sunday on the Witwatersrand had been a bone of contention for many years, and he wanted to put certain considerations before the House, because it was a question of very great importance, not only from a health point of view, but from an industrial point of view. It was one of the questions which the Mining Commission had to consider. They came to the conclusion that it was not possible to frame a different rule, and they, therefore, recommended the provisions as they appeared in the Bill. They were not new, and, if he was not mistaken, they had been in existence from the early days of mining in the Transvaal. It was one of the greatest difficulties they had been faced with. It was an exception made in their law ever since the dawn of their mining industry, and any great change at this date would involve a very great amount of dislocation. In his own experience, people had tried to do away with it as far back as 1893, when there was a great agitation in the Transvaal. It was found impossible to do away with the working of the stamps on Sunday, even by President Kruger, who felt upon this subject more strongly than any other man in the Transvaal. Just before the last elections, the matter entered upon a new phase. The Churches of the Transvaal interviewed the Government, and made many suggestions to them. The Government promised to make careful inquiry, as they had done. They also went to the Chamber of Mines and certain important gentlemen who were in the House, and on the eve of the elections they received more sympathy than they otherwise would have received. It came to be looked upon as possible to effect this change then, though it was not possible to effect it before. He had made very careful inquiry into this whole question. He had interviewed the Chamber of Mines and the officials connected with the bigger and smaller mines, because he wanted to get to the bottom of the matter. The result of these investigations was that he had come to the House to ask hon. members to leave the thing as it was before. He wanted, however, to put before them some of the considerations that weighed in deciding to leave things alone. In round numbers they had got on the Rand 25,000 white men on the mines; of these 80 per cent. did not work on Sundays under the law as it existed today. The next question was, what would be the effect of setting aside the fourth exception? From careful inquiry both by his own officers and the mining people, 1,400 people who were engaged working the mills on Sundays would be set free; so that; the exception on the point of numbers was not so important. Now, what would be the consequence if these mills were stopped on Sundays? Certain facts had to be borne in mind since this system had been in vogue. The mining industry had been built up on a basis of Sunday labour. Mills and stamps had been erected on that basis. A great number of the Rand mines could not do in six days what they formerly had to do in seven. They would see, therefore, that the effect would be that with the exception of the larger mines, the output would be reduced 14 per cent., and the working expenses also would go up, because at the same time you had to keep up certain processes. The working costs would increase 21/2 per cent. That was the result which had been arrived at both by his department and the Chamber of Mines. It would mean also that if this Sunday labour were stopped a large number of mines upon the Witwatersrand would have to shut down, because they were run upon a small margin of profit. Continuing, the hon. gentleman said that it was the duty of the House to deal very carefully with a large question such as this. There was an impression abroad that the mining industry of South Africa was something alien to the life of the country. He was sure, however, that that spirit would not be Shown in the House. While not arguing for the mining industry, he was arguing for the whole of South Africa, because the future of South Africa was very deeply bound up with the mining industry. (Cheers.) He would be very sorry indeed to see any check given to this great industry, especially at this time of day. In view of the email number of men affected, and in view of the lose it would entail, it was best to leave things as they had been from the beginning. (Cheers.) With regard to the hours of work, hon. members would see that in clauses 8 land 9 an attempt had been made to regulate the hours of labour in certain departments. For instance, bays under 16 and females were not allowed to work underground. Boys over 16 are allowed to work, but their hours were limited to eight per day. In clause 9 there was a very far-reaching provision. They would see that machine drillers were not allowed to work underground more than eight hours a day. As hon. members also knew, one of the questions which had been largely discussed was whether underground workers, who worked for eight hours “face to face or back to back,’’ as the jargon of the mines put it, would include in the working period the time taken to get to their work from the mine head and back again. The Mines Regulation Commission recommended that all underground work should be limited to eight hours per day. That Commission, unfortunately, had to deal with a limited question, and confined its attention to the gold mines on the Rand. He was afraid that the recommendations the Commission made were advanced very largely with a view to the conditions existing on the Rand. That House, however, had to look further afield, and to bear in mind the conditions, not only on the Rand, but all over the Union. If that were done, it would be found that it would practically be economically impossible to apply the eight hours’ day to mines beyond the Rand. (Hear, hear.) For instance, there was a ten hours’ working day on the coal mines, of which only 25 per cent, paid dividends, coal being so cheap that its average price at the pit’s mouth was only 4s. 9d. a ton. Our coal mines were neither deep not fiery, and the conditions therefore were more healthy than in coal mines in any other part of the world, and the coal-mining conditions in South Africa were more healthy than were the conditions on the Rand gold mines. These considerations of health, therefore, did not apply to the coal mines, which probably would be marked by the imposition of an eight hours’ day. Then there were small mining propositions outside the Rand, where the work was intermittent, and it would be foolish to apply the eight hours’ rule to them with the same rigidity as to the Rand gold mines. On this and other grounds, it seemed to him to be necessary to say that the eight hours’ day should be confined to the machine rock-drillers working underground. A cut-and-dried rule all round would lead to great dissatisfaction and to the ruin of many mining enterprises, whereas latitude in this respect would be to the best interests of the workers and of the mining development of South Africa. There were certain classes of underground work in the Transvaal gold mines which were not so harmful to health as was machine rock-drilling, which led to miners’ phthisis. If the Bill was passed (said General Smuts in conclusion), it would apply the highly-efficient system of the Transvaal all over South Africa, and if that was done, it probably would be seen that mining development would not be over-regulated, but would be stimulated and developed much more than it had been in the past. (Cheers.)

after remarking that he had no intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill, congratulated the Government upon the way it had approached the extremely difficult task of framing the Bill. He was astounded at the knowledge of detail which the Minister (General Smuts) seemed to have gained, and he congratulated the hon. gentleman on the able manner in which he had moved the second reading. (Cheers.) Some time ago he (Mr. Phillips) had expressed the hope that hon. members on the other side, who had not so far been to the Rand, would take the opportunity, during the recess, of visiting that extraordinary region. But he was afraid that up to the present not many had availed themselves of the invitation which he had given. If they did visit the Rand they would see something very extraordinary. First of all, they would see something even more wonderful than the works of Nature in this beautiful Cape Peninsula, something that had gone on for endless days—making of deposits of gold which extended four or five miles down into the earth. To this day there were people who believed that upon the Witwatersrand people ran about chasing nuggets. If these people went up North, however, they would find that there was a vast amount of machinery, and that so far from the Witwatersrand being the centre of a speculative industry as some imagined, it was the manufactory of gold, and that the success of the industry depended not upon the mere chance discovery of gold, but upon the number of tons it was possible to put through the machinery. In addition, a great army of people were employed on the mines, and a great deal of money had been sunk in appliances. If hon. members would imagine a railway tunnel stretching from here to Bulawayo and back, 10 ft. high and 10 ft. wide, that tunnel would roughly represent the excavations which human hands had made on the Rand. That, he thought, would give the House some idea of the labour involved in the establishment of the gold-mining industry of the Witwatersrand. Another point to which he would like to refer was the care with which they had to search for the particles of gold, which were so finely distributed through the rock The quantity of gold was very small compared with the amount of waste material which they had to work, although, owing to modern science and improvements, they were now able to recover something like 95 par cent, of the gold which was so finely distributed. Proceeding, Mr. Phillips said that the Mining Commission appointed by the Government went into the question of regulating the mining industry in the most thorough manner, and, as the Minister had said, it was practically upon the suggestions made by that Commission that the draft Bill was framed as they found it before them to-day. It would be noticed, however, that in the regulations the Government took upon itself the responsibility of introducing some serious measures. It took very extensive powers, and in that connection he hoped that before the regulations were made known— he believed they had been under consideration for some months—the Minister would place them before the House in order that they might be discussed. Such procedure would help the Minister as well as proving satisfactory to those connected with the industry. As regarded the question of hours of work, he said that he was entirely in sympathy with the idea of having eight hours underground, and he did not think that such a provision would be strenuously opposed. As a matter of fact, the people who were most opposed to the eight hours day underground were the rock drill contractors. As regarded the coal mines, orders came in very irregularly, and at times some mines were idle whilst at other times they were tremendously pressed, and in that case it would be unfair to fix eight hours a day. If such were done, the coal industry would be ruined, and, holding in view the enormous deposits of coal in this country, and the comparatively small profits realised, the eight hours would probably have a deleterious effect upon the industry as a whole. With regard to the question of Sunday milling, he said he was one of those who had discussed the matter with the members of the Church who were so anxious to shut down the mills. He believed there were some mines where it would be possible to apply a measure of that kind without serious damage, but there were other mines, as the Minister had truly said, where there was neither the equipment not the capital necessary; to place them in a position to go on working if this provision were introduced, and therefore he considered the Government would be wise to stick to the provisions of the old law. He thought he was correct, in slaving that the material effects of bringing in this provision would be far more serious than a casual glance at the matter would lead one to imagine. As regarded the general health conditions underground, he might say that they were the subject of consideration on the part of those who were charged with the working of toe mines, and improvements had been, and were still being, made. Continuing, he said that they had the greatest possible difficulty in getting employees to take precautions regarding their health, and he hoped that when the regulations were before the House that care would be taken to see that certain conditions were imposed on these men. The mining industry was only too willing to do all it could to help in this direction. In conclusion, he could only echo the pleasure of his friends on that side of the House by saying that they realised that the Government, in introducing this Bill, had approached the matter with a due sense of responsibility and with the view of protecting the great mining industry of this country, which was as much a part of the body politic as the farming or any other industry.

said that he would admit all that the hon. member had just said about the exceeding importance of the gold mines as far as South Africa was concerned; and he, in the past, had also had a hand in the framing of some legislation dealing with the mines. He could not but vote for the second reading of that Bill, but there were certain provisions with which he could not agree, especially as to. Sunday labour. He would like to hear the opinions of hon. members on his side of the House as to whether Sunday should be desecrated. The Government in respect to Sunday labour must set an example to the country; and he quite recognised that some kinds of work could not be stopped on Sunday, but he asked whether crushing was absolutely necessary on that day. The workmen must be protected. He had made an election promise that he would oppose all unnecessary Sunday labour, and he would do his best to carry out that promise. They must once and for all try to put an end to the desecration of the Sabbath—not only on the mines, but in many other respects, such as Sunday trains and trams. Why, there were now more trams running on Sundays in some parts of the country than on other days of the week. He read an extract from the report of the Mining Regulation Commission, and asked why more stamping could not be done on six days of the week? He thought that some of the clauses of that Bill give the mines far too much latitude as far as Sunday labour was concerned; and it was only to be expected that a loophole would be found to evade them. He welcomed what had been said with reference to the eight-hour day, and regretted that the Government had not provided for an eight-hour day for all workers on the gold mines who had to work underground. What provision had been made for public holidays? He saw none in the Bill, with the exception of Good Friday and Christmas Day. The Dutch Church, as a whole, was against Sunday labour, and as a member of that Church, he would vote against the clause in the Bill dealing with certain Sunday labour.

briefly sketched the provisions of the Bill, and went on to say that the greatest thing they were concerned about was the regulations which were going to be framed under this Bill. He thought that these regulations should come before the House, and that hon. members should have an opportunity of criticising them and improving them in any way they possibly could. They had been warned not to go too deeply into the health conditions. The Minister for the Interior said that he was going to appoint a medical inspector. One medical inspector for the whole of the Witwatersrand area was utterly inadequate. He thought, if a medical inspector were not appointed for each mining area, at least two or three should be appointed for the whole area. He welcomed what the Minister had said with regard to the regulations made for the Witwatersrand area not being applicable to smaller mines in outside areas. He wished to confine himself entirely to the conditions as they existed on the Witwatersrand. He recognised that it would involve an immense loss if they were to stop the cyanide batteries on Sundays, but he thought, from a health point of view, every man engaged in this work should have at least one day off each week. Proceeding, the hon. member contended that no exceptions should be made in regard to the class of men to whom the eight hours a day regulation applied. He would not only make it applicable to men employed underground, but to such men as skipmen, who went up and down the shaft constantly, and inhaled poisonous gases. Knowing what he did of miners’ phthisis, he maintained that all the men employed underground should work eight hours a day, and eight hours only. He welcomed the provision for certain men in the mines having a knowledge of first-aid.

agreed with the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mr. Geldenhuys) as to what he had said about Sunday labour. He had, he said, been a member of the Volksraad when the question of Sunday labour on the mines had come before it, and had voted against the measure, but without success. He fully believed that no work should be done on the Sabbath—the Bible said so. Was it not a grievous sin to say that the stamps should be allowed to work on Sundays? If they permitted Sabbath desecration, they had better make up their minds to see all sorts of visitations in South Africa He deeply deplored the increasing desecration of the Sabbath. They saw, Sunday trams and trains, and excursions; people playing cards and tennis on Sundays; and other forms of desecration of the Sabbath. And now, instead of a step being taken in the right direction, it was stated in the Bill that Sunday labour would be permitted on the mines. He must strongly speak against it.

said that on behalf of those with whom he was associated, he intended to move that the Bill be read that day six months. He did so for the purpose of expressing the men’s disappointment at the absence of many reforms which had been promised in the past in regard to the mining regulations of this country, but more especially he was desired to lay stress on the point that this Bill did not propose to stop all unnecessary, work on Sundays. They wished to make a special protest on that point. They had heard a good deal in the House during the last few days on these matters, and if the Bill reached the committee stage he intended to put the religious principles of hon. members to a test on this point. He regretted that there were no practical miners in the House to speak on behalf of the large body of men whom this Bill directly affected. That, he supposed, was due partly to the perversity of men, and partly to the intimidation used at election time on the mines. Proceeding, Mr. Sampson said that for many years the men had asked for the more stringent observance of Sundays, and also Good Friday and Christmas Day; more stringent so as to prevent all unnecessary labour on mines; the running of stamp batteries included, except so far as may be absolutely necessary to keep the mines in condition to resume operations on the Mondays. They could find correspondence in their Government departments from the men asking for that. Another thing asked for was that the day should consist of two shifts only, all blasting to be done within sixteen hours. He submitted that the clauses they had at present in the Bill were but apologies for what the men asked, and what they tasked for was nothing but their rights. They did not ask for an eight hours’ day, but for an eight hours’ day with two shifts only, and blasting to take place within the 16 hours occupied by the two shifts. There was a distinct difference between those who desired an eight hours’ day and three shifts daily, and an eight hours’ day with two shifts daily. The men desired to give the mines eight hours clear in which the mines could clear themselves of the vitiated air. It had been pointed out by a certain Commission that the men desired a ten hours’ day, but that was a misrepresentation of what the men required. What they said was that they would sooner work a ten hours’ day with two shifts daily than an eight hours’ day with three shifts daily. Another thing they asked for was to have a proper change house provided. Through its nonexistence tuberculosis and other diseases were aided, and he hoped the Minister of Mines would see they were provided. Another requirement that had not been provided for was the appointment of an Examination Board for the issuing and withholding of miners’ certificates. Of course, they made exceptions in some of the higher branches of mining, but he submitted it was as important to the daily-paid men as to the men in the higher branches of the service. To withhold from a man his blasting certificate meant withholding his means of livelihood. At present this was left to the discretion of the mine manager, instead of a competent Board of Examiners. The next point was a matter for regulation, but one that should be ventilated at the present juncture. The men themselves asked for it to be made illegal to remove broken rocks from stopes and developed places unless they had been damped down with water. It was always said of men that they did not provide for those things which acted against the spread of disease, and for those things for which they might claim compensation. It was no use one stope being damped down if the next was not. These things could only be made illegal by being put into the law and made binding on all men. He hoped the Minister would not lose sight of that matter. Then, again, the men had for years contended that they had the right to see for themselves that the regulations which were now being passed, and which had existed in the past, were being put into force. The mine manager was in a full position to see that all regulations which were binding upon the workmen were properly carried out. Likewise, provided he did not impede the work in progress, the representative of the Government was also permitted to go and see that they were carried out. He submitted that it was the equal right of the men to ask for the same privilege; to see that the regulations were being carried out. Of course, objections would be raised, but he submitted the men, in asking for this, were merely asking to aid the Government in carrying out the provisions of the law, and that they would have a greater check on infringements of the law by providing for two inspections. Another matter which he was surprised that members who represented mining constituencies had not mentioned, was the question for providing for weekly payments being made to the workmen. This was in the interests of the shopkeepers as well as the men themselves. There was a general desire for it. There was a general consensus of opinion also amongst mine workers that insufficient holidays had been laid down in the mines regulations. A good many of the men had made their views known, and had undoubtedly received sympathetic replies before the elections from members in the House. He himself had heard it expressed in the House that two holidays a year were not sufficient for the men. There seemed to be a desire to give an extra day or two. Again, he found that there was a general feeling among the men to differ considerably from the Minister of the Interior, who said that the carrying out of the regulations with regard to inquiries, suspension of certificates, and the infliction of fines in connection with such inquiries had been very well carried out. That was not his (Mr. Sampson’s) opinion, not was it the opinion of many of the miners. The hon. member quoted an instance which he believed was typical of many others, where a miner had his blasting certificate suspended, while he was lying in hospital, for an accident with which he had nothing to do. In his opinion, the Bill before the House was no better than the existing regulations, and it appeared to him that all the reasons and arguments of the Minister of the Interior against reforms, were simply those of the Chamber of Mines and the mining magnates. He (General Smuts) seemed to be afraid of treading on their corns. Proceeding, the hon. member said he would like to know also why the workshops of the harbours and railways were exempted from the operation of this Act. Did members of the Government, think that the Government were such model employers that the Act need not apply to their employees? Again, he felt that regulations of this sort ought, to be laid upon the table of the House, so that members could have an opportunity of studying them. With reference to the extraordinary clause 5, his interpretation of that was very different from the Minister of the Interior’s. There was a danger that regulations inimical to the men might be posted up by the mine managers, and remain in force until seen by the mining inspectors, which might not be for some time. With regard to Sunday labour on the mines, a good many of the arguments advanced in its favour had a strong likeness to those advanced by the owners of the mines, and to a certain extent the State was now a mine owner. The Labour party could expect almost more liberal treatment in that regard from the Opposition than from the Government. In the past they had had the expression of opinion from the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir G. Farrar) that he agreed that miners should at least have one day’s holiday a week. The Government, however, wished to deprive the men of the weekly day of rest which had existed for centuries. Un fortunately, some men professing religious principles were only too willing to take that day of rest away. The only reason for running the mills on Sundays was that of profit making. If they applied the argument that the cessation, of work on the mines for one day a week would mean diminished profits, what would happen There would be no Sabbath day observance at all. All other industries were dislocated on Sundays by work being stopped. Then why not dislocate the mines as well? Why should the mines be exempted from the Commandment regarding the keeping of the Sabbath? He found no reason in the Bill. It was true that certain men giving evidence before the Mining Commission had stated that they were in favour of an eight hours day for seven days a week. It was no good, however, quoting the opinion of a few men as the opinion, of all. He had no hesitation in declaring it to be the wish of the vast majority of the men that work should cease on Sunday. This Bill, by limiting the operations of the Act in regard to the eight hours day, would have the effect of causing a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of the other workers. Why not incorporate a provision in the Bill applying it to all the workers? It seemed to him that it was no more intended in this Bill than before to establish the principle of an eight hours day. Moreover, an eight hours day from face to face really meant a ten hours working day. He saw no reason why this had been limited to a section of the men. The principle of an eight hours day was practically in vogue, in regard to every industry on the Rand, outside the mines. Thus a mason outside worked eight hours a day, and a mason on the mines ten hours. The men had asked; for an eight hours day from bank to bank; that was what they wanted. He had discussed the matter with the miners, who would probably have had one of themselves to represent them in that House, but for the promises made by hon. gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who had told the men they would do this for them.

I absolutely contradict that.

You have promised this.

I absolutely contradict it.

Possibly the hon. member may never have made this promise, but he cannot deny he has all along led the men to believe that he had intended an eight hours day.

From bank to bank?

Yes.

I must absolutely deny that.

Well, whether he denies it or not does not matter to me a little bit. If the hon. gentleman will recollect, I spoke of the gentlemen on this side of the House. He has fitted the cap.

again rose to speak, but

said the hon. member would have an opportunity of speaking afterwards

went on to refer to the inspections provided for in the measure, and said it was stated in the Bill that the inspectors should not impede the working of the mines, or the carrying out of the works. He considered that these words were quite unnecessary. The area to be patrolled was big enough without putting impediments in the way of these officials. There were other matters that required amendment, and all amendments should be considered, because the Bill was a very serious measure. They should never overlook the fact that the Bill affected the interests of 20,000 men on the Witwatersrand, and would affect them every day of their lives. It was a practical and not an academical matter, and it was essential that the regulations should be couched in the plainest possible language. It must be borne in mind that these regulations will affect, and have to be understood by all men working underground, and of these men 25 per cent.—and I regret that it should be so-— are illiterate.

said that the Minister of Mines had made such an interesting speech that one almost forgot to remember to enter a protest against the objectionable clauses in the Bill. As a Christian nation they could not assent to the legalising of Sunday labour. He would not oppose the second reading, but in committee clause 6 would have to be amended because it might lead to more work being done on a Sunday than on any other day. Inter alia, he objected to Sunday crushing. The Minister had admitted that even if batteries were stopped on Sundays, only 20 percent, of the men who performed Sunday labour at present would enjoy a holiday. He had looked in vain, however, for a provision limiting the total number of men (who would be allowed to do Sunday work. The old Transvaal law did contain such a provision. Hon. members were bound to minimise the evil of Sunday labour as far as possible.

said that, so far as his constituency was concerned, the men were for weekly payment, and they asked for eight hours from bank to bank. What, he asked, were the special reasons for treating the mining industry so exceptionally? In his constituency many of the shopkeepers were Jews of the orthodox type, who observed Saturday as their Sabbath, and who were not allowed to carry on their trade on Sunday. Yet work was to be allowed on the mines on Sundays. He would like to know what special reasons existed for treating the mines exceptionally.

said that when an hon. member denied a statement in the House, surely the hon. member who made it should accept it. That was the least he could do. The hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) said that he (the speaker) had pledged himself at the elections in favour of an eight hours day. That he absolutely denied. Then the hon. member for Commissioner-street went on to say that he misled the men. That he also absolutely denied. The question of eight hours had been before the public for a considerable time, and the Unionist party, in its declaration, said that it was prepared to advocate an eight-hours (face to face) day for underground workers. That promise he himself had made on many platforms; and those whom he represented wore satisfied with such.

On what occasion—

The hon. member for Jeppe has no right to interfere.

proceeded to say that the Unionist party were in favour of an eight hours face to face day, and on that point it was prepared to support the Government. The member for Roodepoort (Dr. Haggar) had told the House what was done in Australia; but he (the speaker) wished to say that the conditions there were not the same as those in this country. Here the white man underground, as hon. members knew, did not work the same as the men in Australia. Referring to the Mines Regulations Commission, he said that he agreed with its finding. It recommended, with certain exceptions, that the hours underground should be limited to face to face, and with that he agreed. He thought that hon. members should accept the finding of the Commission, which took some years to consider the question. With 23 years’ experience he could safely say that the hours of labour on the Witwatersrand were, year by year, becoming less. Even hours on Sunday were less. When the hon. member for Commissioner-street talked about a two eight hours day as a three eight hours day, there was no such thing as a three eight hours day. Everyone knew they only worked one shift, and they tried to get the whole of their work done in it. Everybody was dependent on that, because a night shift was a most uneconomical way of working. But beyond that, if they got all their work done in an eight hour shift, it give the mine a chance to clear. But it took time to do that, and they could only do it when they had sufficiently developed the mine and spent enough money on it. He could assure them, however, that eight hours at the face was what they had been striving to attain. Still, he was glad legislation was coming, because in spite of their endeavours to work eight hours, contractors would work over that time. Some time ago he made up his mind on account of the terrible scourge of phthisis it was their duty to limit the hours. (Cheers.) He could assure hon. members if they could get their work done in a quicker time it would pay them. Make a start with this face to face, and the time would come when they would be able to work shorter hours. The hon. member for Commissioner-street said the mines worked ten hours a day and 60 hours a week, but what had they done? They had reduced their hours to 50 hours a week, and not reduced their pay. After all, it showed them that the hours of working not only underground but on the surface were intelligent hours, and hours not brought about by any legislation, but without, because he believed that if employers of labour did their duty by their men they would have a better understanding, a better feeling, and a better business than ever they got by legislation. In all cases where the conditions were unhealthy the hours of working should be regulated. He could deal with the hon. member for Commissioner-street a great deal more fully, but the real mining expert was the hon. member for Jeppe, and he thought it would have been better had be taken up the matter of mining grievances, because he did not think the hon. member for Commissioner-street was an expert on mining. Another thing dealt with was the health of the workers underground. The condition of workers underground was far better now than it was eight or ten years ago. They had got this terrible disease, and they had first the question of prevention, but the second was one of common-sense. They had the question of prevention provided for in the Bill. Another point was that of compulsory ventilation The committee’s report provided very necessarily for compulsory ventilation, but they had no need for legislation in that respect. Three years ago they perfected ventilation on their mines, and the whole report was based on figures got from those mines. But everything must be done to stamp out this terrible scourge. (Cheers.) Prevention, they would recollect, was the first thing, but common-sense was the second. At any rate the Bill did something. If they postponed the issue for six months it would mean that another six months had gone and nothing done. If they could not get all they wanted, let them at least move forward in the direction of progress. Regarding the question of weekly pay, the speaker said there was no objection to such a course, but they had to convince the men themselves of its utility. The men were the obstacles. The mine owners had been to the men, and they had said they did not want it. If the hon. member for Commissioner-street professed to represent the whole of the Labour party, then let him work among the Labour party. Now they came to the Sunday question, and he would admit that it was difficult. He remembered the agitation in the Transvaal in the old Republican days in 1893, and he had listened to the hon. member for Vrededorp. Well, he wanted to shut down the mills, he wanted to shut down the railways, he wanted to shut down the tramways, and he would remind him that the tramways served a very useful purpose, because they took the bulk of his constituents to a part of his own division on Sundays. He did not understand quite properly, but he almost understood him to say that he wanted steamers shut down. That was to say: that when they were on a voyage, and Sunday came along, they must come to a standstill. (Laughter.) On the bigger question, he would say this: they had a big industry. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) said that it did play a great part in this country. Well, they had built up that industry through the years, and taxation brought in a very large amount of revenue to this country. If they went interfering here and there, they never knew what would be the result of that interference. The hon. member for Roodepoort said: let them put up more stamps; that meant more capital, and if they had a mine whose life had only five or six years to run, then they would find that the owners were not likely to increase their capital. Again, with regard to the mill hands, they got off one Sunday in three, and, as far as his group was concerned, their mill hands got a fortnight’s holiday on full pay. (Cheers.) Again, if they shut down the mills, they would have to put guards in charge to look after the cyanide, so that little would be saved by this alteration. It was better, he thought, to go upon the lines of the report than to try experiments. The Minister for Mines had referred to the Bishop of Pretoria and a deputation—well, although he (Sir G. Farrar) acknowledged the Bishop of Pretoria as his guide in spiritual matters, in other questions he preferred to use his own common-sense. He had taken the trouble to consult the mill hands, and they had said they were satisfied with the arrangements. He quite believed that these regulations should be relaxed in outside mining districts. They were small works, and they had to work very expensively, and they ought to be encouraged. With regard to the application of the regulations to coal mines, the condition’s were not similar, but he certainly thought that there ought to be some regulations applied to them so as to regulate the working of very excessive hours.

moved that the debate be adjourned.

seconded.