moved that the Bill be set down for second reading on Monday.

seconded.

said he thought a little longer time should be allowed to consider the Bill before the second reading. If there was one thing which affected people in this country, it was the right to water. (Hear, hear.) He thought hon. members should have a fair opportunity of reading and thinking over this important measure.

said his intention was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading, so that, it would be thoroughly thrashed out.

said he would like to ask the Minister if he intended this as a preliminary canter to putting this Bill through next session? Here was a measure of 130 clauses, and there were already on the paper several Bills which could not be got through. The time of the House was being wasted in attempting to decipher Bills which had no chance of being passed this session.

said he hoped to be able to convince the Select Committee and the House that in this Bill they were not departing from any principles or practice in force hitherto, and that, this was a Bill which should not be hung up. It might not be a perfect measure, but it was certainly necessary to secure the practical operation of the law, and it was his intention to get it through this session.

said that these Irrigation Bills were intimately bound up with the landed interests of the country, and it seemed to him that in order to do justice to the measure, it would not be possible to pass the second reading in one day, or two days. (Hear, hear.) It was a most intricate question, and he hoped the House was not going to be asked to agree to such child’s play as to read a Bill pro forma a second time, and then refer it to a Select Committee. He would suggest that the Bill be referred to Select Committee at once. He wanted to know what justice they could do to their constituents by having a Bill brought forward at that stage of the session? His hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thus. Smartt) knew about the Bill for 1907, which he had introduced, and the great deal of attention which had been devoted to it—too much attention he (Sir Thos. Smartt) thought, but every Minister thought that of his own measure. (Laughter.) A very valuable amendment had been introduced into that Bill, and new subjects.

regretted that there was so much opposition. As soon as a measure was introduced which would be of benefit to agriculture, he said, they found that opposition came from certain quarters. The present Irrigation Act did not satisfy many people and there was a great necessity for the present Bill to be passed that session. He trusted the Minister would stand firm.

said that with him it was not a matter of red tape or form; and if the suggestion of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) would meet the case, he was prepared to do what he desired, if there was only a prospect of getting the Bill through during the present session.

said that he thought it would be preferable not to refer the Bill to a Select Committee before it had been discussed in the House.

on a point of order, asked the Speaker whether a Bill could be referred to a Select Committee before its second reading?

On the motion for the second reading of any Bill, an amendment can be moved that the second reading be discharged, and the subject matter of such Bill be referred to a Select Committee— and the second reading can be afterwards taken.

said that if there was any prospect of the measure getting the same reception as his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) had given to his (Sir T. Smartt’s) Bill in 1907, it would take two sessions to pass. (Laughter.) That Bill had been the subject of discussion in the Cape House of Assembly for two months. (Laughter.) The hon. member was proceeding to refer to the course of action taken in the Legislative Council—

The only question before the House is the fixing of the time.

I was only pointing out to my right hon. friend (Mr. Fischer) the reception the Bill was likely to get.

We are not discussing the merits of the Bill at all now.

I am pointing out that the second reading should be taken first.

That will come up for argument afterwards.

I hope that my right hon. friends will go on with this measure.

The motion was agreed to, and the second-reading set down for Monday.

moved that the third reading be taken at once.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

said that some considerable time had elapsed since they were last dealing with that knotty problem, and he thought that during that time they had had an opportunity for calm consideration and it would be possible now to get over the difficulty presented by that sub-section without much further discussion. Two amendments were now before the House; the first was that of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), to give the present running mills a year’s respite; and the second was the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) to make them go on for 21/2 years more. He saw an amendment on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) to give them seven years, and he had heard rumours from various quarters that five years would not be an unreasonable period. He could not accept any of these amendments or suggestions, and he wished to explain briefly to the House why it was not possible to do so. The question was one of great complexity. No doubt the Mining Regulation Commission considered the matter, and they reported adversely to any alteration of the present Transvaal law. But he could not find that they took such elaborate evidence as would justify this House in acting upon it, even as regarded the mining industry, and hon. members would bear in mind that in the discussion that had taken place in this House the question had gone far beyond the mining industry, and assumed the character of a general social and ethical question for South Africa. As regarded that wider aspect they had no evidence at all, and he considered that before a final settlement was found by this House they should have a further inquiry and get proper evidence before them. They had had what looked almost like evidence given in the House in the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe. Well, some of the statements the hon. member had made, he (General Smuts) could explain away. The hon. member for Yeovrile then got up and made another statement.

dissented.

If he has not done so, he will do so in due course. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said he felt the extreme difficulty of making any ex parte statement there. He was told that the question was not merely an economic one, and that when the facts were properly sifted, it would be found that there were human and social considerations at bottom which this House would have to consider very carefully. He was told that the abolition of Sunday milling must lead to extensive alterations in the personnel of the mining industry. These facts had been brought to his notice on evidence which he could not ignore, and the House must consider whether this would not mean that hundreds of people would be thrown out of employment—

Question.

Yes, it is a question; that is my point. Before they do so they must consider carefully whether that will be the effect. The hon. member shakes his head, but I have not agreed yet to accept him as the judge—(hear, hear)—just as he has not agreed to accept me as the judge. Continuing, the Minister said that he had gone through the legislation of the different States in South Africa, and he found that with this exception of the Witwatersrand and the gold industry, there was no legislation anywhere in any Province of South Africa which interfered with the working of industrial undertakings on Sundays. In three Provinces they had legislation in regard to Sunday observance. He was told that it was not possible to find such a law in the Orange Free State. With regard to the other three Provinces, the legislation was fairly uniform, and it was that trading—selling and bartering—was prohibited on the Lord’s Day, with certain exceptions; as to the sale of eatables, butcher’s meat, etc., but in not a single Province, with the sole exception of this matter of the gold law, as it a fleeted the Witwatersrand, was there a law which stopped industrial undertakings on Sundays. He thought, therefore, that they ought to proceed slowly, and not single out one special industry, one locality, in South Africa for special prohibition, and leave all the others to develop on seven days a week. Under the circumstances he would urge the House to pass the Law as it stood with the amendments already introduced, and, he would inform them, that it was the object of the Government to have such an investigation held at once into the Sunday Jaw as it would affect not only the mining industry, but other industries in South Africa, so that they could come to a definite opinion to legislate not for one locality and one industry, but for the whole of South Africa. The Government intended to hold such an inquiry in order that they might have at an early date correct, properly-sifted evidence before them, on which the Parliament of the country could legislate. It was important to have sifted evidence before them, because of the statement he had made on a previous occasion that there was an intention to introduce a Factory Act into Parliament. He had no evidence before him as to how to draft a Sunday clause for such a Bill. On this ground, he pleaded with hon. members to leave the matter in statu quo. He appealed to hon. members to follow that course, and allow the matter to stand over for another year, until they got evidence which would enable them to legislate on this subject.

said the Minister’s arguments had not convinced him, although he would support the proposal to appoint a commission of inquiry. They should have a report during the recess so that final legislation might be dealt with during the next session, to include the prohibition of Volunteering on Sundays. The people of South Africa were a Christian nation and insisted on Sunday observance.

said that, after the speech of the Hon. the Minister, one had to harden one’s heart almost to granite to resist its persuasive power. When, however, they came to analyse the arguments that had been brought forward they would find that the Hon. the Minister had made out a very weak case. He had told them that this was not only an economic but a social question, and that therefore it should be referred to a Commission. Was that Commission going to concern itself with, the question of one day’s rest in seven, because that was universally accepted as a right to which everyone was entitled to. There was nothing new in the arguments adduced by the Hon, the Minister, but the principle remained. The question was whether they would have this Sunday labour on the mines, either underground or on the surface. The Hon. the Minister said, there was no legislation in South Africa to restrict Sunday labour. Well, that to him was an argument for the deletion of the whole of the clause. (Hear, hear.) They did not want a Commission to inquire into matters of principle. The Minister had come to the conclusion that he would not allow mills to be stopped on Sunday. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) said that this amendment would frighten away capital. The kind of capital that the hon. member referred so would not be frightened away at all; in fact, this Commission was merely an excuse for further delay. It was much better that they should thrash the matter out in the House.

said if this Sunday observance would send one more man to church then he would vote for Sunday observance right away, but they must not legislate against one industry. They might as well legislate to stop their motor-cars, their trains, and their trams from running on Sundays. (Hear, hear.) This was not a question of profit versus religion. According to the figures given by the Hon. the Minister, 300 stamps might be put out of action, and that would mean that 750 men would be thrown out of employment. He wished to give everybody a day’s rest in seven. A battery manager—who was a piliar of the Dutch Reformed Church— had said to him,” For goodness’ sake, don’t stop the batteries working on Sundays.” The battery manager explained to him that if they had to mill on six days of the week only, the repairs would accumulate, and would have to be done on Sundays. Then, instead of only a few men being engaged on Sundays, the whole of the milling staff would have to work. There were plenty of opportunities for the men engaged in the battery-house to go to church on Sundays. If milling on Sundays were stopped, the output would be reduced by several millions annually, and then there would be a general reduction of wages. That would be bound to occur. In this matter (concluded the hon. member) they should be guided by their intellect, and not by any Sabbatarian emotion.

said he was greatly surprised at the speech of the Minister of the Interior, for if it had been any other hon. member, he (Dr. Haggar) would have suspected him of stealing his notes. (Loud laughter.) If they forced anything in the present stage, they would be putting on a plaster where they ought to use a knife. At present the work was limited to 48 hours a week, which practically gave one day’s rest in seven, working eight hours a day. Trams and trams ran on Sundays, and other unnecessary work was done on that day, but no protest was made. No deifinite law with regard to Sunday work could be found in the Bible, and even if it could be found there, he did not see why people who lived thousands of years ago should bind us in this matter, which was entirely one of legislation. Let hon. members appeal to the working classes for their opinion on the matter, and then do justice to all and injustice to none. (Hear, hear.)

agreed with the Minister that further information was required as far as that subject was concerned, but he could not agree with him when he said that they must vote for section (d). He moved that section (d) should stand over, and be dealt with when the Commission’s report was before the House. What the Minister wanted to do was “to hang the criminal first, and then hear the evidence,” a principle with which he (the hon. member) could not agree, nor did he think that the Minister, as a man learned in law, could assent to it. He did not want to vote for that section, and then have the evidence taken by the Commission.

pointed out to the hon, member that he could vote against section (d) when it was put. He could not accept the amendment because the principle affirmed in (d) had already been affirmed.

said he looked upon the suggestion of the Minister simply as a ladder on which he could climb down. He admired the astuteness of the Minister. (Laughter.) The Minister took up the attitude of wanting more information. Well, they had already had one Commission sitting on this matter, and it would not help if there were another. The point was a simple one. If they looked at it purely from the economic point of view, then they would allow Sunday milling; if they looked at it from the social or ethical point of view, they would stop it. No number of Commissions could alter that position, or put hon. members in a better position to decide. The fact was that the mining industry was being singled out for specially favourable treatment, for if other industries commenced Sunday work, it would soon be stopped. The fair thing to do would be for the Minister to withdraw the whole Rill. Otherwise they would hear nothing more of this question. If the Bill were withdrawn the Minister would have to bring in another measure next year, and then the whole thing could be debated— debated in the light of a Commissioner’s report, if the Minister liked.

said that certain hon. members took up the same attitude on this matter as they did on the question of the regulations, which they sought to make a reason for making the Minister withdraw the whole Bill. Now, this Bill was intended to ameliorate the conditions of work on the Rand, and it would be wrong to hang it up for a number of years. Really he thought there was a certain amount of misapprehension in the House as to what this clause meant, Many hon. members seemed to be considering the clause as it originally stood, and not as it had been amended by the Minister. That amendment was absolutely legislating for the discontinuance of work on Sundays, if it were possible. Now, there were two classes of objectors—the religious objectors, who did not want the Fourth Commandment broken, and those who thought a man could not do his work well for more than six days of the week, and that this was sufficient for him to work. He (Sir Starr) was among the latter class. Well, the Government offered to meet both classes of objectors as far as possible. That was the position taken up by the amendment. The other amendments only differed from this in a matter of degree. The difference was that the hon. members who had proposed the other amendments were impetuous, and wanted to rush things, while the Minister wished to give time for preparation. The House, he took it, were agreed that Sunday work should be stopped as far as possible; but he thought the House, with a few exceptions, were also agreed that some preparation must be made. Well, many of them were ignorant of mining conditions. Let them, then, listen to the experts, and consider the arguments brought forward on both sides. Then the best thing they could do was to appoint an umpire who was not biassed on one side or the other, and who had the best opportunity of finding out the truth. Now, he did not want to back the Government or pat the Minister on the back, but he thought anyone who heard the Minister’s second reading speech would say he had thoroughly studied the subject, and that they had not heard a mining expert speak more to the point on the facts before him than the Minister had done on that occasion. He (Sir Starr Jameson) was therefore, willing, on this occasion, to take the advice of the Minister of the Interior, and to adopt his amendment that Sunday milling should be stopped, but that considering that the industry had been built up for the last 20 years on the basis of seven days’ milling and that many mines would have to close down if this were suddenly altered, they should avoid a revolution, and should continue to allow these particular mills, which had been put up on the understanding that they would be allowed to work seven days a week, to continue milling on the present basis, until they had been worked out, with the reservation that any new mills should be put up on the basis of six days a week. It seemed to him common sense that they should adopt this clause, with the amendment of the Minister.

said that he had been struck with admiration by the extremely clever speech of the Minister. He had long been pained at the fact that Sunday milling took place on the Witwatersrand. As a member of this Parliament who had been called upon to endorse the working of the stamps on the Witwaters and on Sundays, he said that he could not do any such thing. Mr. Schreiner gave some interesting statistics, as to the economic effect of the stoppage of Sunday milling on the assumption that it would mean a loss of profit to the extent of 7 per cent. His calculations, he explained, were based on the reports for January. As regarded the majority of the 60 mines at work on the Witwatersrand, it could not, he said, possibly mean a great burden. According to the reports for January, the capital of the mines was £43,497,000, and the profit for the month was £930,059. That would give them for the twelve months a profit of £11,160,000. The average of profit of the mines was 25⅔ per cent. It would be reduced to 22 per cent. He had taken the absolute figures for the report published in January. Of course, those mines that were paving a handsome profit would find no difficulty in putting up additional stamps, so that they would be enabled to do in six days what they had formerly done in seven. He had gone into the matter, and found that the average of days in which stamps were not working worked out at 31/2 days per month. Already, if they looked at the number of days when these stamps were not working he could not see any reason for the tremendous loss which had been spoken about. In fact, his investigations showed that the loss would be infinitesimal. The argument had been raised that this Sunday labour had been permitted for 23 years, and that therefore they should not interfere with it, but he did not think that was a strong argument. He was entirely in agreement with the idea that they should give the mining industry time to set their house in, order, so that there would be no possible loss. He would move in the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town to omit the figures “1914,” and substitute “1913.”

was deeply in sympathy with the sentiment, underlying the motion of the hon. member for Jeppe. He (Sir David) was a witness to the great effect the observance of the Sabbath as a day of rest had had upon mankind. It was one of the greatest and divinest of institutions. (Hoar, hear.) He recognised, however, that the subject was one of great difficulty and complexity, and that it was not wise to proceed with too great rapidity. The only question that remained was as to the existing mines, the question of Sunday milling on the new mines having been dealt with. After making full deductions for the silvery tongued eloquence of the Minister of the Interior, he had come to the conclusion that the proposal General Smuts had made was eminently practicable, and he had determined to support it.

said that he was one of those persons who were strongly against Sunday desecration, but from what he had heard, he recognised that it was impossible to stop all Sunday labour on the mines at once. He would like to have an assurance from the Minister that an attempt would be made as soon as possible to do away with Sunday labour.

replying to the hon. member, said that what he had stated was that he believed it was better to pass that section as it had been introduced into the House, and without amendment; and then the Government would appoint a Select Committee or a Commission, whichever was best, which would make a thorough investigation, not only with regard to Sunday labour on the mines, but all Sunday labour; and that Parliament would act according to that report.

When will action be taken? I hope there will be no undue delay.

As soon as we have the opportunity of doing so. I hope that the Commission will not take up unnecessary time.

That seems to be a reasonable proposition of the Minister; but he must understand that there is a very strong feeling in the country against Sunday labour.

I know.

said the motion of the hon. member for Jeppe had carefully been drafted with a view to preventing any dis-location of mining work, and it was not asking the companies too much to erect 300 stamps in twelve months. He thought the case that had been put forward that the stopping of Sunday milling would lead to a reduction of the number of miners employed had been exploded; on the contrary, he thought more labour would be necessary. The Minister desired delay on the ground that he was going to appoint a Commission to inquire into the matter. But the subject had been before the country for years, and had partially been dealt with by a Transvaal Commission. He supposed the matter would be deferred until a Commission could be got to agree to the views of the hon. members who sat on his right. Continuing, he maintained that a large number of miners wished to go to church on Sundays. The only consideration with the companies, really, was the question of reduced profits. If they were going to listen to the arguments as to vested interests and that sort of thing they would never get Sunday labour stopped. He contended that they would not be harassing the industry in the way suggested if they now put a stop to Sunday milling. What he maintained was not that they should stop work on Sunday, which was done for the public convenience, but that they should stop work which was done on Sunday for profit. Even in the case of work done for public convenience he would insist on giving the men one day off in the week if they had to work on Sunday. To stop Sunday work on the mines would only reduce the profits a little.

said that absolutely misleading statements had been made as to the interest paid on the capital of the mines. It had been said also that the only effect of this would be to frighten out new capital. Well, they wanted to get new capital in. Now, he (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) had no longer a penny interest in the mines, but he felt it his duty to try to secure fair treatment for an industry he had helped to build up. It was not right to say that Sunday milling was started because of indifference to moral principles. He respected religious convictions, though he would suggest to hon. members who had religious convictions that they should not force their opinions on others. He objected, however, to the insinuation that Sunday milling was started because these people were indifferent to the keeping of the Sabbath. The fact was, that when these mines were started, all the working capital was invested in mills and equipment, and they had not the advantage of the cyanide treatment and other scientific processes, and all the men required to run the mills would have had to stop on Sunday as watchers, if Sunday milling had been stopped. The stoppage of Sunday milling would not have released any of the men, excepting, perhaps, the engine-drivers. As the industry grew, of course, a large number of men were not necessary for Sunday watching, and he believed he was right in saying that two-thirds of the men in the mills could be released; but in the meantime the industry had been built up from that beginning, and those who had built it up naturally thought the basis would not be disturbed. Now the Union Parliament was asked, in its first session, to upset something that had been going on legitimately for 25 years. He thought that was altogether too large an order. Now he saw from the returns that the mills ran on an average 351 days out of the 365. He would remind hon. members that there were such things as breakdowns and repairs. Thirty-four days meant about 14 percent.— 14 per cent, taken off the output. He was not talking about anybody’s profits. If they took off one-seventh of the time, they would reduce the production. The substitute put forward was this: give them a year’s notice, give them three years’ notice, or five years’ notice. It was not time they wanted, it was life. If a property were going to die in the ordinary course in five or six years, what good was it to give them notice? It wanted life to redeem it. (Hear, hear.) He was not saying they ought not to do this, in the interests of the State, or Christianity, or religion; but he did say that they should consider the facts and consider the result of it. They had got to give them life, not notice.

What life? What do you mean?

I can’t catch what the hon. member said?

What does he mean by “life”?

I cannot explain what I mean by “life.” Every other hon. gentleman understood it. You have got to give them the means of redeeming it. A mine has a certain life If it has five years of life, then what is going to find the new capital to put up the extra stamping which is supposed to make good and give the production in six days instead of seven? You cannot do it unless you give them more life—that is, more gold. Proceeding, he asked what was the sacrifice? Taking 7 per cent., instead of 14, it was £3,500,000. That was more than the wool output. According to the last figures, the wool output was £3,000,000. Then it was more than the feather industry, which was nearly £2,500,000; and more than mohair, which was £950,000. Let them look at this matter with a sense of responsibility. Coming back to the question of capital, he would like to recognise gratefully the courage as well as the ability of the hon. member for Rustenburg in his speech. Members of the Houses of Parliament could not deal with this solely with a view of satisfying their constituents, or solely their own particular religious standpoint. They had to take account of the practical effect. He believed that the Minister’s amendment went as far as they could wisely go. He believed in the right of a man to have one day’s rest in seven. He knew he was a better man for it. He would like to see it, and he would like to see them all have the same day. But when they were going to legislate for people in one industry, he would ask hon. members to consider the risks they were taking, and whether they had taken into account all the effects that they were going to touch? There was no possible shadow of doubt that they were going to curtail the output. They must curtail employment. They knew the report that had been prepared by the committee showed that the men themselves were not anxious for it. He thought these men ought to have their one day in seven, and as far as possible have their Sunday but were they going to legislate to make it compulsory at the cost of the risks that had been placed before them? Reference had been made to this question of the incoming capital. Now, it was not for fresh stamps, but no one could look round South Africa and fail to realise that it was this mining development which had given us the new South Africa, the present financial position, and our importance to-day. We must have the confidence of the investor, giving him a reasonable return, but giving him that security which was better: the feeling that he was going to be sanely and justly treated. Hon. members who were so keen on improving the mining industry should take a little care, because they would never better it if they gave the impression abroad that they wanted to tinker with it. Nothing could be worse. All these little attempts had a very disquieting effect upon the investor. He would ask them to bear in mind that all this pecking at and tinkering with one industry would do far more injury than good. (Hear, hear.)

said that conditions on the mines were always changing, and so he agreed that there should be an investigation into the whole matter—not only of Sunday labour on the mines, but Sunday labour in general. When the Republican Government had first dealt with that question of Sunday labour on the mines, it had laid down that only necessary work should be done on that day, but in 1898 another Act had been passed, and these Mining Acts could not be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, because the manner in which the mines worked was constantly being altered. He was in agreement with the proposition of the Minister of Mines.

pointed out that they were not allowed to work the ships at Durban Harbour on Sundays except in cases of extreme urgency. Mention had been made that this restriction of Sunday labour would mean a loss of 31/2 millions a year, and this was stated as being the value of the wool, mohair, and ostrich feather industries. The comparison was not quite correct, however, because the money received from these industries was kept in the country, whereas the bulk of the gold profit was sent out of the country. It seemed to him that this loss would not affect the prosperity of the country at all. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) had said that money was going to Canada and other places, but he would like to know if there was no Sunday law in Canada. He understood that there was. The same remarks applied also to Australia. What they had to do in a matter of this sort was to vote according to their conscientious convictions.

agreed with the proposal of the Minister of Mines, and said that he did not see why a particular industry, like the mines, should be singled out. He thought it would be a good thing if the whole matter of Sunday labour in general was gone into. The Bible text, which said that if one was without sin, he might be the first to east a stone, had come into his mind as he had listened to the discussion. Let them first see that there was no Sunday labour as far as they themselves were concerned. The old Government had not put an end to all Sunday labour, because it could not. If the proposed committee found they could prohibit all Sunday labour, he would gladly vote for the prohibition. At present work was being carried on in the Table Bay Docks, and many farmers performed Sunday labour.

said that he was sorry if he had stirred up the feelings of a section of the people, for he had not the slightest intention of doing so. He found it an unpleasant thing to speak against his own Government on such a matter, because all sorts of stories were circulated which the Government did not like, and which he did not like either. He would thank the Government for the concession it had made in that matter, which was of great importance to their people, viz., to have a Commission appointed which would make a thorough investigation into the whole matter and report to the Government. They were now at the beginning of a new era in their history; and that was their first session under Union; and by means of the legislation they passed they would lay the foundation of their edifice; and they hoped that it would not be of a temporary nature, but permanent. He emphasised this because it was argued that for twenty-three years this matter had been in vogue, and hon. members asked why should there be that drastic change now? Some hon. members Spoke of it as if it were but a common thing, but he thought that it was going too far to say that because such a state of affairs had existed for so long a time it should necessarily have to exist in the new Union of South Africa. They were now turning over a new leaf, and must accordingly be very careful on what principles they went, and that was what he would like to impress on them. The Government to-day, as it were, held the scales; in the one scale were the interests of the mines, and in the other was the clear Commandment against working on the Sabbath. He sincerely hoped and trusted that that balance was a sensitive one, and one which would not deceive them. He did not want the Government to take sudden and drastic steps; what he wanted it to do was to act reasonably. What was more reasonable than for him to ask that the Government should lay down no wrong principle in its legislation? It was now recognised by the Government that the matter of Sunday labour was of so difficult a nature, and the problem was so complicated that a Commission was necessary. If that was so, why did they not guard against the introduction of a vicious principle? Why not maintain the existing law meanwhile? He had been attacked for singling out one industry. But was that his fault? No, because the Government had introduced a Bill dealing with that particular industry. He could not speak of Sunday labour elsewhere, because it was not dealt with by that Bill, so he had necessarily to confine himself to Sunday labour on the mines. He was not speaking against Sunday labour on the mines because he had any wish to attack the mining industry. If they allowed the old sub-section 5 of section 6 in the Transvaal Act to remain, no injury would be done to the mines. The Government itself, he proceeded, was the cause of the differences which had arisen; and his reason for saying so was this: the Minister of Mines had first of all pleaded with the House to pass the Bill as it stood, stating that if Sunday labour on the mines were abolished, it would cause such a great shock to the industry that confidence in the country would be shaken, and no more capital might come in—and that the loss would be 21/2 per cent., implying that he (the Minister) knew all about the peculiar needs of the industry. When they saw that the Government knew all about these matters, they said that it had gone on the wrong lines; and now the Minister came, and said that they were not fully conversant with all the different existing conditions; and that a Commission must be appointed to go into all these matters. So that the Government admitted that it had given rise to these misunderstandings. He trusted the Government would not force him to vote against them, but he had no choice if they persisted in their proposals.

said the previous speaker had not represented the matter fairly. At present there was no industrial Act forbidding Sunday labour, and even President Kruger, with all his strength of religious feeling, had not been able to stop Sunday milling. The Government had even gone further than the late President had gone, because they were now making it impossible for future mines to mill on Sunday. This was an improvement which he (the speaker) would be able to defend at any time. He could not allow it to go forth that the Government was introducing legislation that would become a blot on the escutcheon of South Africa. The Government and the hon. member for Pretoria South were one in purpose, but the latter expected to reach his goal at one jump, which was impracticable. If the Government were now introducing a Bill to introduce Sunday labour as an entirely new proposition, opposition to the measure would be justified, but hon. members should not forget that the matter was one of twenty-five years’ standing. Stability in the mining industry, and justice in legislation, were two essentials. An industry had been built up, and money had flowed into the Transvaal on an inherited basis. If the hon. member for Jeppe’s amendment were passed, what was to become of the smaller properties? They would be unable to afford the expense involved, and eventually they would be swallowed by the larger corporations. It was unfair to hold Government responsible for the proposals they were compelled to introduce at present. Delay could only make the matter worse. Why were they aiming at one particular industry? They should deal carefully with all established industries, and avoid making drastic regulations about any one of them. Development and the attraction of capital were not brought about in that way. The hon. member for Cape Town. Central, made a good deal of the position in Cape Colony, but steamers took in and discharged cargo in Cape Town on Sundays, which was worse than stamping. The hon. member saw beams on the Rand, but failed to detect motes in the Peninsula His amendment would penalise the poor miner, because it would lead to his discharge. How could they stop Sunday milling while allowing Sunday excursion trains? They should not attempt to tinker with Sunday legislation until they were prepared to regulate the matter as a whole. The mines were of vital importance, not only to their owners, but to the whole nation, and since they were entitled to equitable treatment, he appealed to hon. members to support Ministers.

rising-amid cries of “Vote,” said the Premier had asked why they should pick out the mining Industries and leave others alone. The reason was that the mining industry was the only one that worked on Sunday. (Cires of “No.” As to frightening capital away from the country, what was to become of South Africa after the mines had been worked out? If the Premier allowed hon. members on the Ministerial side of the House to vote according to their consciences on this matter—his friends and he would be satisfied. (Cries of “We will” and “Order.” ) When the Chinese were pitched out of the country the Minister did not ask for a Commission. Yet he now wanted to have a Commission appointed to consider whether it was right or wrong to work on Sundays. He (Mr. Madeley) could not help thinking that things had become very topsy-turvy. Sunday work must be stopped, and unless they could have it stopped by Parliament, how could they have it stopped by men whose only object was making profit?

said that 95 per cent, of his constituents kept the Sabbath, which was according to the national tradition. The amendments, or some of them appealed to him, but he would support the Government, because they had submitted the most practicable proposal. He was entirely free to vote as he liked. They could not interfere with part of the industrial system, for which the Government would be held responsible. Trams and trains could not be stopped. In Cape Town there was a good deal of Sunday desecration. The Transvaal Act of 1898 was made by orthodox people, who recognised that they could not stop Sunday milling.

said he had a motion on the paper, but he intended to withdraw it, and support the Government. (Hear, hear.)

said all the arguments came to this, that it was impossible to stop Sunday milling If that was so, what did they expect the proposed Commission to accomplish? He confessed that he did not know where he was! The mines were a disturbing factor, and he very much doubted whether their owners would be allowed to introduce legislation, such as was now before the House, say, in England. If they passed it, the day of wrath was not far distant. It would do no harm for the gold to remain underground a little longer, because that would prolong the life of the industry and would ward off the evil day when South Africa would be left to look at the empty hales. The Prime Minister’s comparison between milling and Sunday trains was hardly to the point. He would vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and in doing so he would merely be acting according to the Bible and his own conscience.

pointed out that the state of affairs some hon. members wished to remove had existed for a long time. It was impossible to effect radical alterations in existing concerns; that was why the Bill directed itself to the future. It would not do to say that mines with only a short life before them (had to fall into line “within a few years.”

The committee suspended business at 6 p.m.

said he fully trusted the Government. Hon. members on his side of the House had no right to level insinuations at their leaders. They should rather study the credit of the country, so as to attract fresh capital. Maudlin sentimentality was of no practical use, nor was it quite consistent to quote the Golden Calf as a horrible example, because the people who worshipped the Golden Calf, at any rate, did so at their own expense. (Laughter.) In South Africa, on the other hand, they depended on other people’s money Lags. Unless existing mines were allowed to die a natural death, unemployment would result, and what would happen? Simply this, that hon. members on the cross-benches would once more march, in procession to Pretoria in order to beseech Government to come to the rescue. (Laughter.) He appealed for support of the Government proposals.

supported the previous speaker. The Bill, he said, was merely a consolidation of, and an improvement on, existing measures. There was nothing unfair in the clause about future mines, because forewarned was forearmed. Why was the hon. member for Prieska so much in favour of purifying Transvaal industrial conditions? In the Cape Docks, more work was done on Sundays than in the whole of the Transvaal, though the harbours were a Government concern. Had the hon. member ever proposed to abolish that? Or Sunday fishing? The Commissioni proposed would go into the general question of Sunday labour. They would have to act consistently once the recommendations were out. Yet work was necessary on farms, even on Sundays, and cattle trains could not be stopped without inflicting suffering. Dairies, too, would be prejudiced by undue severity. Where were they going to draw the line? The Bible gave no clear definition, and hon. members would do well by using proper consideration.

said that universal stoppage on Sundays would mean am enormous loss. The Treasury would suffer, and the smaller fry among the mines would be swallowed by the leviathans. Though he was not against sacrificing money considerations to principle, they had to accept the Minister’s assurance that an exhaustive inquiry would be made, and be would support the Government.

said that he, in common with many other hon. members, was in a dilemma. Be was just as keen as anyone on seeing the batteries closed on Sundays, but in some respects he was a little more anxious than some that the interests and rights of others were respected. (Cries of “We all are.”) The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), consciously or unconsciously, was biassed, and the arguments used by that gentleman’s colleagues did not require any attention at all. (Laughter.) He had listened very patiently. There was a great deal of fuss and fury, but there was no reason and very little argument. It did not influence him in the slightest degree. The hon. member for Commissioner street said that this was another move on the part of the mining representatives in this House, and his colleagues very foolishly said, “Bear, hear.”

(Hear, hear.)

And very foolishly repeats it. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that if the mining-houses wanted something to suit them, they had got it in the report of a Commission which was now on the table of the House. The position as it stood to-day was this: they were torn by conflicting authorities in that House. The Prime Minister had shown a wise and statesmanlike example in this matter. He had advised caution. The hon. members on the cross-benches wanted the shibboleths they had been preaching for years to receive some semblance of acknowledgment, so that they could go and say, “We told you so.” They were responsible to nothing and nobody. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman advised the House to go slowly. In no less serious words did the Minister of the Interior advise the same thing. Were those Ministers part and parcel of a compact to keep the working-man out of his rights? If ever there was an occasion for the dispassionate and calm consideration by a Commission, it was now. He refused to be compelled to be guided by what the hon. members on the cross-benches said. The hon. member for Jeppe was very fond of saying hard things in that House. He never hesitated in using the two-edged sword whenever is suited his purpose, and he must expect it to be used against him. Their authority was nothing to him (Mr. Quinn). If there was a Commission appointed, he would even be in favour of the hon. members on the cross-benches giving evidence, because it would keep them quiet. (Laughter.) No doubt it was so easy to be generous with other people’s money. It was so easy to give vent to one’s religions feelings, one’s theological feelings at the expense of somebody else. The hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) was very eloquent about the wickedness of running the mines on Sundays. He (Mr. Quinn) went to the Docks the other Sunday morning, and he found the place swarming with white men at work. Surely it all tended to this, that to attempt in these days to rule a country like this on strict Sabbatarian principles, if they were going to carry it out, it might be for the good in the end, but before they did it they should be sure where and how they were going to do it. If it were not for the mining industry, the hon. member for Jeppe would not be drawing his £400 a year. (“Order.”)

The hon. member must not be personal.

I was not aware that it was personal. I did not intend to be personal, and I apologise. Proceeding, he asked whether it was not in common knowledge that the Rand provided the best market for the produce of this and the other colonies of South Africa? He had come to the conclusion that the proposal of the Minister for an inquiry was the best that had been put forward. Let them have a Commission to inquire into this question, which was of such a controversial character. If he was there next year his vote would be in favour of the recommendation of the Commission. Was it not better to wait patiently until they had the necessary evidence Carefully weighed, or was it better to rush into these regulations now? What was the best policy to pursue? He did not think there could be two opinions on the matter.

said he would like to appeal to members on both sides of the House to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, or to vote for the Bill without the amendment of the Minister of the Interior, because it was hardly the correct thing to neglect religious considerations for financial ones. If they did so, they should at any rate give the same facilities to other enterprises. The Prime Minister had appealed to them for legislation that would induce capital to come to the country, but he would point out that all over the country there were large areas of undeveloped mineral wealth, in Cape Colony especially, but capital for such development would not have the same inducement as the capital at present invested on the Rand, because in Cape Colony it would be a six-day proposition. Let them have equality of opportunity by all means, but let it be equality of opportunity all round. They were prepared to help the Rand in every possible way, but should not be asked to give the Rand mines a permanent advantage over other mines in the country. Naturally, that would retard development in other districts, thereby keeping out capital instead of attracting it. If they had a Commission to deal with this Sunday law they would find that it would not go far enough, or it would go much too far. He certainly would not vote for the stoppage of trains and trams, because these methods of locomotion were necessary, but it was not necessary to run these mines upon Sundays.

said he had originally no intention of taking part in the debate, but after the vehement speech of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) he had changed his mind. They must put this Sabbatarian line on one side, because if they were logical they would have to carry it further than the mines, and in that connection he would recommend those who were responsible for pushing the Sabbatarian idea forward to read the 58th chapter of Isaiah, and see for themselves what was the proper way of looking at these matters. He did not base much argument upon the loss of capital. De Beers found it convenient to shut down their washing machines on Sundays. The Hon. Minister hazarded the opinion that there was no Sunday Act in the Union. If he had hunted up the matter he would have found that there was a Sunday Act in this Colony.

There are four or five Sunday Acts in the Cape Colony, but what I said was that there was no clause in any of the Cape Acts, or in those of any other Province, which stopped industrial work upon Sundays.

Well, now, my hon. friend is wrong. Unfortunately, when these laws were framed the only industry was agriculture, so that the farmer was the only one who could not do his work upon Sunday. When they spoke about no work on Sunday, it was not from any Sabbatarian standpoint, but because it was necessary for the health of the employees. (Hear, hear.) That was the only logical ground by which they could approach this matter. This work was seriously injurious to health, and if a man worked continuously in a mill he was liable to go deaf. That, of course, was a thing which they knew very well. It was quite as necessary to give a man who worked in a mill a holiday—a day off now and then—as the man who worked in a mine, from the health point of view. But he had hesitated to interpose in the debate, because it went off on another line, the Sabbatarian line, which he did not think was the logical line to pursue. What they had to look at was the health of the employees, and the welfare of the employees. That was the object of the Bill which they had before them, and, therefore, he said that the proper course to pursue was to prescribe that a man should not work for more than six days in the week. They did that at Kimberley, and they could do it in this instance without prescribing any particular day. That was, of course, the logical way of doing what was necessary. He did not suggest it previously for the simple reason that the discussion took a line which he had been unable to follow. And if it was right to stop this working on Sunday, then it was right to do it now instead of putting it off for three or five years, or any number of years. If it was not necessary to stop it, then let it go on. But to let it go on for three years, or to appoint a Commission to go probing the subject, was not, he thought, the right way of going to work. Therefore, he had felt so out of it before that he did not like to interfere. He was really not able to support either side, but naturally if he had had to choose a course, he would have supported the Government. Neither seemed to him to go upon the right line—that was the 48 hours week for all employees on the mines. He would say to his hon. friends on the other side that they had not set up the golden calf for the purpose of worshipping it. That was what The felt. They were not going to be over-ridden. What they should aim at was the health, welfare, and well-being of the employees.

said that the Labour party had been violently attacked by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn), but they had this consolation—that from their experience of the hon. member in the Transvaal, they knew that the views which the expressed to-day with so much vehemence might be directly contradicted by the views expressed by him with equal vehemence six months hence. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell said the whole point was on whom the onus of proving the necessity for Sunday milling should rest—whether it should rest upon that House, or whether it should rest upon those who pouched dividends from the mines. In order that the onus might be placed upon those on whom it should rightly rest, he proposed to withdraw his amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). Then there would be ample opportunity for those concerned in the mining industry to prove that the disasters they now spoke of would really happen. If they could prove that before 1914, there would be ample opportunity for the Government to frame different legislation.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Gape Town (Mr. dagger). Every European race that had come into South Africa had honoured the Sabbath, but now Natal, Cape, and the Free State were asked to sacrifice their principles in this matter in order to benefit a particular industry in the Transvaal.

said that in regard to this matter there was much wisdom in “Festina Lento.” if they introduced legislation which purposed to stop all Sunday work, they would be trying to do an impossible thing—something that had never been attempted in any Christian country. All that they could prevent was Sunday work which was a nuisance to the general public, or which interfered with those who wanted to worship on that day. The question of the religious observance of the Sabbath was a matter for the minister of religion; and they must be extremely careful not to legislate in regard to such a religious question. They could not imbue religious feeling by Act of Parliament. He supported the Government.

said that after all the arguments which had been used, one found the greatest difficulty in coming to a decision. If the question of Sunday labour was one of principle, one single industry only must not be picked out; but if Sunday labour were wrong, there would have to be no Sunday labour at all, no matter what industry was concerned. He thought that the subject being such a difficult one, further investigation was necessary, and so he was at one with the proposal of the Minister of Mines.

said they must either trust the Government in this matter “or move them off the bench.” As far as Biblical precept regarding the observance of the Sabbath was concerned, he took it that that was laid down with a view to assisting in keeping the people healthy. With the same idea they were told to fast. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. A man should only work six days a week. It seemed that the mines would only have to employ an additional 1,400 or 1,500 men in order to give the employees one day off per week. He thought the men ought to have a 48 hours week. He had read the Mining Commission’s report, and he found that it was not very clear whether they were in favour of the stamps coming to a standstill on Sundays. He hoped, if they had a Commission, it would be a condition that they should report within one year. He was afraid that even when they got the report they would not be in a much better position than they were in to-day. He thought, however, that as they had waited so long they could wait a little longer. He regretted that the Government had not been able to find a way of leaving over this particular clause until they had got the report of the Commission. He agreed that if they decided to close down the mills on Sundays they should allow a reasonable period of grace.

said in his opinion the Government had done a great deal to meet hon. members who objected to Sunday work. They had left the mines at present in existence in statu quo, and they had said in the case of new mines there would be no Sunday milling. With regard to the figures quoted by the hon. member for Tembuland, he would point out that the capital was much larger than the amount quoted.

rose to explain that the figures he had quoted he got himself, but he did not understand that the capital had been inflated. Of course, if the capital was inflated the percentage of profit would be much less than what he had said. What the Minister of the Interior was really asking was that the House should endorse the principle that Sunday milling work was permitted on the present mines in the Transvaal. Surely, he said the Commission could report before the end of three years. The House, he thought, should affirm the principle that this work should cease. He withdrew his amendment in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town.

said that he was not yet convinced that the Government were acting rightly. Some hon. members had said that others contravened the law. But was that a reason for changing that law? The hon. member spoke with vigour against Sunday labour on religious grounds, illustrating his remarks with Biblical quotations. He said that such questions as Sabbath observance were matters of conscience—not of money —and everyone had to vote according to his conscience. He did not advise undue haste, however, if any radical change were advised; but they must proceed with caution. It was better to await the proposed Commission’s report. He was not opposed to the mines, but once they were granted a concession they would wish to maintain it.

said that he was against Sunday labour, first of all on the grounds advocated by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), and, secondly, on a question of principle. However, he thought that it was better to observe one particular day of the week as a day of rest; and not have ono man observe Monday, another Tuesday, and so on. The hon. member went on to say that they were at a critical stage in the history of South Africa, and what they did now would have a very great effect on the future. Whatever they did now would be like the thin end of the wedge, and if they decided that the Sabbath should be duly observed, it would have a good effect on the future of Sabbath observance, while if they went in the other direction he thought it would open the way to all sorts of difficulties in the future, and the desecration of the Sabbath. He was in favour of the amendment of Mr. Jagger who, he said, would not have moved it if he thought that it would mean injury to the commercial and industrial interests of the Cape and the Rand.

said that in the Transvaal there was not so much objection to the stamps working on Sundays—it was almost considered as a necessary evil—but what was objected to was the increasing number of Sunday trains and the like, Volunteers shooting on Sundays, Sunday sport, and so forth. He was in favour of a gradual improvement, and for that reason he supported the Government.

put the amendment proposed by Mr. Jagger, to omit all the words after “apply,” which was agreed to.

then put the substitution of the words proposed in lieu thereof, viz., “after the first day of January, 1914,” and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

moved to add the following: “Provided further that every owner as defined by this law who requires the performance of work on Sundays by any employee shall make provision in this behalf for the substitution of one other day in every seven days, on which substituted day such employee may claim exemption from work without losing his right to his full six days’ wage.” He maintained that every employer should make provision that the men in his employ should have one day’s rest in seven without having, deductions made from his wages.

said he could not accept the amendment. It would lead to the destruction of what he considered the most salutary institution of our Christian religion, namely, the Sabbath. If other days might be substituted as a day of rest, the time would soon come when there would be no Sunday. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to point out that the House, by a very large majority, decided that Sunday work at the mills was to continue.

moved: In line 7, after the wards “Provided that” to insert “if any question arise as to the repairs which fall within paragraph (b) or the processes which fall within paragraph (e) of this section the opinion of the Government Mining Engineer shall be conclusive: Provided further that.” The object of the amendment was to place the decision with the Government Mining Engineer as to whether any repairs were to be done on Sundays.

hoped the Minister would reconsider his decision. Surely it was competent for the Courts to decide the matter.

moved the addition of the following proviso at the end of the clause, viz.: “And further provided that in any case where workmen are employed on Sundays or holidays in or about any mine or battery, such workmen shall be paid by the person employing them, during the time they are so employed, wages at the rate of one-and-a-half times the ordinary wages paid to such workmen.” He submitted that by passing such a proviso as this they would reduce the amount of Sunday labour employed to a minimum.

said that the effect of this proviso would be the exact opposite to what the hon. member intended, because it would make Sunday labour the most popular form of labour on the mines, inasmuch as it would be the best paid.

said he thought the argument was a very ingenious one. The proviso might popularise Sunday labour with the men, but not with the employers.

in reply to Mr. SCHREINER, said the reason they on the cross-benches were unable to help him was because they saw how ineffective their efforts were, seeing that the steam roller was in capital order. (Laughter.) He certainly wanted to secure a man one day in seven. They could pass any number of laws, but there was only one way to secure this, and that was to insist that no labour should be done on Sunday, excepting certain necessary work.

The proviso proposed by the Minister of Mines was agreed to.

The provisos proposed by Mr. Schreiner and Mr. H. W. Sampson were negatived.

moved: To add at the end of the clause “The penalty for any contravention whatsoever of the provisions of this section shall be a fine of £500 or, in default of payment, imprisonment not exceeding twelve months with or without hard labour, and a Court of Resident Magistrate shall have special jurisdiction to impose this penalty, anything to the contrary notwithstanding in any law relating to Courts of Resident Magistrate. When any contravention of this section has taken place the owner shall be deemed to be responsible and liable for such contravention.” He said in no single case had anyone pleaded guilty. The penalties inflicted were ludicrously inadequate. Continuing, he said he was continually receiving information that this or that contravention of the Sunday law had taken place.

did not think that the amendment would help them to any extent. It was impossible for the Government to control the Courts. So far as the second part was concerned he mentioned a case where the head had been found to have had nothing to do with the particular contravention. He could assure the hon. member that so far as regulations and administration Were concerned, he would see that the Sunday law was not contravened. He pointed out that under the regulations more responsibility than ever would be fixed on the managers.

said that if the amendment were accepted then they would enlist not only the sympathy but the self-interest of the heads of the mines.

urged the hon. member to withdraw the amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

The amended clause was agreed to.

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