from residents at Pokwani, Vryburg, for remission of unpaid instalments due to the Government on the purchase amounts of their farms.

from Sarah C. de Wet, widow of D. J. de Wet, who suffered losses through the late war and never received any compensation therefor.

from G. A. Martin, who was retired from the public service (Cape).

from C. H. Grove, teacher.

from J. M. Corderoy, retired, from Control and Audit Office, Cape Town.

Public offices at Cradock.

Draft regulations, census to be taken in 1911.

brought up the

said a great deal of interest was being taken in these Bills throughout the country, and he thought members really ought to have more time allowed in which to make themselves familiar with them. He thought the second reading should be postponed to Monday week.

said they knew the session would be coming to a conclusion because of an important event that was taking place elsewhere. Bills were being shovelled into the House at the rate of half-a-dozen at a time. They would like to know what Bills it was proposed to take that session, and which the House would have an opportunity of considering during the recess.

said he had no objection to the second reading being deferred for a few days longer. This was one of the Bills which they regarded as essential to pass this session. As to the others, they would have to take their chance in the running.

The Bill was set down for second reading next Monday, the 13th inst.

asked to what extent the Bill affected existing legislation.

said that no existing law was either amended or abrogated.

The clauses were severally agreed to, whereupon the Bill was reported without amendment.

moved the adoption of the report of the Select Committee on the establishment of the Zand River township, Orange Free State. The Select Committee recommended that, subject to certain conditions and reservations, the application be approved.

The motion was agreed to.

again raised the question of the position of fireworks under this Bill. Under the definition, he said, explosives would embrace all sorts of fireworks. Under the Gape Act of 1887 dealers in fireworks up to a certain weight were exempted, and if the Minister would accept an amendment to exclude dealers in fireworks not exceeding 100 lb. weight, he thought the position would be met. He moved that after the words “explosives magazine,” the following be inserted, “but shall not include any place for staring or keeping fireworks not exceeding 100 1b. in weight.”

said that the hon. member laboured under a misapprehension. If he turned to clause 7, sub-section 3, he would find there that a dealer in explosives would have the conditions of his licence marked upon it. That, he thought, got over the hon. member’s whole difficulty. The amendment was quite unnecessary, because it was not necessary to store fireworks in separate magazines for explosives.

moved the deletion of “fuses” from the definition of “explosives ”

hoped that the Minister would not accept the amendment for the deletion of “fuses,” which were most important in connection with mining. Fuses should be carefully handled and stored. Many serious accidents had resulted from defective fuses.

said that his object in moving the amendment was to make it unnecessary for small dealers to take out a licence under the Act at all. By adopting his amendment, the committee would be following the English precedent.

replying to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus), said that in the matter of fuses a dealer would have the conditions of his licence marked upon it, and he saw no difficulty. They must have “fuses” under the definition of explosives, because they must have power to test them.

Will the small storekeeper have to take out a licence under this Act?

It’s trifling.

said that was exactly what he did not want. The small dealer had to take out a £5 gunpowder licence, and also a £5 magazine licence. He considered that these small people should be treated fairly.

moved a formal amendment in regard to the definition of chief inspector or inspector of explosives.

The amendment was agreed to.

(to the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens): Does the hon. member withdraw his amendment?

Yes; there is no use pressing it.

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

On clause 3, power of Governor-General to appoint inspectors,

moved that in sub-section 2, the words “chief inspector and” be deleted, and the deletion of words, for the purpose: of inserting “unless the death of any person has been causeed.”

said that it seemed to him to be a dangerous principle for an inspector to exercise judicial functions.

said that he did not think that any miscarriage of justice was likely to arise. The same principle had worked very well in the Transvaal.

said that such a man could not possibly be impartial; but he might have technical knowledge. It might be a Transvaal principle, but to his mind it was a very bad principle.

If it is a Transvaal principle, that seems to be sufficient condemnation for the hon. member.

I did not say that.

added that it had worked well in the Transvaal. He assured his hon. friend that there was no reason whatever for an inspector being a party to the business.

said that an inspector was to try a breach of the regulations; but who was to say whether it was a breach or not? There was no appeal anywhere from a decision of an inspector, and he thought that there should be some appeal to the Minister, where a man had been found guilty of a breach of the regulations.

said that he did not think that the objection was well founded. It was not necessary that the inspector should be the complainant in the case.

also thought that that there should be some appeal from the decision of the inspector.

said that the Bill distinctly said that the inspector might be the judge.

said that where the inspector himself was involved in a case, he was not the judge.

said that the clause stated “may” be, not “shall” be.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 4, prohibition of manufacture of unauthorised explosives, except in small quantities, for chemical experiment,

moved that in line 23 the word “he” be deleted, and the following inserted: “such owner or occupier, as the case may be.”

This was agreed to.

On clause 6, prohibition of storage or possession of unauthorised explosives, save in accordance with section 4,

moved that in line 40 the last two words (“of explosives ”) be deleted

Agreed to.

On clause 7,

Verbal amendments were agreed to.

On clause 9, no importation or exportation of explosives without permit,

suggested that Magistrates should be allowed to give certificates.

said that this was for importation from abroad, and that was very limited nowadays, owing to the enormous manufacture of dynamite in South Africa.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 13, particulars to be stated in application,

said the powers of local authorities had to a large extent been taken away in that Bill. Under clause 5 of the Gape Act of 1887, the local authorities had power to say yes or no to the establishment of new explosives factories in their midst. Under the present Bill, all the local authorities could do was to state an objection, but the decision rested with the Commission which considered the application. That raised a rather important point as to whether the night to allow the establishment of explosives factories or stores should not remain in the hands of the local authorities. After all, it was the latter which were responsible for seeing that no damage occurred to the property of citizens. It seemed rather hard to lay down that all that Town Councils could do in this matter was to state an objection.

did not think it was right that local authorities should have the power to veto in this matter. After all, it was a technical question, and should not be decided by local prejudice, but on the merits of the case. He thought the Bill went quite for enough when it gave the local authorities every opportunity of stating their case to an impartial authority. They might have a suitable locality for a factory, but the local authority might take a very foolish view of the matter, and thus might stop enterprise.

The clause was agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 18 were verbally amended.

On clause 22, licences,

said when it came to the licensing of magazines for the storage of explosives, the definition was extremely wide, and he thought they certainly ought to get the consent of the local authorities before these licences were granted. He would move, therefore, after the word “regulations,” in line 38, to add the following: “and with the consent of the local auhority.”

thought unless some words were put in, as the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) suggested, it seemed to him that the inspector would have the power to overrule the local authorities.

thought that Magistrates also should have the power to grant these licences. He moved that the words “or Resident Magistrate” be inserted after the word “inspector.”

pointed out that this was a licence to erect a factory or a magazine. A factory might be very dangerous, and a Magistrate might not know anything about its dangerous nature. It was essential that expert advice should be given before such a licence was granted.

pointed to the fact that there were already licences granted for magazines by Magistrates throughout the country. It would be impossible always to get experts to inspect these places. His hon. friend should differentiate between factories and magazines.

said there were three magazines in Humansdorp, and they went to the Magistrate for these licences. It was not possible to have an inspector stationed there.

said if a man wanted a licence for a magazine, he ought to say what he wanted to keep in it The inspector in his opinion, was the right man to see that it was placed in a safe position. He strongly supported the attitude of the Minister.

said he thought the difficulty could be got over by giving certain discretionary powers to Magistrates to license small magazines.

said there might be a little more time involved, but the taking of the advice of the inspector would insure that the lives of the people would be well protected.

Mr. Rademeyer’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Duncan Baxter’s amendment was carried.

moved in sub-section (2), line 41, to omit all the words after “on conviction to” to the end of the sub-section and to substitute “a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or, in default of payment, to imprisonment not exceeding three months.” He said that he had been in some doubt in regard to moving this amendment. He had discussed the suggested alteration in the clause with the Minister, who apparently was not prepared to agree to it.

also thought the penalty was excessive, considering that the handling of explosives was not so dangerous.

said that the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) had argued the matter with him, and, so for from having convinced him, he (General Smuts) thought he had convinced the hon. member.

said there was a hundred times more danger in connection with a factory than there was in connection with a magazine.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 23,

said that the clause should lay down the duties of the inspectors.

said that the regulations would do so.

Clause 24 was verbally amended.

Oh clause 25, duty of occupier of a factory to make special rules,

moved a new sub-section (3) as follows: “The occupier of any such factory, magazine, or premises shall take all reasonable steps for ensuring or enforcing the observance of any such special rules.”

This was agreed to.

On clause 27, penalties for endangering safety or causing loss of life,

said the clause did not provide for the employer’s responsibility in connection with acts of his employees.

said that the responsibility in question existed under the common law.

moved to increase the maximum penalty for negligently causing an explosion whereby property was endangered from £150 to £250, and for negligently causing an explosion whereby life was endangered from £300 to £500. He also moved that if a person negligently caused an explosion and death resulted, he be made liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds sterling, or in default of payment, to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding two years.

The amendments were agreed to.

Clause 28 was verbally amended.

On clause 29, power of Governor-General to make regulations.

said that no sub-section was provided for the qualification of inspectors. It was highly essential that these officials should be fully qualified. A matter of greater importance was that there was no provision either in the Bill or in the regulations to prevent unscrupulous manufacturers from suborning inspectors.

said that the question of suborning inspectors was one for the general law. With regard to the qualification of inspectors, he said that that was a matter for the administration. He moved to add at the end of the clause: “The regulations may prescribe daily penalties for a continuing contravention or non-compliance, or increased penalties for a second or subsequent contravention or non-compliance. Different regulations may be made in respect of different Provinces, districts, or areas in the Union.”

Agreed to.

On clause 30, saving clause.

referred to the question of small country storekeepers who kept fireworks for sale in retail quantities, and said that as the Bill was framed it would make it impossible for these people to carry on their business. It was a serious matter as for as public convenience was concerned. He moved the following subsection (e): “to the beeping for sale of firearms in such small quantities and subject to such conditions as may be proscribed by regulations.”

said he was prepared to accept the amendment, which was then put and agreed to.

The clause was further amended and agreed to.

On the schedule,

moved a number of amendments with regard to certain Acts, the wrong titles of which had been given, and moved that the right titles be substituted.

The amendments were agreed to,

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

moved in sub-clause 3, line 47, to insert after the word “shall” the following: “With the assistance, if necessary, of an interpreter appointed by the Chief or Resident Magistrate of the district.” The object of the amendment was that an interpreter should be present at any trial, if found necessary.

The amendment was agreed to.

suggested that the words in line 40, “or serious bodily injury,” might be inserted.

thought that the clause was properly drafted.

The clause reads as fallows: “Every inspector of mines, machinery, or explosives may try any breach of a regulation, or of any rule in force under section 5, unless the death of the person has been caused by the breach.”

Dealing with, the second sub-section of the clause, which referred to any such officer having the power for a breach of regulations to impose a fine not exceeding £5, and in default of payment the employer having the right to withhold the amount of the fine from the man’s wages, and pay it over for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund,

said that the point was that these regulations embraced things for more serious. They were really breaches of the law. Now, be supposed that they wanted to do justice, even to the black fellows. Here they had thousands of men who did not know what the regulations were, and he thought that the case should go for review to the Magistrate. They should not fine a man for something that he knew nothing at all about. He commended that matter to the Minister of Native Affairs, who was the guardian of these people. If he were satisfied that justice had been done, it was not for a private individual to intervene; but it seemed to him that they were doing what might lead to injustice. They did not go for review, but for appeal. What was a barbarian who had never heard of these things to know about lodging an appeal? He wished the Minister of Native Affairs could be induced to pay some slight attention to this matter, which affected people under his guardianship.

remarked that it would be a very exceptional ease in which natives would be tried for breaches off the regulations.

did not see that at all. White persons could protect themselves, but no distinction was made between whites and natives. Be a man black or white he should have a fair trial, and he was not so certain that a man was going to get justice, except of the Jedburgh variety, in this case.

The clause, as amended, was adopted.

On clause 11, duty of inspectors to inquire into accidents and power to hold inquiries into other matters,

proposed an amendment making it compulsory to hold an inquiry into accidents of a serious nature.

maintained that where there was loss of life or serious bodily injury was inflicted an inquiry should be held by a magistrate. We recently had a case in which our own lives were in jeopardy; that was on the railway, and a great hullabaloo was raised that it invariably should be a judicial officer who should hold the inquiry. There was a tendency on the part of the Bill to make the thing a close borough, and to ring the changes between the inspector, the mining engineer, and the officials of the mines. He moved to omit certain words and to insert “an inquiry shall be held by a magistrate, justice of the peace, or some officer specially appointed for the purpose.”

moved the insertion after “explosives” of the words “specially appointed by the Minister for the purpose.”

pointed out that in one case a mine, which was on the Limpopo River, was so for away from the nearest town that it would take a week to get there. He did not object to the Minister appointing the person to hold the inquiry, and proposed the insertion of the words, “any Government official deputed by the Minister.” These inquiries would be into breaches of the regulations. As to the Law Department, that did its work slowly and safely, but in the case of inquiries into breaches of the regulations, no delay would be possible, or mining operations might be held up for a long time.

did not think an inspector was the best person to conduct an inquiry. (Cheers.) It was very inconvenient, when they were dealing with hundreds of thousands of men congregated in one area for the Minister to pick out an obscure mine hundreds of miles away, and base his argument on that. If a murder was to take place at Leydsdorp, he supposed some judicial inquiry would take place.

No.

All that I can say is that state of affairs casts more reflection on the territory of my hon. friend than I should have been tempted to cast. He knows that it is not so. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said a ladder down a mine might give way, and five or ten men might be killed. The inspector who had inspected the mine would be responsible for that ladder, and yet he would be put to try the matter. The inspector was not going to blame himself. Some independent inquiry should be held, and he suggested that the clause should be altered so that these inquiries could be conducted by a magistrate, field-comet, justice of the peace, or person appointed by the Minister.

said the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had put his finger upon one of the difficulties. The whole of the inspector’s time was taken up with fencing regulation after an accident had occurred.

said he was surprised that the hon. member, with the technical and practical knowledge of the mines he possessed, thought a field-cornet was a man capable of holding an inquiry into a mining accident.

pointed out that in a certain mining accident, involving serious consequences, the inspector reported that all had been done that could be done, but it was afterwards found that a ladder had not been repaired. A man who was an inspector within a certain area knew the managers of the mines, and he perhaps would not look into an accident with the same keenness as a man who had been specially appointed.

said he did not suggest that field-cornets should be called in to inspect highly-complicated systems as the Witwatersrand Mines, but a field-cornet, he thought, was quite capable of inquiring into an accident on a small outlying property.

pointed out that there were only 50 actual inspectors connected with the department. What was really wanted was a better inspection of the mines.

said his amendment was to the effect that an inquiry should be conducted by a magistrate, field-cornet, justice of the peace, or other official appointed for the purpose.

Leave out “field-cornet.”

Well, I have no objection.

pointed out that there was an average of 20 inquiries per day in the Witwatersrand alone, which had to be conducted down in the mines. If these had to be conducted by magistrates they would have to increase the bench of magistrates. These inquiries by inspectors only referred to breaches of regulations.

said his hon. friend had not read his own Act, because it said nothing about a breach of regulations. It says accidents endangering life and limb, or causing death. What was wanted was some independent man to conduct this inquiry. The statement that there were 20 serious accidents on the Rand was, in his opinion simply a rhetorical flight by his hon. friend.

pointed out that the Minister did not say that there were 20 accidents; he said there were 20 inquiries, not necessarily breaches of the regulations.

objected to his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) applying the words “rhetorical flight” to the statement he made. The inspector inquired into an accident, but he had nothing to do with the result. It might be that someone lost his life, then the matter would be inquired into by the Judiciary. The principle was the same as the Gaika Loop disaster, where an inquiry was held by the railway authorities. If anyone was guilty then the law would take its course, but at the stage where the inspector was called in, it was simply a technical inquiry.

said the matter was a very serious one indeed, because in this sub-section on clause 11, there was no single word concerning any breach of regulations. All that he contended was that a serious accident should be inquired into by a judicial officer or some other independent person. The number of accidents in the Transvaal was sufficiently serious, because he found that in the whole of the mines—coal, gold, diamond mines, and so on—the rate was about six per diem.

said that in an accident inquiry a question might arise as to the instructions given by the inspector. If the accident resulted from dereliction of duty on the inspector’s part it was not right to put the inquiry into his hands.

said that these inquiries were only public in a technical sense. They were not really public inquiries. If a magisterial inquiry were held, it would be open to the press representatives.

pointed out that it was a complaint of inspectors that their time was fully occupied with these inquiries, so that they could not devote sufficient time to their duties proper, which were to inspect mines and prevent accidents.

said it did not appear to him how the judicial authorities were to be informed of any accident involving death or endangering life. As for as his experience went, in the majority of these inquiries the public heard nothing about them. He also thought that in accidents causing death or endangering life a full report of the inquiry should be sent to the Attorney-General’s Department.

said that pretty well every accident of a serious nature that occurred went into the papers. He did not think there was any accident involving loss of life which did not get into the papers. It certainly could not be said that the public did not know about these cases. In many cases, if they had a judicial inquiry they would not get as good an inquiry owing to the technical matters involved as they would before an inspector.

said that the Government inspector was responsible for seeing that the mine was properly conducted. It was a duty cast upon him. He neglected it, through indifference, or, perhaps, owing to casual methods, and a fatal accident took place, say, for instance, the hauling gear was not in order. They then asked that man to carry out an inquiry into the cause of that accident. Was it likely that the inspector was going to say that it was owing to his negligence in inspecting the hauling rope? He would find some other good reason.

said he did not believe that this alteration which it was proposed to effect would make for better inquiries in cases of accident to life and limb than they had under inspectors. It was extremely unlikely in any complicated case of, let us say, a fall of ground, that the Magistrate would elicit any more than the inspectors would. It seemed, to him that only in very rare cases would the Magistrate be able to throw nearly as much light upon the cause of an accident as the inspector would. The cases would always be either an unavoidable accident, or whether the mine manager, who was responsible finally, had been carrying out the rules and regulations or not.

Supposing the regulations have not been carried out, and it is the inspector’s duty to see that they are carried out?

said that the regulations insisted upon the mine keeping a book in which, specific statements were made as to when the ropes were examined. In these cases usually a certain amount of knowledge of the mine was required, and he believed the inspector was more likely to get at the truth than someone who had nothing whatever to do with mining matters.

said that the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had stated that there were a large number of accidents into which no proper inquiries were made. Looking at the report of the Government Mining Engineering Department, however, he found that last year there were 479 eases, and that of that number 150 came before the Magistrate, and he thought it would be a pity if it went forth that no proper inquiries were made, when, as a matter of fact, there were a large number of inquiries, and a large number of convictions too. As regarded the remark that inspectors were not independent, he wished to say that if they were not satisfied with their inquiries then they would have to increase their staff very largely. As everyone knew, every effort was made to reduce the number of accidents, and in regard to the regulations, he wished to say that no industry in the world had such stringent regulations as the mining industry in the Transvaal. As to the inspectors, all he could say was that he had had a great deal to do with them during the last three and twenty years, and had always found them to be strictly impartial. Whenever a serious accident occurred he always made a point to proceed to the spot, and he must say that the inquiries had always been carried out by the inspectors in the most impartial manner possible.

said that the work of the inspectors should be confined to inspecting, and if they appeared at inquiries as witnesses instead of as magistrates and judges, he thought the effect would be a reduction in the number of accidente.

said that an inspector would be required for each mine if the duties as described by the hon. member for Jeppe and the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Creswell and Mr. Merriman) were to be carried out. The inspectors were absolutely impartial as for as he was acquainted with them. If they were going to have the inspectors perform the duties described by the two hon. members he had referred to, it would mean that they would have to reorganise the whole system which existed on the Rand to-day. That system had worked well for twenty years, and were they going to have an army of inspectors to do this work? If so, they were going to run the country into a lot of extra expense, and he was surprised at the right hon. member for Victoria West, who advocated this enormous expense.

said he hoped the Minister would accept the suggestion for the appointment of special inspectors. There seemed a great deal in the argument that an inspector constantly in a mine might be biassed in favour of himself, and so it did not seem to be too much to ask that there should be a staff of special inspectors for this work. The suggestion would provide for inquiries being conducted by technical men, and would at the same time serve to eliminate the possibility of a technical man not suffering for his responsibility. He therefore moved that the words “specially appointed by the Minister for that purpose” be inserted.

said that the trouble was that as regarded a great many accidents, the inspectors were in no way concerned, and might very well hold inquiries. Of course, there might be cases where inspectors would be interested, but these were cases where inspectors should be sent from other districts. The special appointments would mean that quite a number of officials would have to be appointed, and he wanted, if possible, to avoid that.

said there was no question of appointing extra inspectors. If they took from the inspectors the duties which they performed at present, naturally their areas would be increased, and fewer would be required. He did not think it would be possible for the Minister to say when an accident occurred, whether or not the local inspector was to blame, when he wanted no independent men.

said that many accidents could have been prevented if there had been proper inspection, and many of the accidents which had occurred should have been put under the heading of “defective plant and material.”

said that he had an amendment which he thought would meet the difficulty. He moved that at the end of sub-section one the following words be added: “sent for that purpose by the Government Mining Engineer, provided that such inspector shall not be directly or indirectly connected with such accident.” It would then come to this: that when there was an accident an inspector was to be sent, who should be sent by the Government Mining Engineer for that purpose, and who would not directly or indirectly be connected with that accident. They could then not possibly have an inspector who would be adjudicating on his own case.

said that the machinery for inquiring into these accidents had been working at Kimberley for the past twenty-five years, and had answered very well.

In view of the difficulties which have been raised to this clause, it is perhaps necessary to frame the clause somewhat differently, and none of the amendments which have been brought forward have, if I may say so, satisfied me. The best thing will, I think, be to let the clause stand over, so that amendments may be framed more adequately to meet the case. He moved that the clause stand over.

was understood to say that, in terms of Mr. dagger’s amendment, eight more inspectors would be necessary.

said that some provision should be made for the holding of the inquiry without loss of time. He alluded to the loss of wages of miners who were under suspension, and who had later been found not guilty.

The motion was agreed to, and the clause was allowed to stand over.

On clause 12, powers of inspectors at trial or inquiry,

thought that that clause should also stand over.

did not think that necessary. “It simply describes the procedure which is to be followed at an inquiry,” he said, “and is quite independent of the previous clause.”

moved to add the following new sub-section, viz.: “(6) Any person whose conduct forms or may form the subject matter of any such trial or inquiry shall be entitled to be present and to cross-examine the witnesses called by such officer, and, in manner prescribed by regulation, to call witnesses to give evidence or to produce documents or any other article or thing requisite for his defence. He shall further be entitled to be represented at all stages of the trial or inquiry (as the case may be) by a person duly appointed by him.” There was nothing at all now (said the hon. member) to check a fellow-workman, out of spite, perhaps, making a false statement, if a man was not allowed to be present or represented at the trial.

said that the difficulty which might arise was that the man might be injured, and might not be able to attend the trial which would thus have to be postponed until the man could be present.

said the amendment would give the man a right to be present. Matters might take place at these inquiries which afterwards might be brought forward as a reason for a man not receiving compensation. He mentioned a case in which the representative of an injured man had been refused permission to be present at an inquiry.

said there was a great deal to be said for the amendment. Amendments, he proceeded, were flung there that had not been considered, and the House was supposed to vote on them on the spur of the moment. Finally, the Minister said he could not accept the amendment, his principal objection being to the words, “or may form.” He suggested that the consideration of the clause should stand over. (Hear, hear.)

It was agreed that the clause should stand over

On clause 13, general powers of inspectors of mines, machinery, and explosives,

moved the deletion of the portion of the clause preventing an inspector making an inspection if he impeded or obstructed the working of the mine or the carrying on of the works.

said he did not object to the proviso, although he did not think it was in the public interest to give an inspector such very large powers.

said there were several other reasons why this amendment should not be accepted. In his opinion if there were no co-operation between the inspectors and the mine managers then he believed it would be a very bad thing indeed. The amendment was simply absurd, and he hoped the Minister would not accept it.

supported the amendment. It was, in his opinion, a matter of importance that an inspector should have the fullest powers. This was necessary if they wanted him to be trustworthy. He thought if the Minister would insert the word “unnecessarily” instead of deleting the whole clause, that would meet the case.

said everybody connected with the mining industry, it seemed to him, were thoroughly Trustworthy except those who were in charge and were directing the operations of the mines. (Laughter.) In no case had it been proved that an inspector had beer, refused facilities for going down a mine.

said that there was no reflection at all on the mine managers in providing for surprise visits. He moved as an amendment to insert “unreasonably” before “impede.”

said he did not believe there was a single case of what had been alleged, that the tip had been given of an inspector coming down, except from the workmen themselves. His hon. friends on his right did not seem to know much about mines. It was now claimed that power should be given when the inspector went down a mine to stop operations. He would like to know what the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) would think if it were proposed to stop people in his warehouse from going about while the inspector was looking at the lift. “I say,” vigorously exclaimed Mr. Phillips, “it is an outrage; it is absolute nonsense.”

said that he had previously had to inform the hon. member (Mr. Phillips) that he did not know much about the administration of the mines from which he drew his dividends. Be had insinuated that the workmen were the only people to transmit intelligence of the arrival of the Inspector of Mines or any other inspector. In a great many cases the hon. member was perfectly correct, and they did it at the instance of the officials. He had had the information direct from the engineer’s office on more than two or three occasions. Mr. Madeley at this stage moved to report progress.

The motion was agreed to, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.