moved: To omit paragraph (1) and substitute the following new paragraph: “(1) Any person who either in a territory which now or hereafter forms part of the Union or elsewhere, (a) has been convicted, before or after the commencement of this Act, of an offence mentioned in the schedule there to, and (b) has been thereafter convicted, before or after the commencement of this Act, of the same offence or another offence mentioned in the schedule to this Act, shall, if he be again convicted after such commencement of any one of the offences mentioned in the said schedule before a superior court within the Union, be liable to be declared an habitual criminal by the judge presiding over that court.”

Agreed to.

moved to include the words, “habitual drunkard.” He was aware that it had been said in this House that a drunkard was not a criminal, but he believed he was within right and reason in saying that no one crime in the list was attended by one-tenth part of the consequences as that of habitual drunkenness. He had received a great many letters urging him very strongly that, as they were starting a new nation, they should take up this attitude of dealing with the habitual drunkard. It was essential that they should protect the women who became the wives of habitual drunkards and the mothers of their children. All the evidence went to prove that the children of habitual drunkards did not have a fair start in life, and it was about time that they took some steps, not only with regard to the future, but with regard to the present. He spoke in the interests of the young people, who would have to step into their places some day. They would have sufficient problems to face of their own, and it was a cowardly thing to shirk these problems now. The hon. member gave several illustrations to prove his contention that the children of habitual drunkards were most unfortunately handicapped. There was no fad about his request; it was really a scientific demand. In Australia, habitual drunkenness was a ground for divorce. Several of the doctors who gave evidence in the British Commission on Divorce recommended that habitual drunkards should no longer be allowed to be parents. He asked that a habitual drunkard should be segregated for three years, and after that time, if it was found that his health was good and his will-power strong enough to resist the craving for drink, he could then be released. He appealed to the Minister’s highest instincts, and he asked him to consider the case of the young men and the young women, and accept his amendment.

hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment. (Hear, hear.) Habitual drunkenness was, in the opinion of medical men, a disease, and not a crime. Were they going to condemn a young man who had given way for three nights out of three months, and send him away for a lengthy period on that account? Dipsomaniacs were made by the action of alcohol upon the human body.

“ If the hon. member’s knowledge were equal to his sincerity, he would have said half of what be has said now.” (Laughter.) The hon. member added that if Mr. Schreiner said that it was not criminal to bring lunatics and epileptics into the world, he (Dr. Haggar) certainly did not agree with him. He quoted Dr. Saleeby about habitual drunkards not being fit to have children. “Most children are born sober” was one of the statements which caused a good deal of amusement amongst hon. members. “This is not a comedy,” said Dr. Haggar, “but there is a good deal of tragedy and pathos in it.” The hon. member also quoted from Drs. A. Reid, McAdam, Sullivan, Branthwaite, Mott, Urquhart, and Flett about the serious effect on the children of parents who were alcoholics. If there were any greater living authorities in the world than those he had just quoted, he salid he would be glad to know where they were, and when he had the time he would communicate with them. The hon. member added that the problem was one which had to be tackled, and they should not be too cowardly to do so. They should prevent children being born into the community who were poisoned from the start, and handicapped through life.

said he failed to see what use it would be to add the words “habitual drunkards” to the schedule. The persons who were dealt with in the schedule were those who were dealt with by the superior court, and habitual drunkards were dealt with by the magistrate. He hoped that the amendment would not be agreed to.

said that Dr. Haggar’s authorities were his authorities—(laughter)—and they all went to prove that drunkenness was a disease— not a crime; and that habitual drunkards were suffering from a disease, but were not criminals.

hoped that hon. members would not further use the time of the House on that subject, as he thought it was clear that the majority of the House was against the amendment.

said he had only endeavoured to give the committee the plain truth. If it was studied by hon. members, he would be satisfied. He withdrew the amendment

The schedule was adopted, whereupon the Bill was reported, with amendments.

The consideration of the amendments was sec down for Monday next.

moved: That the following be a new clause: “3 Any such person as is described in section 2 who is appointed after the commencement of this Act to an office in that section mentioned shall be entitled to retire there from or as the case may be) may be removed from any such office in the circumstances described in and upon a pension ascertained according to that section; provided that anything to the contrary notwithstanding in section 2 contained, the maximum pension payable to any person under this section shall not exceed: (a) In the case of the Chief Justice of South Africa, £2,000 per annum; (b) in the case of an ordinary Judge of Appeal or a Judge-President of a Provincial or Bocal Division, £1,500 per annum; (c) in the case of a Judge of a Provincial or a Local Division, £1,200 per annum.”

said that he was not opposed to these pensions because Judges were concerned, but because he was opposed to the principle of the thing. Such things were opposed to the best interests of the country. Moreover, he did not see why one man should get a bigger pension than another. He alluded to the pension of £1,000 granted, ex-President Steyn, and asked why a Judge should receive more than the former, who had sacrificed so much for the country. He would support high salaries being paid Judges, but when it came to a pension matter, he said that a man should not receive a pension that was a salary in itself. He moved the substitution of £1,500 for £2,000, and £1,300 for £1,500.

supported the amendmemt. He was in favour of substantial salaries, but the size of the pension list filled him with apprehension.

said that the poorest in the land had to pay taxes, whether times were good or bad, and yet they proposed to grant such very liberal pensions to men who were most liberally paid. It was easy to be generous—if one got someone else to-pay the money. (Laughter.) A pension of £1,000 a year, he considered, would be quite fair and just for ordinary Judges, £)l,200 to go to the Chief Justice.

said that although he had pledged himself to economical administration, he was totally opposed to the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown). He objected to the committee wasting so much of its time upon a matter which would not amount to £500 a year, when there were much Larger matters ready for its consideration.

said that the hon. member for Durban, Central (Sir David Hunter) had described this question as not being worthy of discussion in that House. To his (the speaker’s) mind, however, it was one o-f the first duties of the House to guard the public purse, and this proposal, so far as the taxpayer was concerned, was a matter of very considerable importance. But he rose to ask the Minister of Justice to explain to the committee exactly how this new clause differed in effect from clause 2 so far as £ s. d. was concerned. Now, if these provisions became law, he was confident that whatever verdict the first Union Parliament might come to, it would never be accused of having been too parsimonious, because these provisions were more than liberal. He was going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown), because he there laid down the principle that there should be a maximum in regard to all these pensions. He thought that if this country paid any man a pension of £1,500 for his services, no matter how distinguished, it was doing its duty to that person. The other day he got a return of the pensions paid by the Imperial Government to its public service, and he was surprised to find how, from the taxpayer’s point of view, the pension list in this country had swollen,. According to the latest returns, Great Britain to-day had a civil list amounting roughly to £800,000 per annum, excluding railway pensions, because there were none. The pension list in this country was rather more than half of the Imperial pension civil list It amounted to over £400,000.

Including railways?

Excluding railways The railway pensions are a further £126,000.

Hear, hear.

said that here with a revenue, exclusive of the railway revenue, of £16,000,000, they had a pension fund of £420,000. Great Britain with a revenue of—he thought he was right £175,000,000 had a civil pension list of 800,000. He was perfectly certain that they would soon have to deal with the whole pension fund of this country He would remind his friend the Minister of Justice that every Australian colony, with the exception of Western Australia—and its pension fund was only a matter of five or six years’ growth—and the great Dominion of Canada had at one time or another been compelled to tear up its Pension Fund. No one in that House wanted to see this country tear up its pension list, but they could not go on as they had been, going on in the past. They could not pay these exorbitant pensions any longer. The time had come to cry a halt. He asked hon. members to tread the Imperial Blue-book, and see the large pensions which were paid in this country. He took the ease of Bond Cromer, who had rendered distinguished service to Great Britain. He had served Great Britain as her chief representative in Egypt for 24 years, land after that and other services in other parts of the world he retired with a pension of what?—£900 a year. (Ministerial “Hear, hears,” and cries of “(Shame.”) One retired Magistrate in this country drew a pension of over £900 a year.

Hear, hear.

said that the highest pensions paid in Great Britain amounted to £1,700. But to whom were they paid? Two distinguished men who had occupied positions in foreign countries as Ambassadors. Now, they proposed in this country, which had a revenue of £16,000,000, exclusive of railway revenue, to pay such pensions as £2,000 and £3,000. If they passed these large pensions to-day they would regret it to-morrow, and perhaps do a great injustice to the public service of to-morrow. He hoped the Minister would not go to the extreme in the matter. They paid their Judges well, but there was a limit, and to propose these high pensions was too much for this country. He hoped the Minister would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers, and deal with the matter of pensions fairly.

said the arguments advanced applied to pensions in general, but the pensions of Judges were on a different footing. Judges had to be selected from a very limited class of men— men who had made their reputations, who had extensive practices, and who were earning large incomes. No other man was capable of adequately filling the position. Mr. Merriman had said that Judges did not care about money, but were influenced by the honour of serving their country. Judges looked at the latter, but they could not be blind to the monetary side. He (Mr. Duncan) agreed that the pension list was too large.

Hear, hear.

But the effect of reducing the Judges’ pensions would deter good men from going on the bench. He would support the Minister’s amendment, and would point out that the amount of the pension was trifling as compared with the loss that would result from any lowering of the position of Judges.

was glad that Mr. Duncan had said that the pension list was too large, because he hoped to have the hon. member’s assistance in dealing with it later on. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Duncan had a right to speak on the subject of pensions, because he had given a noble example in this matter. (Cheers.) But he (Mr. Merriman) thought the hon. member went too far. It was useless talking about the size of the pension list if they gave these abnormally high pensions to Judges. Everything was screwed up to the top. High salaries did not necessarily bring efficient men. That was not the place to go into the matter, but he could prove his contention. (Hear, hear.) Judges all over the world were paid salaries but little higher than we proposed to pay as pensions. (Cheers.) The Judges held themselves aloof from the rest of the Civil Service. When the Cape had to place its Civil Servants under cruel disabilities, the Judges stood out and drew the last penny they were entitled to. They did not share the sufferings of their fellow-public servants during the years of retrenchment. If the House proposed to deal with the pension list, it must make a beginning now. (Cheers.) Hereafter it would be possible to increase the Judges’ pensions if it were thought necessary and desirable, but if they once put those pensions on the higher scale they would never get them down again, for there would be the old cry of “vested interests.” Therefore, he said, let them begin with the moderate but just proposal of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown), for which he would certainly vote. Everybody who wished to do well by this country, and had an eye to its future, would do well to vote for that proposal. Was it not an appalling pension list that we had? The Minister of Finance did well to place on the table the pension list, so that he could bring home to everybody the burden under which the country was groaning. (Cheers.) It was possible for us to have lean years. We might be on the crest of a wave, and later on we might have to find superannuation allowances for our little army of 25,000 Civil Servants. We must be careful of what we were doing, and not rush in as though we were the wealthiest country in the world. The ten-bobber might yet be called upon, and there was no greater steadying factor than that. Just wait until they put 10s. on every voter again, and then there would not be that amiable cry for high salaries in high places. We were sailing along now with plenty of sail set, but the time might, come when we would have to take in sail.

said a great many of the hon. members had spoken against high pensions, but the hon. member for George had presented a petition asking for pensions.

I have not presented a petition this session. (Laughter.)

Then it must be one of the hon. member’s friends. Proceeding, Mr. Botha said unless a Judge was given a pension, he might remain on the Bench so long that litigants whose cases he heard might suffer, for Judges might retain their positions when they were too old for them.

said that it positively amazed him to note the spirit with which some hon. members had treated the whole matter—the light-hearted spirit, he called it. It amazed him to hear Mr. Merriman and Mr. Currey speak in the way in which they had spoken, and the thought that the subject would have been discussed in what he would call a more worthy spirit, for that question was one of the utmost importance to South Africa and the future of South Africa. It was not a question of your Judges of to-day, or your Judges of to-morrow, but it was a question which affected the whole people; it was the most important question which could affect any people— the status of the Judges in the highest Court of the land. When that question had been last before the House, it had been proposed that the maximum pension a Judge should get was two-thirds of his salary; that was, that the pension would be the same as it had been in the past, and what it was at the present time. And never had any person in any of the colonies, nor had the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey), nor his fellow-champion (Mr. Merriman), ever said a word against these maximum pensions being too high. Never. Now (the continued) they bad not got to leal with the separate colonies, but with the whole of South Africa, The position was that, as far as the Union of South Africa was concerned, they had done away with the highest Court of Appeal—the Privy Council—one of the most important Courts in the world—and substituted in its stead their own Court of Appeal. They had appointed their Judges of that Appeal Court, and a Chief Justice of the Union. The Chief of the Count of Appeal would now get less than the Chief Justice of one of the colonies. He would Like to ask any of these hon. gentlemen who had spoken against the proposed scale of pensions what would happen if they ever got a Court of Appeal which was not efficient, and which could not carry out the duties which had been, imposed on it by the South Africa Act? And yet the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had spoken in that light-hearted way. He had said that large salaries did not necessarily mean that you got a good man. Of course, large salaries did not necessarily mean high qualities. There were exceptions, of course—where a, man drawing a low salary proved to be a most capable man; but these were exceptions— not the rule; and they were not now providing for the exceptions. They must not look for the exceptions when they were dealing with such an important matter as the present; what they must look to was the rule Mr. Currey had alluded to Lord Cromer and his pension. Well, there were a number of persons who had served their country for 20 years or more who did not have a pension at all. And did the hon. member not know that Lord Cromer had received a grant of some £30,000 or £40,000 from the House of Commons? He bad forgotten to say that.

That is not a pension.

The hon. member says that is not his pension; but if you give me £30,000 or £40,000, I don’t want a pension. (Laughter.)

But if he deserves it?

proceeded to ask why they should make an attempt to reduce the pensions which the Judges might possibly get? The high pension list of the Cape had been referred to; but be wanted to ask hon. members how many Judges were enjoying pensions out of that £250,000? Just one. And he doubted whether there had been more than one Judge in the Cape who had ever enjoyed his pension. He would tell the hon. member where that high pension list came from. There had been a system in vogue in the Cace Colony under which a petition for a pension which had been sent to the House, got referred to the Pension Committee; the door was shut, and £100 to £200 might be granted to a person who had not the slightest right to it. It did not amaze him, then, hat there was such a big pension list in the Cape as there was at the present time, and that in ten years’ time it would have grown to half a million. When Judges were raised do the Bench, he proceeded, they were usually about 50 years old or more, and they remained on the Bench and did not leave it unless they had practically one foot in the grave; and when they did leave they might have a year or two to live—with some exceptions. The Chief Justice’s pension of £2,000 was now objected to, and some of them wanted to reduce it to £1,500. What chance did there exist of getting a capable Chief Justice in future if it were known that the pension had been reduced? The position of Chief Justice was a most important one, and it was in the interest of the whole of South Africa that they should be able to get the best possible jurist as Chief Justice when that position had to be filled. If they reduced these pensions, did they think they would get an efficient Bench? He would say without the slightest hesitation that it was impossible. Why he thought that they would not probably get the best man as Chief Justice if the pension were reduced was because the Chief Justice must be the most capable man who had practised at the Bar in South Africa: and there would be only one reason why such a leader at the Bar would leave it to go on the Bench, and that was that in case illness attacked him he would have the prospect of still getting a substantial income. That was the great attraction as far as the Bench was concerned, and a much greater attraction than a high salary given while a man was an occupant of the Bench. If they did reduce the pension which the Chief Justice would get, he assured the House that if they went to the Bar and invited a prominent man to become Chief Justice they would not be able to obtain one. He was convinced of it. The same applied to the Judges of the Court of Appeal and the Judge-Presidents of the various Provinces. The pension was very seldom enjoyed, as a matter of fact, and yet it remained the greatest attraction to the Bench. He would say in the first place that the Exchequer would not be in a better condition if the amendment were carried; and if they did reduce these pensions they would not in future be able to rely on obtaining the besr men as Judges. He had considered that matter very carefully, and he did not feel justified in accepting the amendment of Mr. Brown. If he agreed to that amendment being carried, he knew that it would have a serious effect on the future Bench of the country, and he would not be doing his duty if, knowing as he did what an effect that amendment would have, he accepted it. He did not think hon. members who had spoken in favour of these pensions being reduced had taken into consideration what dire results might follow if the amendment were carried. They had not thought of what evil would befall South Africa if they had a had and inefficient Bench; and they would have done something on which they could not go back. They had had a capable Bench so far in South Africa, and he hoped that nothing would be done to alter that in future.

moved, as an amendment, that the figures should be £1,500, £1,200, and £1,000. He did not think, he said, that the position of the Judges was so woeful as had been represented to the committee. If a Judge was paid well, he should be able to make provision for his old days. He pointed out they were asked to do very little entertainment, and he found on the Estimates a sum of no less than £10,000 set down for circuit expenses.

supported Mr. Fichardt, and seconded his amendment. He alluded to the salaries which the old Free State Judges, like Judges Steyn and Hertzog, had received—£1,400 a year, and no increase—and excellent Judges they had been. (Cheers.) Judge Melius de Villiers—that renowned man—had only received £1,800. He thought that the proposed pensions were too high for South Africa, and that South Africa was not rich enough to stand that big pension list in future. They must cut their coat according to their cloth, lest it should become necessary to start cutting down in the future, which would assuredly lead to an outcry.

said he preferred the amendment that had just been moved to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Three Rivers. The Minister, as far as he had been able to gather, had not dealt with the arguments that had been advanced by members on that side of the House. He thought that the salaries that they were paying were quite adequate, and said that on that scale they could get the best men in Africa to come on the Bench. He wondered how many men at the Bar made higher incomes? One or two brilliant men might do so; but he pointed out that a breakdown in health meant a breakdown of income. The second question was, whether the pensions that had been provided would deter these men from the Bench? What man, he asked, would be deterred by such a consideration? He did not think it would deter anybody. At the same time he would ask all the Ministers to keep an eye on the pension fund. Their pension fund was assuming dangerous proportions, and they would, if they d.id not watch it, be in danger of repudiating their pension fund, as had happened in other countries. He pointed out that they were not making adequate provision for the pensions they were paying. If, in spite of that, they piled up pensions, then he said they were not doing the right thing in not having proper security.

said that, those who had objected to these high pensions were certainly not against the adequate, or even high, payment of the Judges, but it was only the question of the high pensions which they were considering. The present salaries paid to the Judges were such that they could get the best men from the Bar to take on a position as Judge. The amounts would enable them to save sufficient money, and after they retired they got a decent pension, so that they could live pretty respectably. It was not only the question of the Judges’ pensions which they were considering, but the whole pension list, which was considered by many to be too high; and they thought that an effort must be made as soon as possible to cut down that tremendous and growing sum.

said he would not join in the popular cry for retrenchment. It was difficult to get senior counsel to accept judgeships, the work of the Bench was pretty hard, and not so easy as some people seemed to think. They must do everything possible to get the most capable men they could get as Judges, and if they did not, the country would suffer. That being so, he could not take it upon himself to vote for the amendment.

said that during that session no less than 269 petitions had been received from persons asking for pensions, and that showed an abnormal state of affairs. In fact, the pension list was so big that it worked out at 8s. 4d. per head of the European population. The Judges, he had been informed, did not contribute to the Pension Fund; and he did not see why they should not do so, like other public servants. As to what had been said about hon. members presenting petitions asking for pensions, well, that was all hon. members could do if they did their duty to their constituents. They presented the petition, and left the House to decide on the matter. The hon. member, in the course of some further remarks, agreed with the hon, member for Lady-brand’s amendment, and said that although in the old Free State they had had very capable men as Judges, including General Hertzog, the salaries had been low, and there had been no pension. Yet, had these Judges been inefficient as a result?

said that according to the Estimates the total amount to be paid in pensions by the Union during the financial year into which they were about to enter was £572,300, divided up as follows: General account, £419,300; railway account, £125,000; and harbour account, £28,000.

said that he did not think the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) wished to mislead the House, but it was unfair of him to compare the English figures with the South African figures. The English people paid for pensions as they arose, whereas in this country they paid in advance for pensions, many of which might not accrue for 40 years. In fact, they were paying for pensions 40 years in advance.

What difference does that make?

What about the loss on the Pension Fund?

The loss on the Pension Fund is another matter. Proceeding, he said he agreed with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir Edgar Walton) that something ought to be done in the matter of pensions. He wished hon. members would look at the Estimates, and they would see where the trouble came in, and he was sorry to say that the Cape had been a very large contributor—it had contributed very much more than its share— to the trouble. As to the £419,000 on general account, over £86,000 was for future pensions. Then, they had £31,000 for the war; and £40,000 was being paid for invalid pensions. That was one of the great scandals of the Cape system, he was sorry to say. They only had £150,000 for ordinary pensions. Fancy, he said, £40,000 was being paid to what were called invalids, who, however, were walking about the streets of Cape Town in the pink of health, and were putting some hon. members of the House to shame as regards robust appearance. They had another thing. They gave £99,000 as compensation for pensions which had not been earned. Then they were paying for compassionate allowances for a set of Civil Servants who did not earn them. Therefore, they were paying more for exceptional grants than for ordinary grants, and in this respect the Cape was the worst sinner. They paid men enormous sums for invalid pensions and as compensation because they abolished their offices, put them on pension, created their offices again, and paid salaries over again. In the matter of the Judges’ pensions, which were now before the committee, he thought that the energy shown by hon. members had been misdirected, and he hoped that it would be directed towards the enormous sums which they would have to deal with when the pensions of the Civil Service generally were considered. They had but one Judge who was enjoying a pension of £1,385, and under the Minister’s scheme he would get £1,200, and the country would be saved £185. Under the scheme of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown), he would also get £1,200. There was therefore, no saving at all. He considered that it was most unjust to deal with the question of Judges’ pensions in this stringent way, when they were leaving the Civil Service entirely untouched. When hon. members opposite were in office in the Cape, they raised the salaries of some of the chief members of the Civil Service by large amounts. The General Manager of Railways got £2,500. and a pension of over £1,600; whilst a Judge of Appeal would be cut down to £1,300. Surely that was a most unjust thing. He could understand it if the whole question of pensions were being gone into. Then it would be fair enough. To go into the question piecemeal, beginning with the Judges, was bad enough, but to suggest that the pensions of Judges of Appeal should be lower than that of the General Manager of Railways was really unjust. He was not going to vote for either of the amendments.

was understood to say that he would vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Lady-brand (Mr. Fichardt). In asking that the pensions be reduced, they were not singling out anyone, but at the very earliest opportunity they were laying down a principle of economy. The House in this matter was legislating for the future, when it was hoped that the cost of living would be reduced. The amendments of Mr. Fichardt and Mr. Brown were perfectly reasonable, and in supporting them hon. members would be laying down the principle that they must have greater economy in administration. (Cheers.)

said there was no doubt that the pension list was growing too rapidly, but it would be a very great mistake to cut down Judges’ pensions. Many barristers would not go on the Bench today because they could earn £4,000 a year at the Bar. If the country wanted the best men, it must be prepared to pay for them. South Africa had been singularly free from judicial scandals, Why? Because it always had selected the best men, and paid them well. To reduce Judges’ pensions would be starting at the wrong end.

almost despaired of economy being reached if such arguments as they had listened to that afternoon were always brought forward. He hoped the House would rise to the occasion, and would make up its mind to have sound, economical, and clean administration. Considering our population and resources, we were going ahead altogether too fast in this matter, and we were trying to emulate the position and emoluments of far richer and older countries.

said they all appeared to be agreed that pensions should not be allowed to go on growing. They certainly should not allow the pension list to get into such a mess as it had at the Gape. (Cries of “Oh.”) As compared with what had been the law for a long time in the Cape, there was a very material decrease in the present proposals. It seemed strange that the very men who had been sitting there for years had never objected to these high Cape pensions. The Free State had found it exceedingly difficult—owing to the small monetary inducements offered—to obtain Judges. It was more the Free State’s luck than anything else that it had the right to be proud of its Bench. Human nature was human nature, and if one desired the best one had to pay the best price. He could not understand these loaves and fishes, tall these petitions that had come before Parliament praying for pensions, because, in his opinion, a pension to be due at all was as much a matter of right as the pay. When they came to Judges, however, it was a different question. They could not put their Judgeships up to tender or to see how cheaply they could get them filled. In the interests of the country it was necessary that they should pay their Judges the highest price, both in salaries and pensions, so as absolutely to get the best results.

said he was afraid his right hon. friend did not quite understand the position. He had referred to the Cape Colony, but the position was that they never had the opportunity of giving their opinion upon these matters, as they had now. If his hon. friend also (the member for Uitenhage) had been speaking from the Opposition side, they would have heard a great dead about economy. (Hear, hear.) Mention was made of the English system, but the position was different there, because pensions were charged from the general fund. If they had the English system here they would have to pay more proportionately.

asked whether because the Cape had refrained from bringing this matter up for many years, was that any reason for not bringing it up now? If the right hon. member (Mr. Fischer) had followed the affairs of this colony, however, as he had followed the affairs of the Free State, he would have seen that this pension question had been before (Parliament for ten years.

No.

If my hon. friend had found the time he would have discovered an actuarial report upon the (Pension Fund of the Cape Colony and the result of the inquiry was that they were running a Pension Fund which would lead them eventually into insolvency. “Surely,” continued the hon. member, “if we are to deal with this at all we should deal with it in the light of our own experience.” This might mean not only a disaster for the country, but to the people whom they had given these pensions, if it were found that they could not pay the pensions.

said that in practice it had not proved that the country had to pay too much for the pensions of the judges; in the Cape Colony only one Judge was on pension. The principle might seem to be an expensive one on paper, but in practice it did not work out as expensively as it looked. And if these pensions were not given they would not get such a good class of Judge as they got at present. The power of a Judge was so great that it was absolutely necessary to see that they got the best. Judges they could possibly get, especially so as to give the poor main protection. He thought the arguments adduced had left the Minister’s position impregnable.

said that if they were going to give Judges excessive pensions, then these would form the criterion in other departments, and for that reason, he strongly supported the amendment to reduce the pensions.

said that there had been much talk, but the principle had not been touched. They had simply been asked to reduce the pensions. Let them consider the circumstances of the case. Although he was in favour of the reduction on principle, he did not think that either of the amendments dealt with the principle. He should very much like to see the question of Judges’ pensions stand over until the whole question of pensions was considered. If they could not do that, then let them err on the side of liberality now, land when the whole question was dealt with, this Act could be amended if necessary. He certainly would not vote for the drastic amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ladybrand although he might be forced to accept the amendment, of the hon. member for Three Rivers.

said that though economy was to be commended in the ordinary way, he could not see why that objection should be raised at that stage. In the Cape they had treated their Judges liberally and had obtained an excellent class of men, and he hoped that under Union they would not be less liberally treated There had never before been such opposition to these Judges’ pensions in the old Cape House of Assembly —at any rate, while he had been a member of it. If they wanted to alter the pensions, let them alter the whole system, but not go reducing here and there. If they did make an alteration to the principle on which pensions were granted, he hoped that certain deserving cases, ‘like those of field-cornets, for instance, would be sleep to, because at present they got very small pensions. But that was not now before them, and if others were not touched he did not see why the Judges should be. He was in favour of stopping pensions the moment beneficiaries left the country.

supported the proposal of the Minister of Justice. Judges’ salaries and pensions had always been treated on a special basis. Every Judge made a considerable financial sacrifice in quitting the Bar for the Bench, and if the pensions were reduced it would not be worth the while of leading barristers to become Judges. Under in ion Judges had been given additional responsibility and dignity. He (Mr. Alexander) would support the amendment of the Minister of Justice.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Lady-brand.

said that he was convinced that now was the time when they must commence to make a reduction in the unduly swollen pension list of the country. Would it not be better to make a start now, rather than to wait until bad times came along again, when the poorest would have to be additionally taxed, as bad happened not so dong ago in the Cape? It would be better to reduce them now than to wait until later. (Hear, hear.) He supported the hon. member for Ladybrand.

moved that, progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

The motion was put, and declared lost.

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

speaking on the amendment of this hon. friend (Mr. Madeley), said it appeared to him that a large number of members considered that this Bill was a question of the relations between master and mam, and not a question of right and wrong. This Bill was to regulate the affairs of what he would call am underground city, composed of some 25,000 white men. Did they ask a policeman to respect the feelings of people if he came to a house to look for criminals? The spirit of the amendment was to give inspectors the fullest powers to carry out these inspections.

said it was not desirable to suppose that it was criminals they were going to find when an inspector went to inspect a mine, and if an inspector was refused admission to a mine he knew his remedy. He could report the matter to the Mining Engineer, who would report it, to the Minister.

The amendment for the insertion of the word “unreasonably” was negatived, as also was the amendment moved by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley).

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 14, obstruction to, or disobedience to orders of officials,

moved after “regulation” to insert “or to attend when required, any such inspection or examination.” The mover said that his object was to extend the operation of this clause somewhat further. That was to apply the penalty clause in case of refusal to attend inspections or examinations.

The amendment was agreed to.

New clause 15,

moved a new clause 15,

hoped the Minister would consider the amendment favourably.

said that, he had considered the amendment, and had come to the conclusion that it would not be in, the public interest to deal with the matter in the Bill.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he could not accept the new clause proposed by Mr. Creswell, which would mean a fresh bar on the issue of blasting certificates, for which satisfactory machinery existed at present.

said there was very little sympathy in that House for the men who earned daily wages. (Cries of “Question.”) Government had failed in holding the balance evenly between employers and employed.

said there was a likelihood of a miner being punished twice over for the same offence.

said that on one occasion an inspector found a miner directing a boy to drill in a misfired hole, and the miner’s certificate was cancelled. (Cheers.)

The new clause was negatived.

On clause 15, penalty for obtaining certificate of competency fraudulently,

said a penalty should also be inflicted for the fraudulent issue of certificates by mining officials.

said the hon. member was always suspecting the mining officials.

said he must protest against such insinuation He had spoken in terms of the highest respect for the Mining Department, but he had said that in times of stress mine managers might issue certificates to men not fully qualified.

Fraudulently.

I consider that to be a fraudulent act. A mine manager should be punished if an inadequate examination takes place. I am not going to be frightened by the Minister saying that I made charges of general fraud. The mine managers know me far too well to think that I would do that The Minister acts far more as the representative of the class who are the owners of the mines than he does as a Minister of the Grown trying to get proper legislation passed—(Cries of “Order.’)

The hon. member is going too far.

I may have gone too far, but not a tittle more than I meant to. If I am not in order, I will withdraw the remark.

said the other day Mr. Creswell assured them that he had the greatest confidence in the mine managers. The hon. member must keep in mind that the House was not so liable to forget what he said as he (Mr. Creswell) was.

said that although the general standard might be high, there might be rimes of stress when it might be necessary to see that the law was enforced. There would be the utmost temptation during strikes for the issue of certificates, which under ordinary circumstances they would not feel themselves justified in giving. If they were going to punish a man who obtained a certificate in an irregular way, then they should punish the man who gave a certificate in an irregular way.

asked what did the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) do when the first strike took place at Johannesburg? No one would suppose that he was the individual whom the strikers burned in effigy on the Market-square at Johannesburg, or the manager they struck against, or the one they called the white slave-driver. Hon. members who knew Mr. Creswell’s history were getting a little bit sick—it was nothing but hypocrisy. Now the hon. member was exalting the very men with whom he had been most unpopular, who charged him with dragging them down to the level of Kafirs. Now he was their champion. It was only fair that the House should know the glaring inconsistencies, repeated time after time, that the hon. member was guilty of.

thought his reputation for sincerity was proof against any attacks. (Cheers.) Sir Percy Fitzpatrick had spoken of a time when he (Mr. Creswell) was called the white slave-driver. They all knew the hon. member’s lurid imagination. (Laughter’.) So far from in any way trying to avoid the implication that he (Mr. Creswell) was once a mine manager, he would say that he did his duty in that capacity, which vas to get the utmost work out of the men under him. He gloried in that reputation. (Hear, hear.) He had had convincing proofs during the last seven or eight years that the vast majority of the men who had worked under him had the very kindliest recollections of him, and they had come forward on many occasions to assist him during his election campaigns.

Why don’t you stand for a mining constituency?

Because I know the influence of the hon. member and the very great danger workingmen run in coming out in their true colours in a mining constituency. But when all that capitalistic influence is made of no avail, I will fight the hon. member or any other representative of a mining constituency. (Ministerial cheers.)

stood up to say something, but there was some interruption.

Order!

I claim your protection, sir. He proceeded to say that the hon. member for Germiston was always saying that he (Mr. Creswell) had imputed dishonourable motives to the officials.

So you did.

There is not an atom of truth in it. I made a statement before the Commission, which I did deliberately, and made no imputation on their honour, and I said that I made no imputation on their honour. I can only say that I consulted the Engineer, who is a gentleman, with whom I am glad to say I have had the most cordial and friendly relations which have never been interrupted. Continuing, he said that what they pleaded for was that the granting or cancelling of blasting certificates should be placed in the hands of one completely divorced from either employer or employee.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 17, penalties for endangering safety or causing serious bodily injury,

said that under the proviso a man was liable to be punished under the common law for contravention of the Act, and also to be punished for a breach of the regulations. He did not know whether it was the intention of the Bill to punish a person twice; he was sure it could not possibly be.

said that the hon. member would see that these were prosecutions for technical breaches of the regulations or rules; but, of course, these prosecutions did not absolve a criminal from further prosecution under the law. Take the last section; a man might be punished for a breach of the regulations, and also, in case death occurred, be prosecuted for murder. It was the intention that these penalties should run concurrently with the sentence under the common law.

said that surely it was not right that a man should be punished, twice for the same thing.

agreed with the hon. member for Von Brandis.

said that he thought they had passed an Act of Parliament—an Interpretation Act—that they could not punish a man twice for the same offence. But he agreed with the Minister, and said that in a case where death occurred it would be one thing where that had been caused through negligence, and another where it had been caused deliberately.

referring to the fines which could be imposed or the imprisonment which could be inflicted for breaches of the regulations, asked why the imprisonment was not in proportion to the amount of the fines. Upon what principle had the Minister gone?

did not reply.

Clause 17 was agreed to.

moved a new clause 18, contravention by companies “In the event of any contravention or failure to comply with any provision of the Act, or the regulations by a company, any director, secretary, or manager of the company who is within the Union shall be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The mover said that it was a necessary clause, and would make the Act a better one.

said that he would suggest that that provision, excellent as it was, did not go far enough. (Laughter.) The hon. member laughed. Of course, it was ridiculous that hon. members on that (the Opposition) side of the House should pay any attention to the real facts, except the facts on the surface. (Laughter.) But even hon. members on the other side of the House must realise that the manager was responsible to the owner, and had to look to the owner’s interest. He suggested to the Minister that something more should be added, something on these lines: In any case of accident attended by loss of life or serious bodily injury, the company should be made liable in ease it can be proved to be caused by circumstances which could have been foreseen. The hon. member went on to say that sometimes large risks were taken by the mine manager, but he did not do so on his own account. If an accident did occur it would cost him pretty heavily. Mr. Van den Berg, a respected Johannesburg-Magistrate, had stated on several occasions that if the owner had to pay the fine he would have made the penalty very much more than he did in the case of the individual before him.

said the matter of fixing the responsibility was not, to his mind properly dealt with in the clause, and he would suggest that there should be provision that the, person charged should be one who had some association with the accident. He repudiated the suggestion that there were cases in which managers took risks with hanging, ground, and so on, for the benefit of the companies. He assured the House that in his experience no manager had ever been asked to take risks with regard to the lives and limbs of the workmen under his charge for the benefit of a company. (Hear, hear.)

said that no one suggested that the managers of big companies took the risks; It was the little irresponsible people who took risks.

said he had no objection to the clause; but he wished to inform the Minister of Mines that when the railway regulations came before the House he would move a provision that the Minister of Railways should be held responsible for any infringement of the regulations. (Laughter.)

said the object of the clause was to provide that in cases where the company was directly responsible, the highest representatives of the company in the country should be held responsible.

The new clause was agreed to.

moved the deletion of old clause 18, and the substitution of a new clause as follows: “19.This, Act may be cited for all purposes as the Mines and Works Act, 1911, and shall commence and come into operation on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by proclamation in the ‘ Gazette,’ but notwithstanding that this Act may have come into operation in any Province any regulations in force in such Province immediately prior to the commencement of this Act and made under any law hereby repealed shall continue in force until rescinded by the Governor-General. ”

Agreed to.

The schedule was amended.

On clause 6,

moved that the clause stand over.

hoped the Minister would give some indication of when this question would be tackled. There had been a long discussion on it, and he wished to take the opinion of the House. He understood the Minister to say the other day that this was a most urgent Bill. He would like to know when the Minister was going to cease obstructing his own Bill. (Laughter.)

said he thought it would facilitate business if the clause stood over; he believed they would get through it more easily next week.

asked if the Government would allow an afternoon or evening for the discussion of the clause? He wanted to see a vote of the House taken on the subject.

An afternoon and evening, and an early morning if necessary, will be given for it. (Laughter.)

The motion that the clause stand over was agreed to.

On clause 11, dealing with inquiries into accidents, etc., being reverted to.

said that, after consideration, he was unable to agree to the amendments which had been moved. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had proposed that accident inquiries should be held by Magistrates or judicial persons, not by inspectors. He (General Smuts) did not think they could adopt that amendment, because many of these cases were very technical, and it would be easier and more convenient to have the inquiries conducted by inspectors. In an accident of a technical character it would require knowledge on the part of an ordinary Magistrate such as he would not have, in order to judge adequately of the facts. He thought, therefore, they should net adopt that amendment. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), if they appointed another set of inspectors to hold inquiries it would be a most expensive course, and it had little justification under the circumstances. The only point of substance in the arguments that he had formed was that referred to by the hon. member for Hoopstad, when he said that it may sometimes happen that the Inspector of Mines may himself, in some degree or another, be to blame for what had happened. A case like that would only emerge after the inquiry had taken place. The record of an inquiry, after it had been held, was to be sent to the Government, Mining Engineer. It seemed to him that in such a case as the hon. member had mentioned, flower ought to be given to the Government Mining Engineer, when he came to the record and found that the inspector himself was to blame, to hold an independent inquiry through an impartial inspector. He therefore proposed to add at the end of sub-section (3) the following words: ‘ Upon consideration of such evidence and report, the Government Mining Engineer may, in his discretion, order a further inquiry to be held by another inspector of mines, machinery, or explosives.”

said he did not think the amendment was altogether satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) This was not a matter of mining at all. It was a question of protection of life and limb. It would be observed that in this Bill, contrary to all other mining Acts in the world, as far as he had been able to find, there was no provision for an inquest upon death. There was no provision in the clause even for an accident being reported. In other countries they had a double safeguard. To him it was something astonishing and something new to hear that deaths could take place in the Transvaal, murders could take place, and there was no inquest.

said that, after hearing the right hon. gentleman, one would almost imagine that the industry was a new industry in the Transvaal. Well, it had been there for the last 23 years. He would read two regulations which they had had. One of these regulations provided that, when an accident took place on any works subject to the regulations which resulted in the death or serious personal injury of one or more persons, the responsible person in charge should immediately give notice to the Inspector of Mines for the district. Under these regulations every precaution was taken immediately an accident occurred to inform the proper person, and he could assure the right hon. gentleman that really everything was done in every possible way by the machinery they had for reporting these accidents.

How on earth is a member of Parliament to know what is in the regulations?

Those are the regulations that are still in existence.

They are not on the table of the House.

You can buy a copy of them.

I can buy the regulations! I can buy a Hebrew Bible, if I want. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that what they had to deal with in this case was an Act of Parliament, which was submitted to them. He was glad to hear that they were in the regulations. He hoped they would be in the next regulations, but they had no guarantee.

said that this law as it stood now did not properly provide that someone else should inquire into it besides the mining inspector if necessary. The hon. member referred to the Transvaal law of 1909, in which, he said, no such power was given to the inspector at all. Was it not a fact, therefore, that they were giving these inspectors more power than they did in the Transvaal law? He would move that cases of accidents causing loss of life or serious bodily injury be referred to the Attorney-General of the Province.

said inquiries should apply in all cases. They should have one law dealing with inquests, which should be a common law throughout.

said it so happened that the Inquests Law in the Transvaal had been repealed last year. He had no objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. P. Duncan).

asked what was the reason of the abolishing of this inquest law? More inquests took place in the Transvaal than, he believed, in any part of the Union. Why not have inquests, therefore, in these particular cases, but the proper person to order an inquiry was the Minister. He thought the clause ought to be amended so that the mining engineer should be able to report to the Minister.

said it had been skated in that House that a good deal of time of the mining inspectors was taken up by these inquiries, which. He thought, a mining engineer specially appointed should inquire into.

said when fatal accidents happened a Magistrate usually ordered an inquiry, and when there was any breach of the regulations a white man is charged with a criminal offence.

said he did not think that such a provision as this existed in any other civilised country. If a man were found dead an inquiry must be held. It was not left to a policeman to decide whether there should be an inquiry or not. The Magistrate had to do so. The provision did not seem to be safe. Why not adopt the simple course of saying that in every case of death in this way the Magistrate should hold an inquiry?

said that they could not incorporate a general inquest law in this Act. It was entirely alien to this subject. If they dealt with the inquest law here they would have to prescribe all the procedure to be followed in inquests.

said the point was whether the Government would give the assurance that inquest laws would be incorporated in the common law of the country.

said the Minister did not seem to appreciate the point taken by the hon. member (Sir E. Walton). The idea running in the hon. member’s mind was that some serious accident might take place underground, and there would be no provision for an inquiry. The Minister had already moved that the existing regulations should continue and these contained ample provision for inquiries. He must say he was astonished at the attitude of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). The hon. member had complained that there was no provision of this sort in the Bill, the same as in the English Acts. What astonished him was that the hon. member did not know it was in the regulations an force at the present moment. He did not think the time of the House ought to be wasted in such criticism of the Bill.

Yes my hon. friend is at his old plan of deprecating discussion. His idea is to let things slip through, and get away for a holiday as soon as possible. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said that here they had a law brought forward dealing with mining, and it was their duty to make it as good as they could, and remedy the weak points in it. One of the weak points was that it left to the inspector the power to cover a thing up if he liked. The lives of hundreds of men were concerned, but Parliament seemed to treat the matter as a jest. In every mining Bill they would find provision for coroners’ inquests. The Bill seemed to him to be imperfect; there were no proper safeguards such as they had in every country.

said he thought the hon. member’s (Mr. Merriman’s) statement regarding State mining inspectors covering things up was absolutely uncalled for. The hon. member had not taken the trouble to consider the existing regulations or (the mining conditions, or he would not have shown such absolute ignorance.

said that the hon. member (Sir G. Farrar) had just given a demonstration of the tactics they had had so much of in the Transvaal of weaving into a man’s words something he never said or meant. They were used to that in the Transvaal, but he (Mr. Creswell) did think that in the atmosphere of the Union Parliament that sort of thing would take its proper place, as mere spiteful statements of men who had puny arguments. The gentleman who posed as the Leader of the Opposition was the chief supporter of the Government. It would be better if the hon. member and a few of his principal followers would take their seats behind the Government. He (Mr. Creswell) could assure hon. members that as far as that side of the House was concerned, no particular significance would be attached to the movement. The men (proceeded Mr. Creswell) would not be protected by a few slap-dash clauses, and he suggested that the whole measure should be recast at an early date.

said mining men seemed to think that they should have a monopoly in the discussion of matters affecting the mines. The critics of the measure made no charge against the Chief Mining Engineer, but human nature was the same all the world over. In the Cape, in case of a death resulting from a mining accident, an inquiry had to be held. Would this safeguard, so far as the future was concerned, still be observed in the Cape?

thought it was time that the discussion came to an end. (Cheers.)

thought Mr. Duncan’s amendment was unnecessary. As the hon. member for Victoria West thought the conditions in the Transvaal were barbaric, he would explain that it used to be the custom in the Transvaal to have four inquiries in the case of fatal mining accidents.

said an inquest law should deal with everybody, for there were lots of accidents in railways and factories, and with motor-cars. It was four years since he had had anything to do with mines, and, considering that, he had been rather diffident about entering into these discussions. But previously he had had 20 years’ mining experience. The State Mining Engineer—one of the highest and best officials in South Africa had made himself responsible for the proposals, and he (Sir Percy) thought twice before lightly criticising that gentleman’s work. There were no four men in that House who were competent to criticise it. He had not heard the complaint in the Transvaal that proper inquiries were not held into mining fatalities. He did not believe there was the slightest justification for the complaint, which was a reflection on the whole organisation. It had been said that in this profession men made money and went away. That was untrue, because there were more South Africans in this than in any other. Continuing, he said he thought that the Union Parliament should have a chance of learning something. They as a partner tried to educate South Africa. It was foolish of uninstructed people to get up and make what they thought were clever speeches. His hon. friend had told them about a seat, on the opposite benches. Well, it came from a gentleman who tried to sit there and found he was not welcome.

The amendments of General Smuts and Mr. Duncan were adopted.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Merriman, Mr. Jagger, and Sir H. H. Juta were negatived.

On clause 12,

moved a new sub-section (2) to the effect that whenever at any inquiry evidence has been given wherefrom any person is of opinion that he may be charged with contravening any provision of this Act or a regulation, or may be held responsible, in any manner, for the accident forming the subject of the inquiry, such person may cross-examine any witness or may require the inspector to summon any witness on his behalf either to give evidence or to produce documents or any article whatsoever, and every such person may appoint any other person to represent him at the inquiry.

Agreed to.

The amendment of Mr. Sampson was withdrawn.

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