from residents of Butterworth, for legislation whereby the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives throughout the Union will be prohibited.

The petition was read by the clerk.

from Charles L. Hofmeyr, Vice-Principal, Public School, George.

from John Denham, inspector of machinery.

from residents of Grahamstown, for legislation whereby the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives throughout the Union will be prohibited.

from T. Tannahill, foreman, Public Works Department.

from D. F. Strauss, teacher.

from Daniel Sullivan, late constable, Breakwater Convict Station.

from residents of Grahamstown, praying for legislation providing for the District Popular Local Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences.

similar petition from Butterworth.

His motion that the petition be read was negatived.

Annual report, Department of Justice, 1910.

Principal Proclamations and Government Notices by Forest Department, 16th November, 1910, to 31st January, 1912.

Return of special warrants issued during the period Parliament was, not in session.

Annual accounts, 1910-1911 (Cape) ; Finance and Appropriation Accounts, 31st May, 1910, to 31st March, 1911 (Natal), both with the Provincial Auditor’s reports thereon.

brought up the first report as follows :

First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions. Grants and Gratuities, appointed by orders of the House of Assembly, dated the 29th and 30th January, 1912, to which shall be referred all minutes recommending special pensions and all applications for pensions, grants and gratuities not authorised by the Civil Service Regulations ; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to consist of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, Messrs. Currey, Clayton, Keyter, General Tobias Smuts, Whitaker, Runciman and Searle.—Your committee having considered the petition of J. B. van Renen, together with certain papers and supporting petitions, referred to them, beg to recommend the award to petitioner of a pension of £250 per annum, to take effect from the date of the adoption of the recommendation by Parliament.

The report was set down for consideration in Committee to-morrow.

I promised I would answer to-day a question asked a few days ago by the hon. member for Springs. It is: “Whether in view of the reports that grave unrest exists in the Durban and Salt River Workshops, due to the Department requiring workshop men to sign a new set of rules, the Minister of Railways and Harbours will allay anxiety by making a statement on the matter to the House?” I was not aware that there was grave unrest either at Durban or at the Salt River Works. I am told that there is some feeling because of the men being required to sign a certain rule-book. The position is this. Rules were signed by the men in the different Administrations prior to Union. These rules have been embodied in one book and assimilated, and they are, what the men are required to sign now, identical with what they had to sign prior to Union, except in one particular. The Cape men, so far as I have been able to ascertain, have offered no objection. The Durban workmen say that they are unwilling or disinclined to sign the rules, because of an alteration in them. There is, so far as they are concerned, in this respect. In Natal the rates of wages were fixed in the document containing the rules which they were required to sign. It is not so in any of the other Provinces The practice in Natal has now been assimilated to what it was in the other colonies. But there is a very substantial reason why the rates of pay cannot be stated at the present moment in the rules. In the first instance, it is rather out of place—it is very seldom that we have anything out of place in Natal, but in this case we have. (Laughter.) A separate statement will be issued in regard to rates of pay, but that can only be done when the question of pay and allowances, which is now under consideration, has been settled. When that is done, further regulations will be issued. Since I heard about this “grave unrest” I made inquiries, and I have not found anything that would warrant the use of the term “grave unrest.” Rules, practically identical, meaning exactly the same thing, have to be signed by the rest of the railway staff, from the General Manager downward. I hope that we shall hear no more about it. The rights of the men have not been prejudiced.

Arising out of that answer, sir, the Minister stated that save in one particular the new Rules were practically identical with the old Rules. Is it not a fact that the difference between the two lies in one particular clause to this effect, that an individual signing the new Rule Book undertakes to accept any regulations made in the future?

I am told by the General Manager that was in the old Regulations also.

In Natal?

In the old Regulations—so I have been informed.

moved the second reading of the Mines and Works Act Amendment Bill. The object of the Bill was, he said, probably well known to the House. Last session, he believed, the discussion ranged round the question as to whether the eight hours day should be “bank to bank” or “face to face.” The Labour members had been most emphatic on the point that unless time was counted from bank to bank any regulations of the hours of labour would be ineffective. From the information they had and from personal observation they knew that this was exactly the result of the Act as it stood to-day. In the first place the mining companies of the Rand totally disregarded this regulation—so far as he could gather—for a period of at least a month after the coming into force of the Act. Continuing, he argued that no attempt was being made to make the eight-hour day a workable business. He pointed out that men were expected to be at the mouth of the shaft a great deal earlier than was really necessary, and were brought up at a later hour. The net result was that instead of the miners getting a decrease of hours they were suffering from an increase of hours. It might be argued that he had no authority for stating these things, but he had a long list giving the hours now being worked on the mines of the Witwatersrand. He did not wish to weary the House by reading the whole of this list ; but he would like to draw the attention of hon. members to two or three instances that had been brought to his notice. The general idea had been to make the regulation irksome to the men. One of the mines that had tried to make for a better state of affairs had been the North Randfontein, where there was a day of 8½ hours ; on the other hand, there was a considerable number of mines that did not work the system in a similar manner. At the Driefontein the day was made one of ten hours from bank to bank. At the Nourse mine the men went down at 6.45 a.m. and came up from 3.40 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., making a day of 9¾ hours from bank to bank. Something approaching an eight-hour day was possible under the present regulations, but it was impossible to do the thing properly with the words face to face instead of back to bank. They were informed through the press that they were going to have a strong Opposition in Parliament that session ; but he had yet to learn that the opposition must be carried on outside by a method that was opposed to the laws of the country. That was what had happened on the Rand. He considered that the only way of dealing effectively with the problem was to take the time from bank to bank—it meant that the time of the man was taken from the time he left the surface until he reached the surface again. He pointed out that in a factory men were not timed from the moment they entered their particular shop, but from the time that they entered the gates of the factory. The time they took from the gate to their shop was not deducted from their working hours. Why could not that principle be applied in this case? He would refer the House to the mining regulations in England, and said that it could not be said that the British House of Commons was particularly revolutionary. Quoting the cases of Australia or New Zealand was, to some members of the House, like putting a red rag in the face of a bull. In this connection he alluded to the fact that in Northumberland and Durham not only had they got an eight-hour day, but even a six-hour day. The Eight Hours Bill of 1908, passed by the Imperial Parliament, distinctly laid down that the time should be counted from the surface to the surface. They had been told, Mr. Andrews went on to say, that they only represented a small class in the community. They recognised that the working-class were in need of representation, entitled to representation, and if they only represented the working classes of this country they could claim to represent 95 per cent, of the population. They claimed that, with the best intentions in the world, the Government and the House, in making this law a face-to-face one, had been taking away the substance and leaving the shadow to the miners of this country. (Hear, hear.) He did not think he need outline the principles underlying the eight hours day. They claimed that it was necessary in the interests of the individual that he or she should have sufficient time not only to recover from the effects of his or her toil, but also a certain time each day to live in. They were often told that they wanted more education on matters that they very often discussed, and that the working class and their representatives were men who were obsessed with one idea and who could not look all round a subject. They recognised the need of further investigation into many matters that they were forced of necessity to discuss. But how were the workers, how were the miners, to obtain this knowledge, to make use of the information even available to them, unless they had a little more leisure than they had at the present time? In the hours enjoyed by bank clerks, the employers had recognised how desirable it was and how much it was to their interest, that their clerks’ hours should be curtailed. The necessity had arisen for the wage-earner to organise into trade unions, and when unsuccessful in getting a reduction of hours and better conditions through his union, he had to come to Parliament and ask Parliament to assist him. He had read a long article from one of the Rand newspaper—the “Star,” a paper, he believed, very friendly to the working class—in which it was stated, in the course of three columns, how wicked was this idea of limiting the hours of labour on the mines and how the Government apparently had been led away by three or four Labour agitators in that House. They were told that the men did not want an eight hours’ day, and in proof of that it was stated that a new society had been started on the Crown Mines, and that it had as its object a nine hours’ day and several other things ; and therefore they were to discredit and disbelieve all that was said by the various leaders and secretaries of the labour organisations. He had made some inquiries as to the gentleman who was at the head of this new organisation, and he had found that he was a man who had been discharged or excluded from the Transvaal Miners’ Association for acting contrary to its interests, and causing the dismissal of its president. When the Government seemed sympathetic to the workers a counter movement always seemed to be engineered ; renegades from the ranks of the workers were got, who did not work in the interests of the men, but against them. Just before arriving at the House that afternoon he had received a letter, dated February 19, which stated that at a mass meeting of miners held at Boksburg on February 17 a resolution had been agreed to, demanding an eight hours’ day, from bank to bank. Other miners’ meetings had passed similar resolutions, and at a meeting of 75 delegates, representing 3,000 or 4,000 miners, it was resolved unanimously that the meeting desired an eight hours’ day, from bank to bank. He thought that that should prove that there was a very general feeling that an eight hours’ day, from bank to bank, was good and was necessary and was desired, particularly by the miners on the reef at the present juncture. There was an argument used that if there was the eight hours’ day, bank to bank, the men would only work 7½ hours, face to face, that the mines could not afford to adopt such a system, that they would close down, that the industry would suffer, and that instead of benefiting the men as it was hoped, it would only throw them out of employment. These were the old arguments which had been trotted out during the past 19 years during his own personal experience in the country. They were not prepared to accept these statements as correct, or that there would be any material loss to the mining companies if an eight hours’ day, bank to bank, were substituted for face to face. The hon. member went on to allude to what had happened in London recently in connection with the proposed construction of two cruisers by the Thames Ironworks, and that the British Government had demanded that a 53 hours’ week should be adopted. It had been a great temptation to the men when the British Government had asked them to go back on their eight hours’ day ; but the men were not to be bribed, although it would have meant bread and butter to them, their wives, and children, and some jam besides, perhaps ; they were not to be intimidated, and said “No.” If the Government could not build a cruiser in London, they said, under the conditions that they had fought for, they were not prepared to accept the proposed hours of labour. Eventually steps were taken, he thought, to build ships on the 48 hours per week. The point was this, and all industrial experience had shown it to be a fact, that the question of wages did not depend on the number of hours worked ; that because a certain class of men were working short hours it did not follow that they were going to be reduced in their pay. It was quite the contrary. When it was proposed to reduce the number of working hours in the Lancashire mills the owners cried that the last hour made all the difference between profit and loss. The hours were reduced, however, to 12, then to 10, and then to nine hours per day ; but the mills did not shut down. And he had yet to learn that any experiment of that kind had proved detrimental for the men or the employers. When they said eight hours per day they meant 48 hours per week, possibly divided in such a way that the Saturday half-holiday might be obtained. They did not mean a rigid eight hours a day, but say, 8½ hours for five days and 5 1/2 hours on Saturday. An experiment carried out by an engineering firm showed that more work and better work was done during an eight hours’ day than during a nine hours’ day. And even if the mining industries in some particular case did suffer ; even if a fringe of poor mines on the Witwatersrand found that it would make all the difference between profit and loss, even then he said, unhesitatingly, the House would be justified in giving that concession to the miners. There was another point in connection with the Bill—the words referring to the engine-drivers. If the Bill stood as it was they would be inflicting a very great hardship on a deserving body of men, the engine-drivers. The effect of leaving the amendment out of the Bill would be to cause the engine-drivers underground to work considerably longer hours than the miners. That was why sub-section (b) had been put in, so as to safeguard the engine-drivers. Further, in reference to the Saturday half-holiday, he would say it might be possible if the Bill went into committee to put in an amendment that it should be lawful for the purpose of having a half-day on Saturday to arrange that the men work 8½ hours on five days 5 1/2 and on Saturdays. Personally, he would prefer to see them working eight hours a day and five hours on Saturday, making 45 hours a week, but he would be prepared to accept the 48 hours’ week. He believed there was a feeling in the minds of some hon. members that a miner was a man who owned racehorses and rode in a motor car. The highest paid skilled miners on the Rand earned, on the average, £34 a month. Hon. members might say that that was a very fair wage, but it must be remembered that the work on the mines was not continuous, and the miners were compelled, for the sake of their health, to take considerable holidays, either at the coast or in Great Britain. Then the miner was selling not only his labour and strength but also his life, for the average life of a miner was only six or seven years. There was nothing that could compensate the miner for the work he undertook on the Rand. If he had the hardihood to marry, he had no hope of living to see his children grow up. In the main, the miners were hardworking, industrious citizens, but when a man knew that he would be dead in a few months and indulged in excessive drinking, one could well understand, and rather sympathise with than blame him. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Andrews) had worked on the Rand since 1893, and he did not know a single man who worked as a miner then who was on the goldfields to-day. (Hear, hear.) The members of the Labour party, concluded Mr. Andrews, were in that House to say things which might not be pleasant or palatable, but things which they believed to be true. They believed that there were more important things than dividends, and that was the life and well-being of the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) Ruskin, who was not a tub-thumper, had said: “There is no wealth but life. In fact, it may be discovered that the true veins of wealth are purple—and not in rock, but in flesh—perhaps even that the final outcome and consummation of all wealth is in the producing as many as possible full-breathed, bright-eyed, and happy-hearted human creatures.” That was the policy of the Labour party ; he hoped it was also the policy of the Government, and if so, he recommended the House to make a start with this little Bill. (Hear, hear.)

supported the last speaker. He knew that after passing the Bill last year providing for an eight-hour working day underground, the men were sometimes kept there for an hour and a half longer. He could not always agree with the Labour party, and would certainly never help to make the eight-hour working day generally applicable. But the proposal of the hon. member for Georgetown was fair, seeing that the miner was performing his work when descending the mine or when ascending it. He hoped, therefore, that the Minister would accept the Bill on behalf of the miners. Personally he was bound to vote for it.

said he had approached this proposal with a temperate and open mind. He recognised that the hon. member was not in the House last session when the point was fully discussed. That might serve as an excuse for his reopening the question at such an early date. The majority of the hon. member’s arguments were of a general nature, and were fully urged in the debate last session Notwithstanding that the House, with an overwhelming majority, came to the conclusion that the law for the present should stand as contained in clause 9 of the Mines and Works Act. This was an important question, as it affected a very important industry, but more than that, because it affected a large number of men. He saw from the latest returns that there were 11,120 white men working underground on the Rand. Clause 9 laid down that no person employed underground in any mine should work, or be permitted to work, for a longer period than eight hours during any period of twentyfour consecutive hours or for more than fortyeight hours during any consecutive seven days, exclusive of the time occupied in going to or coming from the working place. The objection regarding a half-holiday on Saturdays was covered by the provision that a man might work for fortyeight hours during the week. Then came the exceptions. Sub-section (a) exempted work necessitated by an accident or other emergency, and no discretion was left to the employer or to the Government. In sub-section (b) discretion was left to the Minister to grant exemption in two cases namely, where the object was the securing of safety and where men were employed in the transport of employees from or to working places on the mine. The main question in connection with the amendments was transport. At whose expense, so far as time was concerned, should the employees be transported from the mouth of the mine to the face and back again. He found that, to decide this question, it was of importance that they should get at the time involved in the operation, and, of course, a lot depended on the depth of the mine and the length of the galleries in the mine. But he had struck an average. He found that the white men of a gang travelling from bank to face and face to bank, including the time occupied in going up and down in a shallow mine twenty minutes, or in a deep mine up to ninety minutes. But for the individual going from the mouth to his work and back in a shallow mine occupied ten minutes to fortyfive minutes in a deep mine, blasting in the mine took fifteen minutes, and the examination of working places ten minutes to thirty minutes—that was the average—was in a shallow mine twenty minutes and in a deep mine twenty minutes. That gave an average of forty-five minutes for a shallow mine and in a deep mine eighty minutes, an average of 62½ minutes. He found the following in the report of the Miners’ Association: “At present the average day is nine hours ten minutes,” which corresponded closely with the average he had arrived at in a different way. The question then was, at whose expense, so far as time was concerned, was this proposal to be carried out? The mover of the amending Bill argued in the same way as was done last year—that it should be done at the expense of the employer, whereas the Act laid down now that it should be at the expense of the employee. The Bill, if carried out as it now stood, if the figure he had quoted—62½ minutes—was used in the proposal—would mean that a white man at the face would only work seven hours. If within that seven hours he had also to examine the face to see whether the charges had exploded properly, it would mean that the coloured labourers would, perhaps, only work hours. He thought the hon. member would see that if that was the effect of his proposal, it could hardly be carried out. He also found that the present Act only came into force on January 1—that was to say, not two months ago. Now, he asked the hon. member if they had sufficient facts and information upon which they could determine an alteration of the law?

We have.

said the fact was the hon. member had had to fall back on facts that were advanced last year. He pointed out that a deputation had waited upon the Chief Mining Engineer, and represented the necessity of making a number of exemptions under sub-sections (a) and (b) of clause 9 of the Act. It was important they should know the claims of the employers. They wanted exemption for gangers, shaft timber-men, riggers and rope inspectors, pump attendants, timber-men, underground engine-drivers, underground banksmen, underground fitters, shaft-sinkers, ventilators, and some others.

In what direction?

Under sub-section (a), under emergencies, or under sub-section (b), safety and transport.

Who asked that?

The employer.

Oh, oh!

said he was just looking into the facts. If they were going to alter the law, they must do it upon some information. Certain of these men fell under sub-section (a), where no discretion was left to the Minister at all. One to two per cent, of the white men would fall under the exemptions in which the Minister had no option.

Does it mean that persons in these classes are permanently exempt under sub-section (a), or in cases of emergency?

No. The men who work overtime are permanently exempt. A claim had been put forward that 5,580 should be exempt at the discretion of the Minister, under sub-section (b). This would mean 32 per cent. of the men underground. If all these gained exemption, it would mean about one-third of the men underground. If they were to exempt that number of the men underground, then, to a large extent, the Act passed by Parliament last year would be shown to have broken down. He might say that, as advised at present, he had no intention of making such a change. He did not thing that a good case had been made out for exempting the gangers. If all this were done, it would destroy the intention of the Legislature. The hon. member (Mr. Andrews) had quoted the English law passed in 1908, but that law provided for eight hours from bank to bank, from the last man down to the last man up—not the individual, but the whole gang. That was certainly not the proposition which had been put forward that day.

Then the hon. member had said that there was no inducement to expedite the transport down and up. He (Mr. Malan) thought the hon. member put his finger on the weak spot there. (Hear, hear.) As far as he (Mr. Malan) could gather, that was the complaint, and he was not sure that the complaint was not in some cases, at all events, very well founded, and what pressure the Government could bring to bear upon the mining companies to see that the men were not kept down longer than was absolutely necessary in connection with the going backward and forward to their work, he thought, ought to be applied. If by experience they found that the powers they now had were not sufficient for the purpose, he thought a fair case had been made out for parliament to interfere. If by experience they found that the appointment of checkers was necessary, he thought the necessary machinery would have to be created. But what he would urge was that, as the Act had been in operation practically for two months only, and the mines had hardly had time to adjust their conditions to the requirements of the law, was it fair now, when some mines were actively carrying out the law and others were taking steps, to ask the House to revise the decision deliberately arrived at only 12 months ago? He had an open mind in this matter, and when he asked the hon. member who introduced this Bill to consider the advisability of withdrawing it, it was for the purpose of getting a little longer time to see how the present law would work in practice. If, in twelve months, the weakness of the Act as it now stood had been proved by experience and they had more facts, and more data, to go on than they had at present, the hon. member would find in, him a very sympathetic listener. It was not because he did not see his point of view. It was not because he did not anticipate that the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission would not have a very serious bearing on this question. He anticipated that it would have. He would give the hon. member an assurance that in administering this Act he would bear the interest of both employers and employees, and especially employees, in mind. He would not give too much heed to the views of employees who were against this, because he believed it was necessary that the State should step in and protect some of the miners against themselves. The temptation to earn, whether by contract or not, as large an amount as possible in as short a time as possible was so great that some of these men had to be protected against themselves. He would, under all the circumstances, ask the hon. member not to press his Bill this year.

said that though the Minister may be sympathetic, when the men who were affected by this measure read his speech they would read very little sympathy into his words. It was contended by the Minister that the companies had only had two months in which to get the working of this Act into vogue. He submitted that the Minister was somewhat out. They had had ever since the Act was passed last session, some nine months, to prepare to put this Act into vogue. The Minister had analysed the position and brought it down to what this House had never been asked to consider. He said: “At whose expense?” Then he had said that the natives would lose some pay. The Minister seemed to have overlooked the fact that the great bulk of the men for whom they were now attempting to legislate were contractors—piece workers, and it was obvious that any loss incurred did come out of the men’s pockets, unless some adjustment took place between the employees and employers. Although there had been complaints by the Minister that the hon. member (Mr. Andrews), in introducing that Bill had been using general arguments, all the arguments that they (the Labour members) had used last session could be applied to the present case. They had stated that there would be unrest as soon as they put the clause into vogue which had been passed last session, and that the employees would interpret it in one way and the employers in another. The Minister said that they should withdraw, but it would be a very unkind action on their part to do so, because, if they did, they would not be recognising their responsibilities to the people, to the Parliament, and to the country. He knew that there was a great deal of unrest, although he did not represent a mining constituency, but he knew that the men were doing their best to kick over the traces, and their leaders were doing their best to prevent them. Mining officials were doing their best to make the measure passed last session ineffective, and they could not keep on pinpiricking in this manner, or there must be some kicking over the traces. They (the Labour members) wanted to warn that House that its intentions had been overlooked and were not being complied with ; and what they asked the House to do was to put the law into such a condition that it could be understood.

said that he wished to support the second reading, and in doing so he wanted to explain the attitude he wanted to take up in regard to that matter. He agreed with the principle involved in that Bill with regard to the limitation of the hours the men worked underground, but while he was supporting the measure he intended, if it reached the committee stage, to more an amendment that the eight hours be from bank to face. He read a letter addressed to him to the effect that at a meeting of miners at Boksburg it was resolved that the member for Boksburg be asked to co-operate with Mr. Andrews in securing an eight hours’ day, bank to bank, for all underground workers. He had also received a telegram to the effect that at a meeting of miners he was asked to support Mr. Andrews in his proposal for an eight hours’ day, bank to bank. The hon. member went on to say that he was not so much influenced by these communications as by the experience of 16 years’ work with the miners on the Rand, and more influenced by what he felt to be the best interests of the workers on the Rand. The hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews) had referred to what prevailed at Home, and to the cotton industry in Lancashire. He was going to leave the cotton industry alone and was going to refer to the question as it referred to coal mining at Home. There they had had the eight hours’ day, bank to bank, in vogue for the past two years, and possibly sufficient time had now elapsed to make some comparison in regard to the conditions at Home as they were at present and before the Act had come into force. One statement which had been made was that the number of accidents would be increased owing to the greater hurry with which men would go to, and come from, their Work ; but the figures did not prove that. (Labour cheers.) The figures were, per 1,000, 1906, 1.38; 1907, 1.46; 1908, 1.35; 1909, 1.38, and 1910, 1.35. He wanted to approach that question absolutely fairly and absolutely frankly; and the figures did not prove that with the eight hours’ bank to bank system in vogue, there had been any increase in the number of accidents. He also cited an example of a group of mines at Home which last year had given an output of 1,822,000 tons of coal; and since that Act had come into force at Home the increase of workmen employed had been 9 8 per cent. in the tonnage produced per shift per person employed.

Regarding the mining industry it had to be remembered that its product was of fixed standard and fixed value. The hon. member said if they found it impossible to grant the concession, then the mines ought to close down. He could not agree with that. He knew what it would mean on the Rand and knew’ that it would mean unemployment for a great number of men. But he was prepared to say that the eight hours should commence at the bank and end at the face. It was argued that this Act had only been in operation for two months, but it did not do away with his feeling that they should make a further concession to the workers. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to remind the hon. Minister for Mines that last session when they did vote for the Mines Act they were influenced by arguments that he did not think held good today. Last session he supported the proposition made by the hon. member for Braamfontein (Sir Aubrey Woolls-Sampson) that the hours should be laid down as from, bank to the finish at the surface. He knew there was a considerable amount of delay —unnecessary delay—in the mines before the men could return to the surface and before they could get down to their work. That was why he urged the compromise which the hon. member for Braamfontein proposed last year. He thought that 8½ hours from bank to bank would be the best compromise. They were told last session that if they went tinkering with the mining industry, capital would fight shy of South Africa, and he knew that the Government were exceedingly jealous of the reputation and good name of any of their South African industries, and therefore he stood by them and was converted. He felt very much inclined to vote for this amendment, because he regretted his conversion of last year to the terms comprised in that Bill. He trusted the Government would not make it a party question, and he would vote for the amending Bill. (Hear, hear.)

said it was very evident that the bringing forward of that amending Bill had had some good result, because it had converted two members of the Government’s party. It seemed to him that the hon. members on that side (the Opposition) were keenly interested in this question, and it also seemed to him that they had taken to heart collectively the advice given by the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours to an individual—they were all Brer Rabbits now and they were all lying low. He did not agree with the hon. Minister of Mines in his conclusions with regard to the Bill being passed last session. In the first place, he pointed out that the arguments brought to bear by his hon. friend (Mr. Andrews) were precisely the same as those brought to bear when the Mines Bill was before the House. Quite so. Only they (the Labour party) knew their minds.

He hoped some of the front bench Opposition members would have something to say on the Bill. The return of a Labour member for Georgetown, was a mandate from a mining constituency on this very matter, that election having been fought practically on the question of an eight hours’ day and miners’ phthisis. The Minister of Mines had quoted some very alarming figures. The deepest mine on the Reef was the Cinderella Deep—4,000 feet—and the men there went down at 7 a.m. and came up at 3.30 p.m., yet the Minister wished the House to believe that going down and coming up would take 90 minutes.

And walking to their work.

said the figures he had quoted gave the actual time, this showing that the proposed conditions could be carried out in eight and a half hours if the company wanted to do so, but they did not intend to carry them out. The conditions under which the miners worked were exceptionally bad, and that being so their day’s work should be as short as possible. He believed that when the House passed the Mines Act last session it was under a misapprehension, and was absolutely ignorant of the conditions. He thought hon. members were sufficiently humane to make them insist that mining should be done under the best possible conditions and be a credit to the country instead of being, as it was at present, quite the reverse. The mines in all other countries were working practically eight hours a day. The English coal mines had an eight hours’ day from bank to bank. The men should be taken from the surface to their work in the shortest possible time.

It was the rule, not the exception, to work eight hours on the surface. There was all the more reason, therefore, that surface men should work shorter hours when down below. Even private employers recognised that the eight-hour system was good. A private firm, on its own initiative, was one of the first to start the system, and Woolwich followed them. At Woolwich it proved a gigantic success. When the great eight-hour lock-out occurred in England, Mr. Hill, the managing director of the Thames Ironworks Company, wrote daily to the press supporting the men’s contention that an eight-hour day would be good, not only for the men, but for the employers, and he contributed £10,000 to the funds of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers to help them in the struggle. The principle was not a new one, nor were they asked to buy a pig in a poke. Then, what about the health of the men? Did hon. members realise that from the time the miner set foot in the cage till the time he returned to the surface he underwent a risk? On the Witwatersrand there were three killed and six injured every day. There was always the possibility of the rope breaking. The engine might get out of hand as the miners were descending, the skip dumped to the bottom, and the men killed or injured. At the face there was always the danger of drilling into a misfired hole. There was the risk of a premature explosion, ofttimes due to a running fuse. The danger was ever present of a mistake in signalling. Then there were insanitary conditions. There was always the danger of being gassed.

There is now.

Well, you are not speaking now, so there is no fear at present. Proceeding, the emphasised the danger that always existed from the dust that brought on miners phthisis. To illustrate how the presence of additional risks underground was recognised even by mine managers, he mentioned the result of an interview he had with a certain manager, who when it was pointed out to him, frankly admitted that surface men should be allowed some concession for going down below. The argument had been used, or rather had been anticipated that a large section of the miners did not want shorter hours, because that meant a reduction in wages, particularly when the contract hand could not get his round down. This difficulty was entirely due to the mismanagement of the mines themselves. All the miners complained of the manner in which materials were supplied them. The machine hands never had sufficient jumpers. This caused another danger. It led to the holes not being parallel, and this produced premature explosions. In regard to miners phthisis, an hon. member had mentioned that between the age of 30 and 40 every miner must die. During the recess he had followed no fewer than six of his personal friends to the grave. They had all died of miners’ phthisis, and not one of them had been more than six years mining in this country. It was a standing disgrace to that House, let alone to the mine-owners. He appealed to the Minister not to ask them to withdraw the Bill. It was necessary in the interests of the workers. The mine owners would not make any concessions, so the House must make them. It must to laid down that these men should not work more than eight hours a day. That was quite long enough in any vocation, more especially in the vitiated atmosphere of the mines. He appealed to the Government not to make it a party vote.

said that for eight months he had been in close contact with the miners of his constituency, and had tried to get at their thoughts as well as their feelings. He knew that they were called underground savages, but be found that many of the men had made it their business to master the Act that was passed last session. He wished to dispel some of the illusions concerning the enormous amount of pay they received. He (the speaker) had some pay sheets of the miners, whom he might mention were first-class and competent miners. The rate of pay was 25s. per foot. After working, one man drew at the rate of one-eighth of a penny per day. He had another case of a man who was down for £55 12s. 6d., but after deductions were made, he drew the very large sum of £3 7s. 9d. Continuing, he said he had seen men die of phthisis during the recess, and mentioned the case of a young, robust man who came across the sea only four years ago. He (the speaker) saw him three days before he died, and the young man said he was not troubled about the future, but about his young wife and three children, who would be in the hell of charity in a few days. If he (the speaker) murdered one man, he would be called a villain, but conditions were allowed to exist which involved the death of hundreds, but the men responsible were called heroes. What they wanted was a bit of good practice, such as he knew the Minister of Mines was anxious to see in operation. They had been told some mines might be closed down. Why were the mines carried on at all? Were they carried on because a certain number of white men required work? Why did these mines work at all? There was only one reason, and that was that these men were allowed to work at a figure indicated by those above them, because those above them made profit out of them. He pointed out that in Australia, where the healthiest mines in the world were situated, there was an eight hours’ day. Those at the head of affairs there were actuated by the same motives as those on the Rand. Why should there be worse conditions in this country? It was not because the rich people made the laws, but because the rich men controlled those who made the laws.

They had new arguments to-day. During the last twelve months they had had investigations, and he knew medical men on the Commission who were absolutely alarmed at what they had discovered. He had seen as much as 2 oz. of dirt taken from the incinerated lungs of a man who had died from phthisis. They had fresh information, and the fresh information brought day after day made them feel more and more keenly and convinced them more strongly than ever that to delay was worse than a crime. The men who managed the mines were as much the victims of the system as the men who had to go down and earn their daily bread. Then they had been told how these shorter hours would inflict great loss upon the poor mines. He would like to give a few particulars about one or two of these “poor mines.” The Robinson Mine issued capital to the amount of £2,750,000. That was watered capital. The dividend was announced at somewhere about 11 per cent., that was on the watered capital. The mine started with £50,000. Take another little mine, the City and Suburban. The original capital was £35,000. The issued capital was £1,360,000. On this £1,360,000, 15 per cent. was paid. He would leave those who were keen on arithmetic to figure what that worked out at on £85,000.

said that it was his conviction last year, when this Bill was passed, that the object of the clause as it stood would be easily frustrated, to the detriment of the miners. He must say that what had convinced him more than ever that the object of that clause had been frustrated was the instances quoted by the hon. member for Georgetown of the North Randfontein. It proved clearly that if the clause could be carried out as it had been meant to be carried out there would have been no complaint. It was a clear proof to him that, as it stood at present in the Act, there was room for improvement and an amendment should be made in that clause, and therefore he was going to support the second reading of the Bill. (Hear, hear.)

thought that they who were in the position of employers should say something about the motion which was before the House, in view of of what had been said by hon. members on the cross benches. They had heard a great deal of argument used, a good deal of which had been entirely irrelevant ; and he thought it was a pity that of the hon. members on the cross benches the only one who had had any experience of underground working should not have come for ward and stated the case from his point of view, because hon. members who had spoken had had no personal experience of underground working, and the hon. member for Vrededorp he would hardly think would pose as an expert in mining matters Last session, as the Minister of Mines had already said, the whole question of hours was thoroughly discussed and gone into, and the House resolved, in effect, on the broad principle that the ordinary hours of working underground should be actually eight hours, irrespective of the time taken in going to or coming from, the actual working place. In order to enable ordinary workers to carry out that work it was understood and provided in the law that the Minister should have the power to make a certain number of exemptions, because it was obvious that in a case like that of an engine driver, who drove the engine which hauled up the men from below, he must carry on his work longer than the eight hours.

said something about two shifts.

went on to quote from the report (1907) of the committee dealing with the Eight Hours’ Act in connection with the coal mines of England, in which the number of exemptions among some 691,000 men employed practically came to 6 per cent. He did not want to make any point of the figures, but in a system of that kind they must have a reasonable number of exemptions. He was not going into detail as to what classes of people should be exempted, and it seemed to him that that was a matter which should be considered by the Minister after consultation with his technical advisers. He supposed that if they found that the number applied for was somewhat excessive, it would be cut down and enable the law they passed last session to be carried out. It seemed to him that, considering the fact that the law had come into operation on December 1, and as the Minister himself had said, by reason chiefly of the Christ mes holidays, no change had been made on some of the mines until January 1, it followed that at the time the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews) had given notice of the Bill, the working of the Act had only had about a month’s trial. If members were to come to that House and after one month’s experience ask for a change, they were going to destroy any feeling of confidence anyone could possibly have in the Government desiring to treat one of the most important industries of the country fairly ; and it would be unreasonable for any government to undertake such a change at such short notice and with so little justification. He was not prepared to deny that there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction brought about by the operation of the Act, but he thought that in many cases the real root of the discontent was the fact that some of the men concerned under the new regulation did not earn as much money as they used to earn before ; and that, of course, made people grumble. He knew nothing, he continued, except what he had read in the newspapers, about the new organisation which had been started, and which had been referred to by hon. members on the cross benches. Of course, anybody who disagreed with their policy was called a renegade, but another view was that he was a sensible man, and one who was not to he led by the nose by hon. members on the cross benches. (Laughter.)

If the Bill which had been brought forward were given effect to by the House, it would cause a very serious dislocation of the working conditions. Hon. members on the cross-benches had argued the point as if it solely affected the white working-men on the Rand. Of course, it affected the coloured men also. The result of both classes working short hours, to the best of his belief, would be that on many of the mines—most of the mines—there would be an entire dislocation of the working conditions. It would be impossible to get the amount of work done that was done today. To-day, as it was, the working conditions were hampered by the scarcity of labour. Instead of the present system, when they had no blasting going on at night, which improved the sanitary conditions of the mines, double shifts would have to be resorted to, and the atmospheric and sanitary conditions of the mines would be very much worse. (Hear, hear.) Then, of course, there was the further point, that putting on extra short shifts, both shifts being short, would mean that mining would be very much more expensive. The hon. member for Georgetown was quite open about it, and said that if an industry could not pay proper wages, it would be better if that industry closed down. Well, there were many mines today, he thought, that were working for very little profit. What they were doing was, in effect, working their property for the benefit, first, of the men who received the wages ; secondly for the merchants and tradespeople ; and, thirdly, for the general revenue of this country ; and they were getting no share in the profits themselves. Well, the result would be, if, as he thought, this Bill was passed, the working costs would be considerably increased. Those mines which to-day were working on the narrowest margin of profit would have to close down. Now, he thought that though the hon. member would not mind that, the general public would mind it, and the House would mind it ; and he did not think, whatever the hon. members on the cross-benches might say, the average wages paid on mines to-day could be said to be, on the whole, unduly small. (Hear, hear.) If mining conditions were going to be absolutely dislocated by changes such as the hon. member advocated, of course it would come to a question whether the existing wages should be reduced in order to allow the mines to be worked, or whether the mines should be shut down. Well, of course, the tendency in such matters was, in order to stave off the evil day, and to save the disastrous result of shutting down, to cut wages down. He believed there should be a margin. He did not want to see people’s earnings diminished ; but it seemed to him that would be the inevitable effect of what the hon. member advocated. That, he maintained, would not be of advantage to the workers ; it would not be to the advantage of the tradespeople, and it would not be to the advantage of the whole country. He thought, therefore, that the House would be well advised to support the proposal of the hon. Minister to reject this Bill, or, rather, that the hon. member would be well advised if he withdrew it, because he did not think they would be well advised in passing it. It would end in serious dislocation of the industry and would not be to the advantage of the men concerned. (Hear, hear.) If it was the case, and he thought it was possible, that on some mines the arrangement to bring people up were not as good as they might be, he thought this could be rectified. But these things could not be done at five minutes’ notice, and he had every confidence that efforts would be made to make as good arrangements as possible. After all, what advantage was it to the mine owners to keep the men underground? He had seen it stated in the Press that the mine manager kept the men down and said that they could haul up more rock. But if the men were ready to come up the eight hours’ shift would be over, and to haul up rock would be against the law, and the men had the remedy in their own hands. He believed the Act should be given a fair trial, and it was to everybody’s advantage to see that the Act worked smoothly, and he did not see any reason why it should not do so. (Hear, hear.)

said it appeared plainly from the speech which had been made by the hon. member for Georgetown that there was a hiatus in the Mines and Works Act, and he hoped therefore that the present amending Bill would be accepted. The miners were kept underground for nine or ten hours, and lost their health, whilst the very object for which the Act was passed last year was to see that the miners working day was not longer than eight hours underground. He (the speaker) would support the Bill, and hoped that it would be so thoroughly considered in committee that there would be no more loopholes.

said that there were a few points which clearly indicated which way the House should act in this matter. The hon. member for Georgetown said that eight hours was possible under the Act, but that the mines were taking advantage of the law. The hon. member for Springs said that it could be done if the law were properly carried out.

I did not say bank to bank.

pointed out that neither had he quoted the hon. member as saying that. If it was possible under the Act the authorities were there to see the provision carried out, and could prosecute any contraventions. That convinced him that the House should not at the present stage start tinkering with Acts of Parliament passed only last session. The Act had had only two months’ trial, and surely it was not necessary nor advisable to alter it at this early stage. He took it that the Government was as anxious to look after the lives of people as hon. members on the cross-benches were. The hon. member for Roodepoort had attacked the Minister for bringing forward as an excuse for not accepting this little Bill, that hon. members had used the same arguments last year, and therefore the Bill should not be accepted.

I said nothing of the kind.

He then said that if he (the Minister) had to defend the Christian religion he would use the same old arguments that had been stamped with antiquity. Well, the only difference was that while one set of arguments with regard to the Christian religion and bearing the stamp of antiquity had been accepted, the arguments used last year by these hon. gentlemen were not accepted. Proceeding, he said that a certain association, the Underground Employees’ Association, had been unfairly attacked. He quoted from an article in the “Star” of the 15th inst. to show what the views of the men themselves were on the matter of an eight hour day. The first point related to the Act passed last session. The article ran: “Why didn’t the Government take a ballot before introducing the measure?” asked one Cumberland miner ; and then, after a pause, he remarked, “It’s damnable.” “But,” the questioner suggested, “the miners’ union recommended the measure, and Mr. Andrews has introduced an amending Act to make the eight hours apply from bank to bank.” The miner replied with some heat that these politicians were the curse of the worker, that they knew nothing about the conditions of mine work. The article proceeded to show how the men of one shift on the Crown Mines sent a petition among their fellows, and out of about a hundred, seventy-nine expressed themselves in favour of a reversion to former conditions, the majority of the remainder gave their sympathy to the movement, but did not like to commit themselves, while only three indicated their approval of the new order of things. Then a meeting was held, officers were elected, and the objects of the association were framed on the following lines :

1. 1. To be able to place before the management any grievance or complaints.
2. 2. To object to a certain section of people on the Rand, who profess to represent the underground employees, especially rock drillers, in such matters relating to underground work.
3. 3. To object to any further alteration in the working hours unless a ballot is taken of all persons involved.
4. 4. To try and get the working hours ex tended for contractors from the present eight hours to nine hours.
5. 5. To approach the mining houses on the Witwatersrand with the object of forming a Wage Board or Conciliation Board.

The chairman of that society had also been abused. His name was given as “T. E. Fairbank.” He had eighteen years’ experience in the Transvaal, and previously in England. The secretary was J. R. Bellerby, holder of the record for rock drilling in the Transvaal. He (the speaker) maintained that these men spoke impartially, and until their evidence was refuted it should be accepted. The article proceeded, on the information given by the Cumberland miner and by the chairman: “Eight hours a day has left the daily paid men in a worse position than they have ever occupied before. To complete his day’s work at present the contractor has to spend all his time at the working face, whereas before he took things rather easily after he had rigged up his machine and seen operations well begun. The result is that the men state that they are being compelled by law to inhale dust the whole time they are underground, and that miners’ phthisis is bound to become more prevalent.” The article from which he had quoted gave the House the independent opinion of experienced miners, and the line suggested by the Minister of Mines was the right one to go upon. Let them give the Act a fair trial, and in the meanwhile the Minister could collect statistics, and if he thereafter came to the House to improve on the existing Act, he (the speaker) would support such a measure. (Hear, hear.)

said the principle the House agreed to last session was that there should be a legal limitation of the hours of work, but the Labour party maintained that the method adopted last year had not led to any effective legal limitation at all. He did not think that the prospect of the industry being dislocated need engage their attention at present. That was the old cry of “Wolf.” He could not help congratulating the Government on the fact—which must be a great satisfaction to it—that even after the events of the last week they had on some matters by no means forfeited the confidence of the gentlemen who sat on the front Opposition benches. The hon. member for Georgetown had mentioned some mines as being typical of those where the law was reasonably being carried out. It was the Randfontein group which appeared to “play the game” best. The Minister of Mmes had based his main objection to the Bill on some calculations he had evidently been supplied with, and from which he brought out that the average time taken by the men in descending and ascending the mines was 62½ minutes. It would be well for the Minister if he did not take these figures on trust. A week or two ago the Minister, replying to the hon. member for Springs, stated that for an inspector even to visit all the working faces in the Crown Mines would take two months. A few days after he (Mr. Creswell) asked how many shift bosses there were on that mine. Among other duties entailed by the regulations on shift bosses were that they must during each shift visit every portion of the mine in which men were working or through which they passed. This was entirely in addition to their ordinary duties in keeping the work going. If the Minister were right in his statement it was obvious that there would have to be at least 60 or 70 shift bosses on the Crown Mines. As a matter of fact there were only 26 by day and 12 or 13 by night. A week or ten days was the real figure to he substituted for the two months mentioned by the Minister of Mines. However, supposing the evidence for stating that the average time for going down and coming up from a mine was 62½ minutes had been carefully examined —

That is the average.

said the Minister’s information differed very materially from theirs. At a meeting of the Mine Managers’ Association he put to men from different mines the question: “From the time you get into the skip, with things properly organised, how long will it take you to get to your working face, and how long after blasting to reach the surface?” They all agreed that a quarter of an hour each way would be ample.

Are you prepared to accept that?

We ask in this Bill to make it an eight hour day. Eight hours are what we believe to be sufficient, but will you pass the second reading of this Bill and then will you propose an amendment making it eight and a half hours? We say eight hours are the proper amount, and we are not going to be satisfied until we get eight. Does the Minister want an effective limitation of the hours of Labour? Is he satisfied that there is only one possible way of doing this? Proceeding, Mr. Creswell said that the difference between them was as to what those hours should be. They, on the cross benches, said eight. The Minister said eight and a half. He (the speaker) thought the Minister had a larger number of followers than they had. If he thought that eight and a half was fair and proper then it was his business to place such a proposal before the House. If he (the speaker) were a mine manager—he did not care whether the Minister had three or four times the number of inspectors he had at the present time—he would be able to get round the regulation. But if it were a case of bank to bank the mine manager would very soon be spotted. They said that there should be eight hours, and no more.

said that the point of the bank to bank proposal was the difficulty of getting the men to and from their work. They had heard a great deal about a workman getting to his shop—a case where no time was deducted. But this was a vastly different proposal. He pointed out to the House the fact that after the men were taken down in the skip, they would have to walk about half a mile or so and then climb up two or three hundred feet to their working places. On their return they would have to descend that two or three hundred feet, and go over the half-mile again to the skip. Was it fair to include in the working time the time the men took to get from their working place to the skip?

What about the shift boss?

Well, the shift boss can’t drive the men like a lot of cattle. Continuing, he said that under those conditions the men would have liberty to take as much time as they liked in getting from their working place to the skip. It would not be fair to the men or the industry. The case of the man in the factory was vastly different. They knew that some of the men would be fair and would do the distance in the shortest possible time, but they knew there were numbers who would just do the reverse. Therefore, it seemed to him, that the only possible method of dealing with this question of hours was by the face. He thought that the view taken by the Minister was perfectly fair and reasonable. He had reminded the House that the Bill was only passed last session, and that it had only been in operation about two months. The old argument in favour of the eight-hour day, bank to bank, was then brought forward, and the House came to the conclusion that such a state of affairs would be undesirable. The legislation had only been in operation for a couple of months, and he understood in some of the mines the arrangements were not yet quite perfect. The point was that if mines did not comply with the regulations, then they should be forced to do so. There was no possible excuse for the managers of the mines wasting the time of the men, and he said that if a manager was careless the regulations should be put into force. Hon. members on the cross benches had led the House to believe that the accident death rate on the mines was something terrible. An hon. member had stated that three men were killed and six men injured every full working day during 1910. He found that it was based on a statement that was made before the Chemical Society in the Transvaal. He (the speaker) would draw the attention of that hon. member and hon. members in the House to an address delivered before the same society by Mr. Kotze, the Government mining engineer. That gentleman had said that the statement that the highest accident death rate in the world was found in the Transvaal was not correct. He (the speaker) pointed out that the rate compared most favourably with rates in other parts of the civilised world. In 1907 it was 4.58 ; in 1908, it was 4.03; and in 1909, it was 5.32. In the United States they had 4.66, 3.42, and 3.35. He quoted these statistics to show that the House should not be led away by the sentiment and even by the statistics which hon. members on the cross benches delighted in.

On a point of order—on a point of personal explanation—I did not say —

Explanation is not a point of order.

said he would mention another matter. It had been said that in Australia they had the lowest death-rate in the world. He found that that was not accurate either. In Austria and Belgium the average for both those countries was lower. Touching on the subject generally, he would say that they knew the mining industry was by no means, as a whole, in as flourishing a condition as they could wish for the welfare of the country. There were mines working at a margin of from 1s to 2s. per ton profit, and very little would cause these mines to shut down, and would cause a considerable amount of suffering, which their friends on the cross-benches did not seem to take due and proper account of. He thought, if he judged that House correctly, hon. members would feel with him, and those who had spoken on that side, that the law having been brought in less than a year ago, and having been in operation for only two months, it would hardly be fitting that they should at this time, without the strongest possible evidence, take any steps to amend it or alter it in shape. Speaking as one who was deeply interested in the mining industry, he hoped the House would adopt the Minister’s suggestion, and reject the measure now moved for second reading. (Opposition cheers.)

said it had been cast against members on that side that, because they had not spoken in this debate, they took no interest in the subject, even though it was a matter which affected closely the interests and lives of many men on the mines. They were, however, accustomed to these gibes, and knew they would get them, whether they spoke or were silent. He entirely agreed, and he thought everybody agreed, that the legal limitation of the hours of underground work in mines was necessary. Not only in the interests of the amenities of life was it desirable that men should have more leisure than they now enjoyed, but even for the sake of health itself, and life itself, it was necessary that there should be a legal limitation to the hours worked underground in mines. But the whole question was: was the legal limitation of the hours of work to eight really effective as a means of preventing excessive time spent underground in the mines, or was it not? They had heard from the hon. members on the cross-benches that it was not effective. (Hear, hear.) If it were not effective, he supposed, or at least he trusted, that there would be no difficulty on the part of this House in making it effective. This House had adopted, not the system of reckoning the legal limitation from bank to bank, as hon. members on the cross-benches advocated, but had imposed the legal limitation at the face. That left a man still, in addition to his eight hours at the face, to spend underground the time occupied in getting to and from his work. The House had, as he said, adopted the latter of the two systems. But it was, on its trial. He thought if the Minister of Mines came forward another year with the same figures as he had put before them that day, i.e., if arrangements could not be made so that men would have to spend less time in going to and from their work than appeared to be the average to-day, then a case would have been made for the House to take some steps in the matter. But, while the present system was on trial, surely nobody could say that it had had a sufficient period of trial to convince that House that it was wrong, and ought to be done away with. While recognising to the fullest extent the importance of limiting the hours of the men employed underground, he was not prepared to say that the present Act had been condemned by the results which had been shown to the House that day, because he did not see that any reasonable man could say that it had had sufficient time for trial. He was therefore unable to support the Bill before the House.

said that he voted for the Act of last session, and he did so with the full knowledge that a large number of miners in his constituency were in its favour. He divided miners into two classes, and it was as well, he thought, that the House should understand what those classes were. There was the staid miner, who remained at his work for months and years, and there was a large group of peripatetic miners, who were continually shifting from one mine to another. To the first class, he attached very great importance. The opinions of the second class were not of much value to this House or anybody else. He agreed that the Act passed last year should be given a fair chance. A good deal had been said on the subject of miners’ phthisis that day, and it was quite right that it should be brought to the attention of the House ; but he could assure the House that it would not be eliminated by any legislation merely placing a legal limit on working hours.

We won’t lose sight of it.

in conclusion, hoped that that aspect of the question would receive more attention, and he hoped he would have the support of the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews) in that, and in making the mines so healthy that half an hour more or less underground would not make any difference. Hear, hear.)

said that the Mines and Works Act had been in operation for only two months, and already defects had been found in it After it had been in working for twelve months it should be substantially modified. In particular, alterations should be made in the powers conferred on the Governor-General in connection with the making of regulations. Even last year the speaker had feared for those competent miners who would no longer be able to pass an examination. Still, he would like to see the Act in operation a little longer, so that all its faults might be brought out. The members of the Labour party were only injuring the interests of the miners by seeking at this early stage to obtain a change in the law. He would always support their interests, and thought the best way to do that was to give the Act a little longer trial.

in reply, said that he thought that as the Act stood, it rigidly enforced an eight hours’ day, face to face, with no provision for a Saturday half-holiday, but the Minister of Mines had said that was not so. Perhaps the Minister had read something in the Act he (the hon. member) had not. As to the point made by the Minister and by the hon. members for Germiston, Denver (and others), that not enough time had been given to the mining authorities to conform to the new regulations, the law had been passed in April, and since then the mines had time to prepare for it, but had not clone so, but had delayed until the last possible moment in order to create the present, dissatisfaction which was found on the Witwatersrand. If a law had been brought into force with regard to illicit gold or diamond buying, for example, what would have been the attitude adopted towards illicit gold or diamond buyers. Would they have been given any latitude. (Laughter.) Why had the companies delayed? In order to make a certain proportion of the men believe that the Act was detrimental to their interests, and because they wished to defeat the acts of that House. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Boksburg (Dr. AlacNeillie), it was no argument, no compromise, to say “bank to f ace as the number of hours could only be calculated “bank to bank.” Nothing could be more absurd than the proposal of the hon. member for Von Brandis ‘(Mr. Nathan) for the Government to have inspectors at the end of every stope and every drive on the gold mines—and the hon. member knew it. There was one point emphasised by the hon. member for Germiston, in which he stated he wished to have eight hours’ full work done underground. He had no doubt that was his idea, but he, speaking for his colleagues and himself, asked that a man should not be underground more than eight hours. It was not a question of work It was a question of being in the mines. And he was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Hockey) say they were not concerned with the more important matter of the health of the miners.

I did not say it.

He might not have said it, but I have yet to learn that there was anything more important than the health of the miners. Proceeding, he said they were concerned with the health of the miner, and they thought the shorter time the miner spent underground the less liable he would be to contract miners’ phthisis or any other disease. The hon. member for Yeoville (Sir Lionel Phillips) pointed out that there was no comparison between this House and a mine. There was not. He would ask the hon. member whether he would call walking along a drive in heavy boots and through water, and then climbing up to the working place, work or healthful exercise. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Drummond Chaplin) said they knew nothing of the work underground ; but he had worked on the mines, above and below, from 1893 to the commencement of the war. The hon. member for Germiston was good enough to tell them that he was very much afraid that several of the mines were working on purely philanthropic lines ; they were working for the benefit of the workmen and the community at large. He was afraid either there would have to be a considerable reduction in wages or staff, or the mines would be shut down. They had had that kind of warning time after time, and were quite used to it. He would say that they (the Labour party) were above all anxious to have the period of work on the mines clearly delineated, and so stated in the Bill that they could be checked and not left to the good will of the management. They were of opinion that eight hours a day from bank to bank was the maximum that a man should work, but as the House did not seem to be friendly disposed towards the idea he was prepared to accept an amendment from the Minister of Mines in committee for an 8 1/2 hours’ day from bank to bank, not departing in doing so, however, one jot from his principles. He hoped the House would pass the Bill.

declared the motion that the Bill be read the second time negatived.

called for a division, which resulted as follows: