Memoir of geology of country north of Zeerust.

moved that the House go into committee to consider the following: That the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Bill Procedure Bill have leave to consider Clause 13, providing for the imposition of fees in connection with the taxation of costs in Private Bill legislation.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The motion was considered in committee, agreed to, and reported to the House.

It was thereupon referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

moved the third reading of this Bill.

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

said he desired to draw Mr. Speaker’s attention to a matter which, upon investigation, might prove to amount to a grave breach of privilege. The matter to which he referred was an article in the “Cape Times” of Tuesday, April 16, headed “The Defence Bill: Some Important Amendments: A Forecast,” etc. The article went on to state that it foreshadowed certain amendments, and proceeded to state categorically what those amendments were likely to be. He wanted particularly to draw Mr. Speaker’s attention to the fact that the article was published on April 16, and the report of the Select Committee, which did amend the Defence Bill, was also signed by the Chairman on April 16, and certainly the article appeared a considerable time before the amended Bill was placed in the hands of members, with the result that the public outside apparently knew what had taken place in the committee long before the members of the House did. (Ministerial cheers.) Now the amendments he did not think it was necessary to go through, but hon. members would be able to see precisely how closely the foreshadowing approximated to the actual report and the actual amendments in the Bill, and he was forced to come to one of three conclusions: that the writer of that article possessed a remarkably prophetic soul—(laughter); secondly, that the approximations of these forecasts of amendments to the actual amendments was a most astounding coincidence; or thirdly, that the writer of these articles had made use of private information which no other individual or collection of individuals had access to. He would place the copy in Mr. Speaker’s hands, together with the report itself; and he submitted that a grave breach of privilege had taken place. He desired that Mr. Speaker would think over the matter—(a laugh)—and give his ruling on the matter, and taking whatever action he might think best to protect Parliament. He would like to draw attention to the significant fact that the particular company which printed that paper also printed the reports of the Select Committees of that House, and consequently had access to them, and it was unfair to other papers which did not have information of that description. He asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point as to whether the Cape Times Ltd,, in publishing an article in their daily paper on the 16th instant, giving forecasts of the amendments made by the Select Committee on the South Africa Defence Bill, before such amendments had been placed in the hands of members of the House, were not guilty of a breach of privilege. (Ministerial cheers.)

It is impossible for me at the moment to give an opinion on the matter, but I shall look into it and place the House in possession of the facts at an early date.

said that the difficulty of hon. members in his position, who were not members of the Select Committee, was that they had, through no fault of their own, not had any opportunity whatever of studying the report, and he would like to impress upon the Government the advisability of seeing that the Select Committees’ reports would be issued, so that hon. members would have a reasonable time to study the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 had been considerably modified.

said that what his hon. friend had said was quite true. It was an unfortunate thing that that had happened, but there had been a great pressure of work. He would, however, try to help hon. members as much as possible by pointing out to them the changes which had been made, and the pages and the paragraphs in the report which dealt with those changes, so that hon. members would see exactly what the position was. (Hear, hear.)

said that that was quite satisfactory; but was there no possibility of making an estimate beforehand, so that the reports of the Select Committees would be in the hands of hon. members for a reasonable time?

On clause 2, liability to peace training,

said that hon. members would see that old clause 2 had been deleted and a new clause substituted. The old clause had been found to be objectionable, and had led to most of the mistrust of that Bill. Originally four years’ service had been referred to, and the public had come under the impression that it meant for the whole of the four years, which was not the case.

On clause 3,

On the motion of Mr. P. J. G. THERON, the CHAIRMAN put the new clause 3 of the Bill (A.B. 7—’12), proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: “3. Of the total number of citizens throughout the Union liable to peace training under the last preceding section, only 50 per cent, shall actually undergo that training, unless, out of moneys specifically appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, provision is made for the training of a greater percentage; provided that whether provision has been so made for 50 per cent, or for a greater percentage, a margin of increase or decrease not exceeding 5 per cent, shall be permissible.”

said that hon. members would see that the original clause 3 dealt with contributions in lieu of service, and that had been deleted—one of the most important alterations—and he had found that the Select Committee had been unanimously against it, and they were undoubtedly voicing public opinion. The result was that the contribution had been dropped, and therefore the new section 3 dealt with another matter, and that was the percentage of citizens liable to service that was going to be actually trained. Hon. members would remember that at the time of the second reading he had said that the object of the Government was, within certain limits, to train half the available young men fit for service. Of course, nothing in the Bill had been said about that, but the Select Committee had thought that it was leaving too much latitude to the Government, and the clause now laid down the proportion.

asked how were they going to find out which should be the fifty per cent.?

said that he thought it was rather a pity that they had “scrapped” that principle entirely without due consideration, that was, if a man was not actually called upon to do peace training he should contribute. He thought something ought to be put in the Bill to the following effect: That at such times as there was an income tax imposed upon male European adults, or some other valuation made, the Government might call upon every citizen not actually serving to pay a contribution towards the consolidated revenue fund.

said that he might perhaps assist his hon. friend if he pointed out the reasons which animated some of the committee to knock out this £1 contribution. It was felt that where they had a system which was partly voluntary and partly compulsory, they were limited to a certain number of people who would have to serve the State, and it became obviously unfair to apply this contribution to the system when the people who volunteered for the forces might have to be reduced. In practice, that became impossible.

said the percentage of men who had to train was too large, and would cause considerable hardship, while the expense would also be too large. He moved that the 50 per cent be reduced to 40 per cent.

said there was no doubt that the stipulation in regard to the £1 contribution was not the most important part of the Bill, and he feared that if he had insisted upon it, the whole Bill might have been wrecked, because the feeling against it was extremely strong. On a matter of this kind it was essential here and there to give and take a little, and although he regretted the alteration, the Select Committee had been unanimous on the subject, and he had, therefore, agreed to its deletion. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the amendment of the member As regarded the amendment of the member for Heilbron, he feared the hon. member was labouring under a misunderstanding. The number of men between 17 and 21 years of age to be raised in this manner would not exceed 6,000 per year, and the total, when they passed into the Reserve, after four years, would number not more than 24,000 under present circumstances. He did not think this would be too expensive for the country, or that it would impose too heavy a burden.

said that after the Minister’s explanation, he was prepared to withdraw his amendment. (Hear, hear.)

said he had been one of those who had most strongly objected to the £1 contribution, and he was pleased that it had disappeared from the Bill. He noticed, however, that it was now proposed to tax the country by paying the recruits. To this he objected, as it would be a wrong principle, a disastrous departure, for them to have paid soldiers. (Hear, hear.) They should serve for nothing.

inquired whether there was a conscience clause in the Bill.

replied in the affirmative.

asked how the 50 per cent was to be arrived at, or how it was to be determined?

said that the 50 per cent was, of course, simply a calculation based upon figures. Hon. members would know in the later clauses of the Bill that there was to be a registration in the districts, and they simply took the total of these young men and within limits they must take 50 per cent, of them.

wished to know what would happen if more than the 50 per cent. of the men stipulated offered themselves voluntarily for service. Would they be refused, or was it the intention to accept them all?

said the hon. member would see that the clause laid it down that the Government was limited to 50 per cent. But if more men presented themselves, it would be left to Parliament to make the necessary provision.

said that though he did not like the provision for paying the recruits, he realised that there were cases in which such payment might be necessary. As an example, he would quote the case of a young farmer, the only support of his old parents. (Hear, hear.) Therefore he would support the clause.

urged that the citizen force should be formed as much as possible on the lines which in past years had proved satisfactory, and in the spirit of the people—namely, on the old commando system. In case of accident, gratuities or pensions could be paid.

said he was glad to state that the committee had met him in this matter, because on reference to the Bluebook it would be seen that at the commencement of their deliberations he moved: “That as a basis to work on, this committee approve of the principle of compulsory peace training for military service (subject to the exceptions of those who are physically unfit) of all white citizens throughout the Union between their seventeenth and twenty-fifth years.” He referred to this because he wished to issue a warning to the members of the House and to the country, that our geographical position demanded that the training should be universal—(hear, hear)—but he accepted the decision of the committee, and he hoped that the House would adopt it. (Hear, hear.) He thought hon. members were rather going ahead of the business that they had before them, because they were discussing articles which were dealt with later, such as the matter of payment, etc. If they would have a little patience, they would come to the details of the question raised by them.

said it should be laid down how many shooting drills a member of a rifle association should be required to attend.

replied that the question was premature.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 4, Rifle Associations,

said he would like to ask the Minister what his policy was in regard to rifle associations. Was it correct that he had already anticipated the passing of this clause?

asked if the Government would supply the associations with rifles and ammunition?

said this clause only dealt with the general principle; there were other clauses dealing with the matter in detail.

said that considerable surprise had been felt in Natal owing to the grants to rifle associations being stopped If the Minister would make a statement he would ease the public mind. Would the present grant be continued until the new grant was made?

said he would supply the details at a later stage.

On clause 6, Cadets,

On the motion of Mr. VAN NIEKERK, the CHAIRMAN put the new clause 6 proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: “6. In urban or other populous areas wherein facilities for the proper training of cadets can conveniently be arranged, all boys between their thirteenth and seventeenth years (both included) may be required to undergo a prescribed course of cadet training annually, unless their parents or guardians lodge written objection thereto.”

said the whole country was opposed to the cadet system. (Cries of “No, no.”) Well, that was, at any rate, his opinion, and he knew what he was talking about. Under the provisions of the clause some youngsters would join the cadet force and others would not. He felt that the training of children as cadets would have’ a demoralising effect upon the minds of the youngsters. (Cries of “No, no.”) He hoped the clause would be deleted.

said there was surely no difficulty about a parent stating his objections. It was not compulsory.

in supporting the clause, said that in the past they had found that their best soldiers were the young fellows under 17 years of age.

hoped the hon. member for Prieska would withdraw his objection, and pointed out that under the clause the whole matter was left to the option of the parents, and he did not understand why hon. members should raise objections. (Hear, hear.) Why should parents desiring their children to join the cadet corps be prevented from doing so? He knew there was a certain amount of feeling in South Africa on this matter. Mistakes might have been made in the past, abuses had taken place, but they would see that this would not again occur in the future. (Hear, hear.) If they were afraid that their children would come under bad influences let them accompany them and see for themselves, and if things were not as they should be they could be set right. Some hon. members wished to keep the children too long in their childhood days. What would happen, he asked, if at some future time they were suddenly left to their own devices? The best they could do was to bring up the children in the right manner, and instil into them discipline, and at the same time self-confidence and a sense of duty, which was best achieved by allowing them to join the cadet corps. (Hear, hear.) He thought it would be a crime if they did not let their children join the cadets. They would, of course, be extremely prudent as to who was placed at the head of such corps.

also objected to the cadet system as being in conflict with the spirit of the people. The people ought to be entirely free to choose or not.

spoke in support of the clause. He came from a thickly-populated part of the country, where people were not opposed to this cadet system. (Hear, hear.) He knew the benefits of cadet training, and regretted that the scheme could not be extended to the rural districts. It was regrettable that the children in the sparsely-populated districts could not enjoy the same privileges as those in the more densely-populated areas. (Hear, hear.) Of course, the children must be placed under careful supervision.

said that in his speech the Minister stated that he had been impressed by the Boy Scout movement. Did he mean the ordinary acceptation of the terms by the word cadets or did he include some form of the Scout movement? He thought that the Scouts plus rifles would be an excellent institution.

moved to omit the words “urban or other populous,” the object of which, he explained, was to provide similar benefits to the sparsely-populated districts as were given to the thickly populated areas. He wanted the boys to be trained wherever it was possible.

although not in favour of the cadet system, could see no objection to the clause as it stood, as it loft the matter in the hands of the parents. (Hear, hear.) He objected to the amendment, however.

moved, in line 2 of the clause, after “arranged,” to omit all the words to the end of the clause, and to substitute “parents and guardians may request that their children, between thirteen and seventeen years, shall undergo such drills as may be prescribed.” He reiterated his objection to the clause in its present form, which he would oppose until the end.

said he realised the benefits of the Boy Scout movement—(hear, hear)—and he hoped to graft the principles of the Boy Scout movement on the Cadet system—(hear, hear)—providing for less drilling and more healthy exercise than at present practised under the Cadet movement. He regretted he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof, as it was superfluous. The amendment of the hon. member for Prieska went too far, as it would oppose the establishment of Cadet Corps. The parents’ right to object was already fully recognised.

approved the elapse as printed, and could not understand why the training of children was objected to. It was most desirable that they should become skilled in the use of the rifle, in horse riding, and in discipline. He remembered the time in the Free State when children of twelve years of age could ride and shoot well, and why should they take away the rights of parents to make use of these privileges? He entirely approved the clause. (Hear, hear.)

said the explanation made by the Minister had only alarmed him further. Why could not his amendment be accepted? The Stellenbosch example was not apropos to the question, as the boys there were usually much older. The objection to requiring the written consent of the parents was baseless. The hon. member had talked about u privileges,” but there was a difference between shooting a springbok and, a man. The speaker was opposed to such a wrong method of training children, and would certainly vote against the clause, even if alone in doing so, though if in the minority he would give way.

agreed that there was a strong feeling against the Cadet system, and urged the Minister to accept Mr. Kuhn’s amendment.

expressed the opinion that great benefits were attached to the Cadet system, and nothing tangible had been alleged against it. There were many children who in future years might wish to take up a military profession, and their Cadet training would come in good stead. Personally, he would like to see the Cadet system made compulsory, and he emphasised that if they wanted a good and thorough defence force they must commence with the children. A cadet might show promise as a future military officer, which could afterwards be turned to account.

thought it was not fair to confine the system to towns and thickly populated areas only. The establishment of Cadet corps in connection with local schools in thinly populated districts was not impossible.

said the only way to provide for the sparsely populated areas as desired by the hon. member for Boshof would be by sending the children to the nearest populated centre. It was a question of finance. As regarded the objections to the Cadet system, he hoped and was confident that the abuses which had made the system unpopular would be obviated in future. The boys’ leaders must be carefully supervised, and then the prejudice against the Cadets would diminish.

said he was not yet convinced that the children would be placed under good guidance in the Cadet corps. Sunday drilling had already taken place.

hoped the hon. member for Lichtenburg would not listen to chatter about cadet corps, most of which would not bear inquiry. It was better to accustom the children to training and discipline when they were young, as it would make it easier for them afterwards. The country people of today had not the opportunities for training such as he and the hon. member for Lichtenburg had in their youth when hunting for game. They should also pay some attention to the future of the children of the poorer people, as if they were well trained when young it might open out a future for them in the army or in the police, where they would be able to earn more than was at present possible. The greatest objection to the Cadet system was because of a fear that the Sabbath would be desecrated by the holding of drills on that day, but the blame for that did not lie with the Cadet system, but with those persons who had been placed in charge of the children. They would guard against that in the future, though he would point out that Sunday was frequently used for these purposes solely because the people had no time available during the week. Now that they were going to equip South Africa with a strong army it was not necessary to have Sunday training, and if they trained their boys when young they would afterwards become as good soldiers as the hon. member for Lichtenburg had shown himself to be.

thought it was wrong if they did not establish cadet corps in thinly populated districts, as it would not be very expensive, especially if they abolished the uniforms. If the result of accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boshof was the establishment of cadet corps in thinly populated places, he would support it.

was opposed to a general compulsory cadet system, as a large proportion of the people objected to it. The clause recognised the rights of parents, however, and he would vote for it, but not for any amendment.

said that if the required number for a cadet corps were laid down, many such corps could be established in sparsely populated places. The minimum should be made as low as possible.

asked whether in the event of there being insufficient children in one school to form a cadet corps a number of such schools could amalgamate for that purpose?

insisted that a good deal could be said against the Cadet system, and he remained opposed to it.

The amendments were negatived.

On clause 8, cooperation of employers.

On the motion of Mr. OOSTHUISEN, the CHAIRMAN put the new Clause Eight, proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: 8. (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to give all proper facilities for enabling any citizen in his employ to enter upon and carry out any service or training in the Defence Forces for which he is liable or eligible; (2) any employer who—(a) fails to give the facilities aforesaid; or (b) by dismissing an employee or by reducing his wages or in any other manner whatever penalises him for entering upon or carrying out any service or training as aforesaid; or (c) attempts to obtain any information of any person seeking his employ as to his liability or eligibility as aforesaid, Or refuses to give such a person employment, on the ground that he is so liable or eligible; or (d) by words, conduct or otherwise directly or indirectly compels, induces or prevails upon, or attempts to compel, induce or prevail upon, any person in or seeking his employ to do or refrain from doing any service or training under this Act for which he is liable or eligible, shall be guilty of an offence; (3) in proceeding under this section the burden shall lie upon the employer of proving that any person in his employ who has been dismissed or has suffered a reduction of wages, or has been in any other manner penalised, was dismissed, reduced, or penalised for some good and sufficient reason in no way connected with the service or training aforesaid.

moved to omit paragraph (c) of subsection (2), and subsection (3).

said that he thought the clause was very severe, as far as employers were concerned. One naturally agreed at once that it was the duty of every employer to give every possible facility to his employees to have their training and go on service, in necessary. Any employer with any sense of duty would do it, but he thought that section 2 (b) went a little too far. Under that subsection they could compel every employer to pay his employees while they were being trained or while they were on service. Now, he did not think that that was fair. It was all right for the larger employers, especially employers who paid salaries and the like, but take a small man, a contractor or builder, a master carpenter or painter, if these people had to pay their employees while they were away he reckoned that it would be very severe upon them. Why should they throw the burden of this, upon a certain section of the community? Why should not the State pay these men adequately while they were on service, so as not to place this burden upon the employers? He moved that the following be a proviso to the subsection: In paragraph (b) of subsection (2), after “aforesaid,” to insert: “Provided that this paragraph shall not be construed to require an employer to pay any person in his employ any wages for the time when he is absent from work for the purpose of being trained or during the time he is engaged on service; or”. That, he thought, was perfectly fair. He also thought that subsection (3) was very severe. To his mind, it might lead to a certain amount of blackmail. It laid down that an employer should not dismiss his employee without good cause, and the employee might report the employer for being dismissed from his service. Then the burden was thrown upon the employer of proving that the dismissal was for good and sufficient cause.

said that he agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that this clause was very severe as far as employers were concerned, and he hoped that the Minister would make its provisions a little more reasonable.

supported the clause as it stood and, in reply to the criticisms levelled against the subsection, said it would not bear harshly on the employer. He asked the committee to accept the clause as it stood.

suggested that the clause might be allowed to stand Over for the reason that it had not been considered from all points of view. If an employee did not receive wages his family might suffer. If, on the other hand, small employers had to pay wages and receive nothing in return it might ruin them.

said he was not afraid of the period of training. His contention was that during a time of stress the employer who was doing no business would suffer.

pointed out that the committee gave the matter most careful consideration. It was never intended by the committee that an employer should pay wages while a man was on active service, for the reason that the man would draw pay from the Government. But the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, said that employers should not pay a man during training.

Can’t compel him.

said he was afraid that unless an employer was compelled to pay he would not pay. He pointed out that the training period was short, and he did not think it would be a hardship on the employer to pay.

said he would like to be fair to everyone. He did not think it right that individual employers should bear burdens which should be borne by the State. How could they force employers to pay men who were not working for them?

thought the employer should pay his employees during their period of training, but not in time of war. He opposed the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Paragraph (c) might prevent an employer from giving information as to the age of an applicant, and should be deleted. He supported the amendment of the hon. member for Jansenville.

asked the committee to consider the case of an employer who employed one man or one man occasionally. He asked the committee to consider the case of an employer who wanted a man to drive a cart for a month or the chemist who wanted a man to look after his shop for a month. The employer would be afraid to ask the man if he was to be called out for training. There were numerous cases of that sort.

said he thought the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, deserved consideration, and considered that that hon. gentleman had advanced very weighty reasons in support. He felt sure that some discrimination would have to be made.

said that when the arguments of the hon. member for Barkly were examined they fell to pieces. Suppose a chemist wanted a man for a month. He would not sit on his doorstep waiting for the man to turn up, but would advertise. (Cries of “Oh, no,”) Well, then, he supposed that chemist must bring some sort of influence to bear upon the unfortunate out-of-work. (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member said that supposing the hon. member for Barkly was a chemist and he intended going away for a month, he might not be able to get a qualified man to take his place because he would perhaps have to go away on his training. He did not read the clause as meaning that a large employer had got to pay his daily paid men when they were away on service, but let them assume for a moment that they had to be paid, then he would say that it was a just charge upon an employer for the protection of his particular business. If the Bill had insisted upon the employer paying while an employee was away, it would be a good thing, but, unfortunately, it did not. If the employer insisted on reducing the wages of his employees after coming from their training then they ought to insist that he should not be allowed to do so.

moved in line 57 to delete the words “for entering upon or carrying out any services or training as aforesaid.”

said there was no doubt that subsection (b) did not bear the construction which the hon. member for Cape Town had put upon it. It was never intendid to bear that construction. Subsection (b) referred to cases where employers reduced the wages of employees. They assumed that certain employers would say they were not going to pay their men, but they did not refer to these cases, they simply referred to the cases where an employer might say “I am going to reduce your wages.” He did not think, therefore, that the amendment of his hon. friend was necessary. There would be thousands in the country who would be only too glad to pay their men, but that lay entirely in their own discretion. Then with regard to subsection (c). At first sight the subsection seemed rather drastic. No doubt there would be some exceptionally hard cases, but, after all, they had only laid down a general rule. He thought it would be a very bad thing if whenever a man sought employment, an employer should ask whether he was in the Defence Force or not. Subsection 3 was taken from the Australian Act, and was a very good one. When any employer dismissed a man simply because he was in the Defence Force, then the burden of proof should lie upon him. He appealed to hon. members to understand that this Bill was for the protection of the country. The employers were not themselves serving, and they should not penalise anyone who was called upon to serve.

said he certainly understood that any person who prevented an employee from entering upon his training, penalised him, or reduced his wages, would be guilty of an offence. If that was the case surely his hon. friend was right in moving his amendment. The hon. member for Barkly should remember that it was practically impossible to draft a clause of that kind which would not be open to some objection. The safeguard was in the hands of the employer. It was absolutely necessary to have some such clause.

said the clause was open to more than one interpretation. Suppose an employer had a number of young men working for him about half of whom had to go on training and he could not carry on his business without them. Accordingly he got hold of other young men and he was bound to ask them if they were going to camp. As an employer he recognised the necessity of some such clause. During the rebellion in Natal many employers suffered great inconvenience, but most of them paid their employees full salaries during the time they were in the field. (Cheers.) If it were possible to prevent undue hardship falling on the employer the clause might be remodelled.

thought it should be made clear that an employer need not pay his men if they were absent on military service unless the former chose.

said that when the Bill was before the House he recommended most drastic measures, but they were not then discussing this clause, but the clause which provided that employers should give every possible facility to their employees. Now a new principle was introduced in clause 8, which he thought would act detrimentally to the movement generally. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of the Interior had given them a strictly legal interpretation of the clause, but the man in the street could not do that and when he read the clause he would be under the impression that if any man in his employ were called out for active service or for training he would be entitled to draw his wages. He (Sir David) was not speaking from a personal point of view, for the big concern with which he was connected had always paid its men full wages whether they were called out for active service or training. (Cheers.)

said the clause was open to great objection. A man who gave his services to the country ought not to be made to lose by it, but on the other hand an employer should not be penalised. He could not see that they ought to put the onus of proof on the employer, and feared that the clause would create all sorts of difficulties. They had better hold title clause over.

said they had passed a good many laws which they thought had a particular meaning, but the Court found that they had an entirely different meaning. The Minister must be perfectly bona fide as to the reading he put into the clause, but he (Mr. Jagger) wanted the reading of a court of law. If the Minister were so frightened let him accept his (Mr. Jagger’s) amendment and make the matter perfectly clear. If he did not, young fellows liable to service would be seriously handicapped. He (Mr. Jagger) agreed with the hon. member for Beaconsfield as to the big employers—it did not make much difference to them, but it did to the small employers.

said that, as the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, simply put on to the subsection the construction which he thought it was intended to bear, he would agree to the amendment. (Hear, hear.)

said he did not know whether that was sufficient. Up-country merchants had no opportunity of considering the Bill in its amended form, and it might be that they had certain views which they wished to place before the House. He therefore moved that the clause stand over.

withdrew his amendment.

said he hoped that the House would not agree to the clause standing over. If they were going to wait until people all over the Union were consulted, they would never get the Bill through. He hoped that the clause, with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would be allowed to pass. He did not think it would be found to inflict any hardship upon employers.

said that he thought subsection (3) should be given very careful consideration. He pointed our that there were cases where employers did not show a due sense of patriotism in these matters, and that it was necessary to provide for these cases in the Bill.

withdrew his motion.

said that they heard much of patriotism in the House, but it often disappeared when it came to the point. It would be unreasonable that the man on service should lose his salary while he was doing his duty to the country. He supported the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

said that it would not be fair to a poor man, if he had to serve, that he should also have to lose his pay. The clause was not sufficiently explicit.

objected to paragraph (c), in which the employer was forbidden to ask an applicant for work whether he was liable for service. Subsection (3) was opposed to the old principle that no one is guilty until his guilt is proved. He opposed the subsection.

said that what the hon. member said was quite true, but they must recollect that the circumstances of the country had changed very much from what they were then. He would like to point out that, while they protected the man who was in the employ of a person and who was called out to service, they afforded no protection to the employer. Now circumstances might arise where a man had entered into a contract—a small man—and one or two of his men might be taken away, and he might be placed in a very serious position. The person with whom he had contracted might put him in a difficult position unless they put something into the Bill by which he would be able to plead this, and protect himself against any claim for damages. He wished the Minister would take a note of this, and see whether something could not be put into the Bill to provide for such a case.

said that he could not understand why he, if he employed a man for a month, and that man went off after a few weeks, to serve, he, as an employer, should have to pay for the full month. He agreed with what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said.

said that he could not agree to that clause; and an employer would be penalised if he kept back a single sixpence of his employee’s wages when the latter went training. He could also see that under subsection 3 it might lead to blackmail on the part of one who did not get a job against the man to whom he had applied. He could not assent to the principle contained in that clause, and thought that the onus of proof must rest with the accuser, not the accused.

thought that the clause should be allowed to stand down in order to give time for consideration.

also thought that in that clause the onus rested upon the employer. He objected to subsection (3).

had said, that under the Roman-Dutch law, the onus of proof rested on the person who made the complaint, but there was also a principle that where a man had a special knowledge of the facts, who was the employer in that case, the onus should be placed on him. If a man were discharged and it was suspected that it was done because he had to serve in the Defence Force, what proof could that man bring? The only man who could throw light on the matter would be the employer. Under subsection (3) if the discharged servant required it, the employer was bound to give his reasons for such dismissal.

The amendment moved by Mr. Jagger was agreed to.

The amendment moved by Mr. Oosthuisen was negatived.

The new clause 8 was agreed to.

wished to move an amendment making pro vision in the case of salaries.

said the amendment was out of order.

On clause 11, Constitution of the Permanent Force,

asked whether a mistake had not been made in regard to subsection (b) that persons charged in time of peace with the maintenance of order within the union, should be in the Permanent Force?

explained that the police were dealt with in the Police Bill. That Bill laid down what persons would belong to the army.

said that he knew what was meant, but the clause did not express it correctly.

said the clause seemed to say something they did not mean.

said that an adequate description was given in section 44. They did not want the police in the Defence Force. The full explanation of what was wanted in the south African Mounted Rifles would be found in clause 44.

said his hon. friend should either omit the clause or say that it did not refer to the other clause, because it says that the permanent force shall consist of everyone engaged in the maintenance of order: well every ordinary constable was engaged in the maintenance of order. In clause 44 it did describe what the Permanent Force was, but why say it was something else in the other? Perhaps it would be wise to let the clause stand over so as to make the Bill harmonious.

suggested that it would be best to set down that the Permanent Force was as described in clause 44. The committee felt that it was unnecessary to engage all the mounted men in the Union for this purpose.

said there might be some difficulty in considering these two sections; both sections said that the Permanent Force should consist of something. Either clause 44 was inclusive of clause 11, or it was not. If it were inclusive, would it not be better to have one section?

said he would like to ask the Minister whether he had considered the suggestion he had put before him that in time he would have a thoroughly efficiently trained coast garrison corps, and turn them into a permanent force. He was certain that there was sufficient material in the country to train South Africans for the defence of the ports.

thought his hon. friend was anticipating. When they came to the next clause, they would find that it made provision as wide as possible for such a contingency. He did not think it was necessary to refer to clause 44 here. They were only mentioning the component parts of the defence force. It was quite clear that the sequence of ideas bore out the point, and to amend this in committee would lead to great confusion.

said he must rise to make another protest against what his hon. friend had just said. They knew that he was autocratic, and would like to dispense with Parliament altogether, but one of the functions of Parliament was to make amendments and to criticise. Were they to consider the Bill perfect because it was brought from a Select Committee? If that were so, they might as well dispense with Parliament altogether and go to their homes. It was a painful matter for him yesterday to see the condition in which Parliamentary business was hung up.

Order! Order!

Why am I not in order? I was just explaining that it was dangerous to allow Parliament to fall into disrepute.

said he had not the slightest idea of limiting the authority of Parliament. His hon. friend had moved an amendment in the Select Committee which his right hon. friend asked him to accept here. If that amendment had been accepted the Bill would have been wrong. This was an exceedingly complex Bill, and all they sought to do was simply to have a description of the component parts. He was very sorry for what happened yesterday—

Order! Order! (Laughter and hear, hear.)

Well, sir, I bow to your authority. (Renewed laughter.)

said that surely this section would not stand from a legal point of view. In section 44 it stated that the permanent force was com nosed of persons who were not the Staff, Therefore they had in the Act of Parliament one clause which stated that the permanent force should consist of the staff, and another clause which stated that it should not consist of the staff. Why not make one section of it?

said the permanent force would consist of two entirely different sets of people. The structure of the Bill was somewhat complicated.

Why not simplify it?

said it was quite clear as it stood, although it might be complicated. It was no use wasting time over a legal subtlety.

said it was not a legal subtlety. There was hardly a household in the Union that would not be affected by the Bill, and therefore the object should be to have it as simple as possible. Instead of that the Minister pointed with an air of justifiable pride to the fact that it was a complicated measure. A complicated measure was going to create a great deal of trouble, because people would be reading into it things that were not in it.

said it was exceedingly courteous of the Minister to say that he was wasting time.

I did not say that in the least.

said there need be no complication in the matter.

moved to add after “Union” the words “in terms of section 44.”

The amendment was negatived.

The clause, as amended by the Select Committee, was agreed to.

On clause 12,

said that five batteries were too few.

thought that was quite sufficient.

On clause 18, Organisation of Active Citizen Force,

moved the insertion of “ambulance” after “medical.” Once the Minister accepted the services of ambulance men he should say that they should be exempted from other services, but in the Bill an ambulance man might be called upon to perform the ordinary duties of a member of the force.

said he thought the hon. member would not achieve his object by this amendment at all. In ordinary use, medical work in the army was ambulance work, so that that matter was perfectly clear. His hon. friend was aiming at something quite different. He wanted the St. John Ambulance Association to be recognised as a departmental part of the Active Citizen Force. If that were done they would become subject to rules which were entirely different to the rules of the society. It struck at the whole structure of the St. John Ambulance Society. The position in the clause was perfectly clear. Their organisation must be self-contained. They must have their artillery, their engineers, their mounted rifles and infantry, and their departmental services, so that every corps, as it was organised over the country, would be self-contained. Beyond that, of course, they were perfectly willing to utilise in a voluntary capacity the services of any association which might be formed to assist them. Provision had been made in section 21 to meet the case laid before the committee by Major Liebmann.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 20, the Citizen Force Reserve, On the motion of General BEYERS, the CHAIRMAN put the new clause 20, proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: 20 (1) The Citizen Force Reserve shall be divided into two classes, A and B. Class A of the Citizen Force Reserve shall consist of all citizens not past their forty-fifth year, who have undergone the period of peace training prescribed by this Act, or who have been transferred to that class from a Militia or Volunteer Corps established under any law mentioned in the first schedule to this Act. Class A shall be organised as far as may be practicable, so that the members thereof, unless engaged for the Field Reserve to the South African Mounted Riflemen as hereinafter provided, shall until they reach a prescribed age be allotted as reservists of the unit of the Active Citizen Force in which they have undergone their peace training, and thereafter be transferred to and from reserve units of the same arm or service, and such reserve units shall be constituted in the several military districts in such a manner that they will be ready when called upon in time of war to take the field. Class B of the Citizen Force Reserve shall consist of all other citizens not past their forty-fifth year, who are serving or who have served as members of a rifle association, or have been transferred to that class from such Militia or Volunteer Corps aforesaid. Class B shall be organised as far as may be practicable so that the members thereof, unless engaged as hereinafter provided for the Police Reserve to the South African Mounted Riflemen or for the Veteran Reserve, shall form territorial corps or commandos with subdivisions corresponding as far as possible with the arrangement of rifle associations in each district, and constituted and commanded in such manner that each corps or commando may be ready, when called upon in time of war, to take the field on a properly organised basis. (2) All members of the Citizen Force Reserve shall, when called upon, be liable to present themselves once annually for inspection. (5) Complete rolls of members of the Citizen Force Reserve shall be framed and shall be verified annually as prescribed, and every member of that Reserve shall furnish to the prescribed authority, when required, the information necessary to enable that authority so to frame and verify the rolls.

moved: In sub-section (1) line 32, after “territorial corps” to omit all the words to the end of the sub-section and to substitute: “subdivided into commandos with a minimum and maximum strength as prescribed and corresponding as far as; possible with existing districts in the different Provinces. The members of each commando so constituted shall serve under a commandant specially appointed for the purpose whose rank, duties and functions shall be as prescribed.” The hon. member said he regretted the Select Committee had rejected the amendment, as it was on the lines of the old system which had proved very effective. He would like that part of the old system accepted by the House. The old commandos were very mobile, and the members of the Reserve wanted to be good and trusted commandants. He thought it was a wrong system to have the trained and untrained men together. It might be said that the force in certain districts would be too small, but that was why provision for maximum and minimum strength was inserted in the amendment. He wanted to see the people satisfied, and j he thought why the people of the Cape Province were so quiet about that measure was because they did not yet know how it would work out in practice, while those of the North did, and hence the objections which had been raised. The chief of the reserve in each district could take charge of the material required by the rifle associations, so as to avoid too much administrative work. The same principle was applied to education.

regretted that the hon. member had again moved that amendment, which had been negatived in the Select Committee after full discussion. The Rifle Associations were voluntary bodies. As to the districts, they varied throughout the Union, and in certain parts there were small districts and in other parts large districts, whilst according to the amendments, the commandos would differ in strength in accordance with the boundaries of a district. He thought that the clause went quite far enough, and that they need not go into further details about the commanding officers.

who supported the amendment, said that these corps would consist of at least 400 or 500 men, and so they were large enough to have their commandants. He hoped that they would go back to the old system, which proved very satisfactory.

said that a district like Rustenburg would get its Rifle Association easily organised, but that measure was to apply not only to the Transvaal, but to the whole of the Union, and there were some very small districts in Natal. Were they to appoint a commandant in such circumstances? There were not sufficient men for a field-cornet. Then, how were they to place a district under one commandant, which contained a town such as Johannesburg? He thought it was best to leave the clause as it was.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria, South-West. He thought it would result in economy and efficiency.

said that everything the mover of the amendment wanted could be done under the clause as it stood.

said it was impossible to mix trained and untrained men, and during the late war the commandos were not all of the same strength. To meet what the Minister of Defence had said, he had put in his amendment that the minimum and maximum should be left to the regulations. His amendment cleared matters up, and left matters less vague than they were.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that the purpose of his amendment was to see that rifle associations were formed within the borders of a district, in order to facilitate the organisation. Otherwise, difficulties might arise in the formation of territorial corps. If the amendment were accepted the Minister would be obliged to appoint an officer for any district where, the rifle association reached the minimum strength required by law. The Bill did not oblige the Minister to appoint such an officer. There was an element of uncertainty in the clause, and it was to do away with that that he moved the amendment. It would satisfy the general desire to have district limitations respected as much as possible.

could not understand why the Minister objected to the amendment. What was the objection to laying down that a certain minimum number of men were entitled to an officer? If the amendment were accepted, the Bill would be made a success.

said that he would also support the amendment; one could not go to war with a commanding officer in whom one had no confidence. When such a commandant was appointed they must have one for each district, and not two, and then the different officers came under him. Commandants would then be appointed for each rifle association for each district. The public would be satisfied if the amendment were accepted.

said the law already provided for two sections, namely, the active and the reserve forces, and there would be officers for both of them. The active section would be well trained, and would be provided with officers for each district. The amendment called for the appointment of commandants for the reserve and for rifle associations. Although popular, was it practicable? Would it continue to be popular? The amendment destroyed the new system, recreated the Transvaal system, and would only lead to dissatisfaction. The commandants of the reserve would have a smaller salary than the commandants of the active sections, and that would cause friction, and the expense also would be too great. If the scheme of defence adopted were to cost half a million a year, it would be a failure. The amendment might be popular at present, but if in carrying it out new taxes were required, it would not long remain so. There were a good many districts in South Africa, and if an organisation was to be created for each of them, there would be more officials than were required. They should first properly organise the active sections, and then afterwards the reserve and the rifle associations could be taken in hand The Bill provided that commandants were to be appointed, but said nothing about payment. Commandants attached to rifle associations and the reserve should work without pay. If all those officers were to be paid, the scheme would be a failure, and he hoped therefore the amendment would be withdrawn.

said that during the time of the Republic there existed commandants in the districts as well as officers of artillery. The reserve was an untrained force, whilst the standing army would be well trained, and those two forces ought to be kept apart. The commandants would not cost more than £25,000. The leaders of the rifle associations could then serve under the district commandants, whilst the reserve would be very mobile and a real striking force. It would take eight days to mobilise the standing army.

said that in Natal they had under their Militia Act to appoint district commandants, and they found, after several years’ experience, that the system did not work very well, and that it did not tend to efficiency, because these officers were, it was found, interfering with the officers in command of the units. Eventually, in order to secure uniformity, they had either to discharge these commandants or find other duites for them. The system was also found to be very costly. He hoped that the hon. member would not press his amendment.

said the amendment was impracticable. If the young men in Losberg joined the standing army, and their fathers joined the reserve, then fathers and sons would come into separate commandos, and that was impracticable. It was possible that a commandant of the standing army would be appointed who would satisfy the public.

said he would like his right hon. friend the Prime Minister to explain to him how this proposal differed materially from the clause. The clause provided for the organisation of these people, and it provided for the command of these people. He did not see where the extreme difference came in, and certainly where the increase of expenditure came in in any way, because the clause and the amendment both seemed to him to contemplate doing the same thing that organising this reserve force did.

replied that if the amendment were agreed to, every district would have its own commandant, and the cost would be excessive, whilst in addition administrative help would often have to be given. Such a system was top heavy. Under the scheme provided for in the clause as printed, it would not be so expensive. That was the difference.

on a point of order, asked whether the amendment did not involve increased expenditure?

ruled that it did not.

said he did not follow the Prime Minister quite. As he read clause 20, section B, it seemed to him to contemplate exactly the same thing. It said that they should be “organised in territorial corps or commandos, with sub-divisions corresponding, as far as possible, with the arrangements of the rifle associations and constituted and commanded in such manner that each corps or commando may be ready when called upon in time of war to take the field on a properly organised basis.” Surely that could not contemplate organising by means of a clerk. It must mean that they had some commander. It seemed to him to be a case rather of tweedledee and tweedledum. If they asked him which was “tweedledee” and which “tweedledum” he wouldn’t say, but, as for talking about an expenditure of £500,000 and so forth, that, he thought, was a little beside the mark, because the expenditure was here in the clause which they were asked to agree to.

said they had a most excellent clause drafted by the Select Committee. It seemed to him to be quite clear and plain in its meaning. Now the hon. member for Pretoria, South, wanted a new clause. If me committee wanted “tweedledee” why should they have “tweedledum” at the behest of the right hon. the member for Victoria West? (Laughter.)

said that he would point out to his clever young friend—(laughter)—that he was asking for information. When he wanted information upon any nautical subject he would go to him. (Laughter.) This was a question in which he was asking where the difference came in.

said that, if the right hon. gentleman had been in the House that afternoon, he would have got the information he wanted. The hon. member came into the House and dashed in and said “Hello, what’s this; let us have a discussion.” (Laughter.) The point of difference was perfectly clear. The amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria, South, was to the effect that there should be a commandant, as far as practicable, in every district. The clause as it stood, left it to the Government to organise all districts as far as practicable, but they were not to have a commandant in every district in South Africa. There might be cases where small districts should be grouped under one commandant. His hon. friend’s amendment was a commandant for each district with a maximum and a minimum.

said that, if this amendment were carried, they might have under Union the same experience that Natal had some years ago.

said they must have a certain number of commandos and if they had that number in a district they could demand to have an officer appointed over them.

said he had never intended to place a clerk at the head of a commando, and that the remark of the right hon. member for Victoria West was therefore not justified. The amendment might do for the Transvaal, but it did not suit the Union as a whole.

The amendment was negatived and the new clause, as printed, agreed to.

On clause 25, general powers of Governor-General.

said there was no distinct provision in the Bill specifying that the Governor-General should be the Commander-in-Chief. Special provision of this sort was made in other Defence Acts, including the Natal Militia Act. In order to avoid any misunderstanding on the point, it would be advisable that this should definitely be stated in the Bill.

pointed out that the Act of Union already provided that the Governor-General should be the Commander-in-Chief.

added that that was the reason why the fact had not been mentioned in the Bill.

said that sub-section 5 provided that officers of the one force could be transferred to the other. It followed therefore that an officer from England, who was unacquainted with the customs and language of the public, could be transferred to South Africa. The people, however, wanted to serve under an officer who was a citizen of the country.

replied that the hon. member had not properly grasped the meaning of the sub-section, which gave the right to the Governor-General to appoint officers from among the citizens, and, as a temporary measure, officers from another army. If, for example, Swiss officers were required, they could be appointed, but foreign officers could only be appointed temporarily. The clause therefore was quite safe.

agreed that the Minister should be empowered to appoint an officer of another military Power in order to give instruction. He could not agree, however, that such a person should be placed over the citizens as their head.

said there was no intention whatever to give a foreign officer command of the citizen forces. The only question was to have an officer to give instruction, and he had referred to Swiss officers merely because the scheme of defence as proposed resembled that of Switzerland. That was why the Government had placed themselves in communication with the Government of Switzerland for the loan of an officer. The Union was beginning with a new scheme, and must creep before it walked. The same kind of thing might happen if they required a skilled officer of artillery, but there was no question whatever of giving such an officer control of their forces.

asked whether the phrase “subject to personal service in time of war” was necessary?

said the expression was used to make the intention clearer and in order to leave no room for doubt.

asked whether the Minister would provide in the clause that foreign officers could only serve if or purposes of instruction?

said he had already explained that several times. The hon. member did not seem to trust him.

said the Minister ought to put in the Bill what his intention was.

asked whether commissions would be granted in the name of His Majesty the King?

I am lost myself. (Laughter.) It is a question of form. I don’t really know. The only question of some importance here is whether the commission should be signed by the Governor-General alone or whether the Minister should take a hand in the business. It was decided by the Select Committee which had suspicions of the Minister—(laughter)—that the Governor-General should sign the document.

On clause 29, Council of Defence,

On the motion of General BEYERS, the CHAIRMAN put the new clause 29 proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: (29) Within one month after the commencement of this Act there shall be established a Council of Defence which shall be constituted in such manner and endowed with such functions as the Governor-General may from time to time prescribe: provided that, for five years after the commencement of this Act, the constitution and functions of the Council of Defence shall be as set out in the second schedule of this Act.

moved in line 21, after “which shall” to omit all the words to the end and substitute “exist for five years and shall be constituted as is set out and possess such functions as are described in the second schedule to this Act.” He said he took it from what was said by the hon. member for East London that this was to be a temporary Council, and originally he moved the deletion of the whole clause. He thought that the Council might work for five years and if found effective could be reincorporated in an amending Bill if necessary. Why his hon. friend the member for East London had withdrawn from the position he took up he had not yet explained. He hoped his hon. friend would agree to the amendment.

said he thought it was necessary to correct his hon. friend, that it was never agreed to in committee. It was certainly discussed in the committee. What he put to the committee was not exactly in the language which was used by his hon. friend. What he did say was that, when they were starting a force composed of both races, it was essential that there should be no possibility of suspicion on either side. He did not put it from the racial standpoint. He could not see why his hon. friend proposed this amendment. He hoped the Government would not depart from the agreement that was arrived at. If the Council was found useful it could be carried on. What might happen was this: There might be a change of Ministry. The Council might do good work for five years, and then it might do something in the teeth of the Government though for the good of the country. Then the Government might decide to do away with the Council. What he wanted was to let Parliament decide whether the Council should be continued or not.

thought it unnecessary to maintain the Council of Defence after the five years. He had moved the amendment in Select Committee, and had gathered the impression that an understanding had been arrived at. It appeared afterwards that the understanding was broken.

said that the objection which he had to the clause was that the Council under the schedule was not strong enough. He not only wanted to see both races equally represented, but other interests as well. He was told that he was ultra Tory, but he should like to see one Labour representative. Then again, military men were apt to forget the financial aspect, and they might have a representative to deal with matters from that standpoint.

drew attention to the fact that the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria District, South, was, as he said, discussed by the committee and defeated by six votes to three.

That was true and correct so far as it went, but before the formal proceedings in committee they spent weeks of informal debate, and during those weeks many interesting things happened. Amongst other matters, this question of a defence council was thought out. There was no doubt that what General Beyers said was substantially true, that at one stage of these informal discussions the understanding was that this Council should be constituted for five years. His hon. friend (General Beyers) remained under that impression. He (the Minister) had to draft the clause, but before that he had another talk with the hon. member for East London, and he could see that his mind was filled with suspicion against him. (Laughter.) It was really to meet this state of mind—people thinking that after five years something great was going to happen—that they decided to keep the Council after the five years, but to retain the functions for five years only. The Bill required cooperation amongst all sections of the population, and therefore he had conceded as much as possible on small points. So it happened that one morning his hon. friend (General Beyers) found the clause was in different form. He (General Beyers) was opposed to the Council, and so was he. He did not believe that it would be much good, but it might serve a very useful purpose, namely, in assuring the Dutch and English sections that their interests would be considered when anything had to be done. He hoped that his hon. friend would not press the amendment on the merits of which there was, of course, much to be said.

The amendment was negatived.

said that perhaps it would be more popular and more satisfactory if a member from each of the four Provinces was appointed to the Council.

said that it was hoped that that idea would be carried out in practice, but it was not necessary to lay it down in the Bill.

moved a new clause: “As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Governor General-in-Council shall appoint an officer who shall be styled the Commandant General of the Union, and who shall have the supreme military command of such forces.” He urged that it was better to organise completely, and make this command in time of peace. If citizens knew under whom they would have to serve it would encourage them.

said the question had already been dealt with in detail in Select Committee, which was definitely opposed to the amendment. The speaker was also strongly opposed to it. It was asserted that such an appointment would give great satisfaction, but what would happen if the wrong man were appointed? That would cause much mischief. It was better to appoint more commandants over the standing army, the citizen forces and the cadets. A Commandant-General appointed in time of peace would be appointed because of his capacity in peace time, and in time of war might be superfluous. Lord Methuen had given evidence against the appointment of a Commandant General, which post did not exist in the other Colonies nor in England. South Africa should follow the example, and in time of war appoint the best available man.

ruled the new clause, proposed by the hon. member for Winburg, out of order, as it entailed, he said, increased expenditure.

The hon. member for Pretoria, South (General Beyers), proposed that several additional commandants should be appointed, and I propose only one—a Commander-in-Chief. (Laughter.) Yet my motion is ruled out of order. (Laughter.)

The new clause, as printed, was agreed to.

On clause 34, retirement of officers,

said that it was provided in this clause that officers of the Defence Forces who were placed on the retired list should be entitled to retain their rank and wear the prescribed uniform. According to this clause, any officer who was placed upon the retired list would, ipso facto, be allowed to retain his rank and wear the prescribed uniform, quite irrespective of whether he had the requisite number of years’ service. He suggested at the end of the clause the following additional words: “after obtaining the consent of the Governor-General.”

said he did not understand his hon. friend. Surely an officer was in active service or he was on the retired list. If he were in active service he would retain his rank and wear his uniform, and if he were on the retired list he was entitled, as a right, to retain his rank and his uniform. This would be a list of officers who had finished their career with honour to themselves. He would say nothing as to the gentlemen in the other category.

On clause 43, uniforms, arms, and accoutrements,

said that it was here provided that members of the Defence Force should be supplied at the expense of the State with field service dress, and that they should thereafter maintain this uniform at their own expense. He thought the better arrangement would be to give a certain amount per head for this purpose to each regiment, because the clause as it stood would necessitate the establishment of a big military clothing factory in the Union, and he thought that would be a very costly operation.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 53, registration of citizens liable to peace training,

said he would like to suggest the advisability of fixing the year 1914 as the period for which the list of citizens liable to peace training should be commenced. He pointed out that there was no machinery for the registration of people who became citizens of the Union after the age of 21. For instance, a man might come to this country at the age of 25 and become a citizen. There was no method by which he could be registered up to his 60th year. Other people had to be registered in accordance with the machinery laid down in the Bill and were liable to service. He moved at the end of subsection 5 to add: “and any person who becomes a citizen after his 21st and before his 60th year shall be enrolled as prescribed.”

urged that the first portion of the clause would read much better if they placed the words “shall commence” at the end of the sentence, instead of after “in which.”

surely could not be serious. (Laughter.) In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands, he would see that this section referred to registration and selection for peace training in coast garrison and citizen forces. It dealt only with people who had to undergo training. The case mentioned by the hon. member was a case that fell under section I., i.e., persons generally liable and a person who, after his arrival here, would fall into the national reserve. The amendment would be out of place in this clause.

supported the contention of the hon. member for Von Brandis.

said he saw that his amendment did not come into place here, and he would, therefore, withdraw it.

moved that the words “shall commence” be transposed to the end of the sentence after “Act.”

The amendment moved by Mr. Struben was withdrawn; that by Dr. Macaulay was agreed to.

On new clause 58,

On the motion of Mr. ALBERTS, the CHAIRMAN put the new clause 58, proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: 58. (1) As soon as possible after the issue of the Proclamation mentioned in the last preceding section, but not later than the thirtieth day of April, the Minister shall appoint an Exemption Board for each Military District in which a shortage occurs as aforesaid; the places and dates at which the Exemption Board will sit in that district to hear applications for exemption from ballot shall thereupon be notified throughout that district by the registering officer thereof. (2) The Board shall be selected from officers commanding the units allotted to that district, the magistrates and such other prominent citizens residing in that district as the Minister may direct. The Minister shall appoint a Magistrate to be President of the Board. (3) The Minister shall fix the maximum number of exemptions from ballot which may be granted by the Board, and shall notify the Board of that number at or before its first sitting. In fixing that maximum number the Minister shall be guided by the necessity of maintaining on the Final Ballot List an adequate number of names from which to fill the shortage by ballot, due allowance being made for the possibility of a percentage of citizens whose names are drawn ballot being rejected as medically unfit upon the subsequent medical examination hereinafter prescribed. The Board shall in no circumstances grant any number of exemptions from ballot in excess of the maximum number so fixed and notified by the Minister. (4) Any citizen whose name appears on the Provisional Ballot List and who desires to obtain exemption from ballot, shall make written application to the Registering Officer of the Military District in which he is registered, not later than the tenth day of May, and the Registering Officer shall furnish the Board with all such applications. (5) The Board shall consider all applications so furnished, and may call upon any applicant to appear before it, and may examine on oath any such applicant or any person whom the Board may require to appear before it, for the purpose of obtaining information and evidence in respect of any such application. (6) In considering and deciding upon applications for exemption from ballot, the Board shall be guided by and conform to such general instructions as the Minister may issue to indicate the circumstances in which a citizen’s application for exemption from ballot may be given preferential consideration on the grounds of: (a) The interruption of a citizen’s course of educational studies; (b) the nature and extent of his domestic obligations; (c) the conditions of his industrial, professional or business vocation; (d) his bona-fide religious tenets; (e) the inaccessibility of training centres from his place of residence; (f) physical deformities or defects, or mental incapacity, being so marked as to preclude any necessity for the subsequent medical examination hereinafter prescribed, or being properly substantiated by the prescribed medical authorities at the applicant’s own expense: Provided that the Board shall be instructed not to grant the maximum number of exemptions from ballot as fixed and notified by the Minister or any less number unless it is satisfied that in each case for which exemption is granted a citizen would suffer substantial hardship and inconvenience by being drawn for and having to undergo peace training. (7) The Minister may make such further rules, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary for regulating the conduct of business and the procedure of Exemption Boards. (8) After considering the applications and representations as aforesaid, the Board shall strike off the Provisional Ballot List the names of those citizens in respect of whom the Board has decided and is empowered under this Act to grant exemption from ballot, and shall publish the resulting or Final Ballot List in manner prescribed on or before the thirty-first day of May. (9) The list so published shall be final, and there shall be no appeal from any decision of the Board as contained in that list.

moved, as an amendment, in subsection 6, to omit subsections (a) and (d). He had moved that amendment in order to prevent the impression being created that children of well-to-do parents could be exempted from service. Such service could be performed between the 17th and 25th year, and a student would have sufficient time within that period to perform his service. Paragraph (d) would lead to an increase in the number of those religious persons who professed a dislike to the bearing of arms. A man must carry arms in time of need, and the paragraph was impracticable.

hoped the first amendment would be withdrawn. There was no question of exempting rich persons. Sometimes the children of poor persons studied in Europe with the help of scholarships, and they ought to be helped. He supported the second amendment, for why should they exempt persons who had “conscientious objections”? What were bona-fide religious principles? Exemptions of that sort would only lead to difficulty.

said the first amendment must stand, and the public would know once and for all that everybody must serve. But paragraph (d) ought to be deleted.

hoped the second amendment also would be withdrawn. There existed in South Africa a religious sect with about 120 members, men, women and children, who were opposed to war. That religion also existed in America and Australia, whose members also had to be exempted. They were called Quakers. The religion of the people of South Africa taught them it was an honour to defend their country. He did not want to send unwilling people to fight, as they were useless.

supported the views of the Minister, and added that they must respect everyone’s religion. He would support the clause as printed.

said that if the paragraph were not deleted, they would soon have an army of people with religious objections. For the defence of the country every man must give a hand. He supported the amendment.

referred to a petition which he had been asked to present to the House by a certain sect. He told the members of that sect that as things were in the world the best way to prevent war was to be prepared for it, but that it was not fair to ask him to put a case where citizens would be exempted from service. The only international police was the force of their own country. He pointed out that in clause 82 the Select Committee had put in a subsection dealing with those of religious sects who had conscientious scruples against being combatants. He thought they had gone as far as they could to meet these people. He thought they all looked forward to the time when there would be no war. As things were they were only able to maintain what they called just principles by the power to enforce these principles by force when necessary. He hoped to see our forces trained to be ready to protect this country, but only used in just wars.

said they were bound to respect people’s principles. Seventh Day Adventists and others were opposed to war, and would never agree to take part in it. Those people were few in number, and they should be left in peace. The amendment should not be accepted.

also opposed the amendment, as the exemption only applied to a handful of people. Those people were strong in their belief, as were the forefathers of the voortrekkers. Those people would not help in war, and would therefore be useless. During the war the Quakers had done much good by supplying food. They were allowed to do good, but not to make war. The amendment should therefore not be accepted, as its acceptance would only weaken the Bill.

hoped that the amendment would not be pressed, and that the House would accept the advice of the Prime Minister. There was no doubt that a section of the people, a small section, held the belief that war was a crime, and that they should not take part in it. The history of the people who formed the majority of the white inhabitants of the country ought to restrain them from committing the wrong of forcing these people. The fact that what these people believed appeared to us to be unreasonable ought not to weigh in our minds, because all religious persecutions had been justified. The fact that they were in a minority made it all the more easy for the House to grant exemption. He thought that the Board would be quite able to discriminate between those who had a genuine conscientious objection and the others.

supported the view of the last speaker. He quoted from a dodger that had been distributed in England warning people not to emigrate to South Africa, as a form of conscription was proposed. There was no doubt that Seventh Day Adventists and Quakers had a conscientious objection. Those hon. members whose forefathers came from other countries owing to religious persecution ought to be the last to force men against their conscience. He thought that the Board would be able to guard against advantage being taken of the exemption by those who had no real conscientious objections.

feared they were opening the door to an escape from compulsory service. He believed that many persons in the Republics in 1899 would have made use of such a provision, and if need be have made themselves out to be Quakers or Seventh Day Adventists. Some persons had a very elastic conscience. The comparison with the Huguenots was not apropos. He feared they were only playing into the hands of the sects mentioned if they gave them exemption.

thought that people with strong convictions might be called the salt of the earth, and felt that hon. members should do all they could to avoid doing violence to people’s consciences. He, therefore, deplored the debate, and trusted it would go no further.

disagreed with the Minister’s remark that these people were the “salt of the earth.” The country got into trouble. A certain number of men had to go and fight. A man said: “I have conscientious objections. I cannot fight, I will stay at home. I will get all the advantage of your fighting for me.” Such a man was neglecting his first duty as a citizen, which was to defend his country in time of danger, and he had no right to call upon his countrymen to fight his battles. As for conscientious objections, if he was a member of a civilised community he had no right to belong to it. He should go and live by himself. He had no sympathy with the amendment.

said they would all respect religious principles. A man could not give more to his country than his life, and persons who were exempted from service should be required to make a yearly payment.

said that it was common cause that it was the first duty of every citizen to defend his country. There was another principle of government which he was surprised that his hon. friend the member for Boshof forgot, because he descended from a race that had for eighty years resisted the might of Spain in order to retain liberty of conscience.

Some people thought that killing was a crime. If they said that legalised killing was as much a crime as murder was a crime under our social law, surely under those circumstances we ought to respect their religious convictions. It had surprised him to hear hon. members on the other side argue that they must suppress the religious convictions of these people.

asked what were they to do on the battlefield with people when they would not fight. Somebody would be required to take care of them and feed them, and they would not fight in any case. He opposed the amendment.

supported the amendment, his experience being that the best Christians were the best soldiers. The people referred to could be employed in time of war in making coffee, and such like.

said he thought they ought to follow the lead that the Prime Minister had given on this matter. In the first place, what was the good of having men in their forces who were determined not to fight? It had been the practice in other countries, as the Prime Minister had said, to recognise this particular objection. They had an illustration of that in connection with the practice of affirming rather than taking an oath. Supposing they forced these people, they would make martyrs of them They would all go to gaol rather than join the Citizen Force. One result would be that the Citizen Force would be rendered unpopular in the country. While agreeing that it was the duty of every man who sought the protection of this country to defend it, it had also to be remembered that, even if a man had the belief that he should not take up a rifle in defence or his own life and his own home, that was not the only duty he had to perform to the State. If he lived a peaceful life and paid his taxes he would be living the life of a good citizen. He (Mr. Alexander) thought it would be well to leave the clause as arranged by the Select Committee.

said that if it was the intention to exempt Quakers from service, it ought to be clearly stated in the clause.

also spoke, but his remarks could not be followed in the Gallery.

regretted that so much had been said in favour of the amendment. So long as they desired their religious feelings to be respected, they must respect the religious convictions of other persons. He had learned to know some of those people and to esteem them. It was not exactly a question of conscientious objection, but of religious conviction, and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. member for Standerton would withdraw his amendment.

said he had moved his amendment because he thought it unfair that some people should sacrifice their lives in protection of other persons who professed a religion of which he had never before heard. He could not imagine a religion which forbade its followers to make war. No doubt, in some cases, people’s consciences were astonishingly elastic, and the clause might have as a result that many persons would seek a greater safety by becoming religious. However, he would withdraw the remainder of his amendment.

The amendment was withdrawn, and the new clause, as printed, agreed to.

On clause 65, members of mounted units, etc., to come up for training with horses and saddlery,

asked what steps the Minister intended to take to ensure a good supply of horses and what was the intention in regard to the horse allowance? The phrase “serviceable horse” was rather vague. It was important that there should be a good supply of horses.

replied that the question of horses would have to be carefully considered and dealt with by regulation. The question of the supply of horses would solve itself. If a man had a horse he would, naturally, prefer to join a mounted unit.

asked what would be done in case a man preferred to join the mounted troops, but had no horse?

said that choice was free, but that if a man came without a horse he would have to serve in the infantry.

said that a volunteer might join whether on foot or on horseback. After balloting, however, the men would be sent to whatever corps the officers decided upon.

said that a man without a horse might be attached to the horsemen, but what could he do?

replied that such a thing would not occur.

moved as an amendment the insertion after “service,” in line 5, of the words “or who is entitled to exemption from service in a combatant capacity.”

said there would be no difficulty.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 66, insurance of horses,

suggested that in order to encourage officers and men to bring the best horses, more than two-thirds of the value should be paid as compensation in the event of death or injury occasioned otherwise than by reason of military service.

said the system had worked very well in the Transvaal.

On clause 69, Issue of arms and ammunition to rifle associations,

hoped that members of rifle associations would receive a capitation grant, as in Natal.

said the members obtained rifles and ammunition under certain conditions, but that grants of money could not be obtained. That would be wrong.

asked whether it was not possible to sell at cost price to members of rifle associations a limited quantity of cartridges beyond the number allowed free? The better shot a man made of himself the better soldier he would be.

said there was no reference in the clause to the allowances to be made to rifle clubs. The Natal clubs had been notified of the withdrawal of the capitation grant.

moved that progress be reported.

said he would supply the information on the following day.

withdrew his motion that progress be reported.

in reply to Commandant J. J. Alberts, said that the question he had referred to would receive serious consideration.

asked whether the committee could revert to the clause?

The motion to report progress was withdrawn.

asked that the clause should stand down for further consideration. He moved to that effect.

said he did not think that such a course was necessary.

The motion that the clause stand down was withdrawn.

said that in the Gape for years past the Government had furnished ammunition to rifle clubs at cost price.

thought it would be wrong to be too economical with ammunition.

moved to report progress.

The motion was negatived.

complained that the price of ammunition was too high, especially for people who lived in remote districts, who were called on to pay 25s. per 100. He hoped it would be made cheaper.

also appealed to the Minister to allow the clause to stand over, and drew attention to the feeling in Natal concerning the position of the rifle clubs. He moved to report progress.

moved that the Chairman leave the chair.

The motion was negatived.

said that members of rifle associations would have to incur expense on a great many things. No provision was made for grants to the rifle clubs, which should be encouraged. He hoped that the Minister would allow the clause to stand over.

said that in Natal the rifle clubs had spent much money in forming the clubs and laying out ranges. He hoped that the Minister would allow the clause to stand over.

pointed out that the clause referred to the future, not to the past.

said that it was the future they had in mind in asking that the clause should stand down. Hon. members were tired, and so was the Minister, so he hoped that he would relent.

asked the Minister to let the House know his plans. He moved to report progress.

The motion was negatived.

moved that the Chairman leave the chair,

The motion was negatived.

said the question raised by Mr. Creswell could be dealt with separately. As soon as the section was concluded he would not detain the committee longer.

New clause 69, as printed, was agreed to.

Progress was thereupon reported and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.