from Hendrik J. Macdonald, in police force from 1.874 until 1900, when he was taken prisoner by the Republican forces, subsequently tried for high treason, and acquitted.

from the Cape British Indian Union, praying for the amendment of the General Dealers’ and other Licences Amendment Act, 1906 (Cape), removing the power of issue of licences from local bodies to Resident Magistrates.

from Henry Wright, a Natal pensioner.

from the widow of the late A. Grant, in his lifetime detective head constable.

from Jacobus Stephanus de Villiers, who in the late Anglo-Boer War was thrown from his horse.

from registered voters of Losberg in support of the above petition. (Three petitions.)

praying for the introduction of legislation prohibiting the sale of liquor to aboriginal natives.

The day before yesterday a petition from G. Taute and 70 others, registered voters of Somerset East, in support of a petition from George Montague, was allowed to be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities under the impression that a petition from Montague had already been presented during the present year and referred to the committee. As a matter of fact the reference was irregular, as the petition was in support of one presented to the House during last session. The reference should therefore not have been allowed until the petition from Montague presented last year had again been referred to the committee. I would suggest that the irregularity be rectified by allowing the hon. member for Somerset East to move now as an unopposed motion that the petition from Montague presented last year be laid upon the table and referred to the Select Committee.

This was agreed to.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the petition from G. Montague praying for a pension or other relief, presented to the House on the 13th December, 1910, be laid upon the table.

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the petition was upon the table.

then moved that the petition be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Return showing tonnage of traffic handled during November and December, 1911, and January and February, 1912, at Riet, Burgherville-road, Taaibosch, Dwaal, Wildfontein, and Carolus, respectively; return showing number of employees who have been engaged or transferred for duty on the Randfontein-Springs section of the railway; and the number dismissed or transferred from that section and the reasons of such dismissal or transference.

Memorandum relative to award of pension of £35 13s. 7d. per annum to Joel Manuel Tsame, interpreter, Ngqeleni.

The memorandum was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

I have looked into the question which the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) raised yesterday as to whether a breach of privilege had not been committed by the publication in the “Cape Times” of certain decisions arrived at by the Select Committee on the South Africa Defence Bill, before the report had been brought up in the House and printed for the information of members. The article complained of appeared in the “Cape Times” issued on the morning of the 16th inst., and the report was actually signed during the course of the same day, so that the publication complained of took place before even the Chairman had signed the manuscript report. I am bound to say that on comparison I find that the publication in question is in every particular in substantial agreement with the record of the proceedings of the committee and with the amendments made by the Select Committee in the Bill. Standing Order No. 193 provides that “the proceedings of, or evidence taken by any Select Committee of this House, which have not been reported to this House, shall not be published by any member of such committee nor by any other person.” This rule has always been construed in the light of the practice of the British House of Commons, which is, as will be seen below, that the publication of the reports and proceedings of Select Committees before they have been printed for the information of members constitutes a breach of privilege. Section 3 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No. 19 of 1911, defines the powers of each House of Parliament, and section 4 provides that each House shall be a Court of Record, while section 36 enacts that the privileges of this House shall be the same as those enjoyed by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom. May, 11th Edition, page 74, states: “It is declared to be a breach of privilege for a member or any other person to publish the evidence taken before a Select Committee until it has been reported to the House,” which statement is more fully given on page 416 of the same authority as follows: “Both as a breach of the Commons privileges and pursuant to a resolution of the House forbidding the publication, no member or any other person may publish any portion of the evidence taken by, or documents presented to Select Committees which have not been reported to the House; and this rule extends equally to the report of a committee before it has been presented to the House.” To this statement there is a footnote to the effect that the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1893 stated, with reference to the communication to the press of a report of a Select Committee which had been formally presented to the House, but was not yet available for the use of members, that the more regular practice was that members of the House should first be put in possession of the results of the deliberations of the Select Committee. The rule may therefore be stated thus: “Any person, including a member of the House, who divulges or publishes anything that transpires before a Select Committee before the report and the proceedings of such committee have been made public, is liable to be charged with a breach of the privileges of this House.” That in the circumstances a prima facie case for investigation has arisen cannot, in my opinion, be disputed, and I should like to emphasise that it is essential in the interests of the proper conduct of the business of the House that its privileges should be respected, and inasmuch as in a matter of this kind there may be a reflection on the honour and integrity of members and officers of the House, it is the more necessary that the fullest inquiry should be instituted with the view of adequate punishment being meted out to the offenders. If the House decides that this matter should be brought to trial, the best course would be the appointment of a Select Committee, and a motion to that effect can be made without notice. After looking into the matter yesterday afternoon and giving full consideration to it, I came to the conclusion that I would submit to the consideration of the House that, as this was the first occasion upon which a complaint of this nature had come before the Union House of Assembly, and in view of the fact that this reference in the House to the matter would no doubt act as a warning to all concerned, no further action be taken on the present occasion. In view, however, of the fact that in spite of the intimation given by me to the House yesterday that I would investigate the matter, which was therefore sub judice, a leading article appeared in this morning’s issue of the “Cape Times” dealing with the question, and in the same impression a letter is printed from the General Manager of the Cape Times, Ltd., on the same subject, wherein he discloses certain data in regard to communications between his office and the House of Assembly, which data are not even correct I would leave the matter in the hands of the House.

said that in pursuance of the advice tendered by Mr. Speaker and which he had received with gratitude, he desired formally to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the alleged breach of privilege.

seconded the motion.

said that before that motion was put it was his duty to inform the House of what he knew about the case, because certain aspersions had been cast on the “Cape Times” that were not justified, and, further, it might be thought that certain officers of the House had disclosed information. What happened was this, that the statement appearing in the “Cape Times” was substantially correct. A reporter on the staff of the “Cape Times” asked him whether certain information was correct or not? There were rumours of what was happening in the Select Committee going about, and he gave the reporter the information rather than see that anything incorrect was stated. He thought the information could do no possible harm, and that it was better that correct information should be published rather than see false information conveyed on the Bill which was being considered from no party point of view. He thought that it was far better that whatever was known should be stated correctly and not incorrectly, and so he did what had been done. Under these circumstances he had taken the blame upon himself and submitted himself with all due humility to the authority of the House for a mistake, which he thought was a mistake probably, but at the same time it was done with no desire to do anything but see that the country had information which was more or less a matter of common knowledge.

had taken the responsibility upon himself, he hoped that the House would be satisfied with that. (Hear, hear.)

said the hon. member for East London had stated candidly for the information of the House what his share in the matter was. Nevertheless he thought that an occurrence like this might be overdone, and he did not think the gravity of the offence should be passed over. He wished to call the attention of the House to an article that had appeared that morning, and which was in the nature of a scurrilous attack upon his hon. friend. A passage in the article read as follows: “If a private individual chooses to give information to a newspaper reporter under no seal of confidence, and under no injunction that the information is not to be published, neither Parliament nor Mr. Madeley has any business to complain.” Although in the interests of the public, reporters were given special accommodation in that House, there was an unwritten rule that certain news of this kind should not be used by any newspaper, so that newspapers were aware that it was against the rules and regulations of the House to publish such information. He understood that the hon. member in a moment of indiscretion—

Not a moment of indiscretion.

The hon. member must allow me to describe it as it appears to me, and probably hon. members would agree with him in describing it as a very great indiscretion for one member to take upon himself the responsibility of disregarding the rules of the House, but at the same time that did not excuse a newspaper of the supposed standing of the “Cape Times” for publishing this information knowing that it was against the rules of the House.

I hold in my hand a copy of the “Rand Daily Mail,” which gives a copy of the Miners’ Phthisis Bill long before it was presented to the House.

The hon. member must not introduce a new motion now.

Then I give notice to move, sir.

One at a time. (Laughter.)

said he hoped the House would accept the advice of the Prime Minister, because these little conflicts with the Press seldom ended in advantage to Parliament. In the middle of the 18th century, when the Parliamentary system was being framed, Parliament went into serious conflicts with the Press, and came off second best. He certainly thought they ought to let the matter drop.

inquired if the hon. member for Springs desired to press his motion, in view of the statement made by the hon. member for East London. The privileges of Parliament he believed would be perfectly safe in future, and probably such an occurrence would not happen again.

said his sole object was to draw the attention of the House to the matter, so that it might not happen again. He deeply regretted that it had been found necessary for an hon. member to take the blame upon his own shoulders; but he had done so in an honourable outspoken fashion, and in a manner which commended itself to every member of the House. He was perfectly certain that the privileges of the House would be safe in the hands of Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, the hon. member said that in the circumstances he had no hesitation in withdrawing the motion.

By leave of the House the motion was withdrawn.

moved that the following be a Sessional Standing Order: That while Estimates of Expenditure are under consideration by Committee of Supply, consideration thereof take precedence of all other business during evening sittings, on the following conditions: If at five minutes to six o’clock p.m. on such days, the business be not sooner disposed of, Mr. Speaker will adjourn the debate then under discussion, or the Chairman will report progress and ask leave to sit again, as the case may be, and dilatory motions, such as motions for adjournment, will lapse without question put. If a debate arises as to the day for which such interrupted business shall be put down, Mr. Speaker shall call for the “Ayes” and “Noes”; when, if Mr. Speaker is unable to determine whether the “Ayes” or “Noes” have it, he shall order the interrupted business to be put down for the next day on which the House shall sit. Provided that if at five minutes to six o’clock p.m. Estimates of Expenditure are under consideration, no such interruption shall take place.

seconded the motion.

said he was sorry that the Minister in moving this motion had not given reasons to the House for such an extraordinary procedure at this stage of the session. What he proposed was this, that when the House got into Committee of Supply, notwithstanding the enormous amount of business on the paper, everything had to give way every night to the consideration of the Estimates. Well, he thought that that was an extraordinary procedure to propose at that stage of the session, and he would give the House his reasons. The paper was full of legislation. On two or three occasions hon. members on his side of the House had asked the Prime Minister to make a statement as to the Bills which the Government intended to carry through to their final stages. They had very important Bills, upon which it would be inopportune to prevent discussion. There was the Carnarvon Outer Commonage Bill, in which the right hon. member for Victoria West was interested. Constituents had been writing asking why the Bill was so far down the paper, seeing it was introduced at such an early date. There was another Bill about which there had been a great difference of opinion, the Public Health Bill. It was introduced by the Minister in the course of an admirable speech, but when hon. members, on that side suggested that a comprehensive measure should be introduced in its stead the Minister declared that the Bill was of such urgent and vital importance that it was impossible to spare the time to draft another measure. In fact, he told the House that what was on the Statute Book at present did not give him sufficient power to deal with the deplorable outbreak of plague at Durban. It was introduced early in February last, and was now the thirteenth order on the paper. There was the Native Disputes Bill, introduced on the 9th of February, the Electoral Reform Bill—(Opposition Hear, hears”)—introduced on the 11th March, the Weights and Measures Bill—(laughter)—and another important measure, the measure dealing with Estates Duties.

Waste of time.

I agree with my hon. friend that it is waste of time—(The remainder of the remarks of the speaker were drowned by Ministerial laughter.) Continuing, the hon. member was understood to say that he was not going to be put off the track by Ministerial laughter and cheers, by which it was sought to cover up attention being drawn to the extraordinary position of business at the present time. He knew his hon. friend the Minister of Railways did not like reference being made to these matters, and he (the speaker) would draw attention to two little Bills in which the Minister was interested at a later stage. Continuing, the hon. member was understood to say that he would now draw attention to the Estates Duties Bill, which he had thought the Treasurer would have pushed forward. It was possible that his hon. friends on the other side, realising that it was not going to affect one side but both sides, had urged that it should be placed lower down on the paper. Then there was the important measure dealing with financial relations which the Treasurer must introduce. Then there was another Bill—the Railway Bill. They still had the blank sheet with £2,000,000 thereon and no details. Only that day two further Bills had been introduced. The Hon. the Treasurer had brought forward a Land Bank Bill, while the Right Hon. the Prime Minister had brought forward a Fencing Bill. It was perfectly useless introducing all these measures when the Government was taking up all the evenings for the Estimates. Tie thought it only befitting the dignity of the House that the Prime Minister should make a clear statement in regard to public business He would propose an amendment, which he hoped would be accepted by the Minister of Finance. He moved an amendment to the effect that the Estimates be only taken on Monday and Wednesday evenings.

seconded the amendment.

said he had been rather astonished at the extraordinary outburst on the Opposition side. They had given unqualified support to the Government during the whole of the session, and now when Government introduced a little measure to settle business, fell upon them. (Laughter.) According to his views the country would not be worse off if Government dispensed with half of these Bills, but the Estimates were important. So far as the Bill in which he was interested was concerned, he had the assurance of Government that it would come on in due course.

said he thought the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had a good deal of solid ground for his protest. There was the Civil Service Bill still in the hands of the Select Committee; there was the Miners’ Phthisis Bill still in the hands of the Select Committee, and there were other measures, and he thought they were all somewhat nervous about proceeding to Committee of Supply. He hoped the Prime Minister would accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

said that they were told that members on that side delayed business by talking, and yet the other afternoon when they ceased talking business had to be brought to an absolute stop.

moved the following amendment: In lines 5 and 15 respectively to omit “five” before “minutes,” and substitute “three.” He said that if business were adjourned at five minutes to six there often remained, after the necessary steps had been taken, an interregnum of about two minutes before six o’clock. At that time the House did not adjourn, and it very frequently happened last session that the Chairman took the chair and they all went to catch their train or tram, thinking that nothing would have happened until eight o’clock. They came back at eight o’clock to find, to their astonishment, that some very important votes had been passed between two minutes to six and six o’clock. (Hear, hear.) Under his amendment ample time would be allowed to adjourn the matter under discussion without leaving any time for passing any of the votes on the Estimates before six o’clock.

seconded the amendment.

said he did not understand the Government introducing a resolution of this kind at any time. He was sorry that the right hon. the member for Victoria West had treated this question in a vein of levity. They wanted to get their business finished, so that they could get away. He was afraid that the Government were not going to assist that object by introducing a proposal of this kind. The resolution would not only tie the hands of the Government, but it was very awkward. The heavy work of the session was just coming on. There were a good many Bills which had been introduced or referred to Select Committee, and he thought it would be time enough to press on with the Estimates later on in the session.

said he thought his hon. friend Sir E. H. Walton) had made one mistake just now when he alluded to the “levity” with which the right hon. the member for Victoria West had treated this question. He thought the right hon. gentleman had in a delicate manner expressed his contempt for the way in which the business of the Government had been conducted. He thought he had expressed the contempt which a good many of them felt. They had a number of Bills introduced which had no conviction behind them. This thing was a farce. It was not Government, it was not Responsible Government, it was Government by Select Committee, by compromise, by dictation, by caucus, by anything they liked, and all these Bills were so much window-dressing—(hear, hear)—and had no sincerity behind them. There was no consensus of opinion behind any one of them sufficient to carry it through. It all arose from the one mistake, that “false start” that he had already spoken about.

There was no conviction in the Government and no leadership in the House. That was why business did not go through. The whole thing was a farce; there was no policy before the country. Bills were brought forward in skeleton form and three times in one afternoon they had Select Committees proposed to put flesh on those skeletons. (Opposition laughter.) What party was behind that policy? There was no considerable party. (Hear, hear.) It came to this, that there was a division into parties on the Government benches and there was a paralysis. There was another mistake—the payment of members. Hon. members were paid £60 a month until they had drawn £300. To his mind it was a scandal that hon. members had been paid the first £60 on January 31.

said the hon. member must confine himself to the point.

I was just coming to a distinct point.

Make another start.

I will not only make another start, but give another start. Proceeding. Sir Percy said the session would close at the end of May—(Ministerial cries of “No.”)—or a few days after, because the £60 a month would be up then

The hon. member must confine himself to the subject under discussion.

If I am out of order I regret it. Continuing, he said they did not know what Bills were intended to be proceeded with. They were told that they would have a first class fight on the Registration Bill, but that seemed to him to be a vanishing measure. If the proposal were accepted, and they spent four nights a week on the Estimates there would be no place for those important measures, which some of them regarded as necessary. There would be a wholesale slaughter of these measures at the end of the session.

said there was no necessity to get warm, and he did not propose to follow the example of some of his hon. friends in wasting the time of the House. (Ministerial cheers.) They heard that there was no business being transacted. The Leader of the Opposition had been complimented on the high position he occupied, but he (Mr. Hull) was rather amused to see that one of the hon. member’s own newspapers said that his one failing was talking too much. (Ministerial laughter.) On the merits of the case they had to pass not only the ordinary Estimates, but those of the Railways and Harbours, the discussion of which in Committee would occupy considerable time. In addition to that they had also to pass the Loan Estimates, which would also take considerable time. He was sorry to say that he would have to ask the House to agree to some Supplementary Estimates, involving, he was sorry to say, some considerable expenditure. The House would be wise in agreeing to the motion that the night sittings should be devoted to the Estimates. (Hear, hear.) There would be plenty of time and opportunity to discuss the other important matters. He would now say a few words about the so-called scandal mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria East in regard to members of Parliament having been paid £60 on February 1st. He only wished to say that that payment had been made in pursuance of a motion unanimously passed by this House, not by the Government. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member had voted for it and he could not see the object of the matter being raised now. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, Mr. Hull said that even if the resolution before the House was accepted today they had not yet reached the Estimates. There was still the substantive motion before the House that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, and they did not know when they would reach it. This motion would not prevent the Government, if they found later on that the night sittings should be devoted to other matters, from asking that progress be reported on the Estimates and going on with the rest of the programme.

I think it would.

said the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said this was an extraordinary motion to put at this stage of the session. They had been in session three months exactly to-day, and he found that in 1906, in the Cape Government, of which Sir Starr Jameson was the Premier, when Parliament had been in session 2½ months, a motion had been put in precisely the same words as this one. (Ministerial cheers.)

Within a fortnight of the end of the session.

said the Minister of Railways and Harbours must know perfectly well that the Cape Parliament sat for three months only, and that the motion referred to by the Minister of Finance was moved within a fortnight of the end of the session. That was a very different thing indeed to moving it now, when they were at least six weeks from the end of the session. There had been quite as much speaking on the Government side of the House as on the Opposition side. (An HON. MEMBER: “More.”) Take the Civil Service Bill; if the Opposition had talked as much as Government members had the Bill would not have passed its second reading in a day. The discussion on the Budget lasted nine days and that was by no means a long time.

Three times as long as the House of Commons.

My hon. friend is to blame for the delay, and also the Minister of Education, because they dragged into the debate two entirely extraneous matters.

called the hon. member to order.

said they wanted a statement as to what Bills were going to be proceeded with. Many hon. members, with committee and other duties to attend to, had not time to study all these Bills. There was at least one other important measure to come forward—the Financial Relations Bill.

You have wasted an hour today.

Five hours were wasted the day before yesterday on account of the incompetence of the Government—(hear, hear)—because there was nothing before the House. In conclusion, the hon. member said the Opposition complained that Government had no grip on the House and no directing force, and that it was owing to the Ministry that the conduct of public business had got into such a wretched state. (Hear, hear.)

did not agree that the Opposition was wasting the time of the House. To the ordinary member of the House, who was possessed only of the ordinary amount of intellect, the course the Government was pursuing was very trying. When the Transvaal got Responsible Government, there were Bills introduced without any notice being given, and just the same procedure was happening now. His hon. friend the member for Pretoria East drew attention to this, and asked that Bills should be published one month before they were introduced into Parliament. The Prime Minister of the Transvaal Parliament (General Botha) said they had no time to publish these Bills, but expressed his intention of following the old procedure of the Transvaal Volksraad, and upon that assurance being given, his hon. friend withdrew his motion. When the session of 1908 came on they found that numerous Bills were presented to Parliament after being published only a few days. Having in mind the Prime Minister’s promise, he then moved that all Bills, with the exception of Appropriation Bills, be published three months before being introduced (into Parliament, and upon that motion they also got an assurance from the Government. Then Union took place, and they came down to Gape Town, and found the order paper loaded with Bills that had not the slightest chance of being discussed in the House. He would take one particular Bill, and he did not think the word “scandalous” was too harsh a word to apply to it. He referred to the Public Health Bill.

The hon. member can only refer to that when it is reached.

said he thought it was the duty of the Government to tell the House what measures they intended to introduce. The Prime Minister ought to revert to the old Transvaal days, and promise that he would publish the Bills at least three months before they were introduced.

thought a great deal of time had been wasted upon both sides of the House in talk, and the Labour party had been the worst offenders. He hoped the Prime Minister would take the House into his confidence and tell them what Bills he intended to take and what he intended to drop.

Both amendments were negatived.

The motion was agreed to.

moved a new clause 71: “Youths between their thirteenth and seventeenth years (both inclusive) in thinly-populated areas, who do not fall under section 6 of this Act, can be enrolled as members of a rifle association and undergo a prescribed course of training in the care and use of the rifle: Provided that no such youth shall be obliged to be so enrolled, or being so enrolled, to serve in time of war.”

supported the clause, as it would give satisfaction and prevent injustice.

said that if the hon. member meant to allow children under 17 years to become members of rifle associations, that amendment was introduced in the wrong place.

was understood to hope that the Minister would accept the amendment. So far as he could understand, the amendment meant that youths between 15 and 17 would be allowed to join rifle associations, and would then be exempt from the period of service. (Cries of “No, no.”) Well, did the hon. member mean that these youngsters would have a continuous period of training from 15 to 25 years?

said the amendment rested on an unsound principle, and was entirely unacceptable. They ought not to give rifles to children. If children were allowed to become members of rifle associations, they would belong to the reserve, and might be called up in time of war. They could not possibly take children of 15 and 14 to battle, however. If such children were trained, they should be trained outside of the rifle associations.

asked what provision was made for the training of boys in thinly-populated areas? So far the debate had only referred to the towns.

said the Minister had been unfair to the amendment. The amendment was a good one because no provision was made in the Bill for boys in country places. The recent war had shown clearly that if they were a little trained, the boys were very useful.

said the Minister should not run away with the idea that a private member was incapable of drafting amendments. Boys on the farms were excellent shots, and should be further trained.

inquired why the certificate of efficiency was only given at the age of 16 years.

spoke, but was inaudible in the Gallery.

said the arguments used by the Minister were not sound, as he had done less than justice to the country people. Those people demanded the same rights as those in the towns. Boys of from 13 to 17 could shoot well, and should be trained, without, however, being required to go out in time of war. He pressed his amendment.

said there were several rifle associations in his constituency, but he feared it was wrong to permit children of 12 or 14 to join them because the parents would then remain away. They would not care to be trained with children. The children should form separate organisations.

trusted the amendment would be withdrawn, as it was totally impracticable. It would do injury to the country parts, because it would bring into the reserve a number of children, and with children they could not carry out anything. If they wanted to do something for the children it should be done in other directions. The mover had shown himself to be an opponent of the Cadets, and now he proposed that children should be trained. He evidently objected to the word “Cadets.” Well, give them another name. If in thinly populated places the schools had a sufficient number of boys, there would be opportunity to train those boys.

said the hon. member for Wodehouse wanted to guard the interests of the thinly populated districts. The Government was always willing to support those districts, but the difficulty was to get sufficient children together. He (the Minister) could not believe it was a sound principle to train children in company with bigger persons. It was by no means the intention of the Bill to give privileges to the densely populated areas at the expense of other places. He knew that the best soldiers were to be found in country places. He feared, however, that the hon. member for Wodehouse was prejudiced against the cadets. The best thing to do was to train those children separately, as would be done in the cadet corps. He therefore hoped the amendment would be withdrawn.

said the amendment was an attempt to satisfy the demand for the training of boys in districts where cadet corps could not be established. The Bill should not discourage training.

spoke but was unintelligible in the Gallery.

said that in his district most of the schools had lady teachers, who could not train the boys. It ought to be made possible for the father to take his sons to shooting practice.

said that the complaint in country places was that the State meddled too much with parents’ rights. The public were opposed to the cadet system, and would, therefore, be opposed to the amendment.

expressed the view that men and children should be kept apart.

was opposed to the amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 77,

moved to add the following proviso: “Provided that where an industrial dispute occurs in any military district the units of the said forces in that district shall not be called upon for service in the prevention of any actual or contingent disorder arising from that dispute; and provided further that where in any such dispute it becomes necessary to call out any portion of the said forces for service in prevention or suppression of internal disorder the provisions of subsection (2) of section 75 shall apply.” The mover said that when men abstained from work they were not looked upon as citizens of the country who were doing a perfectly lawful thing, there being a tendency on the part of the authorities to look upon them as mutineers and as being exceedingly likely to be led into some crime, and therefore there was a tendency to bring the armed forces of the Crown into the dispute, when there was no necessity whatever for it, and to do so in a most provocative way. During the miners’ strike on the Rand in 1907 the military forces were called out and the men on strike were presumed to be planning acts of violence, of which there was not a vestige of foundation. In the recent tramway strike at Johannesburg armed men were introduced utterly without justification. The men in this country recognised the duty of every citizen to defend his country, but they were not prepared to place themselves in such a position where, simply at the behest of the Government—which would be likely to listen to the possibly hysterical demands of the employers—the men might he called out in a provocative way calculated to lead to trouble. This might involve the men being subjected to grievous penalties under the Discipline Act or else of being under the horrible compulsion of having to use force against men who might be their brothers or their friends. He wished our system was such that the preservation of the civil peace was the function of the local authorities. In the case of the railway strike at Durban some years ago, although feeling ran high, there was no breach of the peace because a good understanding was arrived at between the local police and the leaders of the strikers.

In a case where the active citizen force had to be called out for war, Parliament would be called together, and he considered that before the citizen force should be called out in an industrial dispute, Parliament should also meet and investigate the circumstances. He hoped the Minister would see his way clear to accept this amendment. It would not in any way impair the force for which it was constructed, and that was to defend the State against external enemies and it certainly would prevent citizens from taking part in what he would call almost a catastrophe, if they happened to be called out to take up arms against other citizens. If the police were properly constituted there should be no cause to call out the citizen forces, and if they were unable to cope with disorder then they could enrol special constables.

hoped the committee would give this matter their serious consideration. It was a serious amendment, and not made with any desire to waste the time of the House. A large number of trade unionists had found great difficulty in subscribing to the measure, and unless some amendment like that moved by the hon. member for Jeppe was adopted, he was afraid that he must join the great body of malcontents who were against the Bill in toto. He believed that of the 18,000 trades unionists in the country, 99 per cent. would vote against this measure, unless an amendment such as that proposed were put in. It was quite a different matter to be called upon to fight a common enemy and to be called upon to fight their fellow workmen who were trying to better their positions by the only means available. There was no desire on their part to cast suspicion upon the Minister, but they suggested that ample safeguards must be laid down against these forces being used in industrial disputes. He would draw the Minister’s attention to what took place in another country some time ago, when a million workers were on strike. There were two parties in the British House of Commons. One party advocated Parliamentary measures to deal with the strike, and the other party advocated that the troops should be called out to force the workmen back to work. Had a similar law to the present been in force in England and the Opposition in power, one body of men would have been called upon to force their fellow-workmen back to work, and defeat their attempt to improve their conditions. As the hon. member for Jeppe had pointed out, they considered that the police force was quite sufficient to cope with these disputes. There had only been one riot during the coal strike, and that was in Scotland, where the police had given an order for the men to leave a meeting. They must also understand that the police would be much more tactful in dealing with a strike than the ordinary man called out.

said the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe had been fully and fairly considered in the Select Committee, and his hon. friend had received a great deal of sympathy, but they did not see their way to accept this amendment. He would wish hon. members to look at the amendment and see in what way it was likely to achieve its object. This section 77 enabled the Government to employ all its forces for the suppression of internal disorder. He quite realised that it was a very grave responsibility for any Government to interfere in industrial disputes.

If an amendment could be moved with a limit, then he would be willing to consider such an amendment seriously. Did the amendment which was before the committee achieve the object which the hon. member desired? What was the object? It was a double-barrelled amendment. It said in the first place that where an industrial dispute occurred in a certain area, and it became necessary to call out the military, that the men of another district should be called out. In what way did that meet what was required? Why should the hon. member give the show away by implication—the implication that military force should be used. He said that the units of the particular district in which the trouble occurred should not be called upon, but that aid should be obtained from other districts. He thought it would be very difficult to use the military forces of the country when an industrial dispute took place. A case like that which occurred in the Transvaal did not take place every day and he thought they should be very careful about using the military forces in disputes of an industrial character. The amendment seemed to imply that the use of these forces would be legitimate, provided the men were brought from elsewhere. He did not think that his hon. friend meant to make such an admission as he had made in the course of the first part of the amendment; he did not think that his hon. friend was achieving the object which he had in view. But there was a second difficulty in connection with this part of the amendment. They would have to call up the forces of the countryside in order to go and coerce the town population in some dispute that was going on. He could not conceive of anything more undesirable, socially or economically, in this country. He considered that it was a thing that should not be done. It was for these reasons that he was unable to agree with the first part of the amendment. He thought that the second part of the amendment might not be intelligible to hon. members. It meant this: that where a dispute occurred and the military had to be called in, then Parliament must be called together. He did not think that that was a proper provision to introduce into the measure. Proceeding, the Minister went on to quote a case which he said he brought to the notice of the Select Committee which dealt with the Bill. Just after Union a disturbance took place in the compound at Kimberley. The police were unable to cope with the trouble, and the local force was called up for the purpose of preventing bloodshed. It was possible that if the Volunteers in the town had not been called up at once to preserve order there might have been bloodshed on a large scale. Under the amendment of his hon. friend, if it were accepted by the committee, Parliament would have to be called together. Surely his hon. friend must know there were numerous instances of internal disturbances where the police could not cope with situations, and when order could be preserved by the force on the spot. Why was it necessary to call Parliament together in such a case? Or there might be such a happening as the affair in the Transvaal of 1907, but there were numerous small internal disturbances where the forces in the district could deal with things without the necessity of calling Parliament together. Of course, the hon. member had the white population in view but he (the Minister) would point out that there were many compounds in the country where thousands of natives were quartered. He did not think that the amendment which had been placed before the committee was a business proposition, and he did not think that it in any way achieved the object which the hon. member for Jeppe desired. If they could put forward an amendment that would properly define these internal disturbances where there was need for interference by the military, then he would be pleased to consider such a proposition seriously. A disturbance might be on a vast scale or on a very small scale, and he did not think that the amendment helped the hon. member in any way.

said he could not agree with the Minister that any searching investigation was made by the Select Committee with a view to solving this problem. He made a number of suggestions, and he would candidly tell the House that he recognised some of the difficulties of a question of this sort. Either a disturbance was small, in which case they could cope with it by using the police, or it was large, and should be the occasion for calling the Parliament of the country together. He granted all the hon. Minister had said. If the clause had no other effect than to bring these things to the notice of the Government and the Legislature of the country then he thought that a great result would have been achieved. The first thing was that it would bring home to the Legislature that it was not wasting time to discuss and discuss and discuss the problems that arose from the industrial development in South Africa. The second thing was that it would have the effect of making the Ministry face this question of police organisation so as to secure the maintenance of the civil peace within any area under a local body, and make that local body responsible for its own policing and arrangements. He did not think that any danger would occur to the public were the Minister to accept this amendment.

could not support the amendment. The object of the Government was to protect life and property, and if disturbances grew’ so big that the police could not control them then the troops would have to be called in. They should take care, however, that such circumstances did not arise, and should not create agitations. Then there would be no disputes, no disorders, and no troops required.

said he could not perfectly follow what the hon. member for Wakkerstroom had said, but he understood that the hon. member had made some allusion to the danger of inciting or bringing about these industrial disputes, which might necessitate the use of the military. That argument cut both ways. (Hear, hear.) There was too often a tendency, in fact there was always a tendency, to believe and to hold the view that industrial disputes or strikes were brought about by the pernicious activities of agitators, paid or otherwise. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible to agitate a body of men into a certain course of action if they were contented. Unfortunately, whether they liked it or not, the tendency of modern society was to force the workers into a certain line of conduct. What was that line of conduct? It was this, that they were reduced to saying that they either would or would not submit to conditions which no man with any self-respect could submit to any longer. That was what was looked upon in that House as a “crime.” This country, he went on to say, was rapidly becoming an industrial country. The conditions in the back veld were doomed to disappear. The patriarchal, semi-feudal system was going to leave this country as it had left every country in Europe. We were becoming industrial in this country and with the industrial system, as was found in other countries, would come industrial trouble, and that could not be managed and would not be managed on the same lines as hon. members on the other side and on that side also were in the habit of managing their Kafir trouble. The white man would not submit to it. The Kafir as he became educated, would not submit to it; he would not submit to be herded into a compound and treated as a semi-slave. (Hear, hear.) They on the “Labour benches” would have every confidence in the Citizen Force were they sure that the bulk of the citizens had a hand in the government of the country. Theoretically, they had; practically, the government of this country, as of most other countries, was in the hands of the possessing class, the employing class, the men who employed “hands,” black and white.

They had been twitted with talking too much in that House. He supposed all the members on that bench would talk on this particular proposition. Why? Because it was not of sufficient interest evidently for hon. members on either side of the House to get up and talk about it. They were sometimes again twitted with advocating class legislation. He would have the committee remember that, even if they did advocate legislation for a certain class, or wanted to prevent legislation which would press hardly upon a certain class, it was a very large class that they represented, a very important class, a class which, if taken out of the community, would not leave very much and what it did leave would not matter very much. (Hear, hear.) They did not advocate class legislation. Nearly all the legislation that he had the honour of taking part in discussing during this session was, to his mind, class legislation pure and simple—not working class legislation, but possessing-class legislation, which was certainly to benefit those who had and not those who had not. As to this Bill, he did not say that he was against a defence force, he was certainly not against the system of a citizen defence force, but he did recognise that at present the workers of this country had very little to defend. It might be said that they had their homes to defend. The great majority of them had no homes. They only had right to herd in a hovel from week to week or month to month, at the good will and pleasure of some employer or landlord. In regard to the matter under discussion and the danger of a big disorder necessitating the calling out of the military, it seemed to him unthinkable that a big disorder or a disorder sufficiently large to justify the military being called out could possible arise in this country within a few days or even a few weeks, within so short a time that the Government had not time to grapple with it. In his experience of South Africa, the only disorder necessitating the calling out of the military took place prior to the war on the Rand. But that did not take place suddenly. The Republican Government had ample time to prepare, and they did prepare, and successfully deal with the matter. That disorder was brought about not by the workers, but by the possessing class, by the capitalist class. In regard to the natives, and the danger of them rising, those large bodies of natives were not brought into the compounds for the benefit of the workers. They were herded together in compounds in order to make profits for the mine magnates and the people that they represented, and he thought that if there were any danger in those places the onus of keeping order should be upon those who had brought the natives there. He hoped that the occasion would never arise in this country when they would see such scenes as had taken place in America. He hoped the trades unions here would never have to adopt the rule of the Western Miners’ Federation of the U.S.A., which prohibited any of its members from joining the State Militia as a protest against the terrorising of men on strike. If anything had been said from the Labour benches that afternoon which would lead the Ministry to carefully consider this matter, and, in case of panic, to be exceedingly careful and exceedingly slow to adopt measures which had been adopted in the United States, which had been adopted in Britain, and which had been adopted in Russia during this week by calling out the military to fight and shoot down their brothers in industrial disputes, he thought the discussion would not have been altogether waste time. (Hear, hear.)

said the last speaker had asserted that those on the Government side of the House had no feeling for the interest of the workmen. He denied that most strongly, and would always do his best in the interests of labour. He considered the amendment was impracticable, and agreed with what the Minister had stated. It was inequitable to refuse to protect from strikers those who were willing to work.

said it was just because they could not trust the Minister—not a particular Minister—that they desired the proviso. It was practically the same Ministry as the one in power in the Transvaal when the miners’ strike was on, and that Ministry called out the troops although there had been no disorder and no mine manager had been killed. If the House were not very careful it would make the Bill unpopular with the working classes and then they would have no citizen force at all. Disorders did not occur until the troops appeared on the scene. There was a strike in Gape Town last year and he had the honour of being mixed up in it—(laughter)—he did look upon it as an honour, because wherever the workers were oppressed he wanted to be amongst them. A particular section of the workmen on strike on that occasion desired to have a peaceable demonstration—(laughter)—they wanted to march through the streets of Cape Town. There had been no disorder, and he defied anyone to say that there had been. An application was made to the City authorities and permission was granted by them, but the local inspector of police vetoed the movement. What was the result? He was with the men when the announcement was made. The men said: “We will go, and if the police meet us we will march through them.” That was the position they were creating. An appeal, however, was made to the Minister of Justice on behalf of the men, and he instantly removed the embargo of the local inspector, and the procession took place and was pre-eminently peaceable. There had not yet arisen an occasion when the troops were required to prevent disorder, although troops had occasioned disorder. The object of the clause in the Bill was to hold armed forces over the heads of the workers, and unless the amendment were adopted the workers would come to the idea that the main object was not to protect the country, but to coerce the workers of the country.

The proviso was negatived.

On clause 80,

moved to omit paragraph (d) of subsection (1).

The amendment was negatived.

moved to omit paragraph (h) of subsection

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 81,

feared that difficulties would ensue if a portion of the Defence Force were obliged to cooperate with other troops of His Majesty against an enemy, if those troops were placed under the command of a British officer. He asked for information on that point.

replied that the clause only contemplated the case when two separate sections had to act together. It would then become necessary for the senior officer to be placed in charge of the combined force. If an English officer were the senior, then he would be placed in command of the combined force. Except for that, every section would remain under the command of its own officer. Gases would arise where it was necessary for two sections to act as one, and then, of course, they should be both under the control of one man.

On clause 82,

said the clause provided that a member of Parliament was liable for service, while clause 120 said he was not. Was not that contradictory?

replied in the negative.

suggested the omission of subsection (d), which exempted ministers of religion from serving. The House might not believe it, but ministers of religion had often been the leaders and instigators of war, and it should be their duty to take some part in the actual fighting.

suggested the deletion of section “h,” because if it were necessary to have a citizen force, they should have as few exemptions as possible. He did not think they should leave it so that all sorts of people should want to claim exemption. They had to pay their taxes, and the workers would have to bear the burden of fighting just as they always had to do.

pointed out that a Marconi operator was also a worker, and it might be necessary to exempt him. He moved: To add at the end “and the Government of the Union and any person lawfully carrying out all or any of the powers herein granted shall be held harmless for any loss caused by the due and proper exercise thereof.”

said he did not want exemptions at all, but if they must have them, let them say what they were.

opposed the amendment moved by Mr. Andrews, as he regarded the provision as a most necessary one.

considered that personal service did not mean that a man was running about with a sword stained with blood. He could perform other functions.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 84,

said that he would like to call the attention of the Minister to the point that there should be an exemption on the part of Government from any liability for any damage for, say the breaking of windows caused by the firing of guns while training, and he would move an amendment to that effect. Of course, he did not mean that the Government should be exempted if negligence were proved, but only when proper notice was given that such firing would take place.

believed that the House would not adopt the amendment as it stood, and he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his motion now, and allow the Minister to look into the matter before the third reading.

Well, I will not put it at this stage.

On clause 86,

moved: In line 40, after “aforesaid,” to insert “Provided that no camp shall be erected within a radius of at least five hundred yards of a private dwelling, except with the consent of the owner thereof.”

Agreed to.

On clause 87,

asked for an explanation of the clause.

replied that it was to make possible expropriation for fortification purposes. It was thought that ground was to be expropriated for purposes of manoeuvres, but that was not the intention, and would, moreover, be too expensive.

On clause 88,

wished to see provision made that no camp of soldiers on a farm should exceed 500 men. He spoke from experience. He had once had about 5,000 men on his farm for manoeuvres, and knew what a discomfort and a burden they were.

supported the last speaker, and trusted that Government manoeuvres and inspections should as far as possible be held on Government lands. He also knew something of the difficulties connected with military camps and reviews. Many fences and other things were destroyed, and no sufficient compensation was paid to the owner.

complained of the same annoyances.

admitted that much damage had formerly been done, and that the compensation paid had not been sufficient. The manoeuvres referred to in the clause, however, concerned their own forces, under the control of their own Parliament. If, therefore, damage was done and insufficient compensation paid, then the matter could always be brought before Parliament and put right.

said that the officers who had command over the troops during the manoeuvres in his district had always done what they could to prevent disorder or injury. During last year’s manoeuvres absolutely no injury was done.

suggested a proviso that no camp should be permitted within 500 yards of a dwelling except with the consent of the owner. He had himself suffered injury owing to the setting up of a camp close to his homestead.

said that at his farm during the manoeuvres the wire fencing had been cut through at several places, notwithstanding the existence of gates.

supported the suggestion.

On clause 89,

inquired whether members of rifle associations would have to pay for train transport during the training period.

said that when a member of a rifle association was travelling on active service Government would pay the costs, but in no other case.

On clause 94,

On the motion of the MINISTER OF DEFENCE, the CHAIRMAN put the amendments proposed by the Select Committee: In lines 32 and 37 to omit “Army Act” and to substitute “Military Code”; and in line 35 to omit “Act” and to substitute “Code.”

moved: In lines 33 after “other than” to omit all the words down to “fine” in line 35, and to substitute “(i) Those mentioned in clauses (d), (e), (f), (g), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of section forty-four of that Code; or (ii) Deprivation of or stoppages from pay or allowances as in section one hundred and thirteen of this Act provided,” and in line 37, after “subject to” to insert “a sentence of.”

Agreed to.

On clause 108,

moved: In line 50, to omit “or summoned to appear,” and to substitute “and brought”; and in line 51 after “law” to add: “or may be summoned under the Military Code to appear before his commanding officer for the investigation and disposal of any charge brought against him under that Code.”

Agreed to.

On clause 111,

On the motion of the MINISTER OF DEFENCE, the CHAIRMAN put the amendments proposed by the Select Committee: In lines 12 and 33 to omit “Army Act” and to substitute “Military Code,” and in lines 13 and 36 to omit “Act” and to substitute “Code.”

moved: In line 13, to omit “subject to the provisions of that Code”; in lines 14, 15, and 16, to omit “or by a court-martial as prescribed to a penalty involving forfeiture of any pay or allowance due to him”; and to substitute “For such minor offences and under such conditions as are prescribed, to deprivation of pay or allowances due to him under this Act”; and in lines 21 and 22, to omit “forfeiture” and to substitute “deprivation.”

Agreed to.

On clause 113,

could not vote for the clause until he had studied the military methods of punishment. They ought to be careful before providing for severe punishment, as it was a question of the life and death of the men; though he knew very well it would have been a good thing during the late war if they could have dealt with a firmer hand with contravention of martial law. In any case, they should be careful what punishments they decided to inflict.

said the hon. member’s objection came too late, as the question of the infliction of punishment in time of peace was dealt with in clause 96. The regulation had only been made known to give hon. members some idea of what was intended.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

moved to delete “service” in line 31, which resulted in exempting members or Parliament from going on active service.

suggested the withdrawal of the amendment, saying that it could be considered at the third reading.

The hon. member withdrew his amendment.

On clause 122,

moved: That the following be a new subsection, to follow subsection (1), viz.: “(2) The Governor-General may also institute and organise the said ambulance service in such manner that as far as possible provision shall be made for the care of the sick and for those who are wounded during military training in time of peace.” He said that they would agree with him that, during training, people would be injured, and there would be sickness. It was agreed that if a doctor was at once on the scene men’s lives might be saved. Sometimes men’s lives were lost because there was not a medical man to attend to them at once. It would not always be possible to take them to hospital. He did not propose to have a thoroughly equipped ambulance service, but such a reasonable service as would be required during training.

said the hon. member was mistaken in his amendment, as the clause only referred to voluntary ambulances. Provision had been made in a previous clause for a compulsory ambulance service for each corps. That was clause 18.

said that he had not understood that clause 18 meant what the hon. Minister had explained it was; and under those circumstances he would withdraw his amendment.

New clause 123,

moved the insertion of the following new clause: Whenever fines are imposed under this Act, with or without the alternative of imprisonment, it shall be lawful for the Court to suspend the sentence for such a time, and upon such conditions, as it may deem fit, in order to enable the person to pay the fine at some future date.” This had found favour in various parts of the world. The fact was that a man might be fined anything up to £5 or £10 and he might be of good character, but he might be unable to pay this money immediately, then he said that the Court ought to have it in their power to give him time to pay, if they thought proper, otherwise a man of good character might be sent to gaol, to become contaminated with the other persons there. This clause would do no possible harm, and might do a great deal of good.

said he was sorry to see that the amendment moved by his hon. friend had been received with laughter by the Minister of Finance. It was a form that had been adopted in other countries.

I was not laughing at the amendment.

I am sorry if I misjudged the hon. Minister. Continuing, the hon. member said a person might commit a misdemeanour and he might be in poor circumstances. The fine would perhaps not be for a large amount, and surely the Minister of Defence would see the justice of allowing him time to pay it. This had been adopted in Great Britain and in different parts of Europe and in America. He hoped the Minister would see that there was a sense of justice in this.

said he did not quite know what the hon. member was thinking of. The Bill was full of penalties and the hon. member sprung upon him an amendment of this character, that in no case a man should be imprisoned without being given the option of paying a fine. Supposing a man disclosed information, why should they show him any consideration? It seemed that some hon. members who were experts in criminal law were testing their strength in this particular Bill and did not wish to test it in the proper quarter, namely, the Minister of Justice. He quite understood that there were many cases where a man should be allowed time to pay his fine in order to escape imprisonment.

said that no Court would impose a fine upon any man for disclosing secrets. A person might not be disgraced by going to prison, but the effects of prison he might fear. The Minister could move this in another place or at the third reading, if he did not want to accept it now.

said he did not think this experiment should be tried on him. His hon. friend spoke with a great deal of assurance, but he would just direct his attention to clause 91, which stated that any member of the Defence Force or any person employed in the public service who disclosed any such information, shall be deemed guilty of an offence. He did not think his hon. friend had considered the effect of the amendment.

said the Minister had here an opportunity for justifying his reputation for reasonableness by accepting this amendment, because it could do no possible harm. In the first place, it was entirely at the discretion of the court whether to impose a fine or not, if the offence was such that it could be met by a fine.

If this principle was to be introduced it should be introduced in a Bill that was coming from another place.

said the difficulty about accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Heidelberg was that they did not know if they would ever reach that Bill. The hon. Minister had laid down much stress upon the crime of disclosing secrets, but such a crime could not be punished by a fine. There were cases, however, in which a man was fined, but had not got the money to pay it. He appealed to the Minister to allow the amendment to be put through.

said it was simply a small proposition he had put before the Minister. The point was simply this, that if a magistrate thought the offence could be met by a fine, he might say to a man: “I am going to fine you £50, but will give you time to pay it.”

said his hon. friend would be well advised to withdraw the amendment. He pointed out that the Bill dealt with military as well as civil law, and the permanent force as well as the active citizen force. He appealed to his hon. friend to withdraw.

said that the appeal which had been made to him had not affected him in the least. He had not thought of this amendment that morning or that afternoon, but had brought it forward after mature reflection. It was an important matter, and he would move it in every Bill where a magistrate was given the power to fine. He was astonished at the opposition which he had met with on this point, for he was one of those who had not delayed the Bill in any way. Even if the section which he proposed was not carried, the time was not far distant when it would become the general law of the country. He did hope that his hon. friend would accept the amendment. It might be an experiment, but he would point out that the measure was full of experiments. It had answered well in other countries.

Where?

In England and other countries.

Military law?

It is full of criminal law. Continuing, he was understood to say, amid Ministerial laughter, that perhaps one day friends of his hon. friends opposite would be sorry that this section had not been passed. Some of them might find themselves in gaol. (Ministerial laughter.) He hoped they would find themselves in very soon. (Laughter). Then they would be sorry they had not voted for the proposal of the hon. member for Von Brandis.

said he did not see why there should be so much amusement over the proposal. It was a very serious matter for the unfortunate individual who was unable to pay a fine, so to speak, down on the nail. A fine was imposed as a punishment, but it was not real punishment to the rich man. It was only another imposition placed on the working classes.

put the question, and declared the “Noes” had it.

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

asked what was really the object of the clause. He had hoped the Select Committee would have better served the purpose for which it was intended, but now it was necessary to go back to a number of the old Cape Acts. He thought it would have been much better to have allowed those clauses taken from the old laws to lapse.

said it would be entirely wrong to delete the clause, and explained why it was necessary to take over clauses from the old Cape Act of 1898. That law was required, but the necessary amendments had been made at the wish of the Imperial Government in connection with the defence of Simon’s Town. He admitted the clause was a little vague, but that could not now be helped.

The remaining amendments made in Select Committee were agreed to.

moved, amid cheers, that the Bill be reported with amendments.

The motion was agreed to.

reported the Bill accordingly, and the amendments were set down for consideration on Wednesday next.

said that speaker Put the motion that the House go into committee, he would like to ask whether the Minister had the report of the Railway Grievances Commission printed, and, if so, when they were likely to have it? This Commission, which was appointed after a great deal of reluctance, had sat for nearly a year. Hon. members had been trying for a long time to get the report before the House. Finally a few days ago the Minister promised to lay the report on the table, and he had so laid the report on the table. It was, however, no use laying a report like that on the table, unless it were printed, so that members could see it. The Railway Grievances Commission had spent a considerable amount of public money and time on investigating grievances, and the House was apparently not going to have its report this session. That was what he took to be the intention of the Minister. This was a matter that was very important, considering that they were trying to regulate the conditions of the railway service; and it was important that they should know what the grievances had been in the past that had led to the appointment of this Commission, so that in laying down permanent regulations for the service they might be guided by the trouble which had been caused in the past to avoid similar trouble in the future. He would like to know when the report was to be printed and when they were to have it.

said he was glad that an hon. member who was not a member of the Select Committee raised that point, because it was only fair to say that they raised it in the committee. Many of them understood that the work they were to do in committee upon this Bill would be influenced very considerably by this report, in fact that the measure itself was to some extent in consequence of the grievances with which this Commission was dealing. He hoped the Minister would deal with that matter. The Commission was still sitting, and it appeared to be likely to sit for some time. That report was an extraordinarily voluminous one, and he believed that it would cost a great deal to print; but what struck him was: what is the use of this report? It was too expensive to print, and apparently the grievances were not of sufficient importance to bring out; and when the report was produced the last opportunity for dealing with them would have gone, so what was the use of it, and why was this expense incurred at all if they were not getting the benefit of the investigation of the Commission to enable them to deal with their findings in the form of the Bill itself? As a member of the committee he would like to take this opportunity of making it clear that they had not had an opportunity—he supposed the hon. Minister had seen the first report—they had had no opportunity of dealing with these grievances as they were supposed to exist, or as they were dealt with in the report. Therefore they had gone forward as far as possible in dealing with the matters before this committee.

said the hon. member for Fordsburg started as if it was his fault that the Commission had not reported.

It has reported.

The second report; and you say that it may not be here for a long time. It is not my fault. Can I hurry the Commission?

It is the first report.

You referred to the other report, and said that it would not be ready for a long time.

I am not complaining about that.

Well, the complaint has been made, and it is not my fault. Proceeding, he said that the Commission had been sitting, and he had urged them to bring up a report, and they said they had not completed their labours. He wished they would bring up their report. As regarded the other report, he delayed it because he was told that in a very Short time the other report would be ready, and he thought of laying them both on the table of the House at the same time, because it seemed to him that the House would want both of them. When he ascertained that it would be some considerable time before the final report would be paid on the table, he laid the first report on the table. As regarded the printing, he wished it could be printed immediately. He had no objection; but before it could be translated into Dutch it would take a considerable time, and it would be a long time before they could have it even if great expedition were used. He held the opinion that it was not necessary to have these reports to enable them to deal with this Bill, and he thought that was the opinion of the majority of the committee; but, be that as it may, the report was not here, and he did not see what it had to do with the passage of this Bill. Last session, the Bill went to a Select Committee, and it had now been brought back, and had been altered to make it more amenable to employees.

said the Minister had said that it was not his fault. He had to say that he did not think that the position was quite satisfactory, because if they looked back to what happened last session it would be within the recollection of hon. members that, early in the session the Minister opposed the motion for the appointment of this inquiry into the alleged grievances of railway servants. He (the hon. member) at that time was perhaps a little apprehensive that what had happened would happen; that was to say, that before that Commission could report a very long time would elapse, and he, therefore, moved an amendment that the first inquiry should be by way of a Select Committee of this House. However, it did not find favour, and he thought it was a pity it did not, because at any rate they would have arrived at some finality, and the Select Committee could have found if there were any reasons for further investigations being made. Well, it was decided to appoint a Commission. A considerable time elapsed before the Commission was appointed, and then they went about the country and took some evidence. There was an interlude, during which the chairman stood as a candidate for Parliament—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—and now they were continuing their labours. All they knew was that at that time there were certain complaints of alleged grievances, but whether they were genuine or not it was not known. He thought that some of them were, but he thought they should know whether these grievances existed, and, if they did exist, what was going to be done to remedy them. Now they were asked to go into this Bill, which was to regulate the conditions under which the railwaymen were to serve.

He agreed with the hon. Minister that it was not absolutely necessary to have the Commission’s report to deal with this Bill, but it would have been far more satisfactory if they had that report before them, and he could not absolutely absolve the hon. Minister from all blame because he did not accept the suggestion for a Select Committee, and because he did not appoint the Commission earlier. Surely it was in the interests of the Government that the truth should be known. If the grievances were not genuine, then it should be known. Now they knew nothing about what the Commission had said, and they had to go on with this Bill without the report. He thought the unfortunate part was that people who had grievances would say that this Bill should have been left over until the report had been issued. He agreed that they could not do that; but he thought the hon. Minister would have better served the interests of the House and this country if he had got that report.

said he thought hon. members had rather unwittingly misled the House. The hon. member for Fordsburg pressed for the printing of this report, which he said he had not seen. He (Mr. Fremantle) did not know why he had not seen it because it had been laid on the table of the House. He had taken the trouble to read it, and it was quite evident, at a glance, that it dealt almost exclusively with individual cases, and so would not help them at all Regarding the appointment of the Commission, he noticed that it was appointed on July 26, which was not very long after the last session of Parliament. However, he did think it was most unfortunate that they had not got the final report before them. There was only one point which he was going to draw to the attention of the House. It had been discussed for years and it was a most important matter. He understood from the hon. Minister last year that he was going to consider the creation of Appeal Boards. Well, that was a matter that certainly concerned the whole discipline of the railway service. When the hon. Minister said last session that he was going to appoint this Commission he hoped that it would have dealt with this subject and that they would have that Commission’s report. Well, they had not got it, but he was bound to say that he did not think it was fair to blame the Minister, because the Commission had been sitting for a long time. Under the circumstances it was necessary that they should go on; but he did trust that the House would give its most serious attention to this, because he was convinced it was far better to strike at the root of all grievances by means of Appeal Boards.

said that if Parliament was not going to see the report before the Bill was passed the Commission was obviously doing no good. He suggested that the Commission be sent about their business and make their living in some other way and not live any longer at the expense of the State.

said that he could not agree with the last speaker. The bulk of the work of the Commission consisted of dealing with individual grievances which would not have any bearing on the discussion in committee on the Bill. In the second report there might be general findings which would be useful to the House, and certainly they ought to have it before them if possible. He did not agree that the Commission should be sent about their business. The men were anxious to hear what the Commission said about their grievances.

said that it would have been greatly in the interests of the House and in the interests of the men if the report had been available. If the evidence were voluminous they could print the report alone, surely that would not take long. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had a tendency to keep information from the House and to delay the issue of reports. Last year a considerable part of the time of the House was taken up in discussing the terms of a report issued by Mr. Truter, who was appointed by his hon. friend. (Mr. SAUER: No.) He had been appointed in the Transvaal to inquire into certain matters. When his hon. friend took over the administration he took over that staff, and they had submitted that they were entitled to know the terms of the report. The Minister kept back the report.

It was kept back before I came into office.

said that when the Minister took over the administration the report was in his hands. It was the property of the State and should have been in the hands of hon. members opposite. Then there was another report. The Minister had quoted from an interesting report in connection with the railway workshops. He was sorry that that report had also not been printed. (Mr. SAUER: It is not my fault.) His hon. friend could use a certain influence with his colleague, who was a member of the Printing Committee, and expedite the printing of the report, because the statements made by him had caused a great deal of interest throughout the country. He thought that the funds of the Railway Department should be utilised for printing the report. He believed that whatever the findings of the Commission were it was the duty of the Government to place the information on the table as early as possible.

was understood to say that the report would be very useful if it were available.

The motion was agreed to.

moved an amendment to the section dealing with the definition of “actuary.” He moved that the words “or any other person possessing equivalent qualifications” be added.

wished to know how were they to find out whether persons had similar qualifications to those mentioned. It was necessary that they should have persons of high qualifications.

said it would be very easy to find out a person’s qualifications.

said the clause compelled the Government to recognise an actuary who was a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of London or of the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland.

moved the omission of the words after “mean” and insertion of “duly qualified and.” Some of the cleverest actuaries did not belong to either of the institutes named.

proposed the insertion of “qualified” before “person.”

Dr. Watkins and Mr. Brown withdrew their amendments in favour of Mr. Nathan’s, which was agreed to.

moved to omit the words “in addition to” after the words “General Manager” in line 29, and substitute “be.”

thought the amendment unnecessary as the clause laid down clearly what was meant, and the amendment would lead to confusion.

The amendment was withdrawn.

moved in line 36 to omit the words “in contradistinction to compound interest.” as they were superfluous.

said he did not see the object in moving this amendment.

said the idea was simply that simple interest always meant simple interest.

The amendment was negatived.

New clause 5,

On the motion of Sir T. W. SMARTT, the CHAIRMAN put the new clause 3 proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: 3. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Governor General may from time to time delegate the power of removal of servants, as also the power of increasing and diminishing the number of such servants and their emoluments.

moved: To omit this clause and to substitute: “(3) Subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council, the Board may from time to time appoint so many servants as may be required for the service increase, or, without prejudice to the rights of which a servant may have under section 82, diminish the number of railway servants and their emoluments in such manner as from time to time may be prescribed, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, and without prejudice to the same rights, may discharge any railway servant. The Governor-General may from time to time delegate the power of appointment or discharge of servants.” The hon. member explained that the object was to lay down in the Bill once for all that the railways should be administered by a Board, subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council. What was the position? The Act of Union laid it down that the railway should be administered by a Board, but that above that Board should be the Governor-General-in-Council. But if the Governor-General wished to delegate these powers of dismissal or appointment of railway servants these powers would be delegated to the Railway Board, and things would be carried out in a proper constitutional way That he believed was the intention of the framers of the Act of Union. He wanted this embodied in the Bill, and he believed that it would have been embodied in the Bill at an earlier stage had it not been for the fact that there were some legal technicalities in the way. He thought that this Bill, which concerned the discipline of the railway service and the administration of the railway service, was the proper place for stating the intention and interpretation of the sections of the Act of Union.

The Board should be defined.

The Board can’t be defined until the House has accepted the principle.

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had moved an amendment, and he (the Minister) was prepared to go with him to a certain extent. He would move an amendment to the hon. member’s amendment for the deletion of the words “subject to authority” in the first line and the last two words. He would make clear the difference between the clause as proposed by the hon. member and the further amendment. The hon. member proposed that all appointments should be made by the Board.

Subject to the authority—

That is in the first instance. It is subject to the Governor-General-in-Council. The Governor-General-in-Council could veto that by minute or otherwise, as he might find necessary. The initiative is by the Board, and the Governor-General-in Council can step in and disapprove or otherwise. I am not going into the question as to whether this is a good proposal or not. Continuing, he said that when this Bill was discussed at the second reading, and when the question of the position of the Board was raised—he thought rather it was on the motion of the hon. member who proposed that legislation should be introduced to define the powers and functions of the Board—he said that he would bring in legislation to define the powers which the Board held under the South Africa Act. He would not go into the intentions of the Convention. It was not a question of intention, but the law. He (the Minister) consulted the Law Department, from which source he must take his law. He was told that the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort would alter the law—it would put the Board in an entirely different position. It was held that under the South Africa Act appointments rested with the Governor-General-in-Council. At any rate, he had to take his law from the Law Department and not from the House, and that was how he had been advised. He could not accept the amendment.

asked whether the Minister would lay the written advice of the Law Department upon the table of the House?

No.

Mr. Speaker has ruled that if a Minister quotes from a public document it shall be laid on the table of the House. The only ground of refusal is that the document contains information of a secret character.

said he could not understand the reasons that had been advanced by the Minister. The amendment stated that the appointments would be subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council and, therefore, he could not see why the Minister could not accept the amendment before the House. He thought there was a good deal of force in what the hon. member (Mr. Meyler) said, that the case stated for the opinion of the law officers should be laid on the table. He thought there was nothing in the amendment which was contrary in any sense to the provisions of the Act of Union so long as they retained the words, “subject to the authority of the Governor General-in-Council.”

said there was a much better reason than that stated by his hon. friend for getting this opinion of the Law Department. They asked for it in Select Committee, and it had not been given to them. They were entitled to it in the House to guide them. According to the commonsense reading of the Act of Union (clause 15), they were exercising the powers specially laid down in that Act. They were not departing from the Act at all. It specially contemplated that there may be conditions in the service in which the Governor-General could not make all the appointments. What was the Board? What was it intended to do? Let them take the Act of Union to find out what it meant. Clause 127 gave the Board “… control and management of the railways, ports, and harbours.” What was the “control and management,” if they could not even appoint an official? Again, he said the whole position of the railways was to be reduced to an absurdity. He could not understand why the Minister opposed so strenuously recognising the position of the Board, which was clearly stated in the Act of Union. They were told that, on the advice of the Law Department this amendment was contrary to the South Africa Act. He defied any man of sense to read this amendment and say that it was a departure from the Act of Union. The inland Provinces of the Union would, he ventured to say, never have entered Union if they had thought the whole of their prospects and development were to be handed over to the control of one man. The three hon. Ministers of the Transvaal, delegates to the Convention, had said that on public platforms a hundred times over. They wanted a settlement of this matter. The matter had been raised in the Select Committee three times. The amendment was carried by 12 votes to 1, on the 29th March, but this vote was subsequently reversed, not on the merits, but on the ground that some legal advice had been obtained which would make it appear that they were altering the Act of Union. Was it supposed that those of them who were in a minority were to be the ones that would advocate a departure from the Act of Union, the only thing they had got as a safeguard? They had been refused the opinion of the Law Department. They had been refused the names of those who gave opinions.

said he did not think the Minister was such an ogre as he appeared to be from the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria East. When they came to clause 3 in Select Committee the Minister agreed on the merits, but he (Mr. Stockenstrom) had his declaration that he did not wish to depart from the Act of Union, and, as a lawyer, he suggested to the Minister that he was departing from the Act of Union. He did not think it would serve any good purpose for him to argue the legal aspect in this House.

Oh, yes, it would.

said that clause 15 had already been read, and, in his opinion, the last clause was simply surplusage. It stood to reason that the House could always alter the Act of Union by an Act of Parliament, but until they did so they were bound by the clause in this Act, and he was sorry to say to a certain extent they were somewhat in conflict. As lawyers in this House knew any lawyer interpreting this Bill would endeavour to give the meaning of the words as far as possible; and in order to do that they had to read clauses 136 and 142 of the Act of Union together. His contention had been that what the Board contemplated was a Public Service Board to be appointed under clause 142, that the Railway Board was simply entrusted with the control and management of the railways; but the appointment of officials would be carried out by the Governor-General under recommendations by the Public Service Board. He did not know what were the contentions of the legal advisers to the Government; but those were the grounds which he placed before the Committee and which led him to vote as he did; and it was his action he believed that made the Minister pause and alter the Bill as he did.

said he would like to say that, of course, an opinion depended very much on how the case was taken. It would be utterly useless for them to criticise the hon. member for Heidelberg’s opinion unless they knew in what form the case was taken to him. It was very regrettable that he was not prepared to lay that opinion on the table. He could suppress the names of the lawyers who gave it to him; but he would like to see by what process of reasoning the opinion had been arrived at. It seemed rather extraordinary that he should come out and rush away a deliberate portion of the clause of the Act of Union.

They had always been told by hon. members who were members of the National Convention that this was the most holy document that they could look at, and that every word in it had been carefully thought out; and that almost every sentence had been debated from every side; and that it had a definite meaning; and that they must be very careful in doing anything that might in any way interfere with the intentions of the Act of Union. He could not, however, accept that it was intended by the Convention to declare this subsection to be mere surplusage. He had to look for some reason why it was put in, and he would suggest to the committee and his hon. friends that when the framers of that Act put that clause in they had a deliberate intention; and the only intention they had was that contained in the clause itself. Fortunately in this clause they had left it beyond any doubt. They intended to leave the appointments in the hands of the Governor-General entirely. That was a fundamental principle, ‘but they recognised naturally that the Governor-General would be unable to do all these things himself, so they gave him the power to delegate. He might delegate his powers first of all to anybody else. But they went a step further. They said that Parliament might delegate their powers. It was a distinct invitation to Parliament, whenever it became necessary, to delegate these powers to anybody. And he noticed that when the Hon. the Minister referred to the opinion he was most careful not to commit himself to any opinion, and he would therefore like to hear whether the Minister was prepared to support in his own opinion this opinion received from the legal advisers. He felt that he quoted that opinion somewhat with his tongue in his cheek, and that he himself did not attach much importance to it, as he would like hon. members to. It was a matter of the very greatest importance to place the Board on a proper basis. It was after all the fundamental duty of the Board to appoint officials. He honestly could not see why the Government could not accept the amendment to which he himself agreed in the Select Committee.

said he thought the hon. member for Heidelberg had got into the difficulty he had by not reading certain words in the clause. Section 15 occurred in Part III. of the Act of Union dealing with the Executive Government. It was a general clause. A special clause must always be interpreted by itself. If the hon. member for Heidelberg claimed that the railways should come under the general Civil Service, would he explain why the two Bills were necessary? He thought that the Minister should place on the table the opinion on which he founded his argument.

pointed out that clause 126 did not refer at all to public servants. They had to read clause 15 with clause 142.

did not agree. The General Manager did not appoint the Chief Accountant or other high officials. It had been the idea to place the railways under an independent Board to satisfy the northern colonies.

said that so long as the country owned the railways it could either follow the Australian course and take the railways out of the purview of Parliament altogether, or it had to make the Minister responsible. So long as the Minister, who was a political officer, was a member of the Board, it was absurd to expect that they were going to have an independent judgment from the Board without political considerations entering into it. If the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) were accepted they would be committing themselves to giving the Board managing powers. It was not reasonable to expect that the Board would report on its own actions except in the sense of approval. The best solution would be to have the Board as an independent body to advise Parliament with regard to appointments in much the same position that hon. members there wished to see the Civil Service Board placed. The Board should make recommendations and Government should have to account to Parliament if it departed from them. He thought the people should keep a pretty good watch over the railways and their control. (Hear, hear.) If the entire control of the railways were placed beyond Parliament the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) would be the first to complain if he found that he could not bring grievances before the notice of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) In the meantime he did not think that anything should be put in the Bill which would fix that view of the Board’s functions as being part of the administrative machine. He would like to know what reason the hon. member for Pretoria East had in stating that this Board was the Magna Charta of the inland Provinces. As a matter of fact, the Magna Charta of the inland Provinces was best described by the fact that it was stated that the railways would be run on business principles.

said that Parliament did not only not manage the railways, but it did not know what actually was going on now. His hon. friend the member for the Castle had put the legal aspect of the case in a nutshell, and showed that the Minister was not interpreting the Act properly. In referring to regulations regarding the Railway Board itself—which he took it had the consent of the Minister—it was stated there that the railways and harbours shall be controlled and managed by a Railway Board, subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council Control and management surely meant the power of making appointments. Again, in clause 10 it appeared that the Board was responsible for the finances of the administration, and no expenditure could be incurred until the authority of the Board had been obtained. How, then, could the Board be responsible for the expenses of the administration unless it had control over the expenses. It seemed to him that this was merely an endeavour to, nullify the powers of the Board. The Prime Minister must remember that it was the intention that the Board should be a living force, not merely a dummy to be used when required or set aside at the behest of the Minister or anyone else. Well, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister was at the Convention and surely he remembered and could tell the committee what happened when this clause was discussed. It was quite obvious that if the interpretation which they had placed upon this part of the South Africa Act were wrong then they might as well do away with the Board altogether.

said he thought they should get back to the original position as placed before the committee by the Minister. The Minister had been advised that the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort could not legally be placed in the Bill.

Did the Minister say that?

I understood him to say that. Continuing, he said that when this clause was in committee the Minister voted for the delegation of these powers, and it had been explained that he withdrew when he received the advice of the Law Department. The country had read clause 142, and the construction placed upon it was that, subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council, the control and management of the railways would be in the hands of a Board. When in committee the Minister accepted that position by accepting the amendment. He suggested that the Minister might allow the clause to stand down, and that he might have a consultation with his law advisers and see whether a clause could not be drafted which would place the control and management of the railways in the hands of the Railway Board.

said he thought the hon. member who had just spoken took the Minister too seriously. This legal objection they had heard so much about was only put up in order to avoid discussing the matter on its merits. (Opposition cheers.) If the Minister believed there was this legal difficulty, this Bill ought to be entirely different from what it was, and the Public Service Bill which was introduced the other day ought to have provided for appointments being made by the Public Service Board. Therefore, it seemed to him that it would be far better to get away from this legal opinion and discuss the matter upon its merits. It had been said that they had either to adopt the Australian principle of vesting the railways in the Board out and out, or to make the Board an Advisory Board. The Convention carefully tried to steer a middle course between those two courses. The experiment had never been given a fair trial. From the beginning it had never been intended to make the Board anything but a sham. (Hear, hear) He contended that it was a reasonable thing to expect that a middle course would be steered between those two alternatives. If, as he said, the Minister was going to adopt the advice that was given to him as to the proper reading of the Constitution, then a Public Service Bill ought really to have been brought forward, and not this Bill. If this was not going to be regarded as a serious attempt, then he thought the reason put forward by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) was a good one.

said he was astonished by the arguments used by the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips). He said the Minister of Railways could not believe his own interpretation, because he issued a circular which contained no other argument but the argument which he used from the Act of Union itself. Because he said that the Board was to have the control and management of the railways in his circular; therefore he could not have believed that they had not the right of appointing Civil Servants. Well, if the hon. member would read the Act he would see that the circular contained nothing but the words of the Act. The words were: “The control of the management of the railways shall be with the Board.” But the Minister only denied that. What he did not say was that the control and management did not include the appointing of railway servants. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) spoke as if he was the only man with commonsense in the House. (Ministerial cheers.) But his was not the commonsense of the majority. Surely section 15, which said that the appointment or removal of all officers shall be vested in the Governor-General, unless the Governor-General has assigned this right—

Read on.

Unless the appointment is delegated by the Governor-General-in-Council or by this Act—

Read on.

Of Parliament to some other authority—

Read on.

Or by a law. (Opposition cheers.) The question is where is that law?

Here.

Will an hon. member point out where that law is by which this power has been taken from the Governor-General and entrusted to the Railway Board?

Railways and Harbours Board.

As the hon. Minister asks me, I read the thing; but he was not here.

Well, I am merely showing that the position taken up by the Minister of Railways was absolutely the correct one as far as possible. But what had the “control and management” to do in the first place with the appointment of the railway servants? (Opposition jeers.) If that was contemplated at the time why did not the Convention say so? It left it to Parliament to institute the Civil Service Board. Surely that showed that at the time it was not intended that appointments should fall under “control and management.” Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think that the Board could properly manage appointments? Did he think that the Board was the proper body to be entrusted with appointments? If that was done, he wondered how much of the time of the Board would be given to the interests of the railways.

Who should appoint them?

That is another point. How could the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ask that Parliament should entrust the Railway Board with the function of appointing the railway servants, who outnumbered all the other Civil Servants? It was of no use saying that the Minister violated the Act of Union in regard to appointments. The hon. member for Fordsburg asked why the Minister of Railways did not make provision in the Civil Service Bill for the railway servants. If once they decided on having that particular Board that question might be raised. (Opposition laughter.) He had not decided whether that should be or not.

We first want to see the Civil Service Bill!

said that he was arguing upon the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. It had been said that the Board should have the appointment of these officers, and that that was understood at the Convention, because it was intended to keep the railways out of the political sphere of members of the Government and so forth. He admitted that the Board was constituted for the purpose of keeping the control and management of the railways out of the political sphere. Let him point out another thing. The section said: “Subject to the authority of the Governor General-in-Council, the Board might,” etc. Was the power left to the Government to confirm these appointments? Why leave it to the Government then?

The Act of Union says so—section 126.

The control and management of railways only. I know what that means in connection with control and management, but what does it mean in connection with railway servants? Power is given to the Board, and then the section comes back and says that it shall not dismiss and appoint, that the Governor-General-in-Council should do so.

said really the Minister had caused a good deal of amusement. The Minister had made a long speech, but he (Sir Thomas) did not think that any hon. member really knew what the Minister was driving at—(laughter)—except that there might arise a psychological moment when it might be advisable that they should then decide what was the body which was to administer the railways. His hon. friend had made a great effort to persuade the committee in every possible circumstance to abide by the Act of Union in its entirety. As usual, rumour had been a lying jade (Laughter.) They had been under the impression that the Minister had been using his great political influence for the purpose of altering section 2 of clause 98 of the Act in connection with the High Court of Griqualand West remaining as a branch of the Supreme Court. (Laughter.) His hon. friend the Minister of Justice had been absent from the House during a great part of the discussion. In fact, he had been absent from many legal discussions where abstruse legal points had been raised. All they wanted was that the Government should say they accepted the interpretation that was laid down in clause 126 of the Act of Union. The Prime Minister would remember that the whole question of the administration of the railways was brought forward by the Transvaal delegates in the way stated by the hon. member for Fordsburg, and he would be glad if his hon. friend would see that in practice as well as in theory, they should see that the railways shall be administered according to the law, which was by the Board, subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council.

said he happened to be a member of the Railway Committee, and as a plain business man he would tell them how it struck him. The hon. member in his defence of the Government had fallen back upon the legal opinion of the advisers of the Government, which backed up the opinion of the Minister of Railways. But’ lawyers differed vitally upon this matter. They had one legal opinion by advisers of the Crown and another legal opinion by other eminent advisers. So far as a clear meaning of the Act of Union was concerned, there was no clear meaning as to what the definition of a Railway Board meant. Lawyers themselves not being clear what the Act laid down, surely it was right that the House should state definitely what it meant. How could a Board manage the railways unless it had the power of appointing and dismissing its officers? Surely it was their duty as a Parliament to take this, first opportunity of doing what the National Convention intended should be done, place the business control of the railways in the hands of a Board. As a business man he could not understand the position of the Minister.

said that when hon. members failed to get at the legal meaning they said that the case should be dealt with on its merits, and commenced to examine principles. He had not, however, heard the principles underlying the proposal that the railways should be taken out of the arena of party politics enunciated. The legal point was too subtle for him. What object was there in having this Board outside the political arena? Had certain hon. members in that House not got enough power already? Was it that certain individuals wished to grasp the railways of this country?

Why did you vote for it in the Select Committee?

That’s an awkward question. (Laughter.)

I did not vote for it the second time. (Laughter.) Continuing, he thought it was an attempt on the part of certain individuals to get hold of the railways. They knew what had happened in the Transvaal with the Board which was outside the sphere of politics. (Labour cheers.) He had a keen recollection of how that Board worked when the hon. member for Fords burg was a member. In regard to transferring the railways to the Board, he would trust any Government rather than he would a few men who might possibly come under certain influences. Governments, at any rate, were more amenable to public opinion than permanent Boards. It was conceivable that even this Government might be turned out. (Hear, hear.) He held that the Board should have no executive powers, but be a purely advisory committee of experts.

moved to report progress.

said he hoped the committee would take this clause. If there were any likelihood of any change taking place he would be quite agreeable, but he could not see any. There was a great deal of business to be disposed of.

said he hoped the Minister would remember that the House had been sitting in committee the whole of the day. They had advanced one Bill through committee, largely through the actions of that side of the House. The discussion on that side had been reduced to the narrowest limits. They had now come to a point on which hon. members felt strongly.

said he did not want to be unreasonable. He appreciated very much what the hon. member had said. Really, he did not see that any public purpose would be served by continuing this discussion.

said he would support the motion that they re port progress.

said he would support the motion, because there was a good deal more to be said on the clause. They had done a fair share of work today.

said they were discussing perhaps one of the most important clauses in connection with the matter of a great public business it was possible to discuss, and that was the administration of the railways. He appealed to the Prime Minister to tell them what were his views on this question; and he maintained that the matter under discussion was so important that they should report progress to enable the Government to say whether they deliberately intended to place the railways under the control of a Board, or place it on one side. Another justification why they should report progress was that he challenged the Minister of Railways to deny that he had not got on this side of the House as strong support as over on the other side to see that he got an efficient Bill. One of the points on which they differed was a point on which he held the strongest possible views, and he thought the Cabinet should have an opportunity of meeting, in order to make up their minds. Of course, if the hon. Minister did not desire to report progress, he had the weight of the voting power behind him. But he was not helping matters along.

said that if the hon. member would give him some substantial reasons he would agree to report progress. His reason was that they should give the Government time to make up its mind. That was not a good reason. The hon. member said something about steamrolling. He (the Minister) never meant anything of the sort, and he had never sat in any Government that had observed more the rights of the minority. (Ministerial cheers.) It seemed to him that the majority had no more any rights. He appealed to hon. members to let them pass this clause.

Can the Minister of Lands or the Minister of Defence say they got no consideration? Many of them had been there from nine in the morning, and were prepared to sit till nine tomorrow. He appealed to the Minister for consideration.

also appealed to the Minister, who, he thought, had some respect for the feelings of a minority. Most hon. members had been on Select Committees during the day.

also appealed to the Minister. He thought that there was a limit to this sort of thing. The Press should be considered.

also urged the Minister to agree to the motion.

said if the legal opinion were to the effect that railway servants came under the ordinary service, then the Bill should be withdrawn. (Opposition cheers.)

said he intended to ask the Speaker’s ruling as to whether the House was not entitled to have the legal opinions which the Minister had quoted from.

wished to know if the Prime Minister was going to support the Minister of Railways and Harbours and refuse to report progress. The Prime Minister would have to be responsible whatever might be the result of not meeting the reasonable request of a party which at the time happened to be in a minority. (Opposition cheers.)

said some ill-natured appeals had been made. The hon. member for Pretoria East might appeal to the Speaker, but that was not a reason for asking that the debate should be adjourned. He (Mr. Sauer) was the very last to take advantage of a majority to continue a debate if there were any real ground for an adjournment. As to the legal opinions from which he had quoted he did not know whether the hon. member for Pretoria East was in the habit of associating with people whose words he disbelieved. (Loud Opposition cries of “Order.”)

I rise to a point of order. (Loud cries of “Order.”)

What is the point of order?

The hon. member for Pretoria East has risen to a point of order.

I object to the insinuation of the Minister when he says that I have personal associates whose word I cannot take, or who cannot take my word. It may be in order, but it is a very ungentlemanly thing to say. (Opposition cheers.)

said he still thought they could have taken a vote, but as he hoped they might make good progress on Monday, he would not object to the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported and leave granted to sit again on Monday.