from Christadelphians, praying for provision in the South Africa Defence Bill exempting their members from military service.

Proclamations and Government Notices issued by the Department of Native Affairs, 21st March, 1912, to 4th April, 1912.

Return showing list of the gaols which have been or are being closed; names of gaolers and gaol matrons who have been retired since last session; and names, ages, and number of years’ service of those appointed in their places.

Return showing: Doctors employed as railway doctors; distances they have to travel; and whether allowed houses or house rent allowance.

Statement showing number of persons residing outside the Union who draw pensions from the Union Government, and the amount paid annually.

moved: In line 20, to omit “consist of,” and to substitute “include.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

In clause 65,

moved: To add the following new sub-section, viz.: (3) Boys between their thirteenth and seventeenth years (both included) for whose training as cadets facilities cannot conveniently be arranged, may be enrolled as cadet-members of rifle associations under such conditions as are prescribed, but a cadet member of a rifle association shall not be liable to service in Class B of the Citizen Force Reserve, nor shall service as a cadet member of a rifle association exempt any citizen from peace training or from the training in a rifle association prescribed, by sub-section (1) of this section.

seconded.

Agreed to.

In clause 121,

moved: In line 30, to omit “any respect for,” and, to substitute “time of peace for any.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

In clause 8,

moved: In line 60, after “wages,” to insert “or salary.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

In clause 72,

moved: In line 22, after “State,” to omit all the words to the end of the clause.

seconded.

hoped that the House would not accept the amendment. The mere fact of wearing a uniform tended to discipline and smartness, and had a very appreciable effect upon the tone of employees.

agreed that the wearing of a uniform smartened the appearance of the boys. He hoped the amendment would be withdrawn.

could not see why an exception should be made in the case of cadets. Why should these youngsters be privileged over the others, and have their uniforms paid for, while a similar course was not followed where other corps were concerned? If a uniform was really necessary to inculcate discipline, why were the burghers exempted from wearing one?

said, although he did not think that the wearing of a uniform necessarily implied discipline, it was undoubtedly a great attraction, therefore he hoped the hon. member would withdraw his amendment.

regretted that this amendment should come from an hon. member who had continually opposed the cadet system. He pointed out that under clause 43 uniforms were provided for other corps. It would be wrong to accept the amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

suggested the deletion of clause 120, providing for the exemption of members of Parliament from service, as he considered members of Parliament should lead in every respect.

pointed out that he had already moved an amendment providing that only in time of peace Members of Parliament were exempted from service.

The Committee’s amendments were agreed to, and the Bill set down for third reading on Monday.

asked if the Minister would state the amended cost of the system at the third reading.

moved to add at the end of the clause: “And in any prosecution under this section the Court shall have regard to any omission which may be proved on the part of the Administration to provide adequate staff and equipment for the performance of the duty in question.” He thought that the Court should take cognisance of the points mentioned in the amendment.

said he would support the amendment, and referred to the case of one Smith, in which it was shown there was contributory neglect on the part of the Administration.

was understood to say that matters of this kind were always exhaustively brought before the Court. At the same time he did not know whether a Court would be able to say whether there had been neglect or not. In the circumstances he could not accept the amendment.

said a Court might say that it had to go by the strict letter of the law. He did not think a correction should take place if it was proved that there was negligence on the part of the department.

was understood to say that the addition would prove prejudicial to the Railway Department or the persons concerned.

said he knew of a case where a guard had been convicted. He thought that that official would not have been convicted had such a provision existed.

supported the amendment, and thought the Government should take the proposal into serious consideration.

also appealed to the Minister to accept the amendment, and said it would be unfair to convict a man if there were contributory negligence on the part of the department.

said that if this provision were inserted in the Bill attention would be drawn to a consideration that might otherwise escape the Magistrates.

said that the Select Committee considered this point, and considered it from every point of view, and they came to the conclusion that this was an elementary, everyday work of the Magistrate, and that it was absolutely unnecessary to make such a provision in the clause.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to omit the word “continuously” in the last line of the clause.

ruled the amendment out of order. The committee, he explained, had already rejected an amendment to add certain words at the end of the clause, and it was impossible, seeing that that amendment had been put, to go back to a previous part. At another stage the hon. member would have an opportunity of moving the amendment.

suggested for the consideration of the Minister that it might be desirable to insert the word “negligent” in sub-sections (a) and (b). In sub-section (c), he pointed out, the phrase occurred: “The Court shall, in determining whether an act or omission is negligent,” etc.

On clause 18,

moved to omit the concluding words of the clause, “or to both such fine and imprisonment.” He said that there was a provision in this clause which was greatly resented by the railway men in Natal. It was a very stringent clause, even apart from the concluding portion, which made provision for a fine up to £50, or in default imprisonment, or both fine and imprisonment. The explanation offered by the hon. member for Uitenhage was that this clause, had been framed with a view of stopping strikes. When the Natal strike occurred the men were threatened with all manner of penalties by the administration, but that did not act as a deterrent, and when the men went back to work all the disabilities were practically removed. This clause would not be a deterrent to strikes, but on the other hand it would act as a very severe penalty to a man who left the service without leave. The administration of this Act would be in the hands of magistrates, and they knew that those gentlemen did not always exercise their discretion in the best possible way.

said that this was the Law in the Transvaal and the Free State. It was a point which was very fully discussed in the committee, and the committee decided almost unanimously that the clause should remain as it was. A similar provision occurred in other matters. There might be a case where, if a person absented himself under certain circumstances, the consequences might be very serious to life and property. The railway was no place for people who were not careful, diligent, and sober. In saying that, he did not wish it to be understood that he was suggesting anything but that they were well served by their employees.

said that desertion of duty under circumstances that the Minister had described was dealt with under another clause altogether. Desertion of duty which was likely to endanger life was a very different offence from mere absence from duty without leave.

moved to add at the end of the clause: “but shall be entitled to appeal to the Appeal Board provided for in this Act.”

hoped the hon. member would not press the amendment in view of the proposal that there should be unlimited right of appeal.

said this was not a criminal matter, and was not concerned with the right of appeal to the Railway Appeal Board.

withdrew his amendment.

The amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. C. P. Robinson) was negatived.

On clause 19,

moved as an amendment in line 70, on page 20, after “office,” to insert “or withdraws himself from the duties there of”; in line 71, to omit all the words from “or withdraws” to “permission,” in line 1, on page 22. The mover said it seemed to him to be almost a tyrannical idea on the part of the administration that a man should have to ask for permission to resign.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS,

put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee, in line 70, on page 20, after “office,” to insert “without giving the notice required by any regulation or contract.”

said that that was not what was intended. He would move as can amendment the insertion of the words “any servant who resigns his office, or withdraws himself from the duties thereof, without giving the notice required by any regulation or contract, and before the period of such notice has fully expired.” A man must give notice if he wanted to resign or withdraw.

wished to know if a man had to give a month’s notice, would the Railway Department also give him a month’s notice.

withdrew his amendment in favour of the Minister’s.

moved in lines 5 and 6 to omit “or to both such fine and imprisonment.”

said the department was in exactly the same position as the man with regard to notice.

said the clause prescribed a very heavy penalty for what, after all, was a very slight offence.

said the amendment did not meet the case of the man who wanted to be off for a few days.

By consent you can do anything.

The amendment of the Minister of Railways was agreed to.

said they proposed to imprison or fine a man for mere resignation. In any other employment the only loss for resigning was forfeiture of salary. He thought the Minister might give way and accept the amendment.

said they might have a very serious withdrawan from the service, which might be attended with serious consequences. An engine driver might withdraw from service between stations, and such an act as that should be treated seriously.

said in a Bill of that kind there should be some discrimination, there should not be any cast-iron system.

admitted that certain offences were not so serious and was quite prepared to accept the amendment.

pointed out that there were 26,000 railway servants, and from what the Bill laid down they seemed to be all coming to the conclusion that every one was an engine-driver. Why could not the Minister rely upon the same powers that were recognised in ordinary civil employment.

said that he had just met a proposal to reduce the penalties. He was not now going into the question of strikes, nothing was further from his mind. He had deprecated the introduction of the question of strikes into these debates because they were not only serious to the administration, but to the people who struck. Although strikes might not have the same effect here as elsewhere, still he did not think they should enter into the question of strikes now. This was the law in the Free State and in the Transvaal that if people absented themselves or withdrew from service without due notice it was considered a serious matter.

said the Minister deprecated any ‘talk about strikes, but Parliament was the proper place to talk about them. What he wanted to point out was that strikes not only resulted in inconvenience to the public, but to the men themselves. Men did not go light-heartedly into strikes, but were driven into them very often as their only means of making a demonstration. This penalty of £50, or six months’ imprisonment, was draconian and unnecessary.

Mr. Robinson’s amendment was agreed to.

On clause 20,

On the motion of Mr. ANDREWS,

put clause 20 proposed by the Select Committee to be emitted.

moved to omit sub-sections (1) and (2) and to substitute: (1) Whenever a dispute arises between the Administration and a considerable number of its servants as to any alteration of the conditions of employment of such servants and the dispute cannot be amicably settled, the Governor-General shall within fourteen days of the receipt by him of a request in writing signed by not less than one hundred of the servants affected by the alteration (and unless the dispute be otherwise previously settled) appoint a Commission to investigate the cause of dispute and to make recommendations as to the manner in which such dispute shall be settled. (2) The Commission shall consist of four persons, of whom one-half shall be elected by the body of servants affected and one-half nominated by the Administration. The members so elected and nominated shall elect as chairman some fifth person. If they fail to agree in such an election the Governor-General shall appoint a chairman, who shall not be a member of the Administration and who shall, if possible, be a Judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The hon. member, continuing, said he believed that the whole committee was with him in endeavouring to avoid these catastrophes, which were not only catastrophes to employers but to the men themselves. It seemed to him that although Trades Unionism was not prohibited in the Bill, it was discouraged. What did they offer these men in return?

Pensions.

continuing, said it appeared to him that they were offering this pension simply to tie a man’s hands. The least they could give the men was some satisfactory system of settling disputes before they reached the stage of striking. If the Commission they intended to appoint was to do any good it must have the confidence of the men themselves, and the only way to assure that was by adopting the democratic method of election.

The amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg only allowed the Commission to deal with matters affecting rates of pay and hours of work, and it also seemed to him to read that this proposed alteration in the rates of pay and hours of work would only be dealt with when the suggested alteration came from the administration. With regard to the proposal of the hon. member for Fordsburg concerning the Commission, he said that while there was much to be said for it, he thought they should, if they agreed to it, go further. Therefore he thought that either the an endment of the hon. member for Fordsburg did not go far enough, or went too far. He asked the House to consider the amendment he had tabled. He could not conceive of any finality resulting from the new clause 20, as moved, he supposed, by the Minister. He did not think it would meet the case. He did not think it would have the desired effect. He did not think the men would have confidence in such a proposal if it were carried out. He thought that a Board constituted broadly on the lines laid down in his amendment would serve the purpose of the Minister, serve the purpose of the Administration, and be of benefit to the whole of the community.

said that the large number of railway servants in the country should be made as satisfied as possible. It was right that the men should have some representation on a Board dealing with their affairs, and he would, therefore, support the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown.

said his hon. friend did not consider the cost of it all. If they were going to get a judge to settle all these disputes, there would be a great deal of expense. He hoped they would accept the clause, and not place further difficulties in the way.

pointed out that the Select Committee recommended a judge. Continuing, he said he thought that his sub-section (1) was not as good as that proposed by the hon. member for Georgetown. The effect of the amendment would be that it would be binding on the Administration to constitute this Commission on a request being put by a hundred servants. This was a most important matter. (Hear, hear.) If they were going to put these harsh penalties on the men for striking, they must have a provision compelling the Government to go to arbitration The amendments provided that one hundred men could call for the appointment of a Commission, while the Bill stated that a Commission could only be appointed on a request signed by one-fifth of the men in a grade.

said that the Bill did not say one-fifth.

Oh, yes.

I will explain.

said that the next difference was that if the amendment were carried, the majority report of the Commission would be binding both on the Administration and the men. It was useless constituting an expensive Commission if the report were not carried out and were not binding on the parties in dispute. The difference between the amendments lay in the appointment of the Commission, and he (the speaker) had followed the lines of the Bill in this connection. He could not see how it was possible for the employees and still less for the officers, in an administration like the railways to meet together for the purpose of electing their representatives. That could only be done in the most cumbersome and imperfect way. He thought it was better to leave the appointment in the hands of the Government and he thought they could safely do so.

said that the men attached the very greatest importance to this point as to directly electing their own representatives on the Commission. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Georgetown on this point was, he urged, a fair equitable settlement of the difficulty. He thought the method proposed of 100 men was better than the suggested one-fifth of each grade proposed in the Bill.

said that, in view of the provisions made in the Bill in regard to strikes, they should be careful in setting up machinery that would take away all reasonable grounds of grievance, as far as possible. He could not understand why the hon. member for Georgetown had limited the operation of his amendment to any “alterations” in the conditions of employment.

That will be moved out.

said that he would move out “alterations” He was in agreement with the hon. member for Fordsburg as to taking 100 signatures rather than one-fifth of a grade for the purpose of bringing this machinery into operation. Then an important amendment was to substitute “shall” for “may.” That had been accepted by the Government.

Has it? When?

Last year. Proceeding, he said that the right hon. gentleman really had a talent for recruiting for the Labour party that sat on the cross benches. He knew the effect of the right hon. gentleman’s speeches. They were in the direction of driving men into the arms of the cross benches. He proposed, as an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown, to omit “alteration” in the second line and also to omit “affected by the alterations” in the fifth and sixth line for the purpose of substituting “immediately concerned.” He suggested further that they should take out the third and fourth subsections of the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg.

said if the Commission were appointed, as desired by the hon. member for Georgetown, they would have to leave the decision in the hands of one man only. He would trust the Government to appoint the Commission, because public opinion would compel Government to appoint an unbiassed Commission.

said it was surprising to see the immense confidence the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had in the capacity of the Government to appoint strong and fair Commissions. (Laughter.) The men would have much more confidence in a Commission some of the members of which they nominated, than they would have in a Commission appointed entirely by the other side.

wished to know by what means the representatives on the Commission would be appointed. (A LABOUR MEMBER: “By ballot.”) Was there any provision for electing these men by ballot? These Conciliation Boards had been tried elsewhere, and not altogether with, success in other countries, for as long as the decisions were in favour of the men, the men abided by them; but if the decisions were against the men, they very often kicked up their heels. These Boards had been rather failures in New Zealand. (A LABOUR MEMBER: “No.”) He supposed not from the point of view of the men. With our 45,000 railway employees, we might have Commissions appointed all over the place, and have judges sitting all over the country, to the detriment of judicial business. The hon. member for Uitenhage had said that he (Mr. Merriman) was opposed to the men. He (Mr. Merriman) very seldom spoke on these subjects, because he had no interest in them, and no wish to catch votes. He was not making election speeches, and certainly did not fire them off in that House. Those who did so, and who were evincing an extraordinary interest in a certain class of people, were doing an infinite amount of harm to the railway men, who had been very good. The men had to put up with a great many things, but they had done their duty and had been quiet, feeling that their interests were safe in that House, which was a Court of Appeal for railway servants. “Goodness knows,” added Mr. Merriman, “they have friends enough to plead their cause. But by giving them facilities to have disputes all over the country, you are doing a great harm, and by-and-bye it will be impossible to manage the railways.”

said that in Australia no public servant could write a letter to a member of Parliament Or approach him on any service matter.

They have a Railway Board there.

The railway men in Australia had much fewer rights than here. He had evidence on that subject, but he hoped that during that very amicable discussion it would not be necessary for him to produce that evidence. Public servants had far greater political rights here than they had in Australia. Continuing, Mr. Sauer said that a very material alteration had been made in the proposal since last year. Then the matter related only to the rates of pay and hours of work, and when it referred to these subjects, he agreed that it should be compulsory. Now, however, it was proposed that they should apply to the conditions of employment. It was so wide now that almost every possible question that could be conceived of might be dealt with. Take for instance, the question of a minimum wage. There were 52 or 53 thousand able-bodied men on the railway, and there would be very little difficulty in getting thousands of them to say that there must be a minimum wage. Were they, then, to say that in a case of that kind the Governor-General should appoint a Commission? If they did that, to a very large extent, would upset the whole industrial system. Were they to have a Board to consider a minimum wage, and was Government to be bound by its decision? If they did they would, so to say, revolutionise the labour market of South Africa, because whatever rate the Government fixed, would be the standard rate of wages for that class of labour. They might get a judge or an ex-judge who would be absolutely impartial, but they might have a judge who took a peculiar view, and he was not prepared to give a judge such responsibilities. The hon. member for Fordsburg had said that the finding of the Commission should be binding. It would be binding upon the Administration, but they could not arrest all the men and imprison them if they did not accept the finding. Proceeding, the Minister pointed out that in clause 3 it stated that the Governor-General may, on receipt of information, appoint a Commission. He did not believe that any Ministry would refuse the appointment of a Commission if men approached them with a substantial grievance. For these reasons, he regretted that he could not (accept the amendment. There was not a clause in the Bill that had not received very careful consideration, and the committee came to the conclusion that the difficulty could only be met with by a clause of this kind In conclusion, he wished to say that the rights of railway men had been enlarged, and he believed hon. members might very well accept this provision for the settlement of disputes.

said it was advisable that they should come to a reasonable decision. The Minister, he believed, had put the case very carefully and moderately for the administration. While they wanted the railway servants well and fairly treated, still the public had rights also. There was a danger, as pointed out by the Minister, that there might be many requests for the appointment of a Commission. The Select Committee passed this new clause unanimously, and he thought it should be accepted. In their own interests, the Labour party should not press this too far, because they were simply asking concession after concession.

said the Minister had repeated the story of the wonderful snake which started to eat its own tail, and eventually swallowed itself. The Minister had done the same thing. (Laughter.) The only consistent policy was to move the deletion of the new clause. It appeared that the Board must either be biassed or ignorant, if that were so, then he thought it was a good argument for not having a Board at all.

These amendments had really been squeezed out of the men by the past. He went on to refer to a petition presented to a certain railway administration by its employees in 1905. The petition was ignored, and it was only when they were grossly insulted that the men were driven to take certain action. The hon. member for Berea said that the representatives of the men should be satisfied with half a loaf, but why should he be satisfied with £1 when £5 was his due? He was surprised at the implied aspersions cast by the Minister on Judges, not only here, but in the Empire—anywhere. Surely the Minister did not mean what he said when he implied that our Judges were not above suspicion? Continuing, he said he thought that the right hon. member for Victoria West was a brilliant example of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” and was always tumbling head over heels into the mud. He always skimmed over things. He had tried to throw mud over the arbitration proposal; he talked conciliation. They were talking arbitration, not conciliation. Why should these men not have the right to choose their own men to represent their cause just as the Government choose its own representatives to put forth its own ease.

said it was not often that he corrected statements when he was misrepresented. There was a statement—among the odds and ends that the hon. gentleman gathered together in the House—made by the hon. member for Roodepoort which he wished to correct.

Thanks! Thanks! (Laughter.)

One would think that John Stuart Mill was a new discovery. Continuing he said that the hon. member alleged that he (the Minister) had cast a slur on the Judges.

I did not say that. (Laughter.)

Oh, yes.

I said an implied aspersion. (Laughter.)

was understood to say that he failed to see the difference. (Laughter.) He would just say it again. He had said that the fact that a judge would be appointed to the Commission would gain for it the confidence of the public, but speaking of the minimum wage, he said he was not prepared to take the decision of a Judge as to whether he should introduce a minimum wage or not.

read an extract from an article in the “Economist,” dealing with arbitration in New Zealand, in which it was stated—he was understood to say—that labour was making increasing demands, and that while men could evade the Act with little risk, employers were subject to heavy penalties if they did not keep to the letter of the law.

who said he was tempted to reply to the Minister’s remarks with regard to the hon. member for Roodepoort, observed he would like to point out that the hon. member for Cape Town was wilfully blind to the progress of the world. Whatever Acts were passed, the producing people of the world were going to get more and more. It had been pointed out that under this provision they might have all the judges taken out for this work. Did the Minister think that the men would always be searching out grounds of appeal? He was sure the Minister did not anticipate any such result? If such a state of affairs did occur the Minister could bring in an amending Bill during the following session.

You would talk about it all the session.

That is just one of those little odds and ends which the Minister introduces as arguments.

said that the right hon. the member for Victoria West evidently was not the only member of the House who had not read the Bill. The Minister himself apparently had not read the Bill. On the second reading the Minister promised to remove the word “may” and substitute “shall.” It was of the utmost importance that the men should have confidence in the Board. They had a right, as members of the Service and as citizens, to be allowed to elect their own representatives on the Board to try their case.

said that he had taken the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, to be an honest man—(cries of “Order”)—but the hon. member had not told them why the probable writer of that article, John McLaren, was kicked out of Mr. Seddon’s office.

There is no name attached to this article. Everybody knows the “Economist.”

I am not discussing the “Economist.” I have in my mind an old saying, still true, that “the style is the man.”

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, seemed to imply that arbitration had failed in New Zealand. As a matter of fact, the total number of men involved in any dispute in New Zealand during the last 18 years was only 1.400. They must, he added, be careful not to confuse arbitration and conciliation. Conciliation, he admitted, had been an absolute failure, but he was not prepared to say that arbitration on the lines of New South Wales and New Zealand had been a failure. It had stopped strikes.

urged that when the amendments were put the sub-sections should be taken seriatim. He also moved a new sub-section (5) as follows: “It shall be lawful for the Commission, in case it finds that requests under sub-section (3) have been made on frivolous ground, to impose upon any or all of the signatories a fine not exceeding one week’s pay.” He thought that would be a sufficient safeguard against the possibility of frivolous complaints being made.

put the question that sub-sections (1) and (2) of clause 20, pro-’ posed to be omitted be retained, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

put the following new clause 20 proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: 20. (1) Whenever a dispute arises between the Administration and a considerable number of its servants as to any conditions of employment, and the dispute cannot be amicably settled, and is, in the opinion of the Administration, causing or likely to cause serious disorganisation in the working of the railways, ports or harbours, the Administration shall report its opinion to the Governor-General. (2) The Governor-General may, unless the dispute be otherwise previously settled, appoint a commission of impartial persons to investigate the cause of dispute and to make recommendations in reference thereto. (3) Failing such report as is referred to in sub-section (1) the Governor-General may, in his discretion, on receipt of a requisition signed by not less than one-fifth of each grade of the servants affected, appoint the commission referred to in sub-section (2). (4) The commission shall consist of not less than three nor more than five persons (not being servants of the Administration), and one of the members of the commission, who shall be chairman, shall, if possible, be a Judge or ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa. (5) The report and recommendations of the commission, and any report or recommendations made by a minority of the members, shall be published in the “Gazette.”

Agreed to.

said the hon. members on the cross-benches were quite at a loss to understand what had been going on.

The committee decided that new clause 20 shall remain. The amendments by the hon. members for Fordsburg and Uitenhage dropped.

Is it possible to amend that clause now?

No; that is agreed to.

Is it possible to add to the clause?

We did not understand what was being put.

I understood that we were merely voting on the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg, not that we were going to pass the clause as it stood.

Old clause 20 was put and negatived, and then new clause 20 was put and the committee agreed that it should stand.

I understand the position now, but during the time I did not realise that we were voting for the clause as it stood. (Cries of “Order.”)

Seeing that there was some misconception, I will put new clause 20 again.

Before you do that, sir, are you prepared to allow discussion on that subject again? Otherwise many of us will be obliged to vote without giving any sort of explanation.

said he had one or two points to bring forward so as to amend the new clause.

objected to the clause being again put.

said that discussion could not be permitted, but he would put the class again owing to the misunderstanding.

asked whether it was not the rule of the House that hon. members could discuss a clause that had just been put. Surely every member had a right to discuss the clause before the; “ayes” or “noes” were called for. He understood that discussion had not taken place because there was some confusion in the minds of hon. members.

said it was understood that this new clause would be taken section by section. Owing to the noise that prevailed in the committee it was not quite realised what had been done.

asked whether it was possible to move a verbal amendment to the new clause?

again put the new clause, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

On clause 21,

moved in line 66 to omit “when required, in writing by,” and to substitute “within one month of receiving a requisition in writing from,” and to omit the proviso at the end of sub-section (1). He had seen a great deal of hardship not only upon the railways but upon the mines, where people were turned out of their cottages very hurriedly. He thought that the railways should be model employers. If people were discharged their wives and children should not be turned into the street at a moment’s notice, so to speak. Of course, he quite realised it might be said that this was but another weapon to be used for the purpose of preventing disputes.

moved: In line 65, after “Administration,” to omit all the words down to “resided” in line 66, and to substitute “of which he or they have possession”; and in line 68, after “notice,” to insert “within forty-eight hours after the same has been served.” He moved this because a similar provision was contained in the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

said that the effect of the amendment would be that whether a man was a railway servant or not he could occupy a railway cottage. He pointed out the case of a stationmaster who might resign. Was he entitled to occupy the stationmaster’s house if he were no longer in the service? Continuing, he said that the Administration always met its employees as fairly as possible, but added that sometimes they had to deal with most unreasonable people.

pointed out that the case cited by the Minister could not stand. It was an extreme case and one that rarely happened. The Minister bad not had to turn out of a house at a minute’s notice, and, as he had said, it was only another way to bring men to their senses in a time of trouble. The Minister looked at the matter from a wrong point of view.

said that members of the Labour Party spoke as though they had a monopoly of representation of labour in that House. If they wished to see the men fairly treated then they should use better language and moderate their demands. If they did so he felt sure their cause would prosper to a greater extent.

said that the remarks of the hon. member who had last spoken were uncalled for and unwarranted. It was an unwarranted thing to say that the remarks of his colleagues were not for the purpose of trying to obtain the amendments they required. The fact was that the hon. member’s party proclivities were so nebulous and hazy that he looked upon any clear-cut conviction as directed towards the country than towards the House.

said that hon. members on the cross benches had to convert the House to take an active interest in the industrial population of the country. He asked the Minister whether he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown, with the addition of the words “consistent with the interests of the service.” He thought this would meet the case.

contended that he, like the hon. members on the cross benches, was desirous of doing that which was just to the working man. Though these principles were drastic, they must remember that they had been framed on the experience of the past.

said it seemed to him that the occasion for some of the speeches they had heard was the second reading of the Bill. Let them take the case of a stationmaster who resigned, or who was dismissed. He might give up his appointment, and the man who was sent to take up the duties went to do railway work, and had no house. He (the Minister) must carry on the business of the railway, and there might be houses which it was absolutely necessary for the railway people to occupy.

said that they had two policies of the Government put before them in relation to this matter. In the Prisons and Reformatories Act they had the policy of men having to quit at 48 hours’ notice, but in the present Bill they were required to vacate at once. Surely the least they could expect was that a man should receive 48 hours’ notice.

said that the Minister first mentioned drivers, and now he had mentioned stationmasters. There were, however, many other sections of railway employees occupying railway premises. A stationmaster had to give or receive one month’s notice. The men they wanted to see protected were those in other grades occupying railway premises, who had no such guarantee of notice. During the Natal strike this power was used as a weapon to force men to work under conditions that they did not want to work under. Every time an amendment came up, the Minister asked the House to trust to his good nature. If they had such implicit confidence in the Minister, why not give him a blank cheque?

The amendment moved by Mr. Nathan, and the first part of the amendment moved by Mr. Andrews in line 66 were negatived.

called for a division, but shortly afterwards withdrew the call.

withdrew his amendment to omit the proviso.

On clause 25,

suggested the deletion of the clause. He said that he disagreed with the principle of making two divisions of this superannuation fund, and separating the railway servants into two sections. He intended to test the feeling of the House as to whether it was not in the best interests of the country and of the railway service to have one fund.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

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

asked what was the exact meaning of “regulated.”

The committee carry on their business according to the regulations.

said the men appointed on the committee might not enjoy the confidence of the employees, who should be allowed to elect half the members of the committee. He moved to omit the clause, as amended, and to substitute: “A Committee of Management shall be appointed to manage the fund, and shall consist of an equal number of representatives of the members and of the administration. The members shall elect their own representatives by ballot, and the committee shall elect a chairman from its members. The powers and duties of the committee shall be as hereinafter prescribed.” The mover said some speakers had thought there would be a difficulty in having representatives of the men elected, but in saw absolutely no difficulty. In order that they might test the feeling of the committee, he hoped the amendment would receive a little more attention than the previous one.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown. He thought, however, that something more definite with to the prescribed powers and duties should be put into it, and would suggest that the words “prescribed by regulation” be substituted for the words “as hereinafter prescribed.”

said he was quite prepared to meet the hon. member for Georgetown with regard to men electing their own representatives, but it was only right that the Administration should have the appointment of the chairman.

On clause 26,

moved that the words “elected by ballot” should be inserted after the word “representatives,” and in the same line to insert “so prescribed by regulation. That, he thought, would meet the case.

pointed out that there was no reference with regard to remuneration. The men elected by ballot must receive adequate remuneration for loss of time.

moved the following amendment to add at the end of the clause the words “the Administration shall frame regulations for the holding of the aforesaid ballot.”

stated that he was quite in favour of the idea that the men should elect their own representatives, but the committee did not accept it owing to the difficulty which they thought might arise from the inability perhaps of men, elected in different places, to meet at any one place. In these committees a sun-committee was generally elected which did most of the work. The Government would have to provide the machinery not only for the ballot but for the meeting of the committee as well.

said that a committee, almost exactly modelled on the same lines as that proposed, had been provided for by the Minister when Commissioner in the old Cape Parliament, and had been found to work very well.

pointed out that what he wanted to convey was that if men were elected from different parts, how were they to insure any chance of their meeting in committee?

said the same argument prevailed with regard to the nominees of the Administration. He regretted that the Minister had not seen hie way to meet him upon the question of the chairman; nevertheless, although that would have given very great satisfaction to the men, after the assurance of the Minister he withdrew his amendment.

said he had heard a good many complaints by railway men that they were being run a little too much by Pretoria and Johannesburg, and that in other centres they got no say at all. It would be found very difficult, perhaps, to send a man elected in Cape Town to Pretoria. His point was that he thought his people would be better satisfied with one appointed by the Minister than with a representative from an organisation in Johannesburg or Pretoria. They must be fair to the whole of the railway men of South Africa. The men in other parts would not feel that they were being represented.

said that this was the best possible safeguard against it being run by the Transvaal men. The people represented by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth would take part in the ballot. To transfer a man for this work would not tax the resources of the department. The men would not be properly represented if the appointment of representatives were left in the hands of the Government.

said that he had sufficient confidence in the Minister, and he favoured the clause as it stood. He felt, if they agreed to the proposal which was now made, that when they drew up a new pension law, another committee like that would have to be elected, and this was creating a lot of new machinery which was expensive and unnecessary.

said the Act did not state how many members would be on the committee. Was the Government or the fund going to pay the expenses? He was very sorry the amendment had been accepted.

thought the last hon. member’s objections against the amendment fell equally against the proposal in the Bill. The point was whether the men’s representatives were to be appointed by the men or the Administration, and he thought they agreed that election should take place by the men.

said that this fund would not increase the expense of administration by one penny.

said he was glad that the amendment that the men should appoint their own representatives had been accepted. But as the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage would lead to confusion, he would move in line 6, after “numbers,” to omit all the words to “members,” in line 7, and to substitute “one-half of the men shall be appointed by the Administration, and the other half be elected by the members as may be prescribed.”

said that the representatives must be men in the service.

Why so?

said they must have representatives who had a practical knowledge of the conditions. It would be no use having men from outside.

said that so strong was the feeling of the men that men of the service should be appointed that they asked that the representatives be divided between officers and daily-paid men. That was the men’s strong request. This new proposal was a surprise to the Select Committee members,’ who were wholly in sympathy with the principle, but did not see how it could be carried out. How were they going to ensure effective representation by being able to meet in committee.

thought that the amendment of the hon. and learned member (Cape Town, Harbour) might be withdrawn and brought up at a later stage where the measure dealt with regulations.

said he thought the hon. member for Uitenhage had struck the keynote of the situation. He also thought that proportional representation would be a fair and just way of securing representation for the various districts on the committee.

said that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, seemed to be afraid that people outside the service were going to be drawn into the management of this fund. If the hon. member read the clause he would see that it was confined to members of the fund.

The clause says “representatives of the members.”

It is obvious that they will try to select one of their own number. I quite agree that proportional representation is a very good idea in connection with this committee, as it is in connection with other committees.

moved to insert before “representatives” the words “servants being.”

thought the matter should be left in the hands of the men, who should be allowed to elect their own representatives. They should not be forced to elect people in the service, but it should be left to their discretion to elect such delegates as they considered proper. They ought either to leave the clause unchanged or else draft an entirely new one. (Laughter.)

said that under the proposals now brought forward the men elected on the committee would have to be in the service.

My point is that they should be allowed to elect whomsoever they like.

asked why should they limit the choice of the men?

said that as the amendment would meet the case he had in mind he would withdraw his amendment.

said that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, did not make it necessary that members of the committee should be members of the fund. He (Mr. Duncan) certainly thought that members of the committee should be members of the fund. He, therefore, moved in line 6, after “consist of,” to omit all the words down to “of the members,” in line 7, and to substitute “members, half of whom shall be appointed by the Administration, and half elected by ballot of the members as prescribed.”

said he would withdraw his amendment.

said it seemed to him that, under the latest amendment, the members of the fund would administer the whole of this superannuation fund, and the Government, although they contributed a large amount, could not appoint anybody but a member of this fund.

said he thought that, if the Government had the right to appoint the whole of the committee, they would probably appoint railway officials.

said he thought the hon. member for Ladismith need have no fear whatsoever in regard to the position of the Government in this matter.

withdrew his amendment.

The amendments moved by Sir E. Walton and Mr. Neser were also withdrawn.

The amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) was agreed to.

The amendment moved by Sir H. H. Juta was negatived.

On clause 27,

said that he understood that the fund was on a sound actuarial basis, and he would like to ask whether there was any reason why that fund should not be subscribed to by everybody. What reason was there for not insisting on that?

said that the Select Committee had taken that matter fully into consideration at the time, and the only reason why they had not compelled everybody to join the fund was, as far as he remembered, that in the Cape some Civil Servants had been engaged on different contracts and they might object and say that their contract was being broken. They had, therefore, thought it wise to incorporate the condition that they might contribute, if they chose.

said that the fact was that they got these young fellows coming to the Railway Department and wanting to get the whole of their money; and when you asked them to subscribe they refused—or they were not asked to subscribe. In a few years’ time they got married and got responsibilities, and then they wanted to subscribe, and there were difficulties in the way. If they had been made to contribute the moment they entered the service it would have been better, and if they did not become permanent servants their contributions could be returned.

said that they had gone very carefully into that matter in the committee, and if they did what the hon. member had suggested they would want a staff of people to make refunds. Speaking generally, everybody was obliged to contribute, with certain exceptions.

said that it struck him that the clause, as it stood, was compulsory enough. There was no compulsory system of life insurance amongst them, however important and necessary it might be for many of them.

said that the provisions made in the Cape did not apply to more than a minority of the servants, and he did think it was desirable to make provision for the whole of the servants. He was in agreement with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, in that matter. It tended to make these men settle down in the service if they contributed.

asked whether the words “purely temporary employees or” could not be put in? These people would be grateful afterwards if they were compelled to contribute when they were young, and when they entered the Service.

You cannot force them all to subscribe.

asked whether the Minister’s attention had been drawn to the question of arrear contributions in the case of harbour employees?

said that his attention had been called to it very much and very often, and he might tell the hon. member that the matter was engaging attention. He was having another interview on the same question, and before that Bill was out of committee he would make an announcement with regard to it.

said that he thought it would be of interest if the figures should be known of those who did and did not contribute. At the end of 1910, 4,357 men in the Cape Province contributed to the superannuation fund, and about 2,000 to the pension fund, while approximately 10,300 of the Cape railway and harbour employees did not contribute.

said that he would like to be clear as to sub-section 4. What was to become of those servants who became permanent servants between the old fixed date and the proposed fixed date, under that section?

said that the hon. member would see that it was proposed to leave out the words “appointed to permanent employment on or after the fixed date.”

thought it might be desirable to lay down the principle that ex-railway employees on pension leaving the country to live elsewhere should have their pensions reduced. (Hear hear.) That afternoon they had been told that some 1,300 people living outside South Africa yearly drew pensions amounting in all to £125,000. At the same time they were considering the question of legislating to get immigrants into the country, which, of course, would involve considerable expenditure. In this country they paid higher pensions than were paid anywhere else in the world. He would point out that the amounts paid here were worth practically twice as much in Europe.

said this was a matter which had been discussed on many occasions. If this principle were laid down here, it would also have to be laid down in the Public Service Bill—(hear, hear)—and although he agreed with the principle, he could not deal with the matter at this stage, but promised to look into the question again. It was not an easy question.

held that if the principle were not laid down here it would not be possible to get it in the Public Service Bill, but he would be satisfied if the Minister would give the matter this serious consideration. (Hear, hear.)

On clause 34,

suggested as an amendment in line 68 to delete “30” and to insert “25,” so that a man might have the opportunity of contributing at the age of 25.

said if the amendment were adopted it would involve additional expenditure to the extent—the Minister was understood to say—of £25,000 annually.

suggested that it might be possible for those men who were engaged on piecework to have their pay averaged from day to day.

said that the pay and emoluments of the men in the Transvaal was consolidated some time ago, although that arrangement had, to some extent, been departed from since Union. Since Union there was a large number of employees who were still being paid a consolidated wage. The clause proposed that this pay should not be considered pensionable emoluments. This seemed to be going very near to trespassing on the rights of the Transvaal and Free State men secured to them under the Act of Union. He moved the deletion of the following proviso: “Provided that in the case of an employee who by reason of the conditions of his employment draws consolidated wages, the Administration may prescribe that for the purpose of calculating his pensionable emoluments such deduction shall be made from his consolidated wages (including remuneration for piece-work) as may be necessary to secure uniformity of treatment with other classes of employees.”

said that this amendment would involve extra expenditure. The question had been very carefully considered by the committee, and they came to the conclusion that it would be best to take the section as it stood. The hon. member referred to allowances, but that was not actual pay.

I am speaking of the consolidated pay.

said the result would be that one section of the men would be getting greater advantages than the others.

After the explanation by the hon. Minister, I rule the amendment out of order.

said it appeared to him that men in the Transvaal and Orange Free State were going to be deprived of some of their rights which they were assured would be preserved to them after Union. Was it possible to do this without repealing part of the Act of Union? As this was a highly constitutional question it would be best to have Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

asked how the amendment could involve extra expenditure. All he wanted was that men who were on consolidated pay should be allowed to pay upon that.

re iterated his desire to have Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

pointed out that it was the committee which had to decide whether they should have Mr. Speaker’s ruling. The hon. member could move.

pointed out that this clause was practically a repetition of the Transvaal law, which provided that by reason of the conditions of employment the Board could prescribe what emoluments a man would be permitted to pay upon.

said the other amendment dealt with the trip system in the Transvaal and Free State. By reason of a slip, the Minister said the men were allowed to pay upon this trip system as payable emoluments. If a man were allowed to pay upon the trip system they ought to be allowed to pay upon their consolidated pay.

said the hon. member for Georgetown was in committee while this question was being discussed. Certain members of the committee were not sure whether the principle was a good one or not, but if they adopted the principle, they thought that they would be interfering with the Transvaal law, and taking away rights that prevailed previous to Union.

pointed out that the Administration could take away the privilege extended to the trip system men by abolishing the system.

said the whole question was that in the Transvaal a man was allowed to pay upon his earnings; now the Minister wished him to pay upon a scale which was below the standard.

said that it was a serious thing for any hon. member in that House to lay down that rights, not based on the Statutes, were rights that could be included under the Act of Union. What they had to consider was the legal effect of the clause; and he thought that the section quoted by the hon. member for Fordsburg was conclusive on the point. He would ask the committee, before deciding to call in Mr. Speaker and ask his ruling on a point, to be certain that there was any point on which Mr. Speaker’s ruling could be asked at all. He thought that the point raised by the hon. member for Georgetown, seeing what was contained in the Transvaal Act, had very little to do with the matter.

pointed out that the section he had read referred, firstly, to consolidated pay, and, secondly, to overtime and wages earned by the trip system. While this Bill took away rights which were held by certain of the employees before Union, these rights were taken away by a special Act. He thought that Parliament had a right to do so by special legislation.

said that with regard to salaries the House was simply re-enacting the Transvaal Act. The Administration regarded the trip system as a method of calculation, and said they had a right to alter it at any time. It was quite possible that the trip system might be abolished next week, and he might say that he had been approached to abolish the trip system. It was within the power of Parliament to take away or alter the laws. Whether it was fair or not, they could not dispute the right of Parliament. When he came to the question of whether it was fair or not, he would say it was merely a method of paying men that could be abolished by the Administration without coming to Parliament. If the trip system were abolished, the whole thing would fall to the ground. He could not see the objection to the alteration.

said that he would be the last to question the right—it was the point which the Minister had made—of Parliament to make or alter laws. But he thought the House would agree with him that before any light interpretation was placed upon their duty to comply with the terms of section 144 of the Act of Union that it would be well to obtain a ruling. He thought that upon that ground alone Mr. Speaker’s ruling should be asked for so that they would not do anything without the full knowledge of what they were doing. He moved that the Chairman report progress for the purpose of obtaining Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point whether the proviso under subsection (1) of clause 34 and the addition to sub-section (2) of Clause 34, are in order in view of Act 144 of the South Africa Act, and ask leave to sit again.

read the point upon which the hon. member for Jeppe desired the ruling of Mr. Speaker.

suggested that the clause might stand over for thorough investigation. The Minister had said that the trip system might be abolished next week. He quite believed that; but he must say that the section read by the hon. member for Fordsburg threw a different legal interpretation on the matter than what was in the minds of the members of the Select Committee. The men of the Transvaal and the Free State had received benefits on their consolidated pay in the calculation of pensions through an act of grace on the part of the Administration, and not under statutory powers as had been pointed out. The position was not that they could withdraw these benefits without doing an injustice to these men, but that so long as the trip system remained in force there were certain sections of men employed by the railway administration who would, perhaps, be penalised in consequence of this clause being passed.

said that if the hon. member would withdraw his motion he would allow the clause to stand over for further investigation.

withdrew the motion asking for Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

moved that the further consideration of this clause stand over.

Agreed to.

On clause 38,

moved in line 58, to omit all the words from “vary” down to “contributions,” in line 60, and to substitute “be calculated from the first date from which he has made his first ordinary contribution.” He said that the point involved in the amendment was the period for calculating the annuities. The section provided that the calculation should take place from the main’s birthday nearest to the date from which he had made ordinary contributions. He understood that the matter was not one of considerable moment as involving increased expenditure, but it was one of some importance to the men. He was bound to admit, however, that it would tend to increased expenditure.

ruled the amendment-out of order.

On clause 40

moved in line 12 to omit “sixty” and to substitute “fifty”; in line 15, after “pension” to insert “on attaining the age of sixty”; and in line 52, after “post” to omit all the words to the end of the clause. He said he would like to explain, although he anticipated the guillotine, that the object he had in view was to give to the men the option of retiring at the age of 50, and not to make it compulsory retirement when they reached the age of 60 years. Under the piece-work system the men were used up at an early age, and he ventured to say that there were few men in the railway service, on account of the piece-work system and speeding-up and so on, who would receive the benefit of the contributions they had made if they had to wait till they were 60.

said that some of the points mentioned by the hon. member were rather problematical, but he would point out that this amendment obviously meant increased expenditure.

said he would move the deletion of the clause, because he thought it was rather trifling with Parliament to find that it was entirely out of their power to express any dissent from the Government if it were going to mean an extra farthing of expenditure to the country. For himself, it seemed to be almost wasting their time to discuss questions of the discipline and treatment of the railway servants if Parliament were going to have no say whatever, except in the direction possibly of reducing what the Minister proposed as to emoluments, pensions, etc.

said he thought that that was not fair. This was a provision that applied not to the railways only, but to the whole of the Civil Service.

said that the point was fully considered by the Select Committee as to the basis of the fund, but they were informed that, if they were to take the age at 50, the fund as it stood would be practically insolvent. On the clause as it stood the fund would be perfectly solvent. Even if they took the age at 55, one of two things must happen, either the benefits of the men must diminish or the contributions of the men and of the State must be considerably increased. The Select Committee thought it advisable under all the circumstances to leave the fund on the basis laid down in the clause.

said his experience was that the men did not want to retire before they were 60, but they objected to being retired from the railways even when they reached that age.

They have not been doing piece-work.

said that what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said might be perfectly true, though he did not agree with him, but what he had said made the position more anomalous than ever. The Select Committee could discuss these matters, but the Committee of the Whole House could not discuss them and could not test the feeling of the House as to whether a man should retire at 50 or 60.

said that the position of the committee was exactly the same as that of the House. It was perfectly true, as the Minister had said, that very few railway servants wanted to retire when they reached the age of 60. To assume that the railways would be organised on the piece-work system would be rather pessimistic—do not let them assume the worst, but rather hope that the conditions in the railway service would be as in the past, and that men would be unwilling to retire at the age of 60.

said that the argument of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) and the Minister seemed to him to be an extremely small point to make, and the expenditure might be negligible, because the men would not take advantage of it.

said that he must point out the inconsistency of the argument of the hon. member who had spoken of “worn out and tottering men,” who could hardly put out their hands for their pensions.

drew attention to “medical officer” appearing in the Dutch version of the Bill as “gezondheids ambtenaar” (health officer), which did not seem correct. (Laughter.)

referred to what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said. He added that the men were perfectly aware that by retiring at an earlier age they would get a smaller pension.

moved, in line 19, to insert the word “guard” after “fireman.”

said that the matter was discussed in the committee, and he thought that the proper place to insert the word was after “telegraphist”

The amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown was ruled out of order.

The amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, South, was negatived.

moved, as an amendment, in line 52, to delete the words “or such other duties as the administration may assign to him,” at the end of the section. He said that he thought that no proviso should be made. He thought that that amendment could not be guillotined on the score of extra expenditure.

said that the words proposed to be deleted were really in the interest of the men.

further contended that if that clause were passed a man, on being physically incapacitated, might be given some menial post that would be objectionable to him. For instance, a stationmaster might be reduced to a platform sweeper. In such a case he would rather take whatever he was entitled to and retire.

said sometimes men were so injured that they could not follow their regular work, and they were very anxious that other work they could perform should be found for them.

said the hon. member was arguing against himself; because according to that clause no matter what duties were assigned to the man he would draw the same rate of pay.

said that might be the clause, but all the same the man’s wages were reduced.

moved to add at the end of sub-section (2): “Provided however that where a servant who has been employed in any of the positions enumerated in this sub-section is pronounced medically unfit and entrusted with other work he shall retain the right to retire as provided in this section.”

thought that the insertion of the words, “at the same rates of pay,” in line 52, might meet the case.

said of course he did not wish to prevent a man going on pension if he were entitled to go, and that was not the intention of the committee, but if he wished to take up other work at a lower wage, he would be permitted to do so. He was prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Georgetown.

asked whether the adoption of the amendment would not prevent the Minister from employing a man in another capacity?

drew attention to the case of an engine driver who might become colour blind or have defective sight, but who could be employed in another capacity. How would they deal with that point if this amendment were adopted?

The amendment moved by Mr. Wessels was negatived.

The amendment moved by Mr. Andrews was agreed to, and that moved by Mr. Alexander accordingly dropped.

On clause 42,

moved an amendment in the Dutch version, contending that if this version were signed, a “sanitary porter” could give a certificate.

said, they should have the versions as correct as possible, and hoped the amendment would be accepted.

said he would look into the point.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 44,

moved, in line 30 after “nine,” to omit all the words down to “misconduct” in line 31.

moved that the clause stand over.

This was agreed to.

On clause 45,

urged that it was not fair merely to repay without interest the contributions of men whose employment was terminated on superannuation before they had been members of the fund for ten years. He thought, at any rate, that they should be allowed the interest on their contributions. This proposal in the clause would inflict an injustice upon old men who became members of the fund.

said that the fund had been calculated no doubt on the basis laid down in the clause. If they were going to make variations, they would find that the pensions would be very much reduced.

appealed to the Minister to allow the clause to stand over, with a view of further considering the position. He was sure that there could not be very many men who would be affected.

said that the fund had been carefully balanced, and it would be extremely dangerous at the present moment to do what the hon. member desired, as it might upset the whole scheme.

said that they had no right to inflict what amounted to a penalty on these men.

said it seemed to him that the case of these men was met in another portion of the Bill.

said that while agreeing very largely with the hon. member for uitenhage in the matter, there was this to be said, that no one was making any money out of it but the Government, and it was something like a tontine. What they wanted to know was whether the men would be agreeable, as they were interested in it.

said that the calculations of the actuary had been made on the contributions made for a certain period, and if they took them out after ten years, e.g., it upset the whole of the calculations.

thought that provision should be made for these special cases, and it could be done.

said that he thought that the men would be only too glad to contribute.

said that on that particular occasion he disagreed with the hon. member for Jeppe, although it was not often that he disagreed with him. He agreed with the hon. member for Uitenhage. These men looked upon it as a kind of bank, and if their money were not returned, he thought they should get the interest on their contributions.

On clause 46,

On the motion of Mr. ANDREWS, the CHAIRMAN put the new clause forty-six, proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: 46. If a member be dismissed from the Service for fraud, dishonesty, or misconduct, or retire from the Service in order to avoid dismissal or be ordered to resign on account of misconduct, he shall be refunded the amount of his contributions to the fund: Provided that, in the case of a member dismissed for fraud or dishonesty, the Administration may deduct from any sums payable to such member under this section the amount of any loss which the Administration may have sustained by reason of such fraud or dishonesty: Provided further that if a number of servants during the period which they have engaged to serve, and not being duly discharged, desert, or refuse to serve, or absent themselves from duty without lawful cause or reasonable excuse, or resign without giving the notice required by any regulation or contract, they shall be deemed to have retired from the Service and no refund of contributions shall be made to such servants.

moved that the proviso be omitted. The hon. member said that what justice and what justification there was for such a proviso in the clause, he was at a loss to understand. He had a shrewd suspicion why the proviso had been inserted. It was, he thought, a strike condition, and that it was a greater crime in the eyes of the administration to refuse to work than to be guilty of fraud or dishonesty.

said that as Clause might give rise to some discussion, he would move that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again. (Hear, hear.)

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